D&D General On Grognardism...

[Thomas Shey]

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 all.

This is very similar to the reason I've never been able to get onto the "rulings not rules" school of game operation thought. Everyone needs to decide on the occasional border case or out-of-context issue, but accepting that does not mean you need to accept its a virtue to constantly make judgment calls without framework because a game is so schematic it gives you almost nothing to work with.

 

[Thomas Shey]

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...

I think there's some middle ground on this. In most games a GM is providing much more of the work of the game than individual players (note the "most" anyone who wants to jump in on this) so I think its not unreasonable for him to expect a bit consideration in choices than individual players.

But I also think when a significant number of his players start having issues with a decision, it strongly behooves him to step back and ask why. There's absolutely a power imbalance in the top-down approach most traditional games have toward GM power, and the fact most people are unsuited to or uninterested in GMing tends to make that worse, not better. The fact many players have had to, at some point in their GMing careers, deal with a GM who cares little at best about what his players think does not improve this dynamic at all.

 

[Alzrius]

There's absolutely a power imbalance in the top-down approach most traditional games have toward GM power, and the fact most people are unsuited to or uninterested in GMing tends to make that worse, not better. The fact many players have had to, at some point in their GMing careers, deal with a GM who cares little at best about what his players think does not improve this dynamic at all.

I'm suddenly reminded of a quote from Brandes Stoddard, in the first part of his History of the Classes column for the rogue:

[...] player narration and DM fiat fall apart whenever there’s anything less than an incredibly high level of trust for the DM. The general trend of D&D’s design up through the end of 4e is to erase dependence on player-DM trust as much as possible, not to create antagonism, but to insulate both sides from it when it appears.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Its one of those things that, in the best possible worlds, isn't much of an issue: the GM pays attention to his players needs and desires and respects their views, and the players trust both the GM's motives and judgment and restrain their more self-centered and big-picture-blind tendencies.

Few people live in that sort of Platonic ideal of a gaming group. All it takes is a couple players who trust the GM's intentions but not always his judgment and have a bit of tunnel vision, and a GM who thinks he knows what his players will really enjoy and isn't too sensitive to signals, and there's a problem. And the fact there's such a long history of expectations that Challenging the GM is Bad just makes the whole situation so much worse.

 

[tetrasodium]

But I also think when a significant number of his players start having issues with a decision, it strongly behooves him to step back and ask why. There's absolutely a power imbalance in the top-down approach most traditional games have toward GM power, and the fact most people are unsuited to or uninterested in GMing tends to make that worse, not better. The fact many players have had to, at some point in their GMing careers, deal with a GM who cares little at best about what his players think does not improve this dynamic at all.

There are also this new type players that seem pretty recent in ttrpgs with 5e. @Rob Kuntz mentioned the "some GMs might not be fair" being twisted to assume most GMs by some of the more recent versions of d&d earlier... between that and AL it's not exactly shocking that this attitude would be imparted into players given how high 5e sets the bar in favor of player (survival/power/trivilize & ignored hurdles/etc )in so many ways if the GM feels the need to adjust anything. from the wording of @The-Magic-Sword 's post I think it's unlikely that he's doing anything worthy of suspicion casting doubt on him as the first impulse.

 

[Thomas Shey]

There are also this new type players that seem pretty recent in ttrpgs with 5e. @Rob Kuntz mentioned the "some GMs might not be fair" being twisted to assume most GMs by some of the more recent versions of d&d earlier... between that and AL it's not exactly shocking that this attitude would be imparted into players given how high 5e sets the bar in favor of player (survival/power/trivilize & ignored hurdles/etc )in so many ways if the GM feels the need to adjust anything. from the wording of @The-Magic-Sword 's post I think it's unlikely that he's doing anything worthy of suspicion casting doubt on him as the first impulse.

There have been rulebook fundamentalists since the start of the hobby; hell, at one point Gygax became one (arguably for self-interested reasons).

As to suspicion being cast as the first impulse--it may have nothing to do with TheMagicSword. Many, many players have what my wife calls "scar tissue" from dealing with GMs who are either arrogant, or have rather--strange--ideas of what their players will find fun. It doesn't take long with one or more of those for people to carry a complex around, sometimes for a long time.

