D&D General The Monsters Know What They're Doing ... Are Unsure on 5e24

[Zardnaar]

By "modern" you mean "since 1979".

Older settings like Darksun had their own multiverse. 3E Realms dudnt use great wheel. Neither did 4E.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Of course, that goes without saying IMO

I don't. I think it very, very much needs to be said, repeatedly and vehemently, because several people in this thread don't seem to believe it in even the smallest degree.

I apologize but I don't understand what your asking? Are you asking me to rank how important it is to defer to the GM?

No, but my words were unclear, so if I may clarify: "I have not seen a single person emphasizing the deference to GMs who recognizes how incredibly important GMs earning the trust and obedience of their playres is. Not once. Perhaps you'd like to change that?"

It seems to me...well, perhaps the single most important thing to talk about, if one is going to emphasize the absoluteness of GM power and the need for almost-total deference from players to their GM. It isn't even remotely "it goes without saying"; much to the contrary, it's something that needs to be discussed at great length, with examples, commentary, analysis, and a clear front-and-center-ing of just how much duty and responsibility the GM is taking on.

Without that....I mean it looks, as I've said in various other ways before, like someone saying "you all HAVE to respect me and everything I say and do, you HAVE to trust me and everything I say and do, and if you don't, YOU'RE OUT." Or, as noted elsewhere, "My house my rules, you are completely replaceable, I don't care what you want."

I mean I'm not speaking for everyone, so I am not sure what your point is. However, I do feel like others have made this point.

I do not. It would be nice for people to make the point, since, to the best of my knowledge, it has not actually been made by any of several people who favor GM-absolutism. My every attempt to discuss it gets shot down, actually, or ignored entirely.

Ya, that is not the vibe I am getting from this thread. To each their own I guess.

Then how come people keep bringing up the fact that they never have problems filling their games? That they can kick out a player and have the seat filled in no time flat? The emphasis on how easily players can be replaced is quite clearly there in the arguments.

 

[SableWyvern]

It seems to me...well, perhaps the single most important thing to talk about, if one is going to emphasize the absoluteness of GM power and the need for almost-total deference from players to their GM. It isn't even remotely "it goes without saying"; much to the contrary, it's something that needs to be discussed at great length, with examples, commentary, analysis, and a clear front-and-center-ing of just how much duty and responsibility the GM is taking on.

It's just not that complicated. You already know you don't like it, and talking about it isn't going to change that.

Conversely, while I talk at length with my players about what an upcoming campaign will be like, we have never needed to have an extended conversation about "power dynamics". Partly, because we don't see it in the extreme terms you do, with total deference and absolute power -- that's your inherent biases speaking. Naturally, I discuss my GMing style with new players, but it's really not hard to explain or understand, nor is it nearly as extreme as you present it.

Then how come people keep bringing up the fact that they never have problems filling their games? That they can kick out a player and have the seat filled in no time flat? The emphasis on how easily players can be replaced is quite clearly there in the arguments.

Because various people in this thread keep trying to claim that curating your game is no fun for players, or will eventually drive players away. The point being made isn't "players are replaceable." The actual point is that "These games are lots of fun (if it's what you like) and there are lots of players who like the style being espoused."

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Older settings like Darksun had their own multiverse. 3E Realms dudnt use great wheel. Neither did 4E.

1st edition used a version of the great wheel which also included everyone’s home settings (plus Boot Hill and Gamma World) as parallel prime material planes.

To me, 3rd edition is modern, and a shared multiverse very much old school.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

I don't. I think it very, very much needs to be said, repeatedly and vehemently, because several people in this thread don't seem to believe it in even the smallest degree.

Consider for a moment why your opinion is in the minority. You're saying that there are 'bad DMs' out there who are out to hurt people like you. Yet most folks don't experience that, and have no idea what you are talking about. Why do you think that is?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I get what you are saying now - however, my point was specific to the lore of Eberron and FR. My apologies for confusing the issue.

