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

DinoInDisguise · Wednesday at 9:53 PM

hawkeyefan said:
Yes, I know this. But how do you reconcile this with your earlier point that your job is not just to make the players happy. What if they're doing something that isn't satisfying to you in some way? Or maybe two players are into it, but two or three others are not?

On the off chance of stepping on Micah's toes, I think I might have some insight.

There seems to be a disconnect between thinking in terms of narrative satisfaction or group fun balance, and the perspective of a simulationist GM. For the latter, the “job” isn’t to ensure every moment is maximally fun for the table, it’s to present a world that behaves according to its own internal logic. That means actions have realistic consequences, even if those are slow, quiet, or seemingly uneventful.

In my cave, I’ve come to understand it is by thinking in terms of three broad lenses;

Narrativist lens: “Is this satisfying storytelling?”
Gamist lens: “Is this a fun and engaging challenge?”
Simulationist lens: “Is this what would really happen in this world?”

So when Micah talks about not being there to simply keep the players happy, I think that reflects this difference in view. The same goes for situations like the one you raise, where some players are into what’s happening, and others aren’t. From a simulationist lens, that’s not necessarily a problem that needs solving; it’s just what naturally occurred based on the players’ choices and the world’s response.

Some players, and GMs. take enjoyment from watching what unfolds naturally, without needing to adjust the pacing or inject drama to keep everyone entertained in a traditional sense.

Micah’s point that players act in their own interest or enjoyment doesn’t contradict this perspective. It actually reinforces it. Everyone at the table is engaging with the world in the way that satisfies them most, and for simulationist GMs, that includes the satisfaction of watching a world that runs “true.”

I came out of my cave early, so I have not fully reflected and could be wrong. But that’s how I’m reading it. And under that interpretation, I don’t see any contradiction in Micah’s position.

Lanefan · Wednesday at 9:53 PM

robertsconley said:
Thanks for the clarification, but I think this cuts to the heart of the issue.

You're saying that you're fine with players doing what they want, until it stops being interesting for you. At that point, you intervene to move things along, skip ahead, or ask players to clarify what they’re “trying for.”

But at that point, it’s not really player-driven play anymore, is it?

Sometimes as DM, once you've got the ball rolling and the players have their PCs interacting with each other (sometimes over banalities, more often IME over planning) you just gotta sit back, put your feet up, crack open a beer, and say "If and when any action comes out of all this, please let me know"; as even if what they're doing seems boring to you, clearly it isn't to them or they wouldn't be doing it.

robertsconley said:
In my living world sandbox campaigns, players can dicker with a shopkeeper, wander without a plan, or talk to their ghost-sword for as long as they want, not because I think all of it is thrilling, but because I trust that meaning and engagement will emerge from what they care about, not from what I impose.

Indeed.

It also helps when (and I say when, not if, as IME it's nigh-universally the case) someone's playing a character with a low in-fiction boredom threshold, 'cause you just know that character is going to get bored and light a (proverbial or literal) fire somewhere.

Faolyn · Wednesday at 9:53 PM

Micah Sweet said:
I now have to ask why, if you believe that, everyone isn't playing PbtA games? They handle this "universal issue" very well according to you, so shouldn't everyone be playing them?

A large number of people don't want to switch from their current system of choice.

Some people really like combat, and most PbtA games (IME) are not heavily combat-focused, and what combat there is tends to be abstracted rather than tactical.

Some people may not find their preferred genre in a PbtA game. I've seen a couple of "space scoundrel" type PbtA games, but not much for, say, Star Trek.

Some people want lots and lots of splatbooks and setting info, and most PbtA games don't have that.

Some people really like using all the dice instead of just 2d6.

Many non-PbtA games have limited success/success with consequences instead of outright failures. Unless things have changed considerably since the last playtest packet I got, the highly tactical Draw Steel! will do that, where an 11 or lower can mean mean anywhere from failure to minimal success. Thus, people have a lot more options than just PbtA.

Pedantic · Wednesday at 9:55 PM

Thomas Shey said:
I also want to emphasize something I referenced in passing but didn't go into in any great detail: the fact those consequences are directly triggered by those die rolls makes the situation even worse. Some people will argue up and down that it shouldn't make a difference, but it very clearly does trigger the "my character is incompetent" reaction in a pretty fair number of people, and arguing it shouldn't is a compete waste of time.

(This is a general problem with most systems with purely or primarily player-facing mechanics; it can easily come across as everything going wrong being the player's fault whether it is presented that way or not.)

That is actually an interesting line for playtesting. I wonder if you couldn't break those triggers up over several rolls and move the ones closest to complications back into the GM's hands, and if that wouldn't have a significant effect on player sentiment.

Well, I suppose that's essentially what I was proposing with a complication token economy earlier.

Micah Sweet · Wednesday at 9:55 PM

zakael19 said:
I think it was about 500ish pages ago I noted that as of 5.2024 the DMG once again has advice about skipping to interesting stuff / doing scene framing like movies / letting time pass in montages / etc.

