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

[AlViking]

I really don't think they ARE that rare--or, at least, merely "pretty mediocre" GMs are not nearly that rare. And "pretty mediocre" GM can mean both "just really mid on everything"...and "great at two things and garbage at two things" or "great at two things, below average but still okay at two things, and slightly bad but not offensively bad at one thing."

This is why the standard people seem to hold up every. single. damned. time, where the ONLY options are "the GM is obviously the worst GM ever, just never ever play with them" or "the GM is perfect and never does anything even remotely problematic at all, ever" gets so incredibly irritating. It's entirely possible to have a GM who is mostly good, but has one or two areas where they aren't. Or someone who is absolutely PHENOMENAL at a few things, and disappointingly poor at others. Or whatever.

This presumption that every GM is either perfectly good at every single thing, or perfectly BAD at every single thing, just doesn't hold muster. The vast majority of GMs have at least one area where they aren't particularly good. I'd even assert that a majority of GMs are outright poor with at least one of the skills demanded of GMs in the "traditional GM" format.

I've had a lot of mediocre players as well. What's your point? If you don't enjoy playing with someone, do something else with your free time. Judging GMs and then saying "Most GMs are average" doesn't really mean anything.

 

[Don Durito]

Ok, I think you are here talking about a very different phenomenon than most defending GM freedom from rules does. The whirlwind attack + great cleave + an object producing a swarm of nearby creatures could easily be a unfortunate combo in a TCG, LCG or modular board game as well. These kind of exploits happen regularly in those domains, and are typically reasonably well community handled after the first period of disruption. The GM position might make resolving these kind of issues a bit smoother than without, but I am not aware of anyone arguing it is essential for this purpose.

The freedom from rules argument typically point out that there are limitations on the outcomes prescribed by the more "narrative rules". While they are allowing for some flexibility in interpretation/implementation, they still typically produces stronger restriction on narration than what the "unbound by rules (but not unwritten social conventions)" GM would face. So the claim is that such a GM could in some cases have produce a "better" experience for the group than what the narrative rules allow. A popular example of this, that has been a major focus of this thread, is the freedom of the GM to allow the players to keep initiative and control over the overall situation on a bad roll. ("Nothing happens", as opposed to being required to introduce something that moves things along)

I think you are overly focusing on the example I gave here.

My point is that you don't need to give the GM power to overrule the rules in the name of the fiction when the rules only give players the permission to do things if they are consistent with the fiction.

Also I've found that when introducing games with narrative permissions I've found that some players used to more traditional games can have trouble not seeing these rules as if they are like "powers" where you can just flick a switch and the thing happens - missing that you usually have to be able to describe how the thing does happen. (And definitely this kind of take comes up a lot with negative takes on sort of these games).

 

[Enrahim]

@EzekielRaiden This is almost uncanny. Reading your writing feels very much like something I might very well have written myself if having been exposed to slightly different experiences. I am providing detailed replies to your main sections below, but I think all of them boil down to being examples of one single main point.

I do have certain strong autistic traits. This has included a frustration over social maneuvering, people being prone to not just saying things plainly and honestly, and extreme aversion for social gatherings and contexts I don't see the point of. Games was a safe haven. It was and is a social arena where it was clear what was going on. I should be as averse to unwritten rules as any. Still for some reason TTRPGs have always provided sufficient structure for me to feel comfortable with it - even in it's most freeform of iterations.

I think one of the reasons is that at some point I just got what was the purpose of the unwritten rules of TTRPGing, and why they stay unwritten (I can't claim actually having gotten all of the rules themselves though). I might still have frustration over this, ref my complaints in this thread regarding the absence of a good uncontroversial way to express and describe play preference (something that would be very useful to navigate the now unexpressed and unwritten expectations players enter a game with). But I do not press this matter hard, as I recognize it is not necessary to get a reasonably good experience most of the time. I would in my own words say I have over time come to terms with a pragmatic approach to the "problem" of rules (both written and unwritten). You might perhaps be more inclined to say I have grown cynical.

Nevertheless here comes some glimpses into my thinking around why it might be best to just accept unwritten rules as a pragmatic necessity for good play.

<snip>

Whereas that's nothing like how I've actually seen unwritten rules applied. Different people come to radically different understandings, but they don't realize this until it's too late to back out, we have to have a long, drawn-out, frustrating conversation where we nail down every single word and detail and tiny little nuance.

