D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

[Maxperson]

For the most part I agree, but there is a gray area with GM metagaming. If the GM introduces an enemy, does that enemy know every weakness of the characters and have effective ways of exploiting them? In some cases this may be logical if the enemy has had a reason to be wary of the characters, if this was not their first encounter or perhaps the enemy has some kind of hive mind and adapt like the Borg. It can also happen sometimes simply because the enemy is immune to fire and the wizard only prepares fire based spells. If it happens too often and when there's no in-world justification for it I would consider it bad GMing and metagaming.

It's really not worth arguing over, since it amounts to semantics. For me, that would fall under DM abuse, not metagaming, but your mileage may vary.

 

[Maxperson]

Something did happen. They learned one wrong answer and they will never guess that answer again. Thus the board state updated. I assume you mean anything more than gaining a tiny bit of information would have been fine?

What they really mean by "avoid nothing happening" is really, "make sure the result is interesting to the players." For their tables and playstyle that bit of information wouldn't be enough. For other tables and styles, it would be.

 

[zakael19]

The “but it’s what my character would do!” defense is offered up almost universally as a “stop judging / being angry at me folks” for behavior that makes the experience crappy or goes against what the rest of the party had decided / wants to do in an obnoxious way.

If you’re simply acting according to your character’s drives and beliefs and it’s accepted by the table you Dont have to offer a defense.

Edit: instead, like in many of my games you get highlighted by others for playing your character to the hilt in a provocative or thoughtful way that enriches the entire experience.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It doesn't stop even at just PvP though; if done at the wrong time, it can effectively destroy the ability of the party to do anything but go on the run. Or even just toss them into an unwillable and difficult to extract from fight. Or both.

True, but those things are part of the Living World I like to see in games I play too.

 

[Maxperson]

How claims games are any? My impression is that forge indicate play can be Sim, Gam or Nar, and different games can to worrying degree support this kind of play.

This doesn't make any sense ref my comment above. Or are you by game meaning play? If indeed this is the case I would say that we either are looking at a lot of poorly functioning games, or that the model is truly completely a failure. I guess your interpretation is the latter. I however wonder how you can get these numbers given I wasn't aware of any way we could (easily) determine agenda by observation except in extreme cases.

The way I see it, there's no such thing as a game that's 100% simulationist, narrativist or gamist. All RPGs have elements of all three. Even the most narrativist RPG is going to have some rules, which will allow someone to game the system to some degree, and will have things like falling damage, which is a simulation of falling and gravity.

Whether the game is considered simulationist over say narrativist is the primary objective of the rules(the highest percentage of the three).

I thought the definition of coherent play was aligned creative agenda? You can have well functioning incoherent games (as long as the participants are not pushing their agenda to hard). But I wonder what definition of "coherent simulationistic play" you might have?

For me, if game play overall matches the highest percentage(intent of the game), then we have coherence. So in @pemerton's example, even though his friend/co-player worked to set things up to advance his PC faster(gamist behavior), that person still most likely also followed the main intent of the game as well. That game would have been coherent despite the gamist behavior.

Or is your point simply that a player can make some narrative actions without fully breaking the coherence, as long as they mostly play according to the shared agenda? This I would find completely uncontroversial. GNS is a model, and all models represents a simplification of the real system. It is generally understood that as long as the big picture matches, the model categories should be relevant (assuming it is a good model)

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Fair enough. Your posting history indicates to me that you are very concerned about GM authority being abused, to a degree that the role feels to me vilified in your comments, or at best a necessary evil.

No, I don't think that. I just really, really don't like a lot of the messaging that surrounds the "traditional GM" position. It takes great pains at every turn to emphasize just how absolute, just how unquestionable, just how hegemonic and complete the power of the GM is. At seemingly every turn, from where I sit, it seems presumed that player behavior is or will be bad unless harsh punishment is levied at the slightest missteps. At seemingly every turn, from where I sit, it seems presumed that players are actively hostile and need to be shut down, need to be put in their place, need to be reminded that they agreed to surrender all control to the GM, unless they drop the nuclear option. (And that option is always presented as being something trivially easy to do, easier than breathing, effortless and consequence-free, when I have personal experience that no, often it is not any of those things, and doing so can in fact harm your relationships with others and lead to ongoing hurt feelings.)

I think that GMs need to earn trust--something I was repeatedly told in this thread is untrue, which thus means that GMs simply deserve trust, indefinitely and without exception, unless they do something so horrifically egregious that you can just write them off as The Worst Person Ever. I think that GMs need to do work to maintain trust--again, something I was told isn't true, and yet in my experience that is true of genuinely 100% of all human relationships.