Well, I've long held that 5.5 is moving closer to 4e's philosophy that 5.0 did. One of the strikes against it IMO.

Thomas Shey · Wednesday at 9:59 PM

Faolyn said:
Some people really like combat, and most PbtA games (IME) are not heavily combat-focused, and what combat there is tends to be abstracted rather than tactical.

Just as a side note, this would be a bigger problem for me personally than the Complication thing; I like actually engaging with the mechanics in RPGs particularly (though not only) regarding combat, and most of the PbtA and adjacent mechanics I've seen are pretty schematic.

(To be clear, they aren't alone in this; its a problem with almost any light rules set from my POV).

Micah Sweet · Wednesday at 10:01 PM

hawkeyefan said:
I never said that the GM shouldn’t have authority. And you’re also ignoring my comments that it’s about the group and you’re trying to frame it as if it’s solely about my interests.

Neither is the case.

I want the GM to be able to move things forward. To frame scenes and to call an end to them when needed.

That doesn’t mean play isn’t player focused. Especially when we all know what the focus of play will be.

It has nothing to do with being a “true fan”. I play pretty often, but that doesn’t mean my play time is unlimited. I like to get stuff done when we play. And as I think is clear by now, we're likely focused on very different things when we play.

But to run with your analogy… I want the entire game to be worthy of making highlights. At least, that’s what I’m shooting for.

To me, a game that's all highlights makes no sense to me as a verisimilitudinous setting. And that's what I want.

Thomas Shey · Wednesday at 10:02 PM

Pedantic said:
That is actually an interesting line for playtesting. I wonder if you couldn't break those triggers up over several rolls and move the ones closest to complications back into the GM's hands, and if that wouldn't have a significant effect on player sentiment.

Well, I suppose that's essentially what I was proposing with a complication token economy earlier.

I was going to say, that sounded like what you were reaching for there. I understand why those are baked into the Moves that way; to one extent or another Moves are designed to resolve an overall situation more than die rolls in most games, so anything that emerges from that attempt has to be baked in. But it also makes it very hard to pry out the idea that anything that happens from that die roll is the character's responsibility, and that's very unpleasant for some people.

Micah Sweet · Wednesday at 10:11 PM

DinoInDisguise said:
On the off chance of stepping on Micah's toes, I think I might have some insight.

There seems to be a disconnect between thinking in terms of narrative satisfaction or group fun balance, and the perspective of a simulationist GM. For the latter, the “job” isn’t to ensure every moment is maximally fun for the table, it’s to present a world that behaves according to its own internal logic. That means actions have realistic consequences, even if those are slow, quiet, or seemingly uneventful.

In my cave, I’ve come to understand it is by thinking in terms of three broad lenses;

Narrativist lens: “Is this satisfying storytelling?”

Gamist lens: “Is this a fun and engaging challenge?”

Simulationist lens: “Is this what would really happen in this world?”

So when Micah talks about not being there to simply keep the players happy, I think that reflects this difference in view. The same goes for situations like the one you raise, where some players are into what’s happening, and others aren’t. From a simulationist lens, that’s not necessarily a problem that needs solving; it’s just what naturally occurred based on the players’ choices and the world’s response.

Some players, and GMs. take enjoyment from watching what unfolds naturally, without needing to adjust the pacing or inject drama to keep everyone entertained in a traditional sense.

Micah’s point that players act in their own interest or enjoyment doesn’t contradict this perspective. It actually reinforces it. Everyone at the table is engaging with the world in the way that satisfies them most, and for simulationist GMs, that includes the satisfaction of watching a world that runs “true.”

I came out of my cave early, so I have not fully reflected and could be wrong. But that’s how I’m reading it. And under that interpretation, I don’t see any contradiction in Micah’s position.

Thank you for explaining my perspective better than I could.

Micah Sweet · Wednesday at 10:16 PM

Lanefan said:
Sometimes as DM, once you've got the ball rolling and the players have their PCs interacting with each other (sometimes over banalities, more often IME over planning) you just gotta sit back, put your feet up, crack open a beer, and say "If and when any action comes out of all this, please let me know"; as even if what they're doing seems boring to you, clearly it isn't to them or they wouldn't be doing it.

Indeed.

It also helps when (and I say when, not if, as IME it's nigh-universally the case) someone's playing a character with a low in-fiction boredom threshold, 'cause you just know that character is going to get bored and light a (proverbial or literal) fire somewhere.

In a recent session, the players just decided to have an in-character campfire chat about morality and when it's ok to utilize lethal force in a lawless, post-apocalyptic world. It lasted the whole session, and I don't regret a second of it.

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

DinoInDisguise

A russian spy disguised as a t-rex.

Lanefan

Victoria Rules

Faolyn

(she/her)

Pedantic

Legend

Micah Sweet

Level Up & OSR Enthusiast

Thomas Shey

Legend

Micah Sweet

Level Up & OSR Enthusiast

Thomas Shey

Legend

Micah Sweet

Level Up & OSR Enthusiast

Micah Sweet

Level Up & OSR Enthusiast

Similar Threads