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

[Umbran]

True. It's a matter of degree and frequency.

What's the old saying? Let he who is without sin cast the first stone?

And, what's the other, newer, saying? Don't make it personal?

This line of discussion starts to read like, "I can dodge/dismiss your points, because you are so strident," which isn't appropriate.

 

[Maxperson]

That's not what you said. You said:


"The group jives with that judgment until they cannot. [...] I realize some DMs are really bad and then you just leave."

It does match what I thought he was saying, though. Perhaps he would have been better served to have said that at some point the DM has to make a final judgment and the group has to give with it or leave, but the tone of it wasn't that nobody could bring anything up. The tone was that disrupting the game was not acceptable

 

[Maxperson]

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

Words?

 

[AlViking]

On a practical level when it comes to superseding rules and making rulings the vast majority of the time when it's done in the trad space is because the rules are specific and often leave no room for interpretation. It's you take X damage, climb Y feet, etc. This is not how the rules work in games like Apocalypse World. Here's a move from its kissing cousin, Apocalypse Keys:



For the move to even apply it must be something you have fictional positioning to do through one of your powers of darkness (which are loosely defined and refined over time ex. Necromancy, Supernatural Speed and Strength) and what we've established in play about its limits. That's one level of GM judgement that gets applied.

Then in every case the GM must apply their judgement to make a corresponding move back that fits the fictional situation. The game already integrates judgement about the fictional situation into its rules. If anything, I've had players of more traditional games feel like it leaves too much up to GM Judgement in that the GM gets a lot of say in how your powers work and impact the world.

There might be reasons you want to make changes, but they aren't going to be situational this does not fit the fiction reasons. You get GM Judgement on the way and on the way out. I've never felt any desire to ignore a rule when running Apocalypse Keys because I get so much say about what the results look like.

This does have the downside in that so much of the game is shaped by my moves. Sometimes it's nice to have the rules tell us more about the setting.

Aside: Just a reminder that in rules parlance prepare for the worst means the GM/Keeper makes as a hard a move as they like.

It's fine to talk about fictional positioning and whatnot but it's not like this is anything new. As @Maxperson said above a DM can have a ancient red dragon turn that level 1 party into ash. It may even follow the fiction of the world - the dragon is the biggest threat in the region and the characters were just unlucky enough to run across it. But it would violate multiple aspects of D&D including XP budget, guidance on CR, the social contract clearly stated in the rules of making the game fun for the players.

So it's not a strawman to discuss what other games say, it's just a strawman to say that the rules of the game don't address the exact same issues in D&D. GMs in any game can ignore the rules.

 

[clearstream]

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.

Reading your post, I wondered if you had considered that putting a rule in force for oneself isn't a binary (i.e. it's not that it's either in force or not in force.) I observe participants putting rules in force for themselves with variations in strength.

It means that when someone thinks DM should be free to unilaterally modify the rules, they could have in mind that DM will exercise discretion. Some rules, DM might be reluctant to modify; others they might modify more freely. And that can apply to circumstances of play too, so that they might feel it is less well justified to modify a rule in some circumstances, and more in others.

 

[Faolyn]

What's the difference?

The difference is the fiction. Because the actual game exists only in the imagination, it's up to us to justify why anything works the way it does. In a sim game that justification was done by the writers who created a table or otherwise listed why something acts or doesn't act the way it does. In a narrative game, the justification is made by the players at the table.

Why did you succeed? Is it purely skill, or is it because the cliff was really easy to climb that lowered the DC? Or is it because you had a bonus to your roll from some other source? Or was it pure chance? If the DC is 15 and you rolled a 16 before any modifiers, your skill had nothing to do with the climb. Unless you're sitting down and figuring out how much you beat the target number by every time you roll--assuming you even know it--you'll never know, meaning the game world is being changed by any roll, success or failure.

So since you don't know, you're making up the fiction that you climbed the cliff purely because of your skill when it could really be any of several other reasons.

The game world is being changed as a result of a failed skill check. Had the check succeeded, the rope would have never broken and might never break. So, it's not a weak rope. The cliff face suddenly crumbling because of my climb check? How is that not my skill check (which is ONLY my ability to climb something) causing a physical change in the game world. After all, the next person might climb the same cliff and nothing crumbles at all.

The only difference is that you find one physical change to the game world more palatable than the other. But, in both cases it's a change to the game world being introduced without any connection to anything. Sure, flying pixies are extreme, but, again, it's only a difference of scale, not kind.

How is one skill check changing the physical properties of the game world acceptable, but another one isn't? Other than your personal preference of course. ((And note, I'm being pretty hyperbolic here- I doubt any DM would actually introduce pixies, but, I'm trying to show a point here))

 

[Emerikol]

So, as written, this can seem like, "Grin and bear it until it is too much, and then throw a hissy-fit, flip the table and walk out."

Before, "you just leave," there really ought to be some, "attempt to talk through the issues like mature adults," that isn't mentioned here.

Unless you're, like, 12 years old, and talking like mature adults isn't expected, because you aren't mature adults yet....

Why flip the table? Just tell the DM that you've decided his or her game is just not for you.

Endless arguments suck the life out of a D&D game. When I wasn't mature, as in a young kid, I allowed such nonsense to the detriment of everyone.

I've said elsewhere that a discussion can occur after the session is over. I also said it most likely won't change the mind of many good DMs but there are rare occasions.

My group of players just figured out who could DM effectively and went to their campaigns. I was in a hideous campaign and I completely disrespected almost everything the DM was doing back in my college days. Did I disrupt his game? No. I just didn't return. I bowed out gracefully. If people are enjoying his game more power to them. D&D is about finding good DMs and good groups. When you do it's golden. You find yourself willing to be a bit more tolerant when you do.

 

[Emerikol]

And the player would have continued to argue.

Because - and let us remember the real point - players don't always take the GM's word as gospel.

While they might usually do so, it cannot be assumed, and our thoughts on GMing and games need to include the less-than-optimal situations.

I don't stop the game. The player is having their character shake their fist at the gods for all it matters.
If a player says: "Hey a troll can't cast a fireball"
I say: "Well what appears to you to be a Troll just did and now it looks like he might be readying another one."

You think you can just stop the game and force an argument. You can't. Not in my campaign. If you try to be disruptive you'll just be asked to leave.

 

[Umbran]

I don't stop the game.

Great. Good for you.

 

[Umbran]

Why flip the table?

Not literally. It's a cultural reference. Enough so that there's ascii art for it.

The point is that "bear it until you just have to leave" is... short sighted and immature.

Adults talk things through before they become unbearable or crises, if at all possible.