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

[overgeeked]

while running that's within my window of acceptability.

Hey, look. A preference. I wonder how much talking it would take to get you to run a game outside your "window of acceptability." At a guess there's no amount of talking that would get you to run a game you find abhorrent. Thanks for proving my point.

hey, if you don't even try it will never work out.

Me doing things differently than you or having a different skill set than you isn't "don't even try." It's telling that you think it is.

Another was a cold mismatch in expectations of play that I tried to engage but would not (I didn't get kicks from using magic to override other PC's consent), so that was a failure and a goodbye.

Hey, look. Another preference. Funny how you have a preference so solid that you punted a player. Let me guess, no amount of talking would get you to shift on that preference. Again, that's my point.

I will say that a cold statement of "Trust the GM" as a prerequisite to join a game tells me that discussion is not available...

That's a terrible assumption to make, but you do you.

and I'll nope out just to avoid the whole thing. Game might be amazing, but that's enough of a red flag that I'm not going to feel like I missed much even so. I find amazing games without it with regularity.

Hey, look. Another preference. I wonder how much talking will get you to change your mind. At a guess, no amount will be sufficient. My point, you're proving it. Thanks, tschüss.

 

[Thomas Shey]

being chosen as the GM or having players join a game with the GM entails each player placing some measure of trust in that GM to use that authority responsibly. It's no different than a sports Ref/Coach etc stepping in to tell ThatGuy that baseball is not being played & correcting them when poor play behavior impacts other members of the team.

The key part of this is "some measure". As I've noted, while I don't play with a GM who's intentions I don't trust, I don't automatically extend trust for their judgment unless they earn it, and earning it unlimitedly is not a low bar.

 

[hawkeyefan]

"Pursuant to my role as final arbiter, and in light of evidence provided, I rule that use of rule X is not currently justified because it is precluded by the use of rule Y. So sayeth I."

So long as 1 is bound by clear distinctions for when overrides of 3 are allowable (and aren't just a mush of arbitrary justification) then 100%. My reading of the "rule zero" section of 5e actually supports this, in that the GM is only expected to override rules in corner cases and not as a general authority to do so. Others seem to take it more liberally, and effectly widen 1 so that it enables 2 against 3.

Yeah, I think the GM has to have some clear justification to just overrule what would otherwise be a clear process in the game. That's why I suggested an attack.... it's a thing that's clearly allowed and I don't imagine most GM's overriding it without very good reason.

The problem with 5e specifically in this regard is that other areas where this may apply, things are so fuzzily worded as to be very open to interpretation.

 

[Cadence]

Goal post move. This cannot be considered a general state, so you've elected to look only at a specific example.

It was a reply about vouching. You brought up lots of issues with vouching that make it not anywhere near 100% trustworthy. To me it still felt like playing with a GM others vouched for gives me more more trust/expectation/hope going in that with a GM I don't know anything about. I'm not sure how that is a goal post move from your remarks about vouching.

And now you're borrowing parts of my argument to shore up the other one. Session 0 is a tool that specifically rejects "Trust the GM" by putting the campaign expectations up for discussion and consensus. This is one of the developments in the community moving away from "Trust the GM" stuff.

You seem to keep wanting me to be focused on trust the GM. It wasn't something I was arguing.

The baseline is that I am to "Trust the GM." This means that, in any questionable event, I am to extend the courtesy of the doubt to the GM and go with it, trusting they have a good reason. It isn't at all about final say in a rules adjudication.

You say it is.

I'm beginning to think you've been arguing from a muddled position, here.

See apology below.

This really feels like you assigning homework for me to be able to make this point. I don't accept homework assignments.

Starting a thread on advice certainly would be unsolicited homework. I thought ot viewing everything as GSABTPSNBT just seemed like it might [edit: not] be helpful, but see apology below.

Then I'm confused by your earlier argument that games can't happen if the GM reschedules, but can easily happen if the player does. You seem to be wanting it both ways -- GMs are critical and therefore have special consideration AND play should only happen with an absent player if the player agrees. Seems some special, and mutual, consideration is shared around there.