Now that I understand what you're saying, I would appreciate you answering the question. How does that statement from KB make it any easier to integrate a non-standard species into a setting that doesn't typically have them / doesn't have them in published material? To my mind the DM requirement is the same, so I am curious why you feel KB' statement makes it easier for Eberron? Is it an appeal to authority?

Remember that an appeal to authority is only a fallacy if it is unjustified authority. That is, it absolutely is an appeal to authority to cite Einstein's paper on general relativity if you want to talk about distortions of space-time. It's just a fully-justified appeal to authority, because...he is an authority on that.

Now, what it is not is an appeal to authority about every single GM's game. I only just got done saying that there aren't setting-ninjas, after all; it's not like I'm new to the idea. Instead, I am recognizing the authority of the man who built the thing, about what things he built into it.

One of those things was the very intentional inclusion of unanswered questions. Or, as Dungeon World would put it years later, Mr. Baker knew how to "draw maps, leave blanks". There are maps, and those maps are useful--but they intentionally do not show every possible detail of the world. He knows, because he built them to be that way. There is a timeline, but it is loose and full of holes and unanswered questions. What was the Mourning? Why did it only affect Cyre? Could it happen again? It isn't that these questions cannot be answered, it is that no answer was ever written for them because they are spaces left open for GM answers. The blank spaces left on the map are spaces specifically set aside for filling with something Mr. Baker did not think of himself, or had not specifically written about.

By comparison, the maps of the Forgotten Realms are generally meant to be complete. The answers to established questions are either already there, waiting for us to discover it, or not yet penned, but existing in some author's mind, somewhere. Dragonborn proper--not the "Dragonborn of Bahamut", but an actual, reproducing species--definitely did not exist in the Forgotten Realms until the Spellplague and the partial overlapping of Abeir with Toril. Now, they definitely do exist, and anyone declaring otherwise is specifically choosing to rewrite the realms, not just play them slightly differently. (Unless, I guess, you always set all of your games prior to the Spellplague.) Athas explicitly does not have several species, such as trolls or full-blooded giants; it is actively rewriting the setting to include them. Likewise, there's a specific, fixed list of species that exist or existed in the world of Athas, because Rajaat made a goal of exterminating all species that weren't (what he believed to be) the founding race, halflings--hence, anything that deviates from that list requires some serious reworking to address.

Keith Baker knows what went into creating Eberron, because he himself did it. So he knows--and can tell us--that the setting was built with maximum potential inclusivity. If it's first-party D&D, you can always find a place for it, no matter what. Whatever it is, it fits, because it was built to be open in that way. To the best of my knowledge, no other official, published D&D setting meets that requirement. The closest you'd get is the collective MtG settings, since MtG explicitly has a multiverse and has permitted quite a bit of planar intermixing over the years, doubly so with the recent planar warfare from the two iterations of Phyrexia and Nicol Bolas' attempt to become the one true deity of the MtG multiverse.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Consider for a moment why your opinion is in the minority. You're saying that there are 'bad DMs' out there who are out to hurt people like you. Yet most folks don't experience that, and have no idea what you are talking about. Why do you think that is?

Luck; choosing to only play with friends (which, ultimately, is itself a form of luck, to have coincidentally had a group stick together stably for that long); being primarily a GM, so folks view it from a GM-centric lens and thus take any question aimed at GM behavior personally; or possibly selection bias and/or survivorship bias. (Do you think folks who had a bad experience with their first D&D group are likely to be posters on ENWorld?)

Or are you asserting that simply because there are (say) six people who disagree with me, and three people who agree with me, that the majority wins? That my experiences are irrelevant, simply because I happen to be a minority in this thread?

 

[dave2008]

I don't. I think it very, very much needs to be said, repeatedly and vehemently, because several people in this thread don't seem to believe it in even the smallest degree.

I disagree, but fair enough

No, but my words were unclear, so if I may clarify: "I have not seen a single person emphasizing the deference to GMs who recognizes how incredibly important GMs earning the trust and obedience of their playres is. Not once. Perhaps you'd like to change that?"