I don't think GMs are a necessary evil. I do, however, think that GMs loudly and frequently reminding others of how absolute their power is, have I mentioned how absolute my power is today, did you remember that everything you do is subject to my veto, hope you remembered that for any reason or no reason at all* I could decide everything you do simply fails (etc., etc.) is...well, it comes across really, really, really badly! Doubly so given several of the responses I've gotten over time to both real and hypothetical examples. The "you just HAVE to trust me" answer is just...it isn't adequate if I'm concerned about something, and giving that answer and nothing else worsens my concerns, not helping them, because it communicates that my concerns don't really matter to the GM. I don't think it's unreasonable to say that brushing off what seem like valid concerns with a blithe response, a pretty overtly stonewalling response, would worsen those concerns, particularly when the GM in question is actively proclaiming the absoluteness of their power. Likewise, dismissing any discussion whatsoever about the ways GMs should build and maintain trust with either "they don't need to do either of those things, you owe them your trust inherently" or "well if you can't trust people you have bigger problems", as though it's somehow a character flaw in me to ever, for any reason, feel even the slightest concern about anything any GM ever does.

*Yes, I have been specifically told, in no uncertain terms, that the GM does not need a reason. They can just do something because they feel like it.

Since making a world for the players to explore through their characters, whose players trust me to provide a fun experience (and who know I listen to their concerns when they have them), this attitude is troubling for me, especially as your candor can IMO sound rather charged (not that mine never does, of course).

I do try to speak candidly, yes, so I'm glad that that at least has come across.

But, if I may? This comes across to me as presuming in the opposite direction from what you had asked me earlier. It presumes that every GM only ever has that goal, never does anything that would ever be counter to that goal, and never has other, incidental acts that would be anything else. Many, many of the things said in this thread did not come across as a GM who would "listen to [player] concerns when they have them", and that very thing is troubling to me.

Hence the assumption on my part. Since you are saying I have misrepresented you in this, I apologize. Do you not then feel that GMs need to be strictly controlled to prevent abuse in a way that players don't or can't?

No.

But I do think it is good, and useful, for there to be some rules that GMs should abide by, just as I think it is good, and useful, for there to be rules that players must abide by.

I think it's good to have some rules--again, I emphasize some rules, as in, not a lot, but not none either--because I truly believe there are some things GMs simply shouldn't do, even if they think it would be wise to do it. Now, I recognize that the set of things I think GMs simply shouldn't do won't be the same as a given other person's set. But--to use an example from upthread--I do think GMs should honor rolls that players make, even if they don't like the results of those rolls. Now, there are ways to address this that avoid not honoring rolls made, but those follow their own rules (e.g., as I've said in other threads, the players need to have at least in principle a reasonably good chance to learn how/why something like that has happened). Having some clear, known rules the GM needs to follow isn't just (or even really at all?) about shielding against some horrible malicious butthole, but about having both carrots and sticks that encourage GMs to move in the direction of better GMing and away from worse GMing--good, well-made rules help poor GMs become better GMs.

Further, though, beyond being simply a thing that I think is good game design, I think it is in fact actually useful as a design element to have rules that the GM genuinely has to abide by and cannot flaunt whenever and however they like. Specifically, that's what consistency is, in mechanical terms. Rules that don't suddenly change, that don't get spontaneous exceptions whenever a particular participant feels like it. Making meaningful choices in a gameplay environment depends on having a genuine (even if imperfect) understanding of the value of what might happen based on one's choices. Rules that can be broken for whatever reason (or, as noted, no reason at all) severely harm the ability to make meaningful choices. As a player, having some things you can reliably know work in ways X/Y/Z is almost incalculably helpful for making decisions--both because it helps you make good ones, and because it helps you learn from decisions good and bad. When the invisible undercarriage of the gaming experience is constantly at risk of being reconstructed without the player knowing, or even having the potential to know, they can't really learn from the choices they make, good or bad.

Furthermore: the way I see it, players are already hemmed in by an enormous set of rules. Like...almost all of them? And it's very literally one of the GM's jobs to make sure that the players are following those rules, pointing out mistakes, and (for actually bad players) calling out misbehavior. So, your framing, which presents players as functionally completely unlimited and unbound, while presenting the GM as though they're not even able to twitch a muscle without drawing the wrath of heaven, is simply incorrect. The players are already heavily bound. I'm just asking for a few, relatively basic, limits or restrictions that support the best GMing and push away from poor GMing. That then gets blown way out of proportion into "OH SO YOU WANT EVERY GM JAILED FOREVER?!?!?!" or whatever other infuriating nonsense.

