D&D General On Grognardism...

[The-Magic-Sword]

Compromise is more readily (in games) brought about by differences rather than conflict, though in some cases they could be viewed as the same. The Classic style, which I myself refer to it as, results from informed need, and the latter will differ greatly depending on DM or player inquiry. That the system is open to change does not predispose it to a chaotic wish fest. It assumes reasoned design principals in its inquiry and execution phases.

Which might be part of my issue with it

"It assumes reasoned design principals in its inquiry and execution phases" is hardly an effortless standard for a GM to live up to when modifying their game to suit their needs.

I enjoy the tinkering and game design of it (it fulfills a longtime desire of mine to engage with game design) but I suspect it does less to support me in that goal than other frameworks-- even those originally designed with the open stance Gary espoused, I have an abiding admiration for the old systems he espoused it in, because they give the GM so much support for their tinkering, even while encouraging them to change it as they please.

I can pop open ADND, and much of his other works and get a nicely comprehensive ruleset ready to help me adjudicate, 5e doesn't provide that framework.

 

[Rob Kuntz]

In practice, this means going back to that 'default' in every game because 'reasonable adults' usually adjust for the four to twenty other people who might be a part of their game, or regularly leaving playgroups/players to try and find one that doesn't take issue with the game you want to run, except that takes even longer because its emotional labor to figure out exactly where the differences lay and what will and won't be ok, and who is responsible for giving or leaving when you reach an impasse can be draining in and of itself.

Well, that or engaging in some exhausting gamesmanship to leverage the paucity of GMs into tolerance of a compromise in which you get some of what you want out of the negotiation, which seems to be the popular method.

This is all IN ADDITION, to the very important work of setting boundaries to make sure everyone is emotionally and psychological secure in the game thematically, scheduling, prepping actual game content, curating a homebrew collection, managing spotlight and personalities during the session, and so forth.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Pretty much all of this, just kind of went away when we switched to Pathfinder 2e, because it provided a common framework that requires way less negotiation and litigation for everyone to be satisfied with. Its not the presence of conflict that bothers me, its the amount-- we still quibble over what things should be what rarity, whether anathema is going to mean anything, and whether to use the baked in alignment system, what character personalities can mesh with the group. But, its pulling so much more of the weight for me by making these decisions in a curated way, giving my players the toys they want to use, giving me systems that I don't have to negotiate to add because they're already there, and not asking me to balance it.

You don't need a set of rules to have DM Agency. This is where latter editions of the rules fail to note, in deference to a minority view that all DMs "might not be fair," that a DM has final agency; and where they misstep in that the players can exit the game, en masse, to show their disapproval. Negating DM agency creates a slew of problems just as you've noted. And do note that during the playtests of D&D and all of our play with 30+ players we never had a problem with DM agency because it is baked into the rules that the DM is an impartial and fair game master, just like judges in sporting events, chess tournaments, in directed play of children, etc.

 

[Rob Kuntz]

"It assumes reasoned design principals in its inquiry and execution phases" is hardly an effortless standard for a GM to live up to when modifying their game to help it live up to their own minimum standards.

The feature of design is also baked into the OD&D set and AD&D to a certain extent, so to steal @Democratus ' quote,"This is a feature and not a bug."

 

[Lanefan]

Yeah, although to my understanding, this kind of open stance engenders a lot of conflict, because the table becomes a discursive space in which game design has to be litigated and negotiated between the players and GM. Maybe different gaming space have different cultures, but my players tend to view restriction from the GM as transgression, and my own stance is somewhat in the vein, albeit from a GM's point of view-- that restriction should be something of a last resort, and somewhat softer from reading a greater diversity of opinions on the subject. This makes the 'openness' of the ruleset, a tacit invitation to a social pressure which can be burdensome.

Back in the day I remember sitting around with the DM and other players during the week over tea or beer hashing out rules ideas, because such discussions were largely banned during the actual play sessions.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

You don't need a set of rules to have DM Agency. This is where latter editions of the rules fail to note, in deference to a minority view that all DMs "might not be fair," that a DM has final agency; and where they misstep in that the players can exit the game, en masse, to show their disapproval. Negating DM agency creates a slew of problems just as you've noted. And do note that during the playtests of D&D and all of our play with 30+ players we never had a problem with DM agency because it is baked into the rules that the DM is an impartial and fair game master, just like judges in sporting events, chess tournaments, in directed play of children, etc.

Yeah, and I try to cultivate that final agency at my table (while still being more than happy to discuss and compromise and such) but its hard to maintain, since many players see it as a cop out and would rather apply social pressure than enforce their boundary by leaving, which is often messier.

