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

[Maxperson]

Okay, well, then folks who are using it that way are using it at wild divergence with both common-usage of the term (consider how one would speak of "dictatorial management" as corporate superiors who throw their weight around and demand whatever they want, even if it's impossible or illegal or whatever) and the technical usage of the term in political science and history (again, the rise of "absolute monarchy" was characterized by a consolidation of all legal authority under one singular monarch who rejected control from vassals, spiritual leaders, or aristocracy; as noted, the only meaningful dispute among historians is whether they actually did exert "absolute power", or whether their power was still conditional because the nobility could rebel).

Folks can have their own private definitions if they like, but when both common usage and technical usage disagrees, perhaps they should reconsider. Especially when they have someone begging, indeed pleading with them to consider any other alternative, as I did with Max in a previous thread. I tried everything I could to get Max to use any other words, anything at all, ANYTHING short of "absolute power". But nothing less than that would do.

Edit: As an aside, here's Dictionary.com's definition for "absolute" in reference to power.

"Unrestrained or unlimited by a...counterbalancing group...." Someone who can only act by the advice and consent of another group does not exercise absolute power.

Do you know what your definition lacks? Anything saying that a person with unconditional power can't choose to listen to someone else, or can't discuss with someone else, or any of the other wildly incorrect statements you've been making about absolute power.

Yes, the DM's power isn't checked by anything. No that doesn't mean that he ignores the players, or doesn't discuss with the group before making a decision, or...

Absolute power does not mean what you keep saying it means. All it means is that the DM's decisions can't be countermanded by the players.

 

[Maxperson]

"Advisor" implies courtly position. Delegated authority. No ability to defy (because, again, absolute power), but having subsidiary authority underneath. No such arrangement exists between an "absolute power" GM and her players. The players are subject to the GM's will in anything relating to the game. Whatever they think or feel is completely secondary to the GM implementing her will. Should the GM deign to listen, nothing prevents them from doing so, but nothing whatsoever requires it either. Because that's what exerting absolute power (within a particular domain) means.

Think of it as the difference between a President-and-CEO with her VPs, and a mother with her children. Or the difference between a whole army's general with the officers who directly report to him, and a primary school teacher with his students. In both former cases (Pres-CEO and army-leading general), the secondary parties are still under total requirement to obey their superior, but they still hold personal authority of some kind. Children and grade-school students hold no authority within the associated structure, not even subsidiary authority. (Of course, with all of these cases, there is a higher superseding authority--the law--which could intervene, but I trust you'll allow for the sake of argument that we ignore this.)

An advisor doesn't need to have any authority at all. All it takes to be an advisor is to be in a position to give advice. That's it.

 

[Hussar]

Except that it's a game, not a scientific theory that is going to be published. RPGs aren't held to anywhere remotely close to the same standard you are trying to apply here.

For an RPG, working is in fact enough. The work does not need to be shown.

I 100% agree with you. For an RPG, working is very much in fact enough.

However, for a SIMULATION RPG, it is not. That's the key point you keep ignoring. When the system provides zero guidance "showing the work" as it were, then it is not a simuationist system. Because, again, maybe this got lost in the scrum, if "DM makes it up after the fact" isn't a criteria for simulation. That's just playing the game in any style. All styles of RPG game can work that way.

So, if my incredibly narrative leaning Ironsworn game can look identical to your game just by choosing to narrate in a certain way, does that make your game narrativist? No. Not even a little. By your criteria, 4e D&D is absolutely a simulationist system. After all, the DM narrates the outcome of mechanics, so, it will always be plausible and simulating the logic of the world.

Which would mean that anyone who argued about disociated mechanics being counter to D&D's simulationist leanings was 100% wrong. Do you believe that? I doubt it. So, there must be something about simulationist mechanics which differentiate them from other styles. So, if it's not providing guidance for the narrative, what differentiates simulationist mechanics from any other mechanic?

 

[Hussar]

Well, if a GM just says "oh there are trees and whatever you players want to make up on a whim" it won't even be a setting, much less of a game.



