Be a GAME-MASTER, not a DIRECTOR

[thefutilist]

I think I might see the issue. There are three basic ways to do an RPG:
1.The players must solve and do things for real, in the real world. The DM, for example gives the players clues, and the players must 100% solve the mystery...for real. Using their characters in the game and getting very little or no help from the DM. This game requires real effort from the players to advance. This game can have a high failure rate as many DMs are just not that good at running a game and many players can't Do Things For Real.

Just to clear. If the players fail to solve the mystery then that it's, game over, they've lost. They need to get good?

Or do you nudge them, change things a bit, prompt them?

 

[Arilyn]

@bloodtide, your understanding of player led games are experiences nobody would enjoy. Hey GM, there's one goblin guarding the vorpal blade. GM sighs, "As you wish, players." Nobody would enjoy this type of game, so you must realize it can't be right. There have been a ton of explanations of Story Now games and many play through examples. You have been involved in many of these discussions. If you are genuinely curious, do some research. If you are convinced that this style is absolutely not for you, that's perfectly fine, but there is no point in constantly giving examples of why you dislike the playstyle when the examples couldn't possibly be accurate summations.

 

[innerdude]

And that makes no sense. It's like doing the cross word puzzle I made, or worse: reading my own book.

And I'm telling you it makes absolute sense once you experience it, is 1000% completely possible, and results in a very specific, highly enjoyable gameplay experience when you do.

I mean, sure, I could be lying to you. Maybe I didn't really have any of those experiences playing solo Ironsworn. It'd sure be an odd way to waste my time on this message board if I was lying, but I mean, it's certainly possible that I am.

I don't want to get bogged down in just this one game.

But to say the DM can just ignore the players seems to defeat the point of even playing this type of game. The game is "player lead", except when the DM says "nope"?

It's more like, the game is GM-led until a combination of game rules, established game principles, game ethos, and established fiction move the leadership function to the player side for brief periods.

Just as you drag out the game to fill the session time, does not change the "win" aspect. I know the treasure is a spot seven.....but sure I can spend hours and hours "pretending" to check spots 1-6 and 8-12 and....amazingly...not find the treasure.

Sigh. No, you don't know that the treasure is in "Spot 7" on your map and key. That's idea. You're purposefully suspending the idea of where the treasure is until a convergence of rules, established fiction, and collaboration, make it obvious that the treasure was NEVER at "Spot 7," but was at Spot 24 all along, and you as the GM are just now finding this out with your players.

You don't have to do this with EVERYTHING. But in Ironsworn, that's EXACTLY what you do a majority of the time.

This is the other aspect. The player lead game is all about the characters being the special chosen ones that the whole game world revolves around.

So, sure, for the fluff of this type of game it would have to be "Oh look it is the treasure map my all powerful pirate lord father left me!"

But in other types of games, characters can just find treasure maps that are in no way directly related specifically to their character.

Well, I'm on the far side of Real RPG experiences. I want the players to feel real emotions. And a big part of this is the players must be 100% in the dark about everything. They experience the game only as their character.

So the "emotional stakes" of a player making a lost treasure and putting it in the game....then they just sort of look around and say "gosh wonder if I will ever find my hidden treasure" is not really "stakes".

Sigh again. There's something so fundamentally missing from this perspective I don't even know where to start. Perhaps it's as simple as, maybe I could view my fellow game participants as possible meaningful collaborators in my potential fun.

 

[hawkeyefan]

How would a solo game do anything?

It would do them differently than a traditional RPG.

I guess the counter is: Why place so much importance on whatever the players randomly say?

Why is everything the players say “random”, in your opinion?

You’ve never heard a player say something relevant?

Why aren’t the GM’s ideas “random” in your opinion?

I think I might see the issue. There are three basic ways to do an RPG:
1.The players must solve and do things for real, in the real world. The DM, for example gives the players clues, and the players must 100% solve the mystery...for real. Using their characters in the game and getting very little or no help from the DM. This game requires real effort from the players to advance. This game can have a high failure rate as many DMs are just not that good at running a game and many players can't Do Things For Real.

