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

[Umbran]

Also, in my experience, players who say “that’s what my character would do” often can’t back it up when questioned. By contrast, I’ve said multiple times that players are free to question what’s going on in the campaign, and I’m always prepared to show my work. If a decision comes from the setting’s internal logic, I can explain how I arrived at it.

So, what are we talking about here - what you, robertsconley, do, or what is done broadly in various approaches to play. Because your personal behavior doesn't speak to anyone but you - and your behavior then cannot be used as support for an approach to play, in general.

And, again, the setting doesn't have internal logic that isn't also the GM's own personal logic, since the GM either creates or authorizes that logic.

 

[Umbran]

What is Valentine's Day in this increasingly tortured metaphor?

I think the metaphor isn't tortured. It may just be uncomfortably clear.

Valentine's Day is the moment in which the results we produce are particularly relevant to the recipient of those results. On Valentine's Day, getting a bag of poo from your SO is particularly relevant, and is particularly bad.

The GM ought to own when their results, however they are generated, stink for the player. "Internal world logic" is not somehow especially absolving.

 

[Maxperson]

Perhaps. Note that I wasn't the one to first use that word.

On the internet, there's a tendency to describe the other guy with uncomplimentary terms, and describe our own actions with complimentary terms. One way to combat that is to use the same terms for everyone - and if that makes someone bristle, then the use of that term ought to be interrogated.

To wit: the fact that one makes a table (or other mechanic) that we refer to later doesn't actually imply that creation was thought out and well-reasoned. One can do a slapdash job on a table.

And similarly, the fact that one makes a choice in the moment doesn't mean that choice wasn't thought out, well-reasoned, or otherwise sensible. That's the implication that came with the word "whim", but it was not a well-supported implication.

Good, sensible thinking is orthogonal to implementation.

It bugs the heck out of me when people inflate their terms and use disparaging terms for the other guys. Doing so generally causes the discussion to be about arguing those terms, rather than the point of the discussion, which would otherwise be worthwhile.

After you've seen your threads go down in flames a half dozen times over using a disparaging term, you'd think people would stop doing that. At this point I view it as a form of self-sabotage.

As for whim, I challenge it almost every time I see it used, as it is generally used to imply that DMs aren't considering their decisions before making them, without any proof of such lack of thought being present. Occasionally I see it used properly and don't challenge its use.

When people have talked about creating tables, I haven't seen(though I've missed dozens of pages in this thread) anyone say or imply that they just throw down stuff without thinking about what it is they are listing on the table.

 

[Umbran]

And as with most things, whether “It’s what my character would do” is bad or good depends on how it’s used and what it’s used for. Acting in-character is generally a good thing unless the player is using it as an excuse to be a jerk or worse. Likewise, following the world’s internal logic is a good thing unless the GM is using it as an excuse to be a jerk or worse.

Yep. You got it.

 

[Micah Sweet]

At risk of potentially "interrogating" again--what would you define that role to be?

Because that would be a pretty big sticking point...depending on what "the GM's traditional role" means. A lot of tradition, especially when it comes to GMs, is....maybe not something we want to do today? Ear seekers and the infamous passage about passive-aggressively punishing players who choose not to play human characters, for example, are explicitly written into the 1e AD&D DMG. (Even dug up an image reference for the latter, if you desire it, though I'm sure you've read it yourself already.) I am not saying this to smear all tradition as bad, because that would be pointlessly foolish. I'm just noting that sometimes we might want to "impinge on the GM's traditional role" because some traditions maybe shouldn't be carried forward, or should at least get some really careful review. (I am a big believer in Chesterton's Fence, but a portion of these traditions are cases where the person who built the fence has explicitly laid out the reason why they built it, and that reason seems pretty bad!)

Not everything suggested in every traditional RPG is part of my repertoire, but the core of it (the GM handles everything in game that isn't the PCs, and is guided by their own judgement and the social contract in how he does so) is what I do.

I have zero idea what Chesterton's Fence is, and frankly not sure why you would apparently assume I would. I'm also rather irritated at the rhetorical tactic of implying I'm an adversarial jerk GM because I said I prefer to cleave to the GM's traditional role in my play and didn't specifically exclude certain less than friendly practices that have sometimes been associated with it in the past. I don't like many of the style preferences you seem to, but I've never suggested you might be a bad actor for having them, or yelled at people for not answering my questions to my satisfaction.

 

[CreamCloud0]

I have zero idea what Chesterton's Fence is,

it's a term for the principle of 'don't change or remove something until you understand why it was put there in the first place'

 

[Micah Sweet]

What is the GM's traditional role? Do you mean the sort of role found in classic D&D? In Classic Traveller? In the DL modules? In Prince Valiant (1989, so contemporaneous with AD&D 2nd ed)? Or something else.

What do you think I mean? We've been posting in the same threads for years now. Do you really have no idea what I could be talking about, or are you just trying to show me up?

 

[Bedrockgames]

So, what are we talking about here - what you, robertsconley, do, or what is done broadly in various approaches to play. Because your personal behavior doesn't speak to anyone but you - and your behavior then cannot be used as support for an approach to play, in general.

And, again, the setting doesn't have internal logic that isn't also the GM's own personal logic, since the GM either creates or authorizes that logic.

But wouldn't you agree that between the act of creating and the act of playing, the logic kind of suggests certain things. For example if I make an NPC who wants to steal beautiful faces for his collection, and one of the players has a character they describe as beautiful or handsome, then there would be a certain logic to that NPC going after that PC. It isn't like it has to happen, but there is definitely a kind of logic arrow pointing in that direction should those two happen to interact

 

[Maxperson]

So, what are we talking about here - what you, robertsconley, do, or what is done broadly in various approaches to play. Because your personal behavior doesn't speak to anyone but you - and your behavior then cannot be used as support for an approach to play, in general.

And, again, the setting doesn't have internal logic that isn't also the GM's own personal logic, since the GM either creates or authorizes that logic.

I use pre-established settings like Dark Sun, The Forgotten Realms, Planescape and The Scarred Lands. Those settings had a logic to them before I ever got there and even if I agree with it, it isn't my personal logic that the setting has. If I agree with you on something reasonable that you said, your logic doesn't then become my personal logic.

 

[Umbran]

I use pre-established settings like Dark Sun, The Forgotten Realms, Planescape and The Scarred Lands. Those settings had a logic to them before I ever got there and even if I agree with it, it isn't my personal logic that the setting has.

As GM, you have editorial control, and you are in charge of implementation. Once you pick it up and use it, it is yours.

Plus, unless you are going to claim that pretty much everyone who uses those settings would, if given the same situation in the setting, come to the same setting-logic conclusion for the next events, then it isn't the setting's logic - it is the GM's.

So, do you want to make that claim?