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

[Enrahim]

Whereas I see the extremely simple and obvious fix of "there are rules we agree to abide by" plus "if we choose not to abide by them, we make that clear and talk it out openly" (which is, itself, another rule we agree to abide by, explicitly).

Interesting that the suggested fix for the thing that can break, but I have never actually observed breaking (The unwritten agreement about what the game should be about with corresponding expectations to behavior) is something I have experienced breaking numerous times over the years.

Ever had a rules disagreement that was so deep and fundamental you had to simply stop the board game and do something else? I have. And as late as today I was in an argument about how to handle a tricky situation where we seemingly had to change the rules of a campaign board game, that got so bad I found myself making an ultimatum on pain of leaving the campaign. After cooling down a bit we managed to find an amicable solution that involved not having to change any rules, but rather force certain moves accepted by the existing rules - but it got awfully close.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

What percentage of Narrativists came by their chosen preference via formative experiences with GM they didn't get along with to some degree, do you think? I'm hearing a lot of "I've had bad experiences with bad GMs" over and over from that "side".

I could not even begin to speculate; it would be from my hindquarters.

Believe it or not, I've actually only had very few experiences with "bad" GMs at all. One of them was quite bad, but most of the rest were just really disappointing. But I've had many experiences with very mediocre GMs, about as many as I've had with very very good GMs.

I just really, really don't like having my behavior being limited by rules I cannot understand, am not allowed to know or see, and cannot tell when they've been modified or broken or "adjusted" or whatever, all while the other person (or people, but usually only one person) has their behavior mostly excused by such rules....particularly when they are the only one allowed to decide when and how these unwritten, unspoken, invisible, inaccessible rules change.

I've dealt with that from a couple former friends (who I am very glad to not have in my life anymore), I had to slowly but surely push back against that from a relative (the irony being that they always hated it when another mutual relative had done that to them), and have had to navigate exhausting and infuriating labyrinths of that sort of thing just to begin integrating into a wider professional setting more than once. I never, ever want to have to deal with that BS in my gaming. Ever.

When we speak openly and honestly with one another, set rules and abide by them unless we intentionally set them aside to talk the solution out like adults, and treat each other with respect and support, there is no need for these invisible bindings that only one side gets to modify whenever and wherever and however they like.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Interesting that the suggested fix for the thing that can break, but I have never actually observed breaking (The unwritten agreement about what the game should be about with corresponding expectations to behavior) is something I have experienced breaking numerous times over the years.

Ever had a rules disagreement that was so deep and fundamental you had to simply stop the board game and do something else? I have. And as late as today I was in an argument about how to handle a tricky situation where we seemingly had to change the rules of a campaign board game, that got so bad I found myself making an ultimatum on pain of leaving the campaign. After cooling down a bit we managed to find an amicable solution that involved not having to change any rules, but rather force certain moves accepted by the existing rules - but it got awfully close.

I have not. Ever. Not once. I frankly find it baffling that such a thing would ever occur.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Did you continue to play those characters in that DM's campaign? I assume the answer is no - either you confronted them and they changed or you stopped having them as DM. In either case it's an example of a self-correcting issue.

Actually, I set aside my PC and played one of his “NPCs” because that’s clearly what he wanted and I figured I might as well try and enjoy the game somehow. Then I proceeded to play that character in a way that wasn’t exactly what he had in mind.

It definitely led us to a conversation and a clearer understanding of why the players weren’t crazy about this set up.

He’s a friend of nearly forty years, so yes I’ve continues to play with him and have him as a player. I recently went to visit him in Florida, which is where I ran the 5e game I mentioned as an example earlier in the thread.

I don’t think that this was “self-correcting”. It took some actual discussion and reflection.

What percentage of Narrativists came by their chosen preference via formative experiences with GM they didn't get along with to some degree, do you think? I'm hearing a lot of "I've had bad experiences with bad GMs" over and over from that "side".

I have no idea. I would assume that most folks who’ve played with at least a few different GMs have played with some that were less than capable. I also imagine that what constitutes capable will vary quite a bit.

As I’ve said previously, I don’t consider myself a “narrativist”, so I’m not sure about your question. What I can say is that my foray into narrativist games was much more as a GM than as a player. It wasn’t out of any kind of response to poor GMing.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Social contracts are stronger and more binding than written rules.

And in my experience, social contracts get rewritten whenever it is inconvenient for the person with power to follow them.

Guess who has all the power in the social contract you keep pushing?

Hence: they are not binding at all, because it's a binding where one person, and ONLY one person, has both the key AND a forge to create NEW bindings for everyone else.

We are a social species.