 

[Micah Sweet]

No, I don't think that. I just really, really don't like a lot of the messaging that surrounds the "traditional GM" position. It takes great pains at every turn to emphasize just how absolute, just how unquestionable, just how hegemonic and complete the power of the GM is. At seemingly every turn, from where I sit, it seems presumed that player behavior is or will be bad unless harsh punishment is levied at the slightest missteps. At seemingly every turn, from where I sit, it seems presumed that players are actively hostile and need to be shut down, need to be put in their place, need to be reminded that they agreed to surrender all control to the GM, unless they drop the nuclear option. (And that option is always presented as being something trivially easy to do, easier than breathing, effortless and consequence-free, when I have personal experience that no, often it is not any of those things, and doing so can in fact harm your relationships with others and lead to ongoing hurt feelings.)

I think that GMs need to earn trust--something I was repeatedly told in this thread is untrue, which thus means that GMs simply deserve trust, indefinitely and without exception, unless they do something so horrifically egregious that you can just write them off as The Worst Person Ever. I think that GMs need to do work to maintain trust--again, something I was told isn't true, and yet in my experience that is true of genuinely 100% of all human relationships.

I don't think GMs are a necessary evil. I do, however, think that GMs loudly and frequently reminding others of how absolute their power is, have I mentioned how absolute my power is today, did you remember that everything you do is subject to my veto, hope you remembered that for any reason or no reason at all* I could decide everything you do simply fails (etc., etc.) is...well, it comes across really, really, really badly! Doubly so given several of the responses I've gotten over time to both real and hypothetical examples. The "you just HAVE to trust me" answer is just...it isn't adequate if I'm concerned about something, and giving that answer and nothing else worsens my concerns, not helping them, because it communicates that my concerns don't really matter to the GM. I don't think it's unreasonable to say that brushing off what seem like valid concerns with a blithe response, a pretty overtly stonewalling response, would worsen those concerns, particularly when the GM in question is actively proclaiming the absoluteness of their power. Likewise, dismissing any discussion whatsoever about the ways GMs should build and maintain trust with either "they don't need to do either of those things, you owe them your trust inherently" or "well if you can't trust people you have bigger problems", as though it's somehow a character flaw in me to ever, for any reason, feel even the slightest concern about anything any GM ever does.

*Yes, I have been specifically told, in no uncertain terms, that the GM does not need a reason. They can just do something because they feel like it.


I do try to speak candidly, yes, so I'm glad that that at least has come across.

But, if I may? This comes across to me as presuming in the opposite direction from what you had asked me earlier. It presumes that every GM only ever has that goal, never does anything that would ever be counter to that goal, and never has other, incidental acts that would be anything else. Many, many of the things said in this thread did not come across as a GM who would "listen to [player] concerns when they have them", and that very thing is troubling to me.


No.

But I do think it is good, and useful, for there to be some rules that GMs should abide by, just as I think it is good, and useful, for there to be rules that players must abide by.

I think it's good to have some rules--again, I emphasize some rules, as in, not a lot, but not none either--because I truly believe there are some things GMs simply shouldn't do, even if they think it would be wise to do it. Now, I recognize that the set of things I think GMs simply shouldn't do won't be the same as a given other person's set. But--to use an example from upthread--I do think GMs should honor rolls that players make, even if they don't like the results of those rolls. Now, there are ways to address this that avoid not honoring rolls made, but those follow their own rules (e.g., as I've said in other threads, the players need to have at least in principle a reasonably good chance to learn how/why something like that has happened). Having some clear, known rules the GM needs to follow isn't just (or even really at all?) about shielding against some horrible malicious butthole, but about having both carrots and sticks that encourage GMs to move in the direction of better GMing and away from worse GMing--good, well-made rules help poor GMs become better GMs.

Further, though, beyond being simply a thing that I think is good game design, I think it is in fact actually useful as a design element to have rules that the GM genuinely has to abide by and cannot flaunt whenever and however they like. Specifically, that's what consistency is, in mechanical terms. Rules that don't suddenly change, that don't get spontaneous exceptions whenever a particular participant feels like it. Making meaningful choices in a gameplay environment depends on having a genuine (even if imperfect) understanding of the value of what might happen based on one's choices. Rules that can be broken for whatever reason (or, as noted, no reason at all) severely harm the ability to make meaningful choices. As a player, having some things you can reliably know work in ways X/Y/Z is almost incalculably helpful for making decisions--both because it helps you make good ones, and because it helps you learn from decisions good and bad. When the invisible undercarriage of the gaming experience is constantly at risk of being reconstructed without the player knowing, or even having the potential to know, they can't really learn from the choices they make, good or bad.