 

[prabe]

As to suspicion being cast as the first impulse--it may have nothing to do with TheMagicSword. Many, many players have what my wife calls "scar tissue" from dealing with GMs who are either arrogant, or have rather--strange--ideas of what their players will find fun. It doesn't take long with one or more of those for people to carry a complex around, sometimes for a long time.

Sometimes for a lifetime.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

Yeah I didn't get the sense anyone was accusing me of anything, I have some players with 'scar tissue' from earlier GMs who didn't really handle character death well, or handled their power gaming tendencies badly. The player I mentioned about it being unreasonable to find another GM started playing with me, and is just a very stubborn person, in the same way some arguments on here can get kind of spicy but it isn't really personal? Where like everyone just feels super strongly about the cause they're championing?

Its more like that, especially since it only comes up in noodly conversations about either homebrew mechanics or game philosophy. He does accept everything at the table or once I'm really set on it.

We agree about most things actually, in terms of what makes for a good game, he's just super antsy about restrictions (and in fairness, I strongly hew towards an almost entirely unrestricted play experience myself, in terms of character options.) So for instance, he has strong feelings against anathema (read: alignment stuff, specific restrictions like druids not wearing metal armor) and wants to be able to take for granted its gone, I'm kind of ok with them so long as they aren't burdensome, and I can make sense of them in the context of my world.

My policy with DM trust is actually that I consider it one of my boundaries for running a game, I totally understand that it maybe shouldn't be automatic, but I'm not willing to run a game without receiving it. So its kind of up to the individual players if they're willing to play with me.

 

[Rob Kuntz]

There are also this new type players that seem pretty recent in ttrpgs with 5e. @Rob Kuntz mentioned the "some GMs might not be fair" being twisted to assume most GMs by some of the more recent versions of d&d earlier... between that and AL it's not exactly shocking that this attitude would be imparted into players given how high 5e sets the bar in favor of player (survival/power/trivilize & ignored hurdles/etc )in so many ways if the GM feels the need to adjust anything. from the wording of @The-Magic-Sword 's post I think it's unlikely that he's doing anything worthy of suspicion casting doubt on him as the first impulse.

Heh. "By the book, for the book and nothing but the book! So help me.... WotC." I will not post my "Three Stooges Paradox" I had distilled from past to present DMing, through the editions, here. That said I have stated and staked my position clearly and will add only this. Having followed the first link was but a reminder, nothing new. I've watched since the beginning and very closely so there was no surprise. What is forsaken by Player-Only agency is a worn topic at this point. It's been condensed to entertainment only, i.e., only having fun; and everyone is a winner of "fun". Fun has been defined as an irrefutable output by winning, not by playing or by any other measures that may, even incrementally, lead to mastery of anything sub to the point of winning. So if the system is devised up front to ensure winning occurs in each and every case, there cannot be (in the design philosophy so engineered/applied) interpreted DM agency of the finite system. The latter DM agency morphs into administrative roles in ensuring that the engaged system is working to its proper output from the designed-in inputs.

OD&D/AD&D are what they are due to overall system-capable elasticity.

The latter editions are what they are for the opposite reason. They are the finalized median view of the market. The market is about quickest throughput in all cases, from A to B to C. Elasticity is its polar opposite as that creates uncertainty in output. Is this a cynical view by WotC? No. It is a straight up market view and no one should be surprised by it in the least.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

Heh. "By the book, for the book and nothing but the book! So help me.... WotC." I will not post my "Three Stooges Paradox" I had distilled from past to present DMing, through the editions, here. That said I have stated and staked my position clearly and will add only this. Having followed the first link was but a reminder, nothing new. I've watched since the beginning and very closely so there was no surprise. What is forsaken by Player-Only agency is a worn topic at this point. It's been condensed to entertainment only, i.e., only having fun; and everyone is a winner of "fun". Fun has been defined as an irrefutable output by winning, not by playing or by any other measures that may, even incrementally, lead to mastery of anything sub to the point of winning. So if the system is devised up front to ensure winning occurs in each and every case, there cannot be (in the design philosophy so engineered/applied) interpreted DM agency of the finite system. The latter DM agency morphs into administrative roles in ensuring that the engaged system is working to its proper output from the designed-in inputs.

OD&D/AD&D are what they are due to overall system-capable elasticity.