We most certainly are. I don't see how that's even remotely relevant as evidence of the previous statement.

 

[Faolyn]

What percentage of Narrativists came by their chosen preference via formative experiences with GM they didn't get along with to some degree, do you think? I'm hearing a lot of "I've had bad experiences with bad GMs" over and over from that "side".

Not me. I've had bad GMs, but their bad GMing was unrelated to the style of game.

Narrative games are, for me, just what I really enjoy.

 

[AlViking]

Actually, I set aside my PC and played one of his “NPCs” because that’s clearly what he wanted and I figured I might as well try and enjoy the game somehow. Then I proceeded to play that character in a way that wasn’t exactly what he had in mind.

It definitely led us to a conversation and a clearer understanding of why the players weren’t crazy about this set up.

He’s a friend of nearly forty years, so yes I’ve continues to play with him and have him as a player. I recently went to visit him in Florida, which is where I ran the 5e game I mentioned as an example earlier in the thread.

I don’t think that this was “self-correcting”. It took some actual discussion and reflection.

But you corrected the situation, correct? Everybody makes mistakes, if we're lucky we learn from them.

 

[hawkeyefan]

But you corrected the situation, correct? Everybody makes mistakes, if we're lucky we learn from them.

Yes, but taking effort to correct the situation is a different thing than a self-correcting situation.

It took one of the players to speak up. It took the GM to hear them out. It took back and forth discussion. It took adjustment going forward.

And my point in bringing this up isn’t even that the guy is a bad GM. We all make mistakes, we all have ideas that seem good to us, but may not to others. Working on this stuff takes awareness and effort. It doesn’t usually self-correct.

 

[Thomas Shey]

In order to get data for social science, you still have to perform structured experiments. You need to define the variables, actually design the experiment, analyze the data, and so forth.

The gaming table is not a structured experiment, and I doubt that many, if any, players or GMs have actually done the necessary steps.

Anthropology is a social science. Far as that goes, its not super easy to do experiments for some branches of sociology either, but people don't act like studies of it are invalid (they may act like the sources of data look dodgy, but they still are neither surveys nor experiments; at best they're interviews).

 

[Thomas Shey]

Ok, it sound actually to me like your experiences might not e contradicting, merely that you talk about somewhat different phenomena.



I am as such curious what @Thomas Shey makes of the following anecdote. When I was peak integrated in the local RPG community the best known and revered GM in the city (possibly in the country) was an individual that provided incredibly imaginative experiences delivered in an extremely professional and engaging maner. He made Matt Mercer look like an amateur in terms of delivey, and I am serious about that. He was also by far the most overtly top down authoritative GM I have ever experienced, and he would not be shy about promoting this as a central part of his "method".

Here we have an extremely well liked GM who's popularity is in part because of not despite a very strong top down approach.

But was it really? Or was it just that in his particular case it let him produce a result that in other ways was very appealing, and he didn't seem to know how to do one without the other?

Those are not the same things. One is a price one pays for the internal process that allowed this particular GM to work in a way, that was, on the whole, very appealing. The other says that the top-down approach was desirable in and of itself, and if he could have done otherwise while still otherwise producing a similar result, some if not many people would not have preferred it.

Basically, at this point I have to ask where your last sentence comes from, because it doesn't come naturally from the rest of what you've said. Essentially, do you have reason (from statements by others) to believe its literally true, or is it just your read of the situation?

How does that fit into the model? My take is that there are certain role models that actually manage to make such an approach work, but that there is a underforest of imitators that try to acheive the same thing, but just don't have what it takes to make it work.

Well, more to the point, if my premise is true, there's a lot more GMs who lack the talents in other areas to make up for it (or worse, negatively reinforce it; as I said, there's a big difference between a GM who always wants to have the final power and one who does that but also can't take suggestions that he's made a mistake well).

I am in absolutely no doubt that there are lots of groups out there with a GM that is overdoing the authority thing compared with their own skill and player preference. I think this is valuable to increase consciousness about. But I do not think it is correct or constructive to look at the authoritative style of play in itself as a problem. I think it is a hard style of play to master, with many pitfalls. But I have been privileged enough to get to experience first hand what magic it can produce when actually competently wielded.

The thing is, it doesn't actually matter to my premise if it works well for a subset of users and groups. That's never been a suggestion on my part can't be true. My point is that the passive encouragement of it as a default approach is, and always has been, bad for the hobby.

There are a lot of things like that in life, like certain techniques in physical skills that can work really well for some practitioners that you still want to discourage because the chances are, the person you're encouraging it to isn't one of those, and encouraging them to go there will make them worse, not better at it.