2.The guided game. This is where most 5E adventures sit. The DM gives the player characters clues. And the players just use the rules to solve the mystery by rolling through it. The DM lays out a vague path, like an outline for the characters to follow. As the game is set up so characters make 80%-100% of the needed rolls, the game advancement is on 'automatic'. This game has a more average failure rate as most DMs can just drop the outline path, and most players can follow the path......but not all.

3.The player lead game. The players have their characters do whatever actions they want at random. No matter what the PCs do, they will find, and often create, the clues of the mystery, and like number two they will make 80%-100% of the rolls to advance the game forward. This game has a low or even no failure rate as no matter what the players do they will advance the game.

RPGs are not limited to these three modes, nor do they seem all that accurate. Your number 3 in particular shows that you don’t know about player led games.

I get it… you consider yourself very good at GMing. But really, it turns out that whatever your skill level, it’s actually limited to DMing D&D. There are tons of RPGs and ways to play that you clearly know nothing about. You’re not the expert you thought you were. It’s tough to realize that.

But you’re also clearly not interested in learning. Several of us have been offering examples and discussing this kind of game, and you seem to be doing everything you can to somehow prove us “wrong”.

Lets look at my above for this though: The group of PCs are hunting down a den a werewolves, but don't know where the den is....

1.The DM picks a logical spot on the map for the werewolf den and it is the 'right' spot. The DM adds plenty of clues for the players to find...but they must look for them, find them and figure them out all on their own. For real. The characters skills and abilities help the players figure things out, but do no work for them.

2.The DM still pick a 'right spot', but also lays down a fairly obvious path. So a character can use a skill or ability to make an easy roll to find the den with little or no effort.

3.The DM does not pick a spot for the werewolf den......but whatever random place the players decide to go: that is where the den is placed.


For just another example: The characters find a treasure map and want to follow it.

1.The DM makes an adventure and treasure location and everything else. The players, for real, must figure out where the map locations are and find the treasure site, for real. The map lists 'Old Elf Tree', the players must figure out where that location is, for real.

The players, for real, are sitting at a table and talking. For real, it’s all make believe. The players, for real, are not finding any actual treasure. They’re rolling dice and talking. For real.

2.The DM makes a bit of a mini adventure. The character reads the map and then the player rolls a low DC to have the character 'remember' the location of the historical landmark of the "Old Elf Tree'. Then the PCs go there.

3.The DM makes little or nothing. After looking at the map, the players randomly decide to go south, and they find the 'Old Elf Tree' there, wherever they went as the DM puts it right in front of the characters.

None of these examples is remotely accurate.

I think your low opinion of players and what I have to assume is a fairly antagonistic approach to GMing (for real) is preventing you from imagining that players would ever have any ideas except what would be easiest.

Which is really far from my experience. So I don’t think we’re likely gonna be able to bridge this gap.

 

[pemerton]

how exactly is the world made by everyone?

Here's one example: First Session – Dungeon World SRD

just to use your example for an example. It says "within situations presented by the GM". It does NOT say "in situations jointly made by all participants in the game together collaboratively" or anything like that.


Ok, so player makes "priorities" and DM says 'yes player' and "frames the priorities". So...I would note this example has the DM only doing what the players tell them to do.....unless you just 'forgot' to add more to the above.

I guess I'm missing the collaboration? The player says "do this" and the DM "does that"....is not even close to collaboration.

You seem to be struggling to draw some connections that I think the author of the rules took to be obvious.

So, as you note, it says "situations presented by the GM". It also says that "The GM presents the players with problems based on the players’ priorities." So multiple things are true of the situations in question:

*They are presented by the GM;

*They are presented to the players;

*They involve problems (this is probably a tautology, given that "situation" is being used in the same sort of sense as it is used in discussing other narrative forms);

*Those problems are based on priorities determined by the players.​

And I gave an example: one priority the player has established for his PC is to find a magical item in Hardby that will help him deal with his brother being possessed by a Balrog. And I present a problem based on that priority: a peddler is offering an angel feather for sale (but the PC is broke, as per the outcome of the PC generation process).

