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

[Thomas Shey]

I feel that in some ways the tightness of a little of rules in many traditional games both restricts the GM heavily (and the players of course) and it is why you have the safety valve that ends up giving the GM the power to override any rules.

This does, however, suggest to me an assumption that the tightness is a flaw. I don't think one can take that as a given; only time I consider it a flaw is when the rules are written without ability to easily extend or when they're badly designed in the first place.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

Who says only one side gets to modify the social contract?

 

[Don Durito]

This does, however, suggest to me an assumption that the tightness is a flaw. I don't think one can take that as a given; only time I consider it a flaw is when the rules are written without ability to easily extend or when they're badly designed in the first place.

It does perhaps from that perspective. I offer it as food for thought - it's not a position I'm committed to.

Personally I will have always have a desire for really tight detailed rules.

 

[Thomas Shey]

It does perhaps from that perspective. I offer it as food for thought - it's not a position I'm committed to.

Personally I will have always have a desire for really tight detailed rules.

Well, I don't think there's any question there's a part of the hobby that really does prefer their rules a little of what I'd think of as loosey-goosey, so your point it legitimate.

 

[Maxperson]

While obviously not scientific, I'd buy that more if I was working from a small sample size.

I'm working from a sample size of several dozen DMs and hundreds of players and I've not seen the tyrannical DM, either. But maybe Los Angeles is an outlier.

 

[Maxperson]

By the laws of aerodynamics neither bumblebees nor jumbo jets should be able to get off the ground and yet there they are, flying around like they often do. If one considers a dragon to be, aerodynamically, similar to a living breathing jumbo jet then it all works fine.

I don't know about jumbo jets, but scientists have figured out how bumblebees do it.

 

[Maxperson]

Strange that I can not remember that ever happening though. Are we talking about "will be broken" as in Murphy's law?

It's never happened to me, either. So clearly he cannot be correct when he says it WILL happen. We have both been in many situations where it didn't happen, which disproves that statement.

 

[AlViking]

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.

It was a good outcome but if nothing had changed would you have continued to play with them as DM? Because if the answer was no (which I assume) that would have been the other way it would have self-corrected. Sometimes it will be harder to accomplish than others.

But my point is that truly bad DMs (weren't we all once?) won't retain players unless they change.

 

[Maxperson]

Then eventually you figure that out and have to make a choice.

You're not going to convince me that hard-coded rules for GMs are the way to go. If that's what you want, have fun with it.

Hard coded rules aren't worth the paper they are printed on. If a DM wants to change the rules, there's nothing that book can do to stop him. Then he tells prospective players that he is playing X game with Y changes to the rules. They either accept or not, but unless they are really horrible changes, he's probably going to find a group.

 

[Maxperson]

Who says only one side gets to modify the social contract?

It doesn't happen. A DM who tried that would drive away the players before the game even started. Huuuuuuuuuuuuuuge red flag there.