I am not sure how to respond. I find the use of obedience very odd. I don't expect obedience from my players, such a thought has never entered my mind.

To the issue of trust. I have seen many DMs, including myself, emphasis the importance of trust in a gaming group. I don't know if it has been in this particular thread, but I have definitely seen it on these forums. For myself, I will only play with people I trust and who trust me. It is a cooperative game and I have no desire to question the attention of my fellow players.

So yes, I believe the responsibilities of the DM require trust from the players. Similarly the players require trust from the DM. It goes both ways.

It seems to me...well, perhaps the single most important thing to talk about, if one is going to emphasize the absoluteness of GM power and the need for almost-total deference from players to their GM.

I see very little of people talking about absolute GM power and total deference to the GM. I have not seen any the actors I associate with those thoughts on this thread.

What I see are people disagreeing on one point and than extrapolating irresponsibly into hyperbole.

Without that....I mean it looks, as I've said in various other ways before, like someone saying "you all HAVE to respect me and everything I say and do, you HAVE to trust me and everything I say and do, and if you don't, YOU'RE OUT." Or, as noted elsewhere, "My house my rules, you are completely replaceable, I don't care what you want."

I just don't see people saying that. It is certainly not how I feel about DMing. I guess, why get so worked up about people you disagree with and don't want running games for you. Why not discuss the game with like minded individuals? It just seems like you are always looking for a fight.

I do not. It would be nice for people to make the point, since, to the best of my knowledge, it has not actually been made by any of several people who favor GM-absolutism. My every attempt to discuss it gets shot down, actually, or ignored entirely.

We see what we want to see IME. To be clear, this applies to me as well. I think when I read a post it tells me something different from what it tells you.

Then how come people keep bringing up the fact that they never have problems filling their games? That they can kick out a player and have the seat filled in no time flat? The emphasis on how easily players can be replaced is quite clearly there in the arguments.

IDK, you would have to ask them. DMs are not a monolithic group. Everyone has a different take on how to run a game and everyone has a different reason for how they respond to an internet post. Sometimes I am calm and respond thoughtfully and sometimes I'm in a bad mood and just looking for a fight. It just seems to me that you always assume the worst. Maybe you don't, but your language certainly gives that impression.

 

[dave2008]

Remember that an appeal to authority is only a fallacy if it is unjustified authority. That is, it absolutely is an appeal to authority to cite Einstein's paper on general relativity if you want to talk about distortions of space-time. It's just a fully-justified appeal to authority, because...he is an authority on that.

Now, what it is not is an appeal to authority about every single GM's game. I only just got done saying that there aren't setting-ninjas, after all; it's not like I'm new to the idea. Instead, I am recognizing the authority of the man who built the thing, about what things he built into it.

One of those things was the very intentional inclusion of unanswered questions. Or, as Dungeon World would put it years later, Mr. Baker knew how to "draw maps, leave blanks". There are maps, and those maps are useful--but they intentionally do not show every possible detail of the world. He knows, because he built them to be that way. There is a timeline, but it is loose and full of holes and unanswered questions. What was the Mourning? Why did it only affect Cyre? Could it happen again? It isn't that these questions cannot be answered, it is that no answer was ever written for them because they are spaces left open for GM answers. The blank spaces left on the map are spaces specifically set aside for filling with something Mr. Baker did not think of himself, or had not specifically written about.

By comparison, the maps of the Forgotten Realms are generally meant to be complete. The answers to established questions are either already there, waiting for us to discover it, or not yet penned, but existing in some author's mind, somewhere. Dragonborn proper--not the "Dragonborn of Bahamut", but an actual, reproducing species--definitely did not exist in the Forgotten Realms until the Spellplague and the partial overlapping of Abeir with Toril. Now, they definitely do exist, and anyone declaring otherwise is specifically choosing to rewrite the realms, not just play them slightly differently. (Unless, I guess, you always set all of your games prior to the Spellplague.) Athas explicitly does not have several species, such as trolls or full-blooded giants; it is actively rewriting the setting to include them. Likewise, there's a specific, fixed list of species that exist or existed in the world of Athas, because Rajaat made a goal of exterminating all species that weren't (what he believed to be) the founding race, halflings--hence, anything that deviates from that list requires some serious reworking to address.