So I as GM did not "do only what the player told me to do". The player didn't say anything about a peddler, or a feather. (The player did raise the idea of something angelic.)

I took the players priority, and their idea of something angelic, and I based a problem on that. And right there is the collaboration that I and others have mentioned, the riffing on one another's ideas.

And the DM just sit there when ever a player makes a roll with a shrug and "well the rules say you win", but when the player fails a roll rules let the DM they can add in a little something bad.

I get the "theoretical" here that if the player rolls high and DM just hangs their head down and says "yes player....again". The rules say so, and the players can point to Page 11 and say "haha, you can't do anything DM!" And the DM can only do a bit, only when the players roll bad and the rules let them.

<snip>

I'm not a fan of the "quantum gaming" where any detail can change on a whim. Where whatever the players randomly do is the "right thing" to move the game forward. No matter what goal the PCs have they will just auto do it, as anything they do furthers the goal.

Your caricature of the resolution rules suggests to me that you haven't downloaded and read the free rulebook that your are purporting to comment on.

I am guessing that the only form of systematised action resolution you are used to is D&D combat. I also guess that you are also familiar with the idea that, in D&D combat, if the player makes a to hit roll that (once adjusted by appropriate modifiers) is sufficient to hit the enemy's AC, then the rules say that the GM announces the hit, the player gets to roll damage dice, and the GM subtracts the result of that damage roll from the running tally of the enemy's hit points. If those hp reach zero, then the GM is obliged to announce that the enemy is defeated (typically by having been killed).

No one describes D&D combat as "the DM just sits there with a shrug and "well the rules say you win and the players point to Page 11 and say 'haha, you can't do anything DM!'" Do they? I mean, the whole point of the combat rules is to take the question of who wins out of the hands of a single decision-maker, and to instead make it a matter of game play (which includes, but is not confined to, the luck of the dice rolls).

I understand that you are not familiar with the idea that such an approach might be extended beyond combat, even though the idea is at least as old as 1977 (I'm thinking of Classic Traveller, which has dice-base action resolution rules for quite a range of non-combat action declarations). But here is an example - Classic Traveller's rules for vacc suit use (Book 1, 1977 ed, p 16):

A basic throw of 10+ [on 2d6] to avoid dangerous situation applies whenever any non-ordinary maneuver is attempted by an individual wearing a vacc suit (such as running, jumping, hiding, jumping untethered from one ship to another, etc).

D[ie ]M[odifier]: +4 per level of expertise.

When such an incident occurs, it may be remedied by any character with vacc suit expertise (including the character in danger himself) on a throw of 7+.

DM: +2 per level of expertise. No expertise DM: -4​

So if the player whose PC is wearing a vacc suit declares some non-ordinary manoeuvre, such as one of the examples given or something else similarly risky (eg in one of my Traveller sessions it was wriggling through a tight space) then a roll is called for. If it succeeds, the PC performs their manoeuvre without suffering any adverse consequence from the risk they took in relation to their life support gear. If the throw fails, then the GM narrates an "incident" that is a "dangerous situation" (eg one time, when GMing Traveller, I narrated a snagged oxygen pipe). The players are then entitled to declare an action to remedy the situation. If that action is declared, and the resulting throw succeeds, then - in the fiction - the situation has been resolved (eg the oxygen pipe is un-snagged). If that throw fails, then the GM is at liberty to bring home the danger inherent in the situation (eg the most recent time this happened in my game, a PC's suit ruptured, and the PC was therefore exposed to the freezing temperatures of the ice world they were on).

Anyway, this Traveller mechanic is, in its essence, closer to Apocalypse World ("if you do it, you do it") than Burning Wheel ("intent and task"). But it is a simple illustration of how mechanical, dice-based resolution can be extended outside of the domain of wargame-style combat.

In Burning Wheel, as you can read for yourself (on pp 13 and 72 of the Hub and Spokes) what the basic rules are for when to roll:

Burning Wheel is very much a game. While players undertake the roles of their characters and embellish their actions with performance and description, rolling the dice determines success or failure and, hence, where the story goes. . . .

