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

[EzekielRaiden]

What criteria do you use to define a good, bad or mediocre GM's?

A bad GM is one that engages in various harmful behaviors, such as: arbitrary and capricious decisions, bad-faith rules interpretation, crapping on others' preferences, refusal to engage in warranted and appropriate discussion (note: not the same as "always let everyone argue for as long as they want", because people love to twist this description into that), being manipulative or coercive, lying to the players about the nature of game they're going to be playing. That sort of thing. Truly bad GMs are rare.

The vast majority of GMs are somewhere between "pretty decent" and "not very good", without being bad GMs. This area is hard to precisely quantify because someone could, for example, be absolutely amazing at fair and supportive adjudication, but be utter garbage at providing a scene/situation/context that is engaging to play in. Or they could be craptacular at running NPCs with reasonable and understandable behavior, but phenomenal at setting conceits and off-the-cuff homebrew. Or any of a number of other things.

A good GM obviously avoids all of the bad things that bad GMs do, but goes beyond that to doing the opposite or inverse: consistently fair or generous decisions, good-faith interpretation, going above and beyond to respect others' preferences, permitting warranted and appropriate discussion (while firmly but gently setting discussion aside when it truly isn't productive), being scrupulously honest and forthright when it comes to GM actions and justifications (read: NPCs can lie to PCs, that happens all the time; GMs, in their capacity as GMs, should never lie to their players). And, naturally, being no less than mediocre at the GM-skills stuff mentioned in the previous paragraph, but preferably better, and definitely quite good at at least a couple different GM skills.

I'd say the ratio of bad : mediocre : good is about 1 : 7 : 2. The clear majority of GMs are mediocre, and only a very small proportion are bad. But the bad ones are still more than common enough that most people will encounter one sooner or later.

And why is it always on the shoulders of GM's? In my experience, I've seen more bad players than outright bad GM's

Because, as I've said many times, it is the GM who is declaring they have power and authority. It is the GM who demands trust and respect.

That specific thing--laying claim to authority and requiring trust--always means the person doing it should be held to a higher standard than those not doing that thing. That doesn't mean we have no standard at all for others, we most assuredly do. But anyone who claims the mantle of authority must be subject to greater scrutiny. It is the nature of the beast. We question the motives of our leadership far more than we question the motives of our neighbors, even though we spend far more time with the latter than the former!

 

[clearstream]

Okay. Seeing an argument trotted out only against one specific thing, while not even lifting a finger to talk about, y'know, how goblins and kobolds are specifically designed to become that--to be sapient beings who BECOME nothing but trash to be swept aside by the Great And Powerful Heroes--is still, pretty clearly, special pleading.

I'm not claiming any exception to general principles. We agree that...

games can be a tool of moral education and investigation.

The minions mechanic is thus not excluded from subjects of moral investigation.

I just still don't see how the thing you are targeting is in any way special.

Seeing as I am not arguing that the minions mechanic is special, I do not see the import of your assertion here.

I am proposing that the minion mechanic, looked at through the lense of Goethe's third question, was not worth doing in the case that one sees achieving a design aim of "players get to enjoy carving through the mob like a knife through butter" as problematic rhetoric. Adducing arguments along the lines of Bogost's persuasive games and procedural rhetorics. A principle can be followed that is roughly "given games can serve as rhetoric, we are justified in preferring to avoid mechanics that embody rhetorics we consider problematic."

I do not say that this principle applies solely to minions mechanics, nor that it should be applied in any special way to the minions mechanic, but only that it does indeed apply to the minions mechanic. You've made no argument dispelling that, but rather offered "what about X?"

There are much, much, MUCH more important things to fix, if our goal is to eliminate the lingering stench of colonialism from D&D. Minions are so far down the list, and share that spot with numerous other things, that singling them out for special attention is...as noted...special pleading.

Unless and until you can make an argument that actually does single out minion rules as specially different from the other parts of D&D that reek of colonialism, I stand by my previous arguments; they still apply, just now on the colonialism front, rather than the senseless-murder front.

