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

[Guest 85555]

The appeal to the “real world” to me indicates that you have a priority other than player driven play.

The amount of influence the GM has over what the players know of the situation in the game world is immense. Choosing to create a scenario where they don’t have the info needed is a choice. Own up to it… don’t blame it on realism.

You are painting his position way more extreme than it is. Clearly you can value realism and player driven play, and realism can even I’m enhance a sense of being a character in a world, where you are making choices that feel like real choices. He is talking about how in life sometimes you have information, sometimes you don’t. If the GM is always making scenarios where the players don’t have access to information, then sure maybe something is off. If the GM is trying to make a plausible world and doing it when it feels realistic to do so, or at a realistic frequency, there is no problem there nor is there anything he has to own up to. It is this last point: that the GM has something to own up to, is what runs peopke the wrong way here. Statements like that have been made about this style and I think it is a very unfair characterization. It is one thing for us to disagree over approaches, another to treat this like something where people need to confess to some kind of D&D wrong doing

 

[Manbearcat]

This is what frustrates me about the "trust the GM" axiom:

If the actual gameplay layer is transparently systematized in a compelling, engaging way for player decision-trees and the GM executes their part in delivering that gameplay layer in an expert and deft fashion? We...don't have to trust...anything. We just...know. Because its...right_bloody_there. GM does their overt part + player does their overt part + system does its overt part = in concert we have arrived at a new, transparent gamestate and associated situation-state.​

I just wish we would always and ever index what appears to be the issue that is always circled back to in these cases (which we've seen multiple testimonials of such in this thread). That issue is that there is a segment of TTRPG players that cannot (or perhaps "do not presently") experience immersion within setting and habitation of PC if there is transparent, rigorous systemization of a gameplay layer. Hence, "I just want the mechanics to get out of the way" and "trust the GM ('s black box gamestate decision-making)." Secondarily, I wish we would be honest about what the trade-off for this particularized need for immersion entails. That trade-off is an impact to the gameplay layer whereby players are subbing out some not-insignificant orientation-to-situation/decision-tree work to the GM to either flat-out decide for the player ("would I know..." > "no you wouldn't...so do something else" or "yes you would and here is the key information that will inform your action declaration...go ahead and declare it now") or, instead of the player handling it all, the GM resolves some essential particulars of a player decision & action declaration & muster PC build vs opposition loop <GM comes up with some manner of discretionary fortune resolution procedure or some key value off the cuff...either telling the player to roll blindly, or the GM rolls it themselves, typically behind a screen>.

In the past, this was always asserted as "this sort of play is objectively not immersive...so therefore there is no trade-off...because you're not playing a TTRPG...you're playing a board game + disconnected free form." That was the move. At least we've gotten beyond that. But now that we're beyond that absurd move to prevent the conversation around trade-offs...can we actually discuss what is happening moment-to-moment, sequence-to-sequence at the table and discuss trade-offs for this "I need some certain particulars for my autobiographical immersive requirements" > "mechanics get out of the way" + "trust your GM" model vs alternatives?

I'm guessing the answer is a totally unpredictable "NO, WE CANNOT...YOU JERK...HOW DARE YOU?!!111"

 

[AnotherGuy]

So the answer to "why do we distrust players but trust GMs" is "because we do."

Now you know why I have said the answers are unsatisfactory.

Note that presuming good faith on the GM's part but not presuming good faith on the player's part is specifically my issue here.

You as a player find a DM suitable to your roleplaying style. 1 Person.
As GM you have to find many players who are suitable to your playstyle. 1+ Person/s.

It is why many RPG advice books speak to the various types of RPG players personalities as opposed to the many GMs that exist.
Perhaps that is a fault of the PHB.

If you have a player amongst your group that unwittingly dominates the table, pushes on power...etc, it is the GM's responsibility to handle that.
That responsibility can be given to the table and should (I believe) where possible.
And for the record, I'm not even talking about a bad player. I'm not even in that territory. I have such a player and he is enthusiastic as anything, he contributes, he is proactive, he is a great resource for me for the rules and bouncing ideas for homebrew material...etc
We often joke that the party is not him and company.

As a GM of D&D one manages players' playstyle preferences, manages characters' screen time, manage PCs' desires, manage PCs' and party storylines, manages setting data...etc
And GMs are not perfect. And a player (and table) has every right to check the GM in case a mistake has been made or an oversight has occurred. In our last session, we were running a unique type of combat, both players and myself discovered we had missed things, so the table decided how far we would roll back the combat.

 

[AlViking]

...
I mean that seems like a really elaborate way to block a player from bribing a guard. It’s also the kind of thing that is likely known… there would be rumors or news about town that the lord of the castle takes extreme steps to ensure loyalty.

Everything serves two purposes. It has a place in the game world, and then a place in the game. GMs should be considering both.

If the characters didn't attempt to gather information about whether or not specific guards are open to bribery I don't feel compelled to tell them. I don't set the guard up to block any options, I think about the scenario and decide the probability that a guard can be bribed. You might be able to bribe a bouncer at a shady club but the odds of successfully bribing a random royal high guard is incredibly low to impossible.

 

[darkbard]

there is no problem there nor is there anything he has to own up to. It is this last point: that the GM has something to own up to, is what runs peopke the wrong way here. Statements like that have been made about this style and I think it is a very unfair characterization. It is one thing for us to disagree over approaches, another to treat this like something where people need to confess to some kind of D&D wrong doing

The point of analysis is, among other things, to explore unconscious biases, preconceptions, and so on at work in play. "Owning up to it" (in my understanding of @hawkeyefan's usage) is asking for engagement in the process of analysis, and not simply regurgitating unexamined platitudes like "what feels organic." Why you are so resistant to analysis and seem to consider it a threat to your own game and its processes is puzzling!