Unless there is something at stake in the story you have created, don’t bother with the dice. Keep moving, keep describing, keep roleplaying. But as soon as a character wants something that he doesn’t have, needs to know something he doesn’t know, covets something that someone else has, roll the dice.

Flip that around and it reveals a fundamental rule in Burning Wheel game play: When there is conflict, roll the dice. There is no social agreement for the resolution of conflict in this game. Roll the dice and let the obstacle system guide the outcome. Success or failure doesn’t really matter. So long as the intent of the task is clearly stated, the story is going somewhere.​

You are just wrong to say that "No matter what goal the PCs have they will just auto do it" because - as per the quotes from the rules in my post upthread, and the further quote just above - if a player fails a roll to resolve a declared action, than their intent is not achieved. Which is to say, that they don't achieve their goal. And the maths of Burning Wheel are calibrated to ensure that this is quite a common outcome.

But when the players fail, the GM will - following the rules of the game - frame a new situation that speaks to the players' priorities for their PC. In that way the game will go forward: it's not the case that everyone just packs up and goes home!

The player tells the DM what to do and the DM says "yes player". To me a game where some people just boss one person around does not sound like fun at all.

You seem to prefer a game in which one person bosses many others around!

 

[pemerton]

I think I might see the issue. There are three basic ways to do an RPG:
1.The players must solve and do things for real, in the real world. The DM, for example gives the players clues, and the players must 100% solve the mystery...for real. Using their characters in the game and getting very little or no help from the DM. This game requires real effort from the players to advance. This game can have a high failure rate as many DMs are just not that good at running a game and many players can't Do Things For Real.

2.The guided game. This is where most 5E adventures sit. The DM gives the player characters clues. And the players just use the rules to solve the mystery by rolling through it. The DM lays out a vague path, like an outline for the characters to follow. As the game is set up so characters make 80%-100% of the needed rolls, the game advancement is on 'automatic'. This game has a more average failure rate as most DMs can just drop the outline path, and most players can follow the path......but not all.

3.The player lead game. The players have their characters do whatever actions they want at random. No matter what the PCs do, they will find, and often create, the clues of the mystery, and like number two they will make 80%-100% of the rolls to advance the game forward. This game has a low or even no failure rate as no matter what the players do they will advance the game.

Given you seem to have experience only of 1 and 2, why would you think you're able to imagine what the other possibilities are, let alone describe them?

I mean, I've literally posted for you the rules of a RPG - Burning Wheel - that anyone can see, even from what I've just posted (let alone then reading the actual play that I also linked to) does not fall under any of your 3 descriptions.

Lets look at my above for this though: The group of PCs are hunting down a den a werewolves, but don't know where the den is....

1.The DM picks a logical spot on the map for the werewolf den and it is the 'right' spot. The DM adds plenty of clues for the players to find...but they must look for them, find them and figure them out all on their own. For real. The characters skills and abilities help the players figure things out, but do no work for them.

2.The DM still pick a 'right spot', but also lays down a fairly obvious path. So a character can use a skill or ability to make an easy roll to find the den with little or no effort.

3.The DM does not pick a spot for the werewolf den......but whatever random place the players decide to go: that is where the den is placed.

Or what about an example from an actual RPG, like BW.

The players declare that they search for the werewolf den. If nothing is at stake in this declaration - so it is just colour - then the GM narrates the PCs travelling to and finding the den. The GM might do this unilaterally, say pointing to a path and place on the campaign map and telling the players that that's where their tracking leads them. (I did this when the players in my BW game travelled across the Bright Desert to the Abor-Alz.) Or the group might do this collaboratively, agreeing on the most likely spot for a werewolf den and then marking it on the map.

Suppose something is at stake - that is, it matters in some way that someone cares about whether or not the PCs find and reach the den - then the GM calls for a roll. Depending on further context, this could be a test on Orienteering or Tracking or Werewolves-wise or Observation or some other appropriate skill. If the test succeeds, then the PC succeeds at the declared task and intent - the PCs arrive at the den ready to do whatever they intended to do there. If it fails, then the GM narrates some complication which negates the players' intent.