Furthermore: the way I see it, players are already hemmed in by an enormous set of rules. Like...almost all of them? And it's very literally one of the GM's jobs to make sure that the players are following those rules, pointing out mistakes, and (for actually bad players) calling out misbehavior. So, your framing, which presents players as functionally completely unlimited and unbound, while presenting the GM as though they're not even able to twitch a muscle without drawing the wrath of heaven, is simply incorrect. The players are already heavily bound. I'm just asking for a few, relatively basic, limits or restrictions that support the best GMing and push away from poor GMing. That then gets blown way out of proportion into "OH SO YOU WANT EVERY GM JAILED FOREVER?!?!?!" or whatever other infuriating nonsense.

Well, I hope you get what you want, in your own games. I'm pretty happy with what I'm doing now, but if I see something someone's doing that I want to incorporate into my play, I'll let you know. It's happened before, so you never know.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

My whole point was that it’s not just that one single word…

If I start describing my preference as wanting ic-authentic play and your play as not providing the ic-authentic play I’m looking for, the reaction I’m going to get is someone really worked up and emotional. In fact the reaction in that instance will probably make this one around metagaming look more like neutrality.



I don’t see how this isn’t ic-authentic. But now we are arguing about what ic-authentic entails JUST LIKE we were arguing about what metagaming entailed.

I don't see discussing what a term means being the same as throwing around a term that is extremely heavily charged, which essentially always going to get a huge and negative emotional response whenever it is thrown around as an accusation.

And that's the problem with the above--throwing it around as an accusation, rather than focusing on describing what things one is pursuing oneself. Turns out, accusing people of stuff doesn't tend to get received very well. This isn't really a revelation.

IMO Choosing what character to play is always a metagame decision.

Okay but now that means some "metagame decisions" are not just useful, they're absolutely necessary to even play.

I’m not sure how bad faith impacts ic-authenticity? Maybe you can elaborate.

I mean, it should negatively affect all sorts of things.

But, in this case, someone engaging in bad faith could articulate a particular character--such as a "nutty professor"-style bumbling wizard--but then never actually put any effort into that character and instead just play as themselves. They are rejecting the very idea of IC-authenticity by not even bothering to be authentic to the character. Alternatively, someone could be playing a haughty noble, but then never bother putting any effort into being a haughty noble because they just can't be arsed, despite knowing that playing one's character authentically is, formally, an important element of play in a given game.

Or, someone could create a character who has roleplay limitations on something, and then just...ignore those limitations and not care. That was a pretty big problem with PrCs, for example, where the designers would write in roleplay-specific limitations, and then players would just...ignore them while actually doing the roleplay of their character, much to many GMs' chagrin.

Or consider someone who had their character's personality change on a dime, not for any rhyme or reason, but just because they felt like it. "You can't tell me what to do! I know what my character's thinking and feeling and you don't!" But it's pretty clear that the player is simply following whatever mood struck them this session, and they'll follow a different move next session or the session after, producing a character that seems like seven totally different people in the course of three months, because they aren't engaging in good faith with the idea of "an important part of this game is authentically portraying who your character is". Real people don't behave that way. It isn't metagame behavior...it's just literally the player refusing to be consistent in their portrayal and not caring that that's what they're doing.

Yes. If you filter out such characters from the game, then everyone can play their character with IC-authenticity without all that bad stuff.


The notion that every conceivable character must be playable is the wrong notion here, not the ic-authenticity of the actual characters allowed.

But now it's not just IC-authenticity, is it? It's IC-authenticity and "are you playing valid characters?" So just as much as you are accusing me of now attacking your IC-authenticity standard, you are already expanding the standard so that it's more than what you said in the first place anyway!

Something we would not--indeed, could not--have seen if you hadn't expanded beyond the word "metagaming". Which is again why I think that specific word is such a problem, it obfuscates more than it communicates. It's not weird to need to talk out what one means by any given term--but a word where everyone "knows" what the word means and very few AGREE on what it means? That's just not helpful.

 

[Maxperson]

yes, i suppose you could just ignore the history of the term and take it on pure face value.

I never knew there was a history to the term. We almost always used it literally in all of my groups. Very rarely it was used to justify some major disruption, but generally the rare problem players who would do something like that are found out by little things and and up out of the group.

 

[Faolyn]

As long as there is something else you can do then why not?

If you're doing a puzzle and you failed you have learned something. You've learned that what you just tried isn't the answer.

Which is why we have parties spending hours or entire sessions, real time, trying to figure out "simple" puzzles.