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

[EzekielRaiden]

Accepted, but it doesn't end up matching the case I described. Compare

"You will GM the world that I want to play in." (involuntary or forced acceptance of the terms)

With

"Will you GM the world I want to play in, if I GM the world you want to play in right after?" (voluntary acceptance of the terms in sum)

Those aren't identical.

And there are even other sorts of things, many many other sorts.

"Would you be willing to run this world I find interesting? I'm happy to help you with <X problems the player knows their GM friend has> in return." (If you wish to view it as such, "payment for services rendered".)

"Would you be willing to run this world I find interesting, since I ran that campaign you wanted last year?" (Tit-for-tat in the other direction, "I already did a thing for you".)

"I know you mentioned you've been feeling a little burned out with D&D, especially with the recent rule changes. I recently bought Energized with a Cataclysm, it's a pretty simple system, would you be willing to run that?" (Proposing as a palate-cleanser.)

"I know you're skeptical about Orientalist tropes, but I've been hankering for some cool samurai action. Would you consider running Ryu & Ronin? It was made with loving attention to authentic Japanese history!" (Recognizing limitations, and specifically looking to address them, not override them.)

You can come up with a nigh-infinite variety of terms, all of which actually do respect the personal interests and preferences of the other person. None of them involve absolute power. None of them involve one person laying down the law from on high.

 

[Micah Sweet]

So you don't actually think absolutely all forms of working collaboratively with your players is giving them "reality-warping powers"? You aren't going to write off every possible situation where players contribute as some horrible affront?

Because when you used that term and only that term to dismiss the kinds of suggestions I was making, that's what I got from it. Nothing--zip zero nada--will ever be acceptable. Player contributions are something to be eliminated, with prejudice.

In session zero you don't have a PC, and the world isn't set, so reality-warping doesn't enter into it. After that, you can make suggestions that might be followed but the GM still gets to decide. Reality-warping comes in for me when the player decides something outside of their PC in active play and the GM has no say. That's not my preferred playstyle. On a side note, having a world element established in play by a player-side die roll outside of PC or GM control would also, for me, count as reality-warping and thus be outside my preference. Both of those things are perfectly fine and expected for other preferences, and that's fine.

Still looking for that better terminology for you. Any suggestions?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

And yet in reality that does not happen.

And yet it does. I know it does. People talk about it!

 

[Umbran]

Sometimes you just need to jump into the deep end of the pool.

Well, "need" is doing some heavy lifting there.

In fiction, no outside force MAKES the author(s) have to jump into anything. The authors are the only ones who make choices or impose restrictions. The authors choose to make the plot dependent on details.

It follows then, that there is no "need" to jump into the deep end, except for the author(s) personal needs. You can always write around the technical details without specifying them, instead.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

In session zero you don't have a PC, and the world isn't set, so reality-warping doesn't enter into it. After that, you can make suggestions that might be followed but the GM still gets to decide. Reality-warping comes in for me when the player decides something outside of their PC in active play and the GM has no say. That's not my preferred playstyle. On a side note, having a world element established in play by a player-side die roll outside of PC or GM control would also, for me, count as reality-warping and thus be outside my preference. Both of those things are perfectly fine and expected for other preferences, and that's fine.

Why should the GM ever have "no say"? When did I ever say that? Even a little bit?

Still looking for that better terminology for you. Any suggestions?

I mean, "collaboration"? Because that's literally what it is?

 

[Maxperson]

There is "The GM predetermines it all, no questions will be brooked." There is, "Everything the players say goes, no matter what." And then there's this astoundingly huge space in the middle where we can discuss and negotiate before making up our minds.

While I am sure it's happened to people, I've never encountered either of those extremes. Even in games where the DM has the absolute power the DMG gives to him.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Ok. I then think the reason you are not seeing it more is that this social cost is also so well recognized that people think also that go without saying.

Indeed it might go deeper than that. I was now intending to write some words in recognition of such social cost... And find myself not being able to conjure relevant words when even trying. At least not in any coherent sentence.

Warmth. Smiles. Laughter. Shame. Self doubt. Self affirmation. Belonging. Alienation.

These are all strong social associations I have deeply connected with decissions I have made in connection with TTRPGs. Getting more of the "bad" ones, and less of the "good" ones is a very real and important cost to making bad decissions with regard to the game.

These kind of utterances does clearly not come as natural to me as cold analysis of game concepts. Hope this helped brighten your day, at least a little bit!

If these things matter to a person, why are they demanding "absolute power"?

Demanding absolute power has very little--IMO nothing whatsoever--to do with caring about "self affirmation" and "belonging".

People who want to belong don't want absolute power over others, even in restricted domains.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

While I am sure it's happened to people, I've never encountered either of those extremes. Even in games where the DM has the absolute power the DMG gives to him.

I have. Only once, but I have. Normally I'm aware enough to forestall this. But I've seen it. And I know 100% for certain other people see it too.

It's not this "so rare it essentially never happens" thing you keep claiming it is.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Can you say why anyone is under an obligation to enter into play under terms they don't enjoy?

"Well...I could abandon the friends I like playing with, very likely upsetting them in the process, and especially upsetting the GM in the process...or I could agree to play a game I'm probably not going to like but get to spend time with my friends."

I have seen "the social contract" used to coerce people into doing things they don't really want to do many, many, many times. It has happened to me. Not with D&D specifically, but still. I've personally lived through that.

I'm thinking of my friend's current interest in running a campaign set in the Hittite civilisation using BRP.

Are they specifically intending it to be 100% historical? I must confess a mild academic interest, but no emotional interest in such a thing.

"You will GM the world that I want to play in." Surely that's not how this can go.

So therefore it MUST be "You will play in the world that I want to play in"?

I know that excluding the middle is very popular around here but this seems a little too obviously extreme.

 

[Maxperson]

And yet it does. I know it does. People talk about it!

Not in any great percentage when compared to all games going on out there. If you group up all of those complaints and put them together, they would represent a minute fraction of the games being run. Certainly not enough to worry about when you can leave such a game if you ever run into one.