There's entire debates in GM advice communities about whether the GM is entitled to see themselves as anything more than another player with 1/6th of a 'vote.'

I myself have players that see quitting to express disapproval as an unreasonable expectation because GMs are hard to find, which leads to awkward moments when I ask them if they believe themselves entitled to me running for them, which tends to lead to ideals about the democratization of the table and how using my DM agency to go against their wishes is an intrinsic abuse of it.

This isnt a matter of RAW either, these are the people I hack and test elaborate rule systems with. They're open to it when my hacks give them more to play with, but closed to it when they might remove or restrict, or even replace material.

Maybe its me being more sensitive to their disapproval than i should be...

 

[Rob Kuntz]

Yeah, and I try to cultivate that final agency at my table (while still being more than happy to discuss and compromise and such) but its hard to maintain, since many players see it as a cop out and would rather apply social pressure than enforce their boundary by leaving, which is often messier.

There's entire debates in GM advice communities about whether the GM is entitled to see themselves as anything more than another player with 1/6th of a 'vote.'

I myself have players that see quitting to express disapproval as an unreasonable expectation because GMs are hard to find, which leads to awkward moments when I ask them if they believe themselves entitled to me running for them, which tends to lead to ideals about the democratization of the table and how using my DM agency to go against their wishes is an intrinsic abuse of it.

This isnt a matter of RAW either, these are the people I hack and test elaborate rule systems with. They're open to it when my hacks give them more to play with, but closed to it when they might remove or restrict, or even replace material.

Maybe its me being more sensitive to their disapproval than i should be...

Well, if you're in an abusive relationship what does one normally do? Get out (unless one is co-dependent). As for the DM as administrator, or worse, as only a cog in WotC's machine of fun production, that has been the prob since 3E. I suppose the solution will be found at each singular table. "The system mode (input) always establishes the expression (output)"--RJK, 2012. "If you cannot change a rule then it is not a rule but an incontrovertible law."--RJK, 2012.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

Well, if you're in an abusive relationship what does one normally do? Get out (unless one is co-dependent). As for the DM as administrator, or worse, as only a cog in WotC's machine of fun production, that has been the prob since 3E. I suppose the solution will be found at each singular table. "The system mode (input) always establishes the expression (output)"--RJK, 2012. "If you cannot change a rule then it is not a rule but an incontrovertible law."--RJK, 2012.

Heh, I wouldn't go quite that far, I can usually make it work if push comes to shove, past traumas have just made me more vulnerable to dissaproval. If someone is upset with me, it just destroys my peace of mind, so im tempted to cave-- but they dont even have to actually do anything to trigger that, which makes it a little different.

Thanks for the advice though, I need to try being a player in a properly old school table, I feel like it might help me figure out some elements of my style I'm missing.

 

[Rob Kuntz]

Heh, I wouldn't go quite that far, I can usually make it work if push comes to shove, past traumas have just made me more vulnerable to dissaproval. If someone is upset with me, it just destroys my peace of mind, so im tempted to cave-- but they dont even have to actually do anything to trigger that, which makes it a little different.

Thanks for the advice though, I need to try being a player in a properly old school table, I feel like it might help me figure out some elements of my style I'm missing.

For the last I cannot say. Only you know you and your players. I'm just working from a general knowledge pool with others and from my own specific experiences. Maybe BitD people were less selfish? I dunno. All I know is that it's way too complicated for something that should be as easy as saying, "Hey. Let's play a game!" Shrug. Good luck and as an old player of mine would have said, "Keep on going!"

 

[S'mon]

I myself have players that see quitting to express disapproval as an unreasonable expectation because GMs are hard to find, which leads to awkward moments when I ask them if they believe themselves entitled to me running for them, which tends to lead to ideals about the democratization of the table and how using my DM agency to go against their wishes is an intrinsic abuse of it.

I have to say, that's a new one on me. Not in a good way. These don't sound like fun people to be around.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I agree, the OSR can be quite inclusive - there are lots of diverse creators within it. You can still be progressive socially and old-school mechanically. But there are some that try to use the OSR as a refuge from the modern inclusion efforts that scare them.

While I see your point about some of the reactionary responses to more progressive views embodied in modern games, including those in the D&D sphere, I think some of that was always there. I'm not talking here about people that think some value was lost with the tendency to move on stylistically and mechanically, but the people who clearly outright resent it, and think the people doing so are stupid and/or malign. Its probably not a surprise that people with those kinds of retrograde attitudes may well have others that are similarly retrograde, and are similarly resentful of modernity in other areas.