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

[Faolyn]

My point stands given what you said. People can be something or some mix of something without knowing the technical terms. People had cancer before the term "Cancer" ever existed.

The actual point was that Hussar said he could play Fate as a sim game and people would be weirded out because Fate isn't a sim game. When in reality, most gamers probably don't even know what GNS theory is/was, let along what each system is rated using that idea.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I can’t speak for @EzekielRaiden, although I think we share similar sentiments on this issue. My take is that generally a GM shouldn’t attempt to author highly specific settings and then look for a group to play them, because that specificity causes more harmful issues than it adds positive additions to play.

If you like to solo worldbuild for fun, go for it. If your group has been together since the Pliocene like @Lanefan’s and is cool with you building out a highly specific setting, great. Otherwise, I think it’s a poor idea.

Exactly.

I see this as precisely, 1:1 identical to a player building their SUPER AWESOME AMAZING character, with 50,000 words of backstory, feats selected from literal years of poring over every "official" source (read: published by WotC...or in Dragon Mag, which is notoriously unbalanced), extensive physical description backed up by commissioned art (no AI-generated slop will do!), extensive personality analysis, etc., etc., ad nauseam, and then getting upset when their buddy says they're going to run D&D, looks at that character, and says, "I'm sorry, this is unbalanced and deeply flawed, I can't accept this character."*

Every time I've seen this sort of thing, where a person crafts a ludicrously detailed, nailed-down-to-the-mile geography etc. etc., it reveals itself to be a dramatically over-precious labor of love. It's the GM's baby. We have the infamous "DMPC" concept. The same concept can apply to the campaign setting. Not sure what snappy name it could have though. "Dungeon Master's Setting Character"?

*And, to jump in front of a response I'm dead certain I'll get: no, this is not the same as blanket bans on whole concepts. Blanket bans are a whole different beast. "This one specific character, as written, is unbalanced" is a fixable issue--the same concept might still work with fixed balance. "Deeply flawed" is of course more complicated, but could be addressed, probably with fixes to particular behaviors or attitudes that are likely to cause problems for the group. "You can't play a dragonborn because I hate dragonborn and thus forbid them" is not a fixable issue. It's a rejection of the other person's interests. Very different thing, though I wouldn't be surprised if people take umbrage with this distinction anyway.

 

[Emerikol]

The actual point was that Hussar said he could play Fate as a sim game and people would be weirded out because Fate isn't a sim game. When in reality, most gamers probably don't even know what GNS theory is/was, let along what each system is rated using that idea.

This may be your point but it wasn't mine.

But, I will say this. The GNS model is an attempt to extract playstyles from what exists and not to tell people what they should do. Basically build the sidewalks where people are walking. That means people don't know the terms but they know the playstyles. Many of my players don't know any of these terms but they would sure object if I switched up the playstyle.

 

[bloodtide]

Would you be okay with me quoting this (and, naturally, the post to which you replied) in the future, to others who might be skeptical that there are participants who think this? I am asking in advance since quoting you will ping you and you might not want to be pinged that way. If not, I am happy to simply include links to this post, or I can simply reference it without linking if you would prefer that I not mention this post at all.

I'm okay with it.

Because I am 100% sure someone would respond to the above with "OH SO THE GM IS JUST THE PLAYERS' SLAVE HUH!!??!!"

I think someone might respond that way too.......

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I'm okay with it.

Thank you.

 

[clearstream]

So what would to call the referee’s specific mental process to simulate if not a mechanic?

More puzzling still, how do the supposed TTRPG mechanics make themselves felt in play without some person's specific mental process to enact them?

 

[Emerikol]

I can’t speak for @EzekielRaiden, although I think we share similar sentiments on this issue. My take is that generally a GM shouldn’t attempt to author highly specific settings and then look for a group to play them, because that specificity causes more harmful issues than it adds positive additions to play.

If you like to solo worldbuild for fun, go for it. If your group has been together since the Pliocene like @Lanefan’s and is cool with you building out a highly specific setting, great. Otherwise, I think it’s a poor idea.

Okay this is something I can address I think. I don't agree that it done right is going to cause more harm and than good. I do think communication before the campaign starts is highly important. If you layout what your idea is and what your campaign is about then only those wanting that will join. They as well as the DM will be enthused about it and I think the game will be better. Now, I put forth both playstyle and campaign distinctives. My playstyle doesn't change but the distinctives do all the time. I might have a game where X race is not available or Y class is not or a host of other things. I've ran a long running campaign before but that doesn't have to be the case every time.

I think a DM who is really into something with a group that at minimum doesn't object but likely is also enthused about it is a recipe for success not failure.

 

[AlViking]

I can’t speak for @EzekielRaiden, although I think we share similar sentiments on this issue. My take is that generally a GM shouldn’t attempt to author highly specific settings and then look for a group to play them, because that specificity causes more harmful issues than it adds positive additions to play.

If you like to solo worldbuild for fun, go for it. If your group has been together since the Pliocene like @Lanefan’s and is cool with you building out a highly specific setting, great. Otherwise, I think it’s a poor idea.

I've spent a lot of time building the world most of my campaigns occur in. I have had many people praise me and show amazement for the depth that it brings to the games we run. Since I run sandbox style games it doesn't really restrict what the players do, it just gives a complex setting in which to do it. Meanwhile I don't want to play in a world that's paper thin, has no history, where it's obvious that the GM is just making it up as they go along.

Why do people insist on calling anything that isn't done to their exact preferences a "poor idea"? You don't get to decide what I, and dozens of players over the years, should enjoy.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I've spent a lot of time building the world most of my campaigns occur in. I have had many people praise me and show amazement for the depth that it brings to the games we run. Since I run sandbox style games it doesn't really restrict what the players do, it just gives a complex setting in which to do it. Meanwhile I don't want to play in a world that's paper thin, has no history, where it's obvious that the GM is just making it up as they go along.

Why do people insist on calling anything that isn't done to their exact preferences a "poor idea"? You don't get to decide what I, and dozens of players over the years, should enjoy.

Perhaps the same reason that people who insist on calling anything that isn't done according to their exact preferences "reality-warping powers"?

 

[TwoSix]

So what would to call the referee’s specific mental process to simulate if not a mechanic?

I like “heuristic”, but I’m open to workshop it.

I just think “mechanic” isn’t the correct term because if you said “I like FKR games because they have lots of mechanics” that seems farcically wrong.