D&D General How has D&D changed over the decades?

[Lanefan]

6. "Trust the GM" means don't ask questions. This is the fundamental point -- you need to "trust" that whatever the GM is doing it for your own good as a player. This totally removes good questions about play. Let me give an example -- in a Blades game I was in, the GM introduced a complication during downtime (as they are supposed to do) regarding a faction the PCs had interacted with and set up a clock ticking towards a bad outcome if not addressed. I challenged this, because the complication introduced actually contradicted what had happened in play, where we had specifically addressed this possibility. The GM had forgotten that detail when they thought about complications, and my challenge reminded them, and they totally agreed it was a bad call and pulled the complication. If "Trust the GM" was on the table, this wouldn't have happened -- or, doing so strongly runs the risk of stepping on an intentional decision that the GM made to do just this for reasons and places the questioner into the "bad player" category of not "Trusting the GM."

Ive gotta disagree with this one, as one can trust one's DM all the way and yet still legitimately call her out if she makes a mistake as per your example.

This happens all the time in our games. We're human. We make mistakes, and - perhaps ironically - we trust that the players will catch us on them when we do.

 

[Lanefan]

I... uh... so the core method of diplomacy between equals is nothing more than passive aggressive failure? When my spouse and I agree on a place to eat dinner, we actually didn't because that agreement didn't work and we're just both being passive aggressive?

I'm not talking about where you and your spouse (who likely agree with each other a lot of the time anyway) go for dinner, I'm talking about what amount to negotiations among people who may or may not largely agree on much, and who may or may not be bloody stubborn (and may or may not show it), and who are not equals (the players are equal to each other, the DM is not), and where a final resolution now is almost always more useful than punting a resolution down the road to later or never.

 

[Lanefan]

So the distinction on this is that there are a few things we're kind of talking about, and they're getting mixed up.

1) is the role of the GM as final arbiter. When there's conflict of some sort, or if the rules or procedures produce a result that isn't satisfactory to the group in some way, the GM can override the rules. When the rules don't account for a specific given situation, the GM is to make a ruling.

2) is the GM granting permission. The player makes a suggestion of some sort, and the GM says yes. "Is there a tree nearby I can climb?" and so on.

3) is when the rules give the player the ability to establish something, either through an action and associated ability check, or else through the use of magic or a class or background ability.

Thing is, 1) and 3) above are very much rules-oriented, and rules are almost a sidelight here.

The argument is, at least as I see it, more around larger narration-oriented or setting-oriented conflicts beyond the rules. In theatre these would map to:

--- who gets to design and-or build what parts of the stage - the actors, the director, or the stagehands?
--- who gets to write the script - the actors, the director, or the scriptwriter(s)?
--- who gets to decide who's in the play - the actors, the director, or the theatre cat?

All of this really ought to be sorted before the actors even see the script. We already know who the director is, but that's about it.

Let's look at the very common action of making an attack. There are very specific rules about this. I make a roll, if I equal or exceed the target's AC, I hit the target and roll for damage. This is an example of 3 above, right? I think it's clearly not 2. An interesting question is: is it subject to 1?

It's subject to 1) if fudging is involved, but let's not open that can o' worms yet again.

 

[Vaalingrade]

OK, first thing:

Consensus as a means of solving disputes Does Not Work. Period.

True.

I make my players challenge my to physical combat.

It works especially well when I run games for my little cousins.

 

[Lanefan]

I want to clarify that I do not view the sort of techniques under question is being about investment in the setting. Rather they focus on deep investment in their characters, the characters of other players, and how they relate to the setting. The setting is secondary to the characters.

Perhaps, but in a situation where one plays multiple characters in the same setting (pretty much the default in our games) either side-along or consecutively, it's the setting that becomes the constant backdrop to all of it and thus it becomes important in its own right.

If you're only ever going to play one character in this campaign/setting and never see that setting again, then your point is good.

 

[CleverNickName]

True.

I make my players challenge my to physical combat.

It works especially well when I run games for my little cousins.

I have a similar system, involving an interpretive dance contest and Prince's "I Wonder U" played at 100dB.

Few people disagree with me nowadays.

 

[Lanefan]

In my games of course it applies to all worshippers, but chances are this stuff isn't like well defined. I'm generally going to let the player define it so they can play the type of the character they want to play. I will build off of their answers and add my spin to it, but I want to support the type of conflicts the player is looking for.

It's obviously not the right approach for the type of game you are looking for, but it's not going to break the game in half.

As a player I'd prefer this sort of thing be defined enough ahead of time that when I-as-player am picking a deity I know what I'm getting into in worshipping/following a given deity; that if my character idea suggests that as I'm from the desert I'd follow a sun-and-heat deity of honour and virtue I don't by mistake end up following a sun-and-heat deity whose worshippers honour the sun by leaving sacrificial victims out in it to roast alive.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I'm not talking about where you and your spouse (who likely agree with each other a lot of the time anyway) go for dinner, I'm talking about what amount to negotiations among people who may or may not largely agree on much, and who may or may not be bloody stubborn (and may or may not show it), and who are not equals (the players are equal to each other, the DM is not), and where a final resolution now is almost always more useful than punting a resolution down the road to later or never.

Or talking about international diplomacy, either. Or legal mediation.

 

[Hussar]

At best you can talk to each other and learn that your styles and preferences simply don't align, so you go your separate ways.

Now, since that is true, and I agree, then why are you playing with players you clearly don't enjoy playing with?

 

[Hussar]

OK, first thing:

Consensus as a means of solving disputes Does Not Work. Period.

Instead of solving disputes, consensus merely papers them over without proper resolution, serving only to punt those disputes down the road and leaving nobody satisfied in the meantime. I've seen this play out far too many times both at game tables and in other aspects of life: people are generally stubborn, and though by no means am I suggesting you are like this (you generally seem far more direct, which I appreciate!), IME many who push for consensus are in fact actively seeking to punt the dispute down the road to allow an opportunity to quietly lobby others around to their point of view before raising the dispute again.

I honestly wonder if this is a cultural thing. I don't mean gaming culture, but, a broader cultural thing.

I have lived most of my adult life in a culture that values consensus building as a means of conflict resolution. And, it works very, very well. Actually, strike that. I'm Canadian. Even in Canada, consensus building is a cornerstone foundation of most of our social values.

It's straight out of the passive-aggressive 101 playbook.

Perhaps, but at least everyone knows where they stand; and that alone is a benefit.

IME I've found that once someone gets that consensus-delay-lobby tactic to work once (and it often does work, in fairness it's an excellent strategy if nobody notices it being done) it gets pulled out every damn time.

Correct; though more often IME the DM makes those setting-based decisions before even presenting any of it to prospective players at the pitch-and-invite stage, who can then decide whether that setting is a fit for them or not.

Indeed, but I think there only needs to be one person per table stuck with thinking that way.

"Stuck thinking that way" is a pretty negative way of phrasing it. I would not look at it like this.

Does this risk a lot of blandness both in setting and in play, I wonder.

Yeah, if your immediate response to the idea of consensus building is a hostile one, then, sure, a table set up based on consensus will probably not work for you. That's fair.