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

[pemerton]

While it may not affect your greater point, I feel obliged to point out that the two modules you reference here weren't entirely representative of modules of the era. Ghost Tower of Inverness was specifically written as a tournament module and that purpose specifically and in some ways quite negatively informs a lot of its design (ditto the A-Series modules and some others), while Tomb of Horrors was written as a gonzo way for EGG to hose his players.

White Plume Mountain. Castle Amber. Against the Slave Lords. In all these modules, and as far as I know in the modules that WotC is selling today, we work out whether or not the PC falls down the pit or triggers the pressure plate by (i) tracking the PC's movement on a map, based on (ii) the player's description of where their PC moves.

 

[Maxperson]

This conflicts with the repeated assertion that "the GM is reality".

No it doesn't.

By definition--by your definition--the GM cannot disrupt the game. Everything they say goes. Period. That's the necessary consequence of them having absolute power. Whatever they say is true, is true. Period. End of discussion.

Absolutely false. My definition has never been that the DM cannot disrupt the game. Hell, I even said earlier in the thread that the DM can cause more disruption with a bad decision than a player can.

 

[Maxperson]

By definition, you have. To have authority MEANS to expect obedience.

No it doesn't.

authority: "the power to determine, adjudicate, or otherwise settle issues or disputes; jurisdiction; the right to control, command, or determine."

Yep. You CAN do those things. Not will.

obedient: "obeying or willing to obey; complying with or submissive to authority."

And that's the definition of obedient, not authority. You see, if someone with authority does use to demand a person do something, then the person who is submissive will be obedient. Nowhere does it say that authority = demand for obedience, because it doesn't mean that.

Absolute authority requires absolute submission from those over whom that authority applies. That is, very literally, what "authority" is about; those with authority receive obedience from those over whom they have authority, and those with absolute authority receive the absolute obedience of those over whom they have absolute authority.

Still false. You are very literally misinterpreting it badly.

How can you have absolute authority over the game and not the players? That's straight-up nonsense.

No, it's straight up fact.

If a player says he wants his PC to pick his nose, I can say it doesn't happen in the game. And it wouldn't happen. I'd never do that since it would be an abuse of authority, but I COULD do it.

If I demand that the player pick his nose, he's going to tell me where I can put my demand. Why? Because I have no authority over him.

DMs have 0 authority over players.

 

[clearstream]

I don't object to an abstracted mechanic in principle, but I prefer the abstraction be minimized. My main issue with the runes example is creating the meaning of the runes by the player who would be specifically benefiting from the reading going their way.

Similar to my other post, isn't proposing they can climb a wall or force a trapdoor open going to benefit the player that proposed it? Surely players often propose things that will be to the benefit of their characters, and roll to see if it goes their way.

I genuinely find it puzzling that any difference is perceived in that regard.

 

[clearstream]

Large jumps increase the feeling of unreality and distance from agency in events unfolding.

This kind of motive seems reasonable to me. Identification of some sort of sensitivity or preference, called for what it is. I would change "the" to "my" of course. Otherwise I'd only draw attention to the difference between this and the "retrocausal" argument that I felt to rely on a misstep in reasoning.

Do you also find it likely "that it is player as opposed to GM authorship that is the source of objections"?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

If you find false, disingenuous rubbish interesting that tells us about you. Its still appalling analysis.

Mod Note:

There’s a saying: “If you can’t say something nice, don’t say anything at all.”

The past couple of days, you’ve generated a rash of reports- all in this thread- mostly because you’re being rude and/or needlessly confrontational.

So, since you can’t say nice things in this thread, you don’t get to say anything at all in this thread.

 

[clearstream]

Right, where they then "guessed" that the chest contained gold?

You don't get why it matters. All I ask is that you accept that it does.

I should add that I accept that it matters. I suspect it takes reflection on individual preferences or received norms to understand why.

Broadly, I accept arguments that say it matters for reasons external to the processes of play, whilst resisting arguments that say it matters for reasons internal to the processes of play.

 

[pemerton]

If a player says he wants his PC to pick his nose, I can say it doesn't happen in the game. And it wouldn't happen.

This is hugely controversial. I wouldn't play at a table where a GM asserts this sort of power.

