GMs: Guiding Morals in GMing

[Yora]

This presumes the players are looking for more of a game experience rather than one of building a shared story together.

Yes. I presume that because that's how I run my games and how I pitch them to players. That's what this thread is about, after all.

I did find this curious since I thought this was an understood part of TTRPGs? Is this really not the case for anyone?

In post-Dragonlance D&D, it's understood that the players come to the game to see a good or at least interesting story playing out.
In classic old-school D&D, and then again popularized by Apocalypse World, it is understood that the game is about the players making choices for their characters which could have completely unpredictable consequences because outcomes are based on what's already established (even if unknown to the players) and the randomness of dice, with no specific end point being pursued.

 

[pemerton]

I think anyone who's DMed long enough develops a knack for when or when not it's appropriate to ignore established mechanics and improvise, no matter the system.

What would that look like in Apocalypse World? Or Burning Wheel?

 

[Celebrim]

Where I think there's a culture change between AD&D 2e and 5e, such that the latter tends to be played neo-trad, is how, especially in home games, who the player characters are and what they want is much more central to play.

I don't think there has been any culture change in the editions at all. The only culture change is in individual members of the community changing how they think of the game. The idea that a campaign can't specifically revolve around the backstories and goals of the player characters or didn't specifically revolve around character driven play in 2e or even back in 1e is just ahistorical nonsense. It has always been up to the participants in play to decide that and never to the system.

Consider the template for storytelling and adventure provided by "Dragonlance". Clearly play at the time could be character driven. But it wasn't like "Dragonlance" even introduced the concept. "Dragonlance" was just an attempt to record the style of play that already existed at many tables. Play in the group I was in during the early 90's using 1e AD&D rules was largely character driven and was decided by the backstories and goals of the player characters.

A well-known example would be Critical Role campaign 2. The various plot threads, apart from the overall war arc, specifically revolve around the backstories and goals of the player characters (and in one case, covering for two players being away for several weeks on account of having a baby).

The campaign could be played in 1e AD&D, Pathfinder, or anything else. That the plot threads can be character driven has absolutely nothing to do with the system.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

@pemerton I would say @AbdulAlhazred is pretty on point as regards published adventures for 5e. They run pretty trad, in the sense that who the characters are isn't very important for the scenario. For instance, I'm running Rise of Tiamat and unless I add content that's curated to pertain to the PC backgrounds, goals, and connections/relationships, there isn't really any there by default (barring anything developed in Hoard of the Dragon Queen, that is.) And it's fair to say that the rules for 5e enable neo-trad play without doing a very good job of supporting it.

Where I think there's a culture change between AD&D 2e and 5e, such that the latter tends to be played neo-trad, is how, especially in home games, who the player characters are and what they want is much more central to play.

A well-known example would be Critical Role campaign 2. The various plot threads, apart from the overall war arc, specifically revolve around the backstories and goals of the player characters (and in one case, covering for two players being away for several weeks on account of having a baby).

As a personal example, I started a game during the height of the covid pandemic wherein several player characters had mysteries in their backstories. This was a learning game for my son and a few other players new to D&D.

• my son's character was chasing a thief who had stolen a magical gemstone of great power
• another character, a halfling foundling, was seeking her missing father/older brother figure
• yet another character, an elf of somewhat unusual magical provenance, was out for revenge against attempted kidnappers

I decided to have an initial antagonist who brought these three lines of backstory together, a venal and corrupt noble who was collecting the gemstone (and other rare and magical curiosities - including people!). The missing father figure had gone off to protect another magical gemstone from suffering the same fate. (This was going to give the party a potential hook for future adventuring once they had stopped the noble; assuming they bit the hook, that is!)

Sadly, this particular game came to a screeching halt in the summer of 2021.

Now, "stop the bad guy from catching them all!" isn't the most individualised experience; on the other hand. if the character's backstories and goals had been different, I would have done something different. It was the specifics invented by the players that determined the initial shape of the campaign. That is, who the characters are and what they want was far more vital to this campaign than to, say, Rise of Tiamat - essential, even!

Yeah, the way you describe play is pretty trad -> neo-trad by the definitions given here. The players construct elements of their characters, usually backstory but also potentially character traits, beliefs, etc. The GM is in overall charge of creating the setting, developing and running NPCs, and creating story arcs which engage with the PCs 'stuff'. It can range from mostly GM-directed with player stuff appearing in bits and pieces all the way to being entirely built around the PC's chosen stories. Usually setting exists fairly independently of that and has its own logic, often meta-plot, etc. but that can vary too.

For instance I recall building a campaign called "The Island" back around 20 years ago. I built the Island, the PCs wash up on shore, and it goes from there. I made a map, designed the NPCs, the various people and story arcs that were in play, but the players would just go and do whatever they felt like, so it was kind of up to them to decide what really mattered. There was a meta-plot, although I deliberately kept it fairly vague. So, while it was run using 2e rules, IIRC, many of the typical D&D tropes were either not in play or were only potentially available. It was, I would say, pretty close to neo-trad. I was doing a lot of the up front work, but the players pretty much decided what exactly the 'real story' was. Not as focused on character internal drives and whatnot as modern narrative style games, but fairly close I guess.

