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

[TwoSix]

I'm perfectly fine with this for actual high level characters, which I see as mythical heroes, though I think we reach "cannot be killed by a single arrow" territory way too fast.

Sure. That just puts us in “should the rules flow from our implicit understanding of setting, genre, and tropes, or should the setting flow from deriving rules” discussion, which is a well-trod discussion point among those who favor sim/trad play.

I certainly remember arguing those points back in the 3e days.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Sure. That just puts us in “should the rules flow from our implicit understanding of setting, genre, and tropes, or should the setting flow from deriving rules” discussion, which is a well-trod discussion point among those who favor sim/trad play.

I certainly remember arguing those points back in the 3e days.

Well, if consistently followed, they both lead us into the same place: the rules and setting being in sync. Though of course the resulting settings will look rather different. For my 5e game I did a bit of both. I altered some rules to better suit the fiction and I wanted. but I also shaped the fiction to suit the rules. Though of course there were some areas on which I just had to accept some that disparity exists, and just decide to not look into it that closely.

I've been actually brainstorming a system better suited for my needs, but I'm not sure I will actually bother writing it. Coming up with a rule systems is a lot of work, and besides, if it still has some annoying bits you cannot blame seme external rules writer!

 

[CreamCloud0]

So you don't have absolute power, then?

Because you're specifically saying here that players can:

• Criticize your decisions
• Expect a reasonable response, assuming reasonable criticism (again, not giving carte blanche to anyone!)
• Lay out what they think needs to change
• Get that change to actually happen, at least some of the time, even if you yourself don't think the change was needed (again, not saying you can't have bright lines, just that there are limits)

That last one is especially important.

all those things can happen and as long as the GM is still the one making the final calls of if something gets added or not in that last bullet point then they still have absolute power.

 

[clearstream]

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.

I like heuristic, too. From upthread, I said

"By mechanics I mean​

rolling some dice and identifying a success or failure on the roll​

The specifics of which differ per game, such as trinary versus binary outcomes, and​

the process and heuristics used to narrate the consequence if... the roll fails​

To the extent that they are expressly stated in the game text and tied to "the roll fails"."​

Note that I don't think rolling dice is really necessary to mechanics, that wasn't so much part of my definition as an artifact of the interlocution. Thus a process or heuristics used to narrate a consequence? I also considered something like

game text capturing an heuristic incorporated into the cognitive processes of play in light of other text such as principles and examples​

Thinking particularly about "how do we recognise mechanics in text". Outside that question, seeing as I'm not against the idea of unwritten mechanics, just heuristics seems pretty good.

 

[clearstream]

Note, the distinction that makes the difference isn't whether the mechanic exists, but whether the mechanics are directly associated to and simulating processes that exist in the narrative.

I think I grasp your meaning, but your wording isn't quite right. We're not seeking to simulate processes! (Unless that is strictly limited to simulating processes that don't simulate processes.)

A problem is that different people have different ideas about what identifies a mechanic as simulative. Miguel Sicart proposed (in the context of videogames) that game mechanics are methods invoked by agents for interacting with the game world. I think for TTRPG we're also picturing that mechanics can structure the game world.

 

[Pedantic]

I agree that overly detailed PC building and overly detailed setting building are two sides of the same coin. They demonstrate that the interest is more in solitary authoring than in collaborative authoring.

If your interest is in solitary authoring, then there's a decent and growing number of solo RPGs. And if you're interested in displaying your finely detailed D&D-like setting, I would suggest Royal Road or AoO3.

This is a terrible take. I'm open to a set of RPG people who really want to be doing something more explicitly improv-y or generative, but that doesn't make the original activity inappropriate. It's one thing to look up and see a bunch of theatre kids in my hobby, it's quite another for them to tell me I'm doing it wrong and should leave. It's especially ridiculous to point to a D&D derived genre of fiction and say it's more appropriate than the source activity that spawned it.

 

[Micah Sweet]

So you don't have absolute power, then?

Because you're specifically saying here that players can:

• Criticize your decisions
• Expect a reasonable response, assuming reasonable criticism (again, not giving carte blanche to anyone!)
• Lay out what they think needs to change
• Get that change to actually happen, at least some of the time, even if you yourself don't think the change was needed (again, not saying you can't have bright lines, just that there are limits)

That last one is especially important.