Now you haven't given us an intent in your description, only a task ("hunt down a den of werewolves"). So let's suppose the intent is to confront the werewolves. If the roll fails, then that intent does not come to pass. So maybe the GM decides that the werewolves ambush the PCs as they are travelling through the hills. Or maybe the GM narrates that the PCs arrive at the den, only to find that the werewolves have abandoned it. In deciding how to narrate failure, the GM would have regard to relevant player priorities for their PCs, as the rules of the game demand.

Note how the above does not fit under any of your 3 descriptions.

 

[pemerton]

It's like doing the cross word puzzle I made

Playing White Plume Mountain or Tomb of Horrors, using classic D&D rules, is a little bit like doing a crossword puzzle.

Playing Burning Wheel is nothing like doing a crossword puzzle. I've never played Ironsworn, but I am guessing that the same is true of it.

For just another example: The characters find a treasure map and want to follow it.

1.The DM makes an adventure and treasure location and everything else. The players, for real, must figure out where the map locations are and find the treasure site, for real. The map lists 'Old Elf Tree', the players must figure out where that location is, for real.

2.The DM makes a bit of a mini adventure. The character reads the map and then the player rolls a low DC to have the character 'remember' the location of the historical landmark of the "Old Elf Tree'. Then the PCs go there.

3.The DM makes little or nothing. After looking at the map, the players randomly decide to go south, and they find the 'Old Elf Tree' there, wherever they went as the DM puts it right in front of the characters.

So I've actually run a game in which a player looked for a lost treasure: the Falcon's Claw, a nickel-silver mace that (as per player-authored backstory) had been abandoned in the tower where the PC had been apprenticed to his older brother, when that tower was abandoned by them after being assaulted by Orcs (to re-iterate, this was all part of player-authored backstory: events in the life of the character that occurred before the character entered play as the player's PC).

The PC had returned to the (now ruined) tower. And the player declared that he was looking through the ruins, hoping to find the Falcon's Claw. As per the rules of the game, because something was at stake in relation to the player's priorities for his PCs (the whole thing being intimately connected to his past with his bother) this called for a Scavenging test. I, as GM, set the obstacle in accordance with the rules of the game. The dice were rolled, and the test failed. Therefore the declared intent did not come to pass, and I as GM had to narrate something else instead. What I narrated was that, rather than the Falcon's Claw, what the PC found in the ruins was a stand of cursed Black Arrows that (apparently) his brother had been working on when the Orcs assaulted.

The significance of this was that it seemed to reveal that his brother was evil before becoming possessed by a Balrog, rather than evil because he was possessed by a Balrog. Thus, it spoke to the player's priorities for his PC but also presented things in a new and unhappy light.

Notice how what I've described is not like any of your examples 1, 2 or 3.

 

[bloodtide]

Playing White Plume Mountain or Tomb of Horrors, using classic D&D rules, is a little bit like doing a crossword puzzle.

Maybe you did not read what I typed? I said doing a crossword puzzle I made. I did not write WPM or ToH.

The significance of this was that it seemed to reveal that his brother was evil before becoming possessed by a Balrog, rather than evil becausehe was possessed by a Balrog. Thus, it spoke to the player's priorities for his PC but also presented things in a new and unhappy light.

Notice how what I've described is not like any of your examples 1, 2 or 3.

Sure in this like thirty second clip of your game your not doing anything number wise for all those seconds.

Ok, so are you as the DM setting a hard place for the Claw? Are you making a lore plot of exactly what happened to the Claw and a full history and where it is today? Or is it just not made up? But if nothing is made up, all the player can do is random things.....there is nothing made up for them to follow. Sure, you give them one clue, and now they must follow that one clue as it is the only detail exists.

And like I said, you can Quantum Game along for as long as the player random does things. And you can do this for hours. Or I guess for as long as the rules tell you to. Then, at some random point, the rules or DM or player or everyone together will just say "we find the claw".