The latter editions are what they are for the opposite reason. They are the finalized median view of the market. The market is about quickest throughput in all cases, from A to B to C. Elasticity is its polar opposite as that creates uncertainty in output. Is this a cynical view by WotC? No. It is a straight up market view and no one should be surprised by it in the least.

This isn't an argument by any means, but more a contrast: my preference, as a GM raised on 4e of all systems (sort of considered a high watermark for the player empowerment centric play) is for a relatively RAW experience, but modified by very intentional house rules (as opposed to on the spot rulings) that functionally create a variant game that adheres religiously to its own internal RAW. Those systems can be elaborate, but I strongly desire that they be consistent and upfront so the players can plan around them.

Currently, I have a rules variant my players enjoy where Hero Points (an inspiration like mechanic that allows you occasional re-rolls, and awarded for things that might not be smart tactically but fit the fantasy) are given out via charisma at a rate of 1 + Half-Charisma-Modifier-Rounded-Down-- as GM I don't like arbitrarily giving them out, and its my mechanic for re-balancing the Charisma stat and making it useful (and therefore desirable) for all characters.

My game is also a 'variation' because it intentionally ignores the guidance the game we play has, that higher level characters can usually find magic items that surpass settlement level by leveraging their influence. I observed that mechanic to devalue crafting as written, and removed it to let the crafting system shine more.

Finally, I have an elaborate rules document in the works to support a West Marches style of play with the game-- defining treasure bundles to give guidance as to how to create treasure hoards that respect the spirit of WBL without actually adhering to it (ensuring that the extra wealth isn't an order of magnitude above), touching up the chase subsystem so they can be used on the spot to adjudicate escapes from higher level creatures likely to crush the party, as a consistent mechanic; Implementing reputation for a protectionist approach to ports where establishing a right to do business via permits is necessary to use it as a starting or ending location for voyages or to accomplish downtime activities there. Establishing a system through which treasure is used to purchase level ups directly (training, in the fiction.)

The game actually gives me guidance for most of these things-- the 'treasure bundles' are actually from a table in the GM book that is meant to allow the GM to award treasure on a per encounter basis, using the increments as differently sized chests of treasure appropriate to the level of the adventure, then allowing GMs (including myself and a few other friends) to use those bundles to construct treasure hoards of whatever size. The chase subsystem is present and based on a very hackable 'victory point mechanic' thats actually meant for the GM to develop their own subsystems based on it, so I'll just be adjusting it. Reputation is another victory point system, I know vaguely how many total hero points the party is meant to have through the advice given in the book for distributing them. Downtime is a core system and very well defined, so I just need to worry about how to track time and 'give out' Downtime (I'm thinking per session, since treasure is not a guarantee by design, it'll make a consolation prize.) The game has very basic rules for hexcrawling we'll probably flesh out a little more.

Even the way leads are going to have designated levels, balanced around 4 players of that level, and then stocked with treasure accordingly-- then intentionally allowing players to decide who they bring regardless of level, and allowing them to bring more than 4, without increasing the difficulty of treasure to encourage a risk/reward tradeoff where confronting higher level challenges is very rewarding, as is using a smaller group (since everyone's cuts are liable to be smaller) but might be more than the party can handle, is something that I can do because of how good the encounter guidelines are and how they account so well for number of PCs and level.

Whats lovely about that, relative to 5e, is that the game (Pathfinder 2e) gives me all this guidance that I can use to understand the 'design principles' of the game, and base my own variations off of. I'm reminded of opening ADND and reading Gary's advice for how to keep track of time in groups of players that don't all play together at once (which is something I did explicitly looking for thoughts on time tracking in this game, and informed my solution, despite it not being much like his.) There were all of these rules to adjudicate different things, and even if you didn't use them all (or at all) you could read it and use it to understand the game's underlying principles. Which is my biggest point of frustration with 5e, relative to Pathfinder 2e, or even ADND (which, I was born in 94, it predates me quite a bit.) I did the same thing with 5e (in terms of west marches stuff), and it was so much more frustrating to find any 'reasoned design principles' to anchor that too, and the work was so much more daunting.

TLDR: The takeaway, is that the 'player empowerment' style doesn't necessarily preclude GM agency, it just shfits it to a role of adding things rather than removing them, and to a 'houserules, not rulings' approach that rewards 'GM-as-designer.'