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

[JConstantine]

Yeah, but this problem predates Edwards; all that's changed is how people categorized each other. It just used to be the Wargamers versus the Theater Kids.

And there's me collecting and playing Warhammer since the 90s, while also hamming it up in Red Dragon Inn.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Personally, I think Ron Edwards is to RPGs what Freud was psychology - undoubtedly influential with some incredibly flawed notions - and GNS theory has been incredibly damaging to RPG discourse due to misrepresenting any style outside of Narrativism, and resulting in naughty word like this. Putting aside that it's original intent was for RPG design, not playstyle, I think if you're going to use it for playstyle (I consider GDS theory to be less flawed for this), then it's better to view it in the form of a ternary diagram where an individual is plotted based on proportions of each element, not neat little separate boxes.

I think he definitely deserves credit as an influence, and I have no personal dislike of him (I tend to be more forgiving of the bloggers and thinkers because they are often framing things in a performative way, sometimes a facetious way, to cut through the noise online). But I do agree GNS fundamental problem is how it deals with styles outside narratives (and to a lesser extent gamism, which it seems at least somewhat friendly towards). Its analysis of styles outside N, seems like it is just missing certain considerations or confounding and reducing elements.

I kind of miss the days of when we talked more about types at the table. Managing different types of players and their expectations seems more workable to me (I can wrap my brain around the idea that some players just want a certain amount of fighting, that some players are really into rules, that some are very into talking in character, etc). The old breakdown in Campaign Sourcebook and Catacomb Guide is more my speed. I know GNS is more meant for design, but it gets applied to style and I would rather just think in terms of what different types of players want when I am designing.

 

[AlViking]

Oh, also, if what I've answered so far seems "vague" to you, no others I give are likely to be more satisfactory. I think I've been pretty specific.

What you wrote ...

"Ones that require less judgment calls, which is primarily what I've been talking about from the start. Alternatively, one where the players inputs are taken when the call is made, and actually paid attention to (as in "if four of my six players think it should instead be done X way instead of Y way, then we do it X way") and not blown off on the grounds of speed. "

doesn't provide any concrete examples of rules that could be applied to a more traditional game. A specific example would be something like jumping a gap. In D&D we know how far someone can jump based on their strength and whether or not they have a running start. We don't know how far you can jump if you're jumping from a higher roof to a lower roof when the gap exceeds your strength score and it's a DM's call.

How would that scenario be handled in a game with more specific rules? Other than to say that if your strength is 15 you can jump 15 feet no matter what the circumstances are or it's just an abstract challenge? How could that logic and rules be applied to D&D since you think most DMs could benefit from systems with those rules? Saying that a GM should listen to players and work with them is just solid general advice and has little to do with the rules of the game.

 

[Bedrockgames]

From Campaign Sourcebook and Catacomb Guide

 

[hawkeyefan]

Thank you. This tells me that the kind of GM restrictions you are advocating work best with very curated systems designed to do one specific kind of gaming. That makes sense, and explains one reason why Narrativist games (and some other non-traditional games) don't appeal to me. I don't want the mechanics to force a style of play. I'd rather have an explanation of play intent, but a loose hand on enforcing it mechanically so the game can be adjusted for the preferences of the GM and players.

That same loose hand is what can often make play less certain for the players. 5e was designed loosely so that GMs could plug the gaps. And while some folks see this as a strength because it gives them freedom to GM how they like, it also leads to uncertainty in play process and hides a lot of information from the players that it perhaps shouldn't. At the very least, it should talk about the impact that hiding information from the players has on play.

No one is ignoring it. They just disagree with the lens you bring to bear on trad play

No, the number of times you've categorized my "preferred play style" and defined my motives for me makes it clear that you don't care that I have as much or more experience with trad play, and I am simply able to be straightforward about the process.

The narrativist-leaning folk might bristle at this, but one is learning to GM. Think of it like stabilising wheels on a bike: useful when first starting to learn to ride (or just too lazy to maintain balance), but they're going to be restrictive, even detrimental for some things you might want to do, like bike tricks.

On the one hand, I agree. I wish that I'd had such clear guidance early in my GMing days. Instead of decades of trial and error and mixed advice of all kinds, I would have much preferred to have a text that provided such a clear and direct explanation of play and the process of play. So I do think that some games like Apocalypse World can be excellent tools for new GMs.