It's more like, the game is GM-led until a combination of game rules, established game principles, game ethos, and established fiction move the leadership function to the player side for brief periods.

Does not sound so bad when you put it like that. Others are more like making the DM a "yes player" only.

Sigh. No, you don't know that the treasure is in "Spot 7" on your map and key. That's idea. You're purposefully suspending the idea of where the treasure is until a convergence of rules, established fiction, and collaboration, make it obvious that the treasure was NEVER at "Spot 7," but was at Spot 24 all along, and you as the GM are just now finding this out with your players.

Yea, see the "we will just all pretend like we don't know" and then...somehow....have rules and 'fiction' "tell you what to do" and then sit back and say "wow, look how that happened". Except you and the others did it.

maybe I could view my fellow game participants as possible meaningful collaborators in my potential fun.

My idea of fun is not rolling out a red carpet for them.

Given you seem to have experience only of 1 and 2, why would you think you're able to imagine what the other possibilities are, let alone describe them?

I mean, I've literally posted for you the rules of a RPG - Burning Wheel - that anyone can see, even from what I've just posted (let alone then reading the actual play that I also linked to) does not fall under any of your 3 descriptions.

I try to avoid talking about specific games I know nothing about. So I say in general.

I'm not interested in the "ok, the rule on page 11 says the DM can only act once the player takes and action". Then I will say "forcing the DM to sit there and do nothing until the players act is wrong." Then "Oh...wait...that is not what the rule means! It means twelve other things they just did not type on the page!" type of thing.

Note how the above does not fit under any of your 3 descriptions.

Everything you typed in a big Three. Only if the dice, rules or players tell the DM to, does the DM make the werewolf den. And again, the players or the characters don't have to find the den, they will automatically whenever the rules, dice or "everyone" says so.

Why is everything the players say “random”, in your opinion?

Because the game is random improv. Nothing exists unless the players say it does. So the players can't find something, it does not exist. In the non player lead games, the DM says details that are firm, X is in Y location. The end. Then the players have to find it, in that exact location.

You’ve never heard a player say something relevant?

Yes

Why aren’t the GM’s ideas “random” in your opinion?

Well, only assuming the DM is making a game world that makes sense in our reality. When the DM makes something they are adding it as part of the setting, adding real details, and making sure it's a good fit.

But most of all the DM never, ever makes a selfish addition to the game to benefit their character, as players can and very often do.

RPGs are not limited to these three modes, nor do they seem all that accurate. Your number 3 in particular shows that you don’t know about player led games.

As I've said.

I get it… you consider yourself very good at GMing. But really, it turns out that whatever your skill level, it’s actually limited to DMing D&D. There are tons of RPGs and ways to play that you clearly know nothing about. You’re not the expert you thought you were. It’s tough to realize that.

Knows I'm not an expert on every random game ever made. I try my best to say "games" in general. I say "some games do X", and many people jump in to post "oh no Super Duper Stary Stars game does not do that!" or "that is not the way we do things in my one single game!" is not all helpful.

But you’re also clearly not interested in learning. Several of us have been offering examples and discussing this kind of game, and you seem to be doing everything you can to somehow prove us “wrong”.

Well, you understand I'm not just going to read a line of text and say "wow," and like see your truth, right?

You know like I could do a post about how awesome Railroading is and you'd glace at it and still say "I hate it"

The players, for real, are sitting at a table and talking. For real, it’s all make believe. The players, for real, are not finding any actual treasure. They’re rolling dice and talking. For real.

I see you did not understand. I will try to explain.

I never, ever was even coming close to saying the players were like traveling to another world and looking for treasure or do anything else.

I'm talking about Old School type gaming. So for like a mysterious treasure map mystery works like this: The DM, alone, makes up all the facts and details of the Mysterious Map Adventure, and writes/types them down. Then using only the information and knowledge the real people players know for real, they will try to solve the mystery....for real.

The players must, for real, do things like translate symbols on the map. There is NO, rolling the dice and using the rules for "my character reads the map and translates the symbols".

