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

[kayakingpoodle]

Because it's apropos:

View attachment 413291

The only time you have too much rope is when your carrying it! When your using it there is no such thing as to much.

 

[hawkeyefan]

You and @TwoSix both did. You said, "The player and the GM being in agreement about the character’s capabilities isn’t a railroad."

Yes that’s true. No one said that it IS a railroad.

Either player and DM being in agreement isn't a railroad and the other factors don't matter, since it isn't a railroad, or the player and DM being in agreement doesn't stop something from being a railroad. Which is it?

The player and the GMbeing on the same page… in this case, both having a strong understanding of what “Cunning Expert” entails, is not a railroad.

I don’t know exactly what you were thinking when you claimed it was… it’s a not a stance that makes sense to me and since you’re the one who claimed it, it’s probably best of you explain it.

Yes it is. Can do is not the same as does. If you can't see that, I'm really not sure what to tell you. You will never be right if you declare all traditional games a railroad based on the possibility that some bad DM might, someday, maybe, engage in railroading behavior like that.

It’s not about that possibility… though the need for it to always be pointed out doesn’t help.

Ot’s more about the level of authority granted to GMs in traditional play often leads to railroading, especially when not tempered by clear and known principles.

I didn't see any of that. What I saw was a discussion about different playstyles, but nobody said that it shouldn't happen in that style of game and DMs should always, no matter what the game, have sole authority.

Sure they have. See responses to some posters below.

There is no similarity. Can do =/= does. Until those two things do equal each other(and they never will), there is no similarity.

Then how is it relevant? What does pointing out that you as GM can deny player action declarations, force the player from the game, and then use their PC as an NPC accomplish?

Imagine you walk up to a game table at a convention, and that’s what you hear the GM say. That’s gonna give you the warm fuzzies, huh?

He's stated that typical D&D game is always a railroad. If I were to use the word zerbit to describe some posters and was told that unbeknownst to me "zerbit" was a derogatory word I would stop using that word. It's common courtesy.

In any case he can't respond so we should drop it.

Yes, but when you and other folks have been asked not to describe other play styles without using words like quantum and “altering reality” and the like, it doesn’t happen. Some folks have even said they see no need to do so.

Personally, I think we should all call it like we see it. I don’t care how folks choose to describe games, I can argue my stance if I think they’re wrong.

But when people ask others to watch what they say, but don’t reciprocate… that I’ll point out.

I'm sure there are folks (like the one to which I'm responding) who find me exhausting. But at this point I could honestly care less what they think.

So… is that a yes?

I also have underlying thoughts and opinions about some of it that would earn me some red text were I to post them.

So you feel strongly enough about hoe other people play that you can’t discuss it without expecting moderation?

Here you go, @Maxperson

It's more that in some of the examples we've beenn given, all the players are expected to be co-DMs whether they want to or not.

What examples would those be?

Who do you think is being forced to play these games?

They're talking game theory lingo that everyone is just supposed to know. Anyway from What is Stance Theory? Part1

I mean… @Lanefan used the term and @TwoSix responded to him.

 

[bloodtide]

No, not at all. Most of what a GM does falls under the umbrella of “acceptable GM authority”.

And I guess the player(s) make the call here, right?

No, I think that generally, players want their input to matter to play. To different degrees, of course, but still overall they want to influence play and not just play a part in the GM’s story,

This is not true of all players. A great many players just want to "play along". Most don't really want to co-dm.

I think your understanding of games other than D&D is limited to the point where I’m not even really sure what you’re saying. But I play and tun a variety of games, with different levels of GM authority.

Well, this is easy enough to explain. I'm Old School so I utterly don't care what a silly rule book says. I'm going to be an "Almighty All-powerful Ultimate Authority" no matter what a game book says on page 11.

And the games with "the GM is just a player" or "The GM must follow the rules" or similar things in them...well, I don't play those games.

 

[TwoSix]

It's more that in some of the examples we've beenn given, all the players are expected to be co-DMs whether they want to or not.

The players are expected to have a greater role and responsibility in helping create the fiction and push it forward, yes.

If they didn’t want to do that, we wouldn’t play that game!

That’s the nice thing about changing games every few months; you can try a whole lot of different variations. Sometimes we do trad games, sometimes we do more OSR style, and other times we do more narrative games.

 

[TwoSix]

And the games with "the GM is just a player" or "The GM must follow the rules" or similar things in them...well, I don't play those games.

Believe me, there are zero people asking you to.

 

[Maxperson]

Yes that’s true. No one said that it IS a railroad.

The player and the GMbeing on the same page… in this case, both having a strong understanding of what “Cunning Expert” entails, is not a railroad.

I don’t know exactly what you were thinking when you claimed it was… it’s a not a stance that makes sense to me and since you’re the one who claimed it, it’s probably best of you explain it.

Then traditional play can't inherently be a railroad. Under that definition, no agreed upon playstyle can be.

It’s not about that possibility… though the need for it to always be pointed out doesn’t help.

Ot’s more about the level of authority granted to GMs in traditional play often leads to railroading, especially when not tempered by clear and known principles.

Yeah, that's not the case. It will rarely lead to railroading, because you will rarely find that odd bad DM out there. The claim of often is bupkis.

Sure they have. See responses to some posters below.

So far I've only seen your call out of @Lanefan which doesn't say what you think it does. That he feels that strongly about it for his own game, and likely wouldn't play in a game that has it, that comment does not say you shouldn't be doing it.

Then how is it relevant? What does pointing out that you as GM can deny player action declarations, force the player from the game, and then use their PC as an NPC accomplish?

It comes up when people start panicking about DM authority and accusations fly. It rarely comes out on its own.

Here you go, @Maxperson

What about it? So he feels strongly about having it in his game or playing under it as a player. How does that mean that he thinks you shouldn't be playing that way?

 

[Lanefan]

They're talking game theory lingo that everyone is just supposed to know. Anyway from What is Stance Theory? Part1


Actor Stance: The person playing a character determines the character's decisions and actions using only knowledge and perceptions that the character would have. This stance does not necessarily include identifying with the character and feeling what he or she "feels," nor does it require in-character dialogue.

The bolded parts are to me counterintuitive definitions of what it means to be an actor, in this sense.

There's a missing term, that would be defined as:

[xxxxx] Stance: The person playing a character determines the character's decisions and actions using only knowledge and perceptions that the character would have. Further, this stance includes, within reasonable guidelines, identifying with the character and feeling what he or she "feels," with communication done as in-character dialogue where possible.

Author Stance: The person playing a character determines the character's decisions and actions based on the person's priorities, independently of the character’s knowledge and perceptions. Author Stance may or may not include a retroactive "motivation" of the character to perform the actions.

Pawn Stance: A subset of Author Stance which lacks the retroactive "motivation" of the character to perform the actions.

 

[AlViking]

The bolded parts are to me counterintuitive definitions of what it means to be an actor, in this sense.

There's a missing term, that would be defined as:

[xxxxx] Stance: The person playing a character determines the character's decisions and actions using only knowledge and perceptions that the character would have. Further, this stance includes, within reasonable guidelines, identifying with the character and feeling what he or she "feels," with communication done as in-character dialogue where possible.

I'm not a fan of "stances" or really any of the other analytical terms. I say I run a sandbox campaign, but it would likely depend on whom you ask becauseit'snota randomhex crawl. So many of these terms are wishy washy enough to be almost meaningless.

So I'm not the one to ask about the definitions, just pointing out that they mean different things to different people.

 

[bloodtide]

Sure they have. See responses to some posters below.

Well, your nobody called today
She hung up when I asked her name
Well, I wonder does she think she's being clever?
(Clever)

Imagine you walk up to a game table at a convention, and that’s what you hear the GM say. That’s gonna give you the warm fuzzies, huh?

Well, I would love meeting another one of my kind!

What examples would those be?

Who do you think is being forced to play these games?

Well, if your a Share GM, your sharing equal power, responsibility, authority and control with all the players. It sounds great, but what if one or more players does not want to do that? Do you just take more power, responsibility, authority and control of the game back? What if all the players don't want to do it? Do you just run a traditional game then?

 

[AlViking]

Yes that’s true. No one said that it IS a railroad.



The player and the GMbeing on the same page… in this case, both having a strong understanding of what “Cunning Expert” entails, is not a railroad.

I don’t know exactly what you were thinking when you claimed it was… it’s a not a stance that makes sense to me and since you’re the one who claimed it, it’s probably best of you explain it.



It’s not about that possibility… though the need for it to always be pointed out doesn’t help.

Ot’s more about the level of authority granted to GMs in traditional play often leads to railroading, especially when not tempered by clear and known principles.



Sure they have. See responses to some posters below.



Then how is it relevant? What does pointing out that you as GM can deny player action declarations, force the player from the game, and then use their PC as an NPC accomplish?

Imagine you walk up to a game table at a convention, and that’s what you hear the GM say. That’s gonna give you the warm fuzzies, huh?



Yes, but when you and other folks have been asked not to describe other play styles without using words like quantum and “altering reality” and the like, it doesn’t happen. Some folks have even said they see no need to do so.

Personally, I think we should all call it like we see it. I don’t care how folks choose to describe games, I can argue my stance if I think they’re wrong.

But when people ask others to watch what they say, but don’t reciprocate… that I’ll point out.



So… is that a yes?




So you feel strongly enough about hoe other people play that you can’t discuss it without expecting moderation?

Here you go, @Maxperson



What examples would those be?

Who do you think is being forced to play these games?



I mean… @Lanefan used the term and @TwoSix responded to him.

Ah, the old canard about the slippery slope of GM authority leading inevitably to the dark pit of railroading. I guess railroading GMs exist, millions of people play RPGs after all, but to me it's always been pretty much the gamer version of Satanic panic. Lots of smoke, no fire. The bad GMs I've had would have been bad GMs with just about every system.

As far as "quantum" I haven't used it since someone complained about it. Altering reality? Well a player deciding that the runes were a map did alter the reality of the fiction. If the rules of the game and the rest of the people at the table are okay with it, why is it a problem to state what they are doing? It's their game, let them do what they want.