On the other hand, though, the idea that having constraints gets in the way of GMing is one I don't agree with. I don't know what the GMing equivalent of "bike tricks" would be, but generally speaking, GMing free of restraint is anathema to play.

 

[Umbran]

What you're forgetting in your equation is that the players know there’s a 50% chance they’re getting a bag of poo if they attempt something on Valentine's Day. You're describing an event table, and the magic hat in my example works exactly the same way. Both involve a pre-defined set of outcomes and a die roll to determine which one occurs.

1) This thread is over 800 pages long. Do not expect everyone to have seen your magic hat example.

2) While maybe you make all random tables visible to players, that is not general GM behavior, sandbox or otherwise. Generally, we should not expect the PCs to know the odds behind the "logic of the setting" mechanics.

3) None of that changes the fact that someone chose to have poo as a possible result on Valentine's Day, and whoever made that choice is sleeping on the couch.

 

[Bedrockgames]

No, the number of times you've categorized my "preferred play style" and defined my motives for me makes it clear that you don't care that I have as much or more experience with trad play, and I am simply able to be straightforward about the process.

I don't know this thread has moved very fast, as have most other threads on these topics, so I think if I am saying things like that, it is in expediency responding to posts. I have observed you mention you play trad. But the points were are arguing about are what is going on in trad play and what principles of play can produce agency. Those are the things being disputed

 

[robertsconley]

That same loose hand is what can often make play less certain for the players. 5e was designed loosely so that GMs could plug the gaps. And while some folks see this as a strength because it gives them freedom to GM how they like, it also leads to uncertainty in play process and hides a lot of information from the players that it perhaps shouldn't. At the very least, it should talk about the impact that hiding information from the players has on play.

The flaw in your argument is that it incorrectly attributes the issue to the “loose hand” itself, when the real problem is a breakdown in communication.

Yes, mechanics can be an effective and terse way to convey how things work, whether it's what a character can do, the abilities of a monster, or how a campaign is expected to function. But that's just one way to communicate, and it’s not always the best one. People vary in how they process and understand information. What works well for one player may be opaque to another.

Moreover, using game mechanics to communicate how a campaign works carries an implicit assumption: that the rules are not just descriptive but prescriptive. Many people grow up believing that the fair way to play any game is to follow its written rules. If something isn’t in the rules, they may assume it’s off-limits or unfair to invoke.

This can lead to problems when designers rely too heavily on mechanics to convey expectations. Overly rigid application of those mechanics, especially by players or referees who interpret the rules as a complete representation of the world, can actually obscure the intended flexibility or tone. If that’s intentional, fine. But too often, I don’t see designers consider this consequence.

As for me, this concern is why much of my Living World sandbox framework is presented as advice, not as a rigid system of rules. I want to give referees tools, not prescriptions, because communication, not mechanical enforcement, is the key to clarity and trust at the table.

 

[Bedrockgames]

1) This thread is over 800 pages long. Do not expect everyone to have seen your magic hat example.

2) While maybe you make all random tables visible to players, that is not general GM behavior, sandbox or otherwise. Generally, we should not expect the PCs to know the odds behind the "logic of the setting" mechanics.

3) None of that changes the fact that someone chose to have poo as a possible result on Valentine's Day, and whoever made that choice is sleeping on the couch.

I do agree if you put it on the table, you have to at least understand what it means for that to come up. But I also think the nature of random tables is so you can have a variety of things, some bad, some very bad, some not so great, some wonderful, come up. I think the GMs responsibility here is more in the assigning of probabilities and conveying to the players what type of game they are in (I don't know what games you guys are playing where bags of poo are being distributed on valentines day, but having some amount of sweet and sour on a table is the thing that makes random tables exciting)

 

[Micah Sweet]

That same loose hand is what can often make play less certain for the players. 5e was designed loosely so that GMs could plug the gaps. And while some folks see this as a strength because it gives them freedom to GM how they like, it also leads to uncertainty in play process and hides a lot of information from the players that it perhaps shouldn't. At the very least, it should talk about the impact that hiding information from the players has on play.

I do see that loose hand as a strength, and find it actively unpleasant to play any other way. To me, adding hard restraints to GMs makes the game less playable.