D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

[Maxperson]

The convo which I picked up began with @AbdulAlhazred (but likely earlier) where they mentioned how much of everything is GM decided, even the bandits in @Bedrockgames RE tables. A conversation about how much content is GM decided was then argued between @Maxperson and @EzekielRaiden, with Maxperson adamantly saying that the GM content is much lower than others in the thread purport. @SableWyvern and then jumped into the convo regarding the bandits where it is often the case where content is created but doesn't see the light of day only for you and Sable to then make that content see the light of day even though the PCs never engaged with it.
i.e. Content sees the light of day one way or another in Storyteller fashion (pinging @Hussar).

Queue "But na-ah!"

It's not as if we all run the game the same way and are the same DM. There may be a few who make sure content sees the light of day, though I don't know how that is even possible with an entire setting of content and limited travel for PCs and play time for players. I don't, though. I don't force anything on the players, whether it's directions to go in or lore/setting content. If it happens it happens, if not........not.

 

[Micah Sweet]

So here is how the 2014 DMG defines the DM's role:



When I read this, I see constraints and duties. Ones I am occasionally willing to perform but consider phenomenally stressful. The game calls the DM the master of worlds, adventures and rules. To me these are not freedoms - these are duties.

That these constraints, duties and the authority that go along with them is something most of you are ready to enthusiastically sign up for is not evidence of a lack of constraint. It's evidence that you like the set of constraints, authorities and duties commonly associated with the GM role of the games you run. It feels freeing to you in the same way MC role in Apocalypse World feels freeing to me.

That does not make the sorts of constraints that GMs operate under in other games especially constraining. Just different and better suited to creative goals you do not have.

Agreed, with an emphasis on the idea that the constraints you speak of are specifically constraining areas many of us on this thread do not want to be constrained, so obviously it feels worse.

 

[Maxperson]

I don't belive in invisible railroads.

They happen, but not often enough to bother worrying over. Bad faith DMs are pretty rare.

 

[Micah Sweet]

So what hard GM-restricting rules do you dislike?

Not a fan of hard scene framing or any other mechanic meant to promote narrative structure, for one thing. Also not interesting in being forced to describe every situation through the lenses of player goals, desires, and fears. And of course, I don't want players to exert influence on active play beyond what their PCs are capable of, so any rules that constrain the GM's actions in that way are also roundly disliked.

 

[Maxperson]

What invisible railroad is leading to muting and cannibalism? The example he gave was a railroad being trashed by players and turned from a railroad into the players steering the direction of the game.

I think what @EzekielRaiden was getting at is @Kromanjon could have then engaged in illusionism and had the continent come into view soon after they turned, or had a storm come up and had the players roll for a random direction the ship was driven, and surprise surprise, it happened to be in the direction of the continent.

I'm not sure what the point really was, since Kromanjon obviously didn't do that in his example, but some DM somewhere could have done that.

 

[zakael19]

What, like some sort of world that seems alive, with cause and effect?
Going back to BitD - and since I've been accused of cherry-picking, I'll quote the whole passage (pg206):

Sounds awfully similar to @robertsconley's "living world", huh? Odd how some Narrativists seem to rail against what even supposed "hard narrativist" designers are in favour of. Almost as if what @Bedrockgames said holds weight:

I think I’ve been pointing out that BITD does the “living world” thing built in a way I haven’t seen any other larger scale commercial product do over hundreds of pages now. The focus is on providing opportunities for the players to engage the world through telegraphed events, make Doskvol feel real, and have a mechanic for the city to push back against them.

 

[DinoInDisguise]

I think what @EzekielRaiden was getting at is @Kromanjon could have then engaged in illusionism and had the continent come into view soon after they turned, or had a storm come up and had the players roll for a random direction the ship was driven, and surprise surprise, it happened to be in the direction of the continent.

I'm not sure what the point really was, since Kromanjon obviously didn't do that in his example, but some DM somewhere could have done that.

DM's can, possibly, behave badly. More at 6.

 

[Maxperson]

The willingness of some DMs to ignore such constraints wasn’t really something I was commenting on. Though it does highlight the reason we have them.

This makes no sense. If a DM is willing to ignore constraints, constraints don't mean anything. If the reason for having constraints is DMs that ignore those constraints, we don't need those constraints.

Constraints are self-imposed, either by DMs creating those constraints for themselves(setting fidelity, etc.) or the DMs choosing to follow the ones(or some of the ones) the game provides.

 

[Maxperson]

DM's can, possibly, behave badly. More at 6.

I'm too busy at 6. If there isn't more at 11, I'm going to miss it.

 

[hawkeyefan]

As if that was the only hard rule restricting GM behavior I could possibly be talking about. That is not a good faith comment.

The two examples I gave were honoring player rolls and honoring GM prep. You said such things should be “suggestions”. I don’t agree.

That doesn’t make my response a bad faith argument. Maybe look at what you wrote next time and consider the possibility that it may not be as clear as you think before you accuse someone of bad faith.

This is actually not as obvious as it might seem on face value. I have three times as a GM been heavily criticised for abiding to the constraints of a prewritten scenario and rules. Two of them was critical hit rolls in the first round of combat against enemy with outsized damage potential than the average foe they had met so far in the adventure. This outright killed the characters.

It was very clear that my insistence in letting the dice results stay was breaking the player expectation on how the game should work. They were aware that the game and tradition granted me as the GM the privilege to with a handwave declare the roll uncool. Not only that, they appeared to consider it a duty given that power.

So my insistence of honoring these rolls was actually a breach of the implied social contract. I made an unilateral and egoistic decission to not wield the powers bestowed me in order to get an experience I was the only one at the table really seeking. I was the only one putting the constraint of honoring rolls on myself.

I do not consider the activity my players wanted to have in any way a "wrong" way to play the game. Indeed I would rather think it a superior activity for most players over the one I forced them into.

I hope this can bring some new perspective to the debate.

I’m not trying to paint any way as the wrong way. Certainly if something doesn’t work for a given group, they should make adjustments. As I said, different games have different constraints.

However, until there’s compelling reasons to make such changes, I don’t really consider it all that crazy for participants to expect that the rules and procedures of play be followed.