I'd note that there was a fair amount of prep that I did, but I am not sure it was all that valuable, lol. I probably could have winged it.

 

[pointofyou]

Yeah, the way you describe play is pretty trad -> neo-trad by the definitions given here. The players construct elements of their characters, usually backstory but also potentially character traits, beliefs, etc. The GM is in overall charge of creating the setting, developing and running NPCs, and creating story arcs which engage with the PCs 'stuff'. It can range from mostly GM-directed with player stuff appearing in bits and pieces all the way to being entirely built around the PC's chosen stories. Usually setting exists fairly independently of that and has its own logic, often meta-plot, etc. but that can vary too.

For instance I recall building a campaign called "The Island" back around 20 years ago. I built the Island, the PCs wash up on shore, and it goes from there. I made a map, designed the NPCs, the various people and story arcs that were in play, but the players would just go and do whatever they felt like, so it was kind of up to them to decide what really mattered. There was a meta-plot, although I deliberately kept it fairly vague. So, while it was run using 2e rules, IIRC, many of the typical D&D tropes were either not in play or were only potentially available. It was, I would say, pretty close to neo-trad. I was doing a lot of the up front work, but the players pretty much decided what exactly the 'real story' was. Not as focused on character internal drives and whatnot as modern narrative style games, but fairly close I guess.

I'd note that there was a fair amount of prep that I did, but I am not sure it was all that valuable, lol. I probably could have winged it.

Back in the 1980s the people I gamed with then played AD&D 1e pretty close to the way the people I game with now play 5e. Play centers on what the PCs want and do and the GM frames in situations and scenarios that apply and appeal.

 

[CreamCloud0]

trad vs new-trad are two very different ways to focus the perspecive of your game, i don't think either is inherently better than the other though, like the fundamental premise of 'this is the world, your characters exist in it but it is fundamentally bigger than them, the story is whatever they end up interacting with' does appeal to me more but sometimes you just want 'this is the story of your characters'

 

[Dreamscape]

When I run games, I let players attempt anything they want. After a reasoned discussion of how the attempt would work within the game system, and if they still want to try, the dice determine the outcome.

 

[Jahydin]

What would that look like in Apocalypse World? Or Burning Wheel?

I'm in a regular Dungeon World campaign and I would say it's 10% mechanics and 90% pure GM improve. Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't PbtA games set up that way on purpose?

I'm not too familiar with Burning Wheel, so can't really comment. Are you suggesting the GM can't deviate from the rules of BW?

 

[Jahydin]

In post-Dragonlance D&D, it's understood that the players come to the game to see a good or at least interesting story playing out.
In classic old-school D&D, and then again popularized by Apocalypse World, it is understood that the game is about the players making choices for their characters which could have completely unpredictable consequences because outcomes are based on what's already established (even if unknown to the players) and the randomness of dice, with no specific end point being pursued.

Maybe we're misunderstanding each other?
I was saying players having to take into consideration the "GM's preference or momentary whim" a normal part of TTRPGs.

Further confusing me is I find PbtA games completely opposite to OSR games specially because of the amount of "preference and momentary whim" PbtA encourages.

You're the second person to suggest this though, so open to the possibility I'm totally overlooking something...

 

[Composer99]

I don't think there has been any culture change in the editions at all. The only culture change is in individual members of the community changing how they think of the game. The idea that a campaign can't specifically revolve around the backstories and goals of the player characters or didn't specifically revolve around character driven play in 2e or even back in 1e is just ahistorical nonsense. It has always been up to the participants in play to decide that and never to the system.

Consider the template for storytelling and adventure provided by "Dragonlance". Clearly play at the time could be character driven. But it wasn't like "Dragonlance" even introduced the concept. "Dragonlance" was just an attempt to record the style of play that already existed at many tables. Play in the group I was in during the early 90's using 1e AD&D rules was largely character driven and was decided by the backstories and goals of the player characters.



The campaign could be played in 1e AD&D, Pathfinder, or anything else. That the plot threads can be character driven has absolutely nothing to do with the system.

@pemerton refers to editions, so in my reply I simply responded using the same terminology. (As I understand it, @pemerton was also referring to how the mechanics of 2e tend to encourage trad play because they are unforgiving compared to 5e when it comes player character survivability and the like.)

To translate from "me replying to a specific poster using their specific terminology" to a more general lexicon, consider substituting "the 1990s" instead of 2e and "the late 2010s into the 2020s" instead of 5e. In any event, I feel pretty comfortable saying that "trad" play was the most prevalent style of play in the 1990s (between AD&D, Shadowrun, Call of Cthulhu, and Vampire: the Masquerade) even as other styles were already emerging.

Anyway, this is getting into a definite tangent relative to the topic posed in the opening post, so I shall bow out of discussing cultures of play further except insofar as the topic relates directly to inspiring GM guiding precepts/morals/principles.