This is a form of whataboutism. It can be true that the minion mechanics embody a problematic rhetoric whether or not it is also true that other mechanics do.

If we're going to take this stance, we're going to need to actually redesign the system so that we simply do not demonize, period.

That's not going to happen because we get rid of minion rules.

I haven't suggested that removing the minions mechanic alone will be sufficient to achieve the ends you outline. The scope of my critique is the minions mechanic itself. The designers state their aims, most seem to accept that those aims are to some extent achieved, I am pointing out that they are, under conditions that I spell out, not worth doing.

 

[AlViking]

Correct. People say they want a "cool" Superman. But then the thing that actually succeeded was a dorky Superman, a Superman who was comfortable being kinda lame.

Directors had been giving people the Superman the public told them they wanted: complicated, gritty, grim, violent, willing to kill. James Gunn correctly--after some lobbying from Mr. Corenswet, I've been told--understood that making Superman cool is counterproductive. It seems like it's what we need, that we have to grunge him up a bit otherwise he can't appeal to the modern, jaded, cynical audience. But it isn't.

To make a successful Superman, you have to make Superman. And Superman needs to be the brightest thing in the room--that's the whole point of the persona worn by Clark Kent, the heart-of-gold farmboy from Kansas. Superman needs to be a little dorky, because only someone willing to be a little dorky can be sincere enough to be Superman. Superman needs to step back from being the absolute coolest thing he could potentially be, because he needs to be someone a child would willingly approach to ask for directions.

They've finally stopped giving people what the metrics and surveys and audience personality assessments "predicted" people wanted, and actually looked at what makes Superman be Superman?, and guess what, it's goddamn BRILLIANT.

Do you have any confirmation, any proof, that the studio heads relied on surveys to make their decisions? Because from what I've read they just look at what worked for their previous movies and tried to replicate the MCU. The Nolan Batman movies were dark ad gritty so that's what they pushed for.

Your argument just doesn't hold up and you have no proof.

(It also helps that they made Luthor an absolute, unmitigated monster served by "banality of evil" subordinates who are VERY much the "well I didn't think the Face-Eating Leopard Party would eat MY face!" type, rather than being purely innocent bystanders. But Corenswet's Superman is what makes all the rest of it work.)

I think they've been flailing for a while on what to do with Superman, after all he's been around for almost a century. But I agree, they hit Luthor on the head.

I mean, yes, I absolutely believe that. I'm also 100% certain you won't listen to any argument I have with regard to that, so I'm not going to bother wasting your time and mine listing things I know you won't listen to.

The design goal of the game was to sell lots of books. It succeeded far beyond their expectations. Personally I, and the few dozen people I've played with? We think it's well designed.

I personally think they should have made several different decisions. I see no point in discussing them in detail with you, because I am completely certain that discussion won't produce even the slightest bit of progress on anything whatsoever.

I think that 5e hit their target goals and then kept going. Doesn't make it the best game ever, because that's pretty meaningless. What's best is purely subjective. The game may not be well designed for you, it seems to work for millions of people and has had far more staying power than previous WOTC editions.

I still have no idea what this has to do with minions. Seems like you're just back to the "5e sucks because it's not what I want" repertoire.

 

[clearstream]

I tend to read @clearstream's comment as one said in jest, not for serious discussion.

Not in jest, but with an intent that is not one-dimensional either. Stepping back from the particulars of my argument, for the minions mechanic the designers state their aims, many seem to accept that those aims were to some extent achieved. Analysis can thus turn toward Goethe's third question: was it worth doing? There are many answers to that: I've outlined one that I find interesting.

I wouldn't say that 4e would be a lesser design just because the minions mechanics were cut from the text. Would you? If so, why? What makes them worth keeping?

 

[clearstream]

The game may not be well designed for you, it seems to work for millions of people and has had far more staying power than previous WOTC editions.

