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

[Bedrockgames]

Yes… but why are the players constrained?

Players in most games are constrained because they are players. The GM has a different role so I think it is generally easier to deal with the GM not being so constrained. You can have different arrangements though and different degrees of playing RAW

 

[hawkeyefan]

Well here I would say, I think this isn't the case as a general matter. The players not inputing creating setting elements, doesn't mean they aren't driving the direction of the campaign. I would say a campaign where the players are along for the ride, is what I would call GM driven, and a campaign where the players can shoot the clerk, take his car and go on a cross country killing spree the GM never imagined, is a player driven campaign (normally i call this character driven actually but the players are the ones literally in the drivers seats here). I get that you can empower the players even more to actually have a say over what gets introduced, beyond acting through their characters, but like I said before, I don't see that as adding agency or adding 'player driven-ness to it'. I see that as being more about the mechanics of the game and the structure of play

All that said, I think you are simplifying what I do when you say "devoid of any consideration or input by the players". I may not tend to use the kinds of systems you are using, and I am much more on the trad side of things. But I said before I usually talk with my players about campaign concept and that is naturally going to lead to certain things being created for the campaign to fit what they are trying to do. And as the campaign unfolds, I am going to create in response to what they are trying to do and what they do. An example of this would be in my Paths from Nowhere campaign where the party was just kind of finding its way. One of the players wanted to join a group of local bandits. I had to make the bandits in response to what the player did. Then the player ended up betraying the bandit leader, on behalf of a roaming magistrate he took on as a new Sifu. I used 'pinning it down' throughout, so that the players in game choices would have weight, but he was moving in the direction of betraying the bandit leader, I had to create family connections, which led to the emergence of Lady Yang as a nemesis. This was all stuff I wouldn't have introduced or created had the player not been making these choices and pushing the boundaries of the campaign in that direction. So yes, the GM is the one making this stuff, but it isn't always happening in a vacuum, and it is often a direct response to actions the players take (and this is the thing in my experience that both expands and brings a setting to life)

I suppose I don’t see character autonomy to be the equivalent of driving the direction of the campaign. Yes, the players are choosing where to go and what to do… but it’s primarily all material crafted by the GM, and often without any consideration for the characters.

That doesn’t mean entirely, though. When I said “devoid of any consideration of or input by the players” my point was that was the extreme end. I said “especially when devoid…”. I hope that distinction is clear.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Because...they job is to play their characters? Was my last post confusing? What's your call to action here?

Yes, that is how they are constrained. They are constrained to act as their character could.

Why? What purpose do those constraints serve?

 

[Faolyn]

Because...they job is to play their characters? Was my last post confusing? What's your call to action here?

I think what he’s trying to ask is, why are there rules? The answer is so it doesn’t devolve into “I hit!” “No you didn’t!” “Uh-huh!” “Nuh-uh!”

 

[Bedrockgames]

I suppose I don’t see character autonomy to be the equivalent of driving the direction of the campaign. Yes, the players are choosing where to go and what to do… but it’s primarily all material crafted by the GM, and often without any consideration for the characters.

If the GM is creating in response to what the characters are doing, then that is with consideration for the characters IMO

 

[hawkeyefan]

If the GM is creating in response to what the characters are doing, then that is with consideration for the characters IMO

But only in how they interact with the setting. Which is GM crafted.

It may not be in any way unique to that player or their character.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I think what he’s trying to ask is, why are there rules? The answer is so it doesn’t devolve into “I hit!” “No you didn’t!” “Uh-huh!” “Nuh-uh!”

Not exactly, though it may relate a bit.

I’m just asking what is the purpose of constraining the players. I think answering that may provide context for why we may also constrain the GM.

 

[Bedrockgames]

But only in how they interact with the setting. Which is GM crafted.

But the setting is being crafted in direct response to their actions. I am not saying they have creative control of the setting. But I would again point to this idea of the boundary between GM and Player power here being more like the boundary of a bubble. Where they exert considerable control over where things go. This is especially the case if you are contrasting the approach with much more linear approaches (which probably can be more properly termed GM driven). But if the GM is basically kind of hanging back and allowing the player initiative to drive the direction of play, I would say you are in the realm of player driven games.

It may not be in any way unique to that player or their character.

It isn't wishlisitng. But wishlists even exist in trad games. They can even exist in sandboxes. And those would be specific to the characters. But I think there you are getting more into characterization than into whether the game is player or GM driven

 

[hawkeyefan]

But the setting is being crafted in direct response to their actions. I am not saying they have creative control of the setting. But I would again point to this idea of the boundary between GM and Player power here being more like the boundary of a bubble. Where they exert considerable control over where things go. This is especially the case if you are contrasting the approach with much more linear approaches (which probably can be more properly termed GM driven). But if the GM is basically kind of hanging back and allowing the player initiative to drive the direction of play, I would say you are in the realm of player driven games.



It isn't wishlisitng. But wishlists even exist in trad games. They can even exist in sandboxes. And those would be specific to the characters. But I think there you are getting more into characterization than into whether the game is player or GM driven

I’m not talking about creative control of the setting either. More creative input into the direction of play. Into the game.I’ll caveat that with the idea of “independent of the GM’s ideas”.

I think your view that it’s player driven comes from the illusion of geography more than the source of what constitutes play.

But… having said that, I think we’re likely about to retread arguments from earlier in the thread, so I don’t know how fruitful any further discussion may be.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I’m not talking about creative control of the setting either. More creative input into the direction of play. Into the game.I’ll caveat that with the idea of “independent of the GM’s ideas”.

I think your view that it’s player driven comes from the illusion of geography more than the source of what constitutes play.

but I am talking about the campaign direction, I haven't said anything about geography. This is stuff that has to do with conflicts between characters and NPCs, and agendas