 

[FrozenNorth]

at least theoretically, yes, how would you figure out how corruptible a guard is without trying to bribe them?

1. Ask your contacts in the city’s underworld whether they have a contact in the guards who is bribeable.
2. Surveil the guard and create a dossier on them. Do they seem to have money troubles?
3. Physical observation of the guard. Does he seem to have bling on him that looks expensive on a guard’s salary?
4. Read the guard’s body language. Do they seem open to the possibility of being bribed?
5. Information on the settlement. It is a lawless wasteland where it is every man for themselves?
6. This seems like an actual use of Thieves’ Cant. Drop a suggestion that you could make things worth his while in thieves’ cant, see how he responds.

 

[mamba]

When you explain how you preserve the sandbox character of play by ensuring the GM does not decide things just as they fancy - but rather by reference to other constraints - then you're agreeing with me, not disagreeing!

I am agreeing that a DM just acting on their fancy is a problem, I am disagreeing that unless there is a procedure to prevent this at all times, the DM will end up doing so. The DM can restrain themselves.

This is not to say that there should be no rules, only that they do not need to completely prevent this on their own

 

[EzekielRaiden]

You as a player find a DM suitable to your roleplaying style. 1 Person.
As GM you have to find many players who are suitable to your playstyle. 1+ Person/s.

It is why many RPG advice books speak to the various types of RPG players personalities as opposed to the many GMs that exist.
Perhaps that is a fault of the PHB.

If you have a player amongst your group that unwittingly dominates the table, pushes on power...etc, it is the GM's responsibility to handle that.
That responsibility can be given to the table and should (I believe) where possible.
And for the record, I'm not even talking about a bad player. I'm not even in that territory. I have such a player and he is enthusiastic as anything, he contributes, he is proactive, he is a great resource for me for the rules and bouncing ideas for homebrew material...etc
We often joke that the party is not him and company.

As a GM of D&D one manages players' playstyle preferences, manages characters' screen time, manage PCs' desires, manage PCs' and party storylines, manages setting data...etc
And GMs are not perfect. And a player (and table) has every right to check the GM in case a mistake has been made or an oversight has occurred. In our last session, we were running a unique type of combat, both players and myself discovered we had missed things, so the table decided how far we would roll back the combat.

But that isn't what people tell us to do--over and over and over and over and over in these threads.

It's never "the players have every right to check the GM".

It's "Wow, you just really can't trust your GM, can you? That must really suck for you".

 

[robertsconley]

Why is it that we are told GMs will only ever make decisions in the best interests of the game, but if you give players even an inch they will attempt to climb rainbows and persuade the King to give them his kingdom?

I have asked this question many, many, many times.

I have never, not once, gotten a good answer.

This isn’t about trust. It’s about matching how a campaign is managed to the kind of experience the group wants to have. Every structure discussed here exists to support specific creative goals.

Trust is a social issue, and no amount of system design can resolve it. If someone in the group, referee or player, is acting in bad faith, the system won’t save you. Relying on system architecture to solve social problems creates a false sense of security.

What @soviet is doing here is reframing criticism of referee-centered adjudication and worldbuilding as if it were rooted in paranoia or control. That’s a rhetorical move, not an argument. The reality is that many players actively seek out campaigns where the referee has strong worldbuilding and adjudicative responsibilities because they enjoy the feeling of discovery that structure enables.

In referee-driven sandbox campaigns, the fog of war, the sense that the world has depth, opacity, and exists beyond player authorship, is a feature. Many players find challenge and satisfaction in navigating that uncertainty and responding to the world as it unfolds, rather than co-creating it.

That’s no more “suspicious of players” than narrative-first systems are “suspicious of referees.” It is simply a preference for a different aesthetic. It is one where the world surprises you, rather than invites you to shape it directly.

The good answer to @EzekielRaiden's question is this: it’s not about trust. It’s about building something fun to play, and choosing systems and procedures that support the kind of fun your group enjoys. Sharing adjudication and worldbuilding is one of many successful methods for that. So is entrusting a referee to run a world-in-motion that challenges and surprises the players.

 

[Guest 85555]

The point of analysis is, among other things, to explore unconscious biases, preconceptions, and so on at work in play. "Owning up to it" (in my understanding of @hawkeyefan's usage) is asking for engagement in the process of analysis, and not simply regurgitating unexamined platitudes like "what feels organic." Why you are so resistant to analysis and seem to consider it a threat to your own game and its processes is puzzling!

The problem is something thinking they know what you have to own up to. Because it is like you are trying to psychoanalyze other peoples games. You are trying to get into peoples heads, and assuming you know what biases are in operation. This isn't therapy, this isn't confession, or an interrogation. And it isn't that your analysis is a threat, it is that that kind of language in a conversation about game styles, bothers people because you are telling them you know more about what is going on in their own mind than they do

The other issue is I think a lot of us reject your method of analysis. So insisting people stop using language, accusing them of using 'vague platitudes' is not helpful in having a conversation. If people have failed to persuade you that is fair. But this stuff starts feeling insulting after a while. You don't have to like how I describe my games. I don't expect to persuade you. I do think it is fair though that I don't feel like I am in an interrogation seat when I try to explain how I run a game to you