Play of a particular D&D campaign feels like it literally cannot happen if the GM can't be there. It feels fairly trivial to run a game with several players when one is missing. You'd probably check with that player to see how they feel about it. Whether an absent player cancels the game probably depends on a combination of their feelings about it, how often they miss games, how many other players they are, and what looks to be on tap for the session.

And we're back to you arguing the bailey position in these arguments (unintentionally). This statement is trivial. As in it's trivially necessary. There's no need to say this as a phrase because of course some amount of trust, respect, and dignity should be afforded to anyone you're willingly engaging in a social leisure activity with. And this should 100% go both ways, so making it specific to one participant is pointless.

As the topic directly included the GM seemingly being given unearned trust, it felt relevant...

Again, the odd idea that players need to suck it up and go along with this game rather than discuss it. I've already allowed that if agendas just don't match they just don't match. But that's not at all what "Trust the GM Never Trust Players" is about. I'm staying within the context of the discussion.

If the only thing you wanted to discuss was "Trust the GM Never Trust the Players", and not the other issues raised along the way or related to it, then I apologize for what has apparently been inadvertent derailing on my part!

Um, I responded to @overgeeked on the topic, and you quoted me on that, and here we are?

Yup. And I'm flabbergasted. Point to your side (if we're keeping score).

Thank you for the detailed reply.

 

[Cadence]

being chosen as the GM or having players join a game with the GM entails each player placing some measure of trust in that GM to use that authority responsibly. It's no different than a sports Ref/Coach etc stepping in to tell ThatGuy that baseball is not being played & correcting them when poor play behavior impacts other members of the team.

Only thing I'd add is that there's some causality there that feels important. They were hopefully chosen to GM in part because they had demonstrated enough trustworthiness to be asked to GM. They aren't trustworthy because they are a GM. A GM picked in part because they were trustworthy in the past could prove unworthy of that.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Hey, look. A preference. I wonder how much talking it would take to get you to run a game outside your "window of acceptability." At a guess there's no amount of talking that would get you to run a game you find abhorrent. Thanks for proving my point.

Except that there's a wide range before you get to abhorrent, so you're excluding the middle.

Me doing things differently than you or having a different skill set than you isn't "don't even try." It's telling that you think it is.

Um, that wasn't about you, it was following me saying that I might not be able to find a good outcome, but trying is important to me. If you think it's about you, maybe that's telling?

Hey, look. Another preference. Funny how you have a preference so solid that you punted a player. Let me guess, no amount of talking would get you to shift on that preference. Again, that's my point.

Again the excluded middle. You're trying to conflate any preference for all preference. Me mediating a dispute between players (as a friend, not as GM) about mind controlling other PCs so that they did what the player in question wanted isn't really expandable into your general preference claim. And I tried -- tried to find out if this person was really adamant about this or if it was a mistake that they expected play should be like this because of prior experiences. Turns out this person started with 1) it's not a big deal and when told it was a big deal for some people became angry at them and then 2) ended with it being my fault for not stopping them before they did it anyway -- that I should just say it doesn't work when they do it and it might be a problem. Some people you can't work with, I tried, we parted ways. The key here is that I actually tried to find the compromise positions -- to see if there was something I was doing that was creating this behavior or if there was a middle ground. There wasn't, the player just didn't want anyone to disagree with them on anything and felt using the game mechanics to enforce this and make them agree was justifiable and wanted to continue doing it (while saying that they would probably try to kill the PC of anyone that did it to them, but if other players aren't willing to stand up for themselves they deserve it). The other difference here is that the issue wasn't with me, particularly, although I dislike that kind of play, but really that it caused problems at the table. If it was just about me, I wouldn't have done anything. Further, I did something not because I was GM has had the say or authority but because I was well positioned to mediate. One other player could have done it as well, and I asked them if they wanted to, but they deferred due to other potential social conflicts. So, as the person that knew them both the best, I mediated because it had to be resolved or it would get worse.