There are typically no word in unwritten rules? The process of trying to turn unwritten rules into (something like) written rules is insanely hard. If that is your go to approach to resolve diverging expectations on the meta plane I can definitely see how you might have bad experiences!!

Indeed it might in this case explain how a dislike for unwritten rules can become a self fueling self fulfilling prophecy. If your reaction to encountering challenges with some unwritten rule is to try to make them no longer unwritten, I would expect that to produce a much worse experience than applying techniques that operate on a social-relational level. (Active listening; showing understanding for the various concerns; social pledges to take various preferences into account; vote regarding incident without necessarily creating precedent etc.)

For evidence, I present you this entire thread, from first to last.

Exactly. This thread is what happens when you try to bring the complexity of individuals' understanding of gaming into words. Doing this can be a highly engaging, enlightening, and a few times practical experience. But it is hardly a quick and easy process to consensus. This is why resorting to letting the unwritten rules stay unwritten is most often the pragmatic choice if trying to interact in a playful way.

Anyone who is so strongly opinionated about rules that they cannot, even in principle, ever accept someone else's interpretation isn't someone who should be participating in a game. Period. Doesn't matter what game it is. Anyone who simply cannot accept that they personally are wrong and someone else (whether or not it's someone at the table) is right, is a person who cannot play games.

Possibly. That is a completely unrelated topic tough. It is clearly possible to be opiniated, even strongly so, without getting to this extreme.

They will be no less a problem with unwritten rules

I guess, but again are we really discussing these?

--and I argue they'll be much more of a problem,

Even more than "cannot play games" :O

because when the rule is unwritten, they have a dramatically stronger position to argue that their interpretation is right--because there is no evidence, no public knowledge to draw upon.

I have encountered rules lawyers that can really milk a game text, internet opinions, and other written sources to argue their interpretation. I have a hard time understanding how someone with no evidence whatsoever can be considered in a stronger position? You might argue that it is harder to argue against them given you have no access to any counter evidence. But this assuming that evidence and knowledge is the right level for this argument at all. Rather I would say that as is at it's core a social disagreement, there are a host of completely different techniques that is effective for resolving such arguments.

I just don't understand how rules no one can see makes conversation any easier. If the rules can't be seen, if they're genuinely invisible to us ("invisible rulebooks" being an FKR staple phrase, very much equivalent to the staple phrases of PbtA that so many in this thread love to hate on), two different people can have radically different interpretations and both have equal claim to being right. Worse, they can believe they actually do agree on critical elements when they simply do not...and thus get into far more acrimonious arguments because they misinterpret one another's intentions by thinking that when each of them says "A", person 1 means <X> and person 2 means <Y>, where X and Y can be almost anything--even diametric opposites. Purely dumping all of that into unspoken, and in many cases unspeakable, restrictions might smooth away small disagreements when the details aren't too important. But hey will magnify disagreements when the details matter immensely. If any group on God's green Earth is maximally obsessed with the nitty-gritty details, it's RPG players.

The unwritten rules don't make conversation about them easier. But they are still there to make conversation and other interaction between humans easier. This is best seen if two individual or groups from different cultures with differing unwritten rules meet. Their interaction tend to be significantly hampered by the absence of a common set of unwritten rules. Efforts to write down and agree on a common set of written rules are generally not considered the best way of resolving cultural clashes. We are rather typically prescribed dialogue with a mindset of achieving a mutual understanding and acceptance. This new understanding and acceptance can abstractly be understood as a new set of unwritten rules governing the interaction between members of these two cultures.


And finally

I say that rather than "TTRPG" because I'm including MMO players. A famous--perhaps notorious--joke amongst both D&D and MMO players is, if you want correct information online, don't ask a question because you'll be ignored. Instead, post something which is confidently incorrect. Within minutes you'll have a swarm of angry commenters correcting you with extensive, and often shockingly accurate, information. (Or, if you're familiar with the online war-simulation games "War Thunder" and "World of Tanks", they have become notorious for having players that leak classified military documents in order to "prove" that the developers of said games have falsely depicted the characteristics of some particular vehicle.)

Yes, I know those stories, but I have never heard that advice before. Good stuff! Hope I never need to apply it

 

[AlViking]

It gets brought up as part of other discussions. Say DM authority.