There is no value in a Clueless DM. In fact this ruins most games. If the players say "hey what is in the Dark Forest" and the GM is like "I don't know", that game will go nowhere fast.

Heh.

How to say you've never looked at solo RPG's without saying you've never looked at solo RPG's.

 

[Maxperson]

Because that's what people say. Whether or not discussion occurs, they will make their decision. The players are, at absolute most, providing suggestions. That's what has been insisted upon, here and elsewhere!

That's all advisors do. Provide suggestions that the king may or may not follow. But here's the kicker. The DM, like the king, can in fact follow their suggestions(advice), so there's good reason to discuss things with the DM and communicate unhappiness with the DM.

 

[Maxperson]

I would consider this a ludicrously extreme caricature to the point of being intentionally absurd. As in, if you were actually going to base any kind of argument on this, I would simply reject it as unacceptable--indeed, as pushing into "intentionally inflammatory" territory. Nobody is asking for this. No one is saying that exercising judgment is a bad thing. I, for example, very much love certain mechanics in 4e that can only function because there is a real human making judgment calls behind the GM screen.

You see that paragraph there? That's what you are doing to us. Your depiction of absolute power is a ludicrously extreme caricature to the point of being intentionally absurd. Nobody who is saying that the DM has absolute power is asking to(or doing) the things you are saying.

This is a far, far, far, FAR, FAR cry from what anyone here is talking about.

And again, that applies to your claims on absolute power as well.

 

[Maxperson]

I'm not the one who laid claim to the absolute status.

You, Max, and others were and are.

Actually, it's the DMG that is. I'm just pointing out to you what level of authority the DMG gives the DM.

 

[Maxperson]

It wasn’t an objection. It was a clarification that you and @Maxperson were agreeing with my earlier comment:

I liked your post because I agree that the DM can be far more disruptive to a game than a player can. However, I don't think that mediocrity in either DMs or players is really disruptive to the game. Boring perhaps, but not truly disruptive. To be truly disruptive to a game goes beyond mediocrity, in the wrong direction.

In short, a bad DM will be more disruptive than a bad player. A bad decision by a DM will generally be more disruptive to a game than a bad decision by a player. Mediocre decisions by either are meh.

 

[Maxperson]

Wow. Really? I LOVE it when the players do that. Heck, my players do it all the time. It's fantastic. It means they do all the work and I just get to play with the toys they are gifting me. Why on earth would you want to stop that? My last character, for example, was a priest of Kossuth in a Forgotten Realms game. So, I made him a Thayan and then handed my DM a detailed description of the Thayan enclave in Baldur's Gate. Sure, I was using some of the FR stuff, but, the enclave, other than a single sentence saying that it existed, was entirely my own creation.

My DM thanked me very kindly and the enclave became a major element of the opening of the campaign.

I agree. When my players create their characters, they write up detailed backgrounds. Those backgrounds often include new NPCs, organizations, towns that didn't exist prior, etc. As long as they aren't contradicting anything or creating it to cheese the system(which I have yet to see any of them try), they are welcome to give me stuff to use in the future.

That said, I will usually add quite a bit to the stuff they give to me. Fill in details, add more members to the organization, etc. I love when they give me stuff to build off of, though.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

How much of a spectator are we in the real world? I don't need reality-altering powers to have player agency.

Would you like me to start pointing it out every time people use openly disparaging, mocking terms for other people's preferences? Because that's what you just did here. I do not want "reality-altering powers". That's never what I've wanted, and I've specifically and explicitly rejected that numerous times in this thread alone. Why are you comfortable mocking my preferences with phrases like "reality-altering powers", but get upset when others use terms they consider accurate, if harsh, for your own?

More importantly, games already aren't the real world. Something we've already discussed. Repeatedly. What "agency" means at a game table is inherently and significantly different from what it means for me as a human being.

I mean, for God's sake, we literally do have people here on Earth who think nobody actually has any agency at all. Superdeterminism and all that.