This event led to the one standing house rule in my usual crew -- if you engage in PvP, the target has the say on what happens. Not rules, not the GM, the target. So, if you cast Charm Person on another PC, that PC's player says what happens, no saving throw needed. This solves ahead of time any need to mediate a similar dispute in the future.

That's a terrible assumption to make, but you do you.

Is it a terrible assumption? What, in your game, are you open to being questioned on? If you make a call, can that be questioned? If you say something happens, and I don't like it, can I question it? You argued for not trusting players, and you've tried to make any preference the same as all preferences about play above, so that a preference to not have rulings questioned would have the same weight as not wanting to run sexual encounters in detail, so, yeah, I'm not real clear on what line you're drawing here except to try to get in a rhetorical point.

Hey, look. Another preference. I wonder how much talking will get you to change your mind. At a guess, no amount will be sufficient. My point, you're proving it. Thanks, tschüss.

Again with the excluded middle. Interestingly, this is me saying that I don't really want to participate in a game where I'm told up front that I shouldn't expect any voice in how the game runs, and you're using it as defense for telling people that they shouldn't expect to have a say in how a game runs. I mean, irony, yeah?

 

[Ovinomancer]

It was a reply about vouching. You brought up lots of issues with vouching that make it not anywhere near 100% trustworthy. To me it still felt like playing with a GM others vouched for gives me more more trust/expectation/hope going in that with a GM I don't know anything about. I'm not sure how that is a goal post move from your remarks about vouching.

You seem to keep wanting me to be focused on trust the GM. It wasn't something I was arguing.

You say it is.

See apology below.


Starting a thread on advice certainly would be unsolicited homework. I thought ot viewing everything as GSABTPSNBT just seemed like it might be helpful, but see apology below.

Play of a particular D&D campaign feels like it literally cannot happen if the GM can't be there. It feels fairly trivial to run a game with several players when one is missing. You'd probably check with that player to see how they feel about it. Whether an absent player cancels the game probably depends on a combination of their feelings about it, how often they miss games, how many other players they are, and what looks to be on tap for the session.

As the topic directly included the GM seemingly being given unearned trust, it felt relevant...

If the only thing you wanted to discuss was "Trust the GM Never Trust the Players", and not the other issues raised along the way or related to it, then I apologize for what has apparently been inadvertent derailing on my part!

Yup. And I'm flabbergasted. Point to your side (if we're keeping score).

Thank you for the detailed reply.

No score. All good.

 

[Cadence]

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.

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?

Having examples of my number 3 does not take away my number 1.

Can a GM use their authority to block examples of number 3? Sure they can. But unless such a decision is justified and explainable, I imagine it's gonna cause some issues. Most of the time from what I've seen and what I expect in most games, when a player declares that they take an action that the rules state they can make, the GM follows those rules as described and doesn't override them.

Lots of agreement to that.

So if the game (or agreed upon process or house rule) allows the player to establish that their character's sister works in the mayor's office as a type of action.. an example of 3 rather than of 2.... then I don't see that as a challenge to 1.

Right. In default D&D there is no rule about players establishing NPCs during play or deciding what's on the scrolls they find in treasure. If the table made a rule letting the players do such things then it would seem just like combat.

The follow up seemed to be the necessity of such table rules for some players to be able to become invested in a game world.

 

[Campbell]

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.

I am not saying such techniques are necessary, but I believe they definitely do a better job of leading to that deep investment. The more focus you put on one area the less your overall energy gets dedicated to another.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Lots of agreement to that.


Right. In default D&D there is nor rule about players establishing NPCs during play or deciding what's on the scrolls they find in treasure. If the table made a rule letting the players do such things then it would seem just like combat.

The follow up seemed to be the necessity of such table rules for some players to be able to become invested in a game world.

Yes, I think as written, most of this stuff falls into the permission category, my number 2.

There are elements of it in the game, but as I said in my last post, some of those are still often subject to GM approval, or are a bit unclear from a process standpoint and so they still wind up needing approval or a ruling of some sort.

But I don't think that folks suggesting the game could do with some more examples of abilities that don't require approval being provided to the players, especially ones for non-combat related actions/elements, are arguing for removal of the GM having final say.