Keith Baker knows what went into creating Eberron, because he himself did it. So he knows--and can tell us--that the setting was built with maximum potential inclusivity. If it's first-party D&D, you can always find a place for it, no matter what. Whatever it is, it fits, because it was built to be open in that way. To the best of my knowledge, no other official, published D&D setting meets that requirement. The closest you'd get is the collective MtG settings, since MtG explicitly has a multiverse and has permitted quite a bit of planar intermixing over the years, doubly so with the recent planar warfare from the two iterations of Phyrexia and Nicol Bolas' attempt to become the one true deity of the MtG multiverse.

So yes, an appeal to authority. Maybe it is the homebrewer in me, but appeals to the authority are as far removed from the spirit of D&D as any appeal can be to me. D&D is all about the game we make at the table and together with friends IMO.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

So yes, an appeal to authority. Maybe it is the homebrewer in me, but appeals to the authority are as far removed from the spirit of D&D as any appeal can be to me. D&D is all about the game we make at the table and together with friends IMO.

Do you think Keith Baker is a poor person to cite for the design philosophy and construction of Eberron?

If not, then why is his authority so suspect?

I am not sure how to respond. I find the use of obedience very odd. I don't expect obedience from my players, such a thought has never entered my mind.

To the issue of trust. I have seen many DMs, including myself, emphasis the importance of trust in a gaming group. I don't know if it has been in this particular thread, but I have definitely seen it on these forums. For myself, I will only play with people I trust and who trust me. It is a cooperative game and I have no desire to question the attention of my fellow players.

So yes, I believe the responsibilities of the DM require trust from the players. Similarly the players require trust from the DM. It goes both ways.

But this does exactly what I keep talking about. You start by presuming you have the trust, respect, etc. of your players.

Earning the players' trust and respect is one of the most important things a GM ever does. Why do we always skip over the "trust has to be earned" part?

I see very little of people talking about absolute GM power and total deference to the GM. I have not seen any the actors I associate with those thoughts on this thread.

@Maxperson is one of them. There are others, but as I do not wish to run afoul of prior moderator admonishment, I will not mention some of them.

What I see are people disagreeing on one point and than extrapolating irresponsibly into hyperbole.

Okay. We have people in this very thread who claim being GM instantly confers them absolute authority over all parts of the game. What am I to conclude from that?

I just don't see people saying that. It is certainly not how I feel about DMing. I guess, why get so worked up about people you disagree with and don't want running games for you. Why not discuss the game with like minded individuals? It just seems like you are always looking for a fight.

Because I believe--very passionately--that if the game is exactly as these folks describe, and they are extremely eager to cite passage and verse to prove how righteous their authority is, then that game needs to put ENORMOUS emphasis on how critically important it is to never, ever abuse such ridiculous levels of authority; to work as hard as humanly possible to earn the amount of trust being demanded from players; and to put player interests as the highest goal in most, if not all, situations.

Given how much people have pushed back on even the very idea that the GM might occasionally need to sacrifice absolute maximum personal fun in order for the group to have a better time overall, I don't think this passion is unjustified. In fact, I think it is extremely justified, precisely because people push back SO hard on the very notion that putting your players first is sound policy.

We see what we want to see IME. To be clear, this applies to me as well. I think when I read a post it tells me something different from what it tells you.


IDK, you would have to ask them. DMs are not a monolithic group. Everyone has a different take on how to run a game and everyone has a different reason for how they respond to an internet post. Sometimes I am calm and respond thoughtfully and sometimes I'm in a bad mood and just looking for a fight. It just seems to me that you always assume the worst. Maybe you don't, but your language certainly gives that impression.

I have tried many times not assuming the worst, when it comes to these conversations. Then I get folks--like @Maxperson --who resist every attempt I make, no matter how congenial, to get them to step away from claims like GMs having "absolute authority" over their games.