I mean, even as default-GM-driven/centred a RPG as 5e D&D describes the basic play-loop thus:

1. The Dungeon Master Describes a Scene. The DM tells the players where their adventurers are and what’s around them (how many doors lead out of a room, what’s on a table, and so on).
2. The Players Describe What Their Characters Do. Typically, the characters stick together as they travel through a dungeon or another environment. Sometimes different adventurers do different things: one adventurer might search a treasure chest while a second examines a mysterious symbol engraved on a wall and a third keeps watch for monsters. Outside combat, the DM ensures that every character has a chance to act and decides how to resolve their activity. In combat, the characters take turns.
3. The DM Narrates the Results of the Adventurers’ Actions. Sometimes resolving a task is easy. If an adventurer walks across a room and tries to open a door, the DM might say the door opens and describe what lies beyond. But the door might be locked, the floor might hide a trap, or some other circumstance might make it challenging for an adventurer to complete a task. In those cases, the DM might ask the player to roll a die to help determine what happens. Describing the results often leads to another decision point, which brings the game back to step 1.

There is no suggestion that step 2 is actually The players ask their GM to approve their suggestions as to what their characters do.

 

[Maxperson]

This is hugely controversial. I wouldn't play at a table where a GM asserts this sort of power.

Nor would I. Leaving the table would be our only recourse, though. Not control of the game in any way. Inside the fiction, the character would not have picked his nose.

I mean, even as default-GM-driven/centred a RPG as 5e D&D describes the basic play-loop thus:

1. The Dungeon Master Describes a Scene. The DM tells the players where their adventurers are and what’s around them (how many doors lead out of a room, what’s on a table, and so on).
2. The Players Describe What Their Characters Do. Typically, the characters stick together as they travel through a dungeon or another environment. Sometimes different adventurers do different things: one adventurer might search a treasure chest while a second examines a mysterious symbol engraved on a wall and a third keeps watch for monsters. Outside combat, the DM ensures that every character has a chance to act and decides how to resolve their activity. In combat, the characters take turns.
3. The DM Narrates the Results of the Adventurers’ Actions. Sometimes resolving a task is easy. If an adventurer walks across a room and tries to open a door, the DM might say the door opens and describe what lies beyond. But the door might be locked, the floor might hide a trap, or some other circumstance might make it challenging for an adventurer to complete a task. In those cases, the DM might ask the player to roll a die to help determine what happens. Describing the results often leads to another decision point, which brings the game back to step 1.

There is no suggestion that step 2 is actually The players ask their GM to approve their suggestions as to what their characters do.

Not only is there a suggestion, the 5e rules out and out say that the rules serve the DM, not the other way around. He can change them as he sees fit. That includes modifying the play loop.

And again, I wouldn't play in a game like that, either. I certainly would never run a game that way.

 

[Enrahim]

From the perspective of an external observer, there is no "most likely" meaning of the runes.

Agreed. That doesn't remove the possibility of the mindset of trying to find this while disregarding own preferences. (The latter was a more important qualifier in my post than the "most likely", as that is what show the contradiction)

The claim appear to be that there is a particular mode of play characterized by certain contributions being made exclusively based on such a mindset. It is common in this mode of play that the only one supposed to have such a mindset is the GM, and this hence separates them from the players in terms of them being a valid source of the affected contributions for this mode of play.

It seem like you later in the post confirm that in your game players are not supposed to have such a mindset. Meanwhile people seem to have argued the contributions they provided seemed to fall into the set of contributions reserved for this mindset if it had been this mode of play. Hence it appear like you were not having a mode of play characterized by these reserved contributions being based on such a mindset.

---------------------------------------------------------

I am really not among those that voice this concern. I feel like I can read the concern, and understand it. I do not share the concern though, as I don't think there is anything special about the mode of play they seem to describe. I am as such also not completely certain exactly where the limits of this mode of play is going. I really just try to help communication, as I find it somewhat frustrating to see two parties appear to completely talk past each other with no progress for dozens of pages - and I really hoped I could help the conversation gain some traction. My personal stakes in this is that I think a common understanding could be reached between you, and that the nature of that could lead to insights that would enhance my own understanding regarding certain aspects of the hobby I do care about.

------------------------------------------------------------

(Edit: RE

If someone wants to insist that, because the player is not reasoning and discovering there is no simulation of the character reasoning and discovering, then they are using the word "simulation" in some non-standard sense that needs explanation. I don't see how the role of the GM in authoring backstory is not going to be part of that explanation.

I guess the above provides an possible explanation that answers what sort of non-standard sense we might be looking at? That is it is not role of the GM in authoring of backstory as such that is essential, but rather the mindset requirement of "neutrality" that typically comes with the role in certain modes of play.)