 

[Golden Bee]

The one thing I think is the trademark of this forum is the willingness to continually converse in good faith with people who do not absorb argumentation. For better or worse, the timeout hammer comes out a lot more quickly on RPG.net or SomethingAwful. I swear, some of you must have day jobs as cult deprogrammers, or own very stubborn, hard-of-hearing pets.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Because the game is random improv. Nothing exists unless the players say it does. So the players can't find something, it does not exist. In the non player lead games, the DM says details that are firm, X is in Y location. The end. Then the players have to find it, in that exact location.

It’s not just random improv. Again… you’re ignoring what people are telling you and you’re shooting down your own flawed idea of how these games work.

As I said… in my game of Stonetop, there’s a map of the town that gets filled out by the group. There’s a map of the region that shows where other settlements are. There are lists of NPCs and locations for those settlements.

Another game I ran not long ago is Spire: The City Must Fall. This game takes place in a very detailed setting… the mile high city of Spire… with distinct districts filled with NPCs and factions of all kinds. The setting actually has more material than I’d say any group could really ever use.

That these details are already set does not prevent players from being able to add to them. This can happen in many ways. For example, as part of character creation, any Knight PC must choose a squire. This NPC is named by the player, and they decide the squire’s outlook. This is not random. The Knight character also has the ability called “Pub Crawler” reflecting their association with pubs (Knights in this setting are sworn to pubs rather than lords) and once per session, he can declare that there is a pub nearby, and that he knows the owner. The player gets to decide this. The GM gets to decide how the owner of the pub feels about the Knight. Again… none of this is random.

Games other than D&D accomplish these kinds of things in a variety of ways.

Yes

Okay, well that pretty much says all that we need to hear.

Well, only assuming the DM is making a game world that makes sense in our reality. When the DM makes something they are adding it as part of the setting, adding real details, and making sure it's a good fit.

I don’t know what you mean by “makes sense in our reality”. I think you mean “appears to work as our reality does”… but if so, I don’t see how that doesn’t apply to the kinds of games I’m talking about. Because the key word there is “appears”; no game actually functions the way our world does.

But most of all the DM never, ever makes a selfish addition to the game to benefit their character, as players can and very often do.

I highly doubt that. I mean, most DMs don’t tend to have characters in the traditional sense. But they have tons of NPCs that they may love. They have the world orthe setting itself. I’ve seen plenty of folks on this board admit that their setting is more important than the characters, and that they actively keep that in mind during play. I expect you also feel that way. So no… I don’t think the DM is above skewing things based on their personal preference.

Knows I'm not an expert on every random game ever made. I try my best to say "games" in general. I say "some games do X", and many people jump in to post "oh no Super Duper Stary Stars game does not do that!" or "that is not the way we do things in my one single game!" is not all helpful.

What random games? People have been citing specific games. I’ve mentioned Stonetop and now Spire. @innerdude has mentioned Ironsworn. @pemerton has talked about Burning Wheel, and alsi shared a bunch of free resources for several other games.

These aren’t mythical games beyond the knowledge of mortal men. They are available and well known.

Well, you understand I'm not just going to read a line of text and say "wow," and like see your truth, right?

You know like I could do a post about how awesome Railroading is and you'd glace at it and still say "I hate it"

I don’t care if you like it.

When I see you talk about railroading, I may indeed say “I’d hate it”.

But what you won’t see me say is that railroading isn’t a thing.

I see you did not understand. I will try to explain.

I never, ever was even coming close to saying the players were like traveling to another world and looking for treasure or do anything else.

I'm talking about Old School type gaming. So for like a mysterious treasure map mystery works like this: The DM, alone, makes up all the facts and details of the Mysterious Map Adventure, and writes/types them down. Then using only the information and knowledge the real people players know for real, they will try to solve the mystery....for real.

No, they don’t. There isn’t a mystery. It’s pretend.

At most, we can say you’ve created a puzzle of some kind and the players may solve the puzzle. They do so by asking the right questions of you at the right time. They prompt you to reveal the story to them.

It’s a well known and widely acknowledged form of play. I didn’t misunderstand at all.