Sure, but the decision to make that change in my behavior, or not, is always mine.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

You are perfectly welcome to feel that way. That is a valid, subjective opinion. But it isn't more than that.

 

[Enrahim]

Okay. This presents something very important.

You have set down certain, specific, and most importantly limited elements that are bright-lines for you. Anything that crosses a bright line is a problem. I have no problem with that--but the key word here is limited.

The presentation, consistently--and as noted, what I just quoted from Bloodtide in a very recent post--is that the GM can create bright lines at any time, for any reason, as frequently as they like. They can add or remove bright lines whenever they want, for whatever reason they want, including for no reason at all. Any time they want a bright line, it's there. Any time they don't, it's not. A bright line might flick back and forth numerous times. Etc.

That's when it becomes a problem, where one side has arbitrary, unlimited, unchecked power to draw bright lines. Having some of them is good, possibly even great--but that "some" needs to be relatively limited, not carte blanche. Otherwise, yeah, it really does look like demanding absolute and unchecked power to be used at whatever arbitrary times the holder feels like.

You gave as an example where you intentionally don't draw any bright lines around stuff like new classes. That seems a pretty stark exception from the way "traditional GMs" present their work, where everything gets almost coated in bright lines. Sharply constrained classes, and races, and backgrounds, and concepts, and approaches, etc., etc., etc. That's where the "better toe the line" side comes from.

Also I'm not sure what "BL" means in this context. Bottom line?

Edit:
To add something that would forestall the possibility that others might read a false narrative into the above, this should apply to EVERYONE. NOBODY gets free rein to write bright lines anywhere and everywhere they like.

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

This actually give me an idea. I think @SkidAce 's description is very close to what most GMs actually do. However it seem like the formulation SkidAce is using actually is more reassuring due to it being properly articulated.

I think very few GMs would be able to with confidence formulate the right lines for them. I for instance once allowed a build that turned out to be completely broken. It had an animal companion that outshined the entire party of PCs in combat. The group agreed this was ridiculous, and the character that had it got modified. However this is a piece of experience I would like to be able to draw upon also in the future. What to do if a different player come up with the same build, and refuse to believe me, or think it just sound cool when I tell about my experience? Having that bright line on character creation would indeed feel quite handy there - to protect the other players.

I completely agree it would be nice to have such a fixed set of lines. It improves predictability both for the players and for me as a GM. It make me not getting into the dilemma if I should take the social risk of introducing a new bright line (a risk that is certanly there even if it is accepted that i formally have the power to do so. An absolute monarch can still make unpopular decissions)

However I have yet to see anyone trying to actually concreting such lines for trad RPG (except possibly just here). Hence we are in the unfortunate situation of ad hoc lines being the best we have.

So hence I was wondering if you could try to formulate some lines based on my needs. Spesifically what I can think of I might need lines for is:

• Protecting in-fiction integrity (no thieflings if a central piece of worldbuilding is that it has nothing corresponding to hell)
• Protecting other players against abuse (No overpowered animal companion. No spider familiar if a player has severe arachnophobia. No insisting to spend hours pursuing some conspiracy theory regarding temple guards)
• Maintain the spirit of the game (No placing an unguarded dragon hoard in the next room simply because the players all agree that would be neat)

Actually these are the only three I can think of right now. I cannot at the moment envision me wanting instant and absolute power to overule any player wishes that do not somehow fall into one or several of these categories.

 

[TwoSix]

This is a terrible take. I'm open to a set of RPG people who really want to be doing something more explicitly improv-y or generative, but that doesn't make the original activity inappropriate. It's one thing to look up and see a bunch of theatre kids in my hobby, it's quite another for them to tell me I'm doing it wrong and should leave. It's especially ridiculous to point to a D&D derived genre of fiction and say it's more appropriate than the source activity that spawned it.

That’s fine.

I still prefer my take to “20 page character backstories and 300 page setting gazetteers make the game better.”

Don’t get me wrong, I like detailed setting guides. But I can recognize that liking something doesn’t mean its inclusion makes a game better.