One side argues that the DMG gives the DM absolute authority, but the DM can't just do anything he wants because many things would be abuse of authority and violate the social contract.

The other side then starts pointing out the rare really bad DM who calls his players idiots, teleports the group into the middle of a volcano, accomplishes everything of import with his DMPC, etc. as attempted proof that DM authority is bad.

Then the first side has to point out that bad DMs are really rare, and that those rare bad DMs aren't a result of DM authority. They're just jerks, which is a people problem. No rules changes are going to fix them. It's not like a jerk is going to say to himself, "Well darn! I was going to teleport the party into some lava, because they ruined the encounter, but this rule here says I can't." and then not do it.

I think if other games were as popular as D&D we would have just as many stories of bad GMs, or bad players who ruined the experience of others, with those games as well. It's a simple numbers game. Every time this comes up that other games somehow magically fix the perceived issue, how the GM is restricted comes back to social contract. For example in DW if a player fails a Defy Danger check, the GM can respond with a Worse Outcome. Is that provoking an opportunity attack or that you accidentally raise a dead god set on destruction of the world? I'm only looking at the SRD (where it's not defined) but the answer always is that it follows from the fiction or it's controlled by the social contract.

That's a fine answer and I'm sure there are a couple other lines of advice, similar advice on how to make the game fun for everyone is also in the DMG. GMs of every game should want the game to be fun for everyone. But there is no way for the game to enforce it, only the people at the table can.

 

[Umbran]

What happens, metaphysically, when this occurs?

Enlightenment.

Is it possible to learn this power?

Yep. Go to University. Get a doctorate in an appropriate social science.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I've had a lot of mediocre players as well. What's your point? If you don't enjoy playing with someone, do something else with your free time. Judging GMs and then saying "Most GMs are average" doesn't really mean anything.

My point is that rules are by far one of the most effective tools for helping GMs identify where their skills are mediocre to poor and correct that behavior so that, even if it doesn't become great, it at least becomes pretty okay.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

[Edit: Please ignore this post. Accidentally double-posted an old, incomplete draft because I was closing tabs and thought I'd failed to post it. I apologize for any confusion.]

 

[FrozenNorth]

I've had a lot of mediocre players as well. What's your point? If you don't enjoy playing with someone, do something else with your free time. Judging GMs and then saying "Most GMs are average" doesn't really mean anything.

Players, both good and mediocre, are pretty definitively restrained by both the written rules of D&D and the DM’s power within the game. They are of course, also bound by the social contract.

Some posters seem to be arguing that the DM should only be bound by the social contract, despite the fact that mediocre DMs exist, and that because of the amount of power they have, they can be more disruptive than mediocre players. It is argued that DM’s should be free to unilaterally modify the rules of the game. The DM’s vision of the world should be definitive and final.

Even further, certain posters seem to push back against elements that seek to improve teaching DMing:

• DM principles in PbtA and other games are dismissed because they constrain the DM, even where they reflect common DMing advice in both the D&D and the trad space;
• There is pushback against the D&D DMG being targeted at beginning DMs and providing advice on running the game;
• Whenever anyone posts that the DM should be making the game fun for everyone, there is invariably and immediately a response implying that by doing so, the DM is subordinating their fun to that of their players.

 

[AnotherGuy]

And how exactly do the players communicate this when the GM is beholden to no one and especially not to the players?

Hopefully at the table.
We all make errors; GMs are not infallible.
One needs to foster a spirit of sincerity and co-operation. It is easy for me to talk about this since I play with friends.
They trust me and I trust them.
If there are things I do not know it becomes a table discussion. If the table is unsure we make a quick vote and I may ask the question here if we cannot find anything easily on google.

I'm sure my experience is not unique or even uncommon.
Granted when I was younger I made many more bad calls.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Hopefully at the table.
We all make errors; GMs are not infallible.
One needs to foster a spirit of sincerity and co-operation. It is easy for me to talk about this since I play with friends.
They trust me and I trust them.
If there are things I do not know it becomes a table discussion.

I'm sure my experience is not unique or even uncommon.
Granted when I was younger I made many more bad calls.

How can one "foster a spirit of sincerity and co-operation" when one is secretly modifying the rules whenever one feels like doing so, concealing the actual processes by which player actions produce consequences, and employing techniques like illusionism or fudging?