One way I've tried to assess this is to look at the percentage favourable reviews of purchasers and read their written testimonials. 5e is the most favourably reviewed TTRPG by purchasers so far as I can make out. Second is CoC.

I think getting away from just -- is it very popular -- to look at purchaser testimonials helps better understand its merits. Just because it has those merits doesn't mean other games do not have different, equally important merits; but it does show that 5e does some things exceptionally well. For example, based on player testimony, accessibility is one thing 5e does exceptionally well.

 

[Faolyn]

Perhaps, but keeping those inconstencies down to a dull roar is still IMO a worthy goal to strive for.

But in comparison, another group of pirates appearing from below decks out out of the jungle is not an inconsistency that causes more than the mildest of whispers.

It varies. Some parties IME will go that far, not committing until they know exactly what they're up against. Others just throw caution to the wind and go flying in without a care in the world.

And IME, most people are in the middle. They do as good as recon as they can, but not so good that they are 100% correct.

I don't; and if I did I'd likely never have become a DM as I wouldn't have had any "acceptable" players.

How very strange. Once I got out of college, I've gamed with very few real jerks, and my current group (whom I've been with for 15~ years) is pure gold. Yes, we have disagreements, but we work them out like mature adults. Nor are we a group of goodie two-shoes, as evidenced by yesterday's interrogation of an NPC that very quickly veered into torture and for all I know may go much darker next week. And we're not idealistic kids, either, since we range in age from early 30s to mid 50s, with me towards the upper end.

Oh, eventually they get it out of their systems and engage with the adventure...or the adventure engages with them, whichever.

I still prep stuff, but if they don't get to that stuff tonight because they're having fun whaling on each other it's no skin off my nose. It'll still be there next week, or the week after that, or whenever.

Good gravy. Why don't they just play video games, if they only want to beat each other up? It sounds like your group is highly disrespectful of both your time and effort.

Thing is, you say "the behaviors keep continuing" as if it's a bad thing.

If they've having fun beating each other up in character, why would I want to stop them? And if I'm a player in a game and someone wants to play like that, I'll engage as my character would engage (which would vary hugely, depending on what I was playing at the time).

And if I'm a player and someone wants to play like that, I'll leave their butt at the inn. As I've said, I'm not going to adventure with someone I can't trust not to steal from me or slit my throat in the night. At the very least, it's not worth the risk involved, no matter how great their skills are.

 

[Aldarc]

I dunno. I think its a gamist mechanism, but its associated with fictional tropes (specifically the ones you see in action fiction where heroes go through random henchmen like cordwood) which is why its there at all, so I'd say its got a leg in each camp there.

Its particular expression is gamist in that its designed to make that process simple, in part because the mooks/minions are still supposed to be something of some import (in the sense they usually aren't harmless) but not such that they warrant much handling time.

Bottom line is that it’s not Narrativist.

 

[Aldarc]

Ok. I'll use whatever term you like. It doesn't work for me, because it isn't about representing the in-fiction setting, nor is it necessary for practical play.

You don’t need to use any term to say that you dislike minion mechanics.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Bottom line is that it’s not Narrativist.

Eh. That's part of a set of terms I think was flawed from the get-go (because of how simulationism was handled) so that's a terminological problem, but its still representing a fundamentally story-shape process. I agree its a largely game-convenient way of doing so, and arguably a refinement of something D&D has had more halfway modes of doing for a long time, but calling it primarily gamist seems to ignore why its doing it in the first place. This is entirely aside from Micah's kind of kneejerk reaction to anything smacking of non-simulationist reasons.

 

[Thomas Shey]

And if I'm a player and someone wants to play like that, I'll leave their butt at the inn. As I've said, I'm not going to adventure with someone I can't trust not to steal from me or slit my throat in the night. At the very least, it's not worth the risk involved, no matter how great their skills are.

I really do have to question how ongoing PvP approaches to things would work barring "PC Glow". And why I'd bother to keep playing with someone who habitually did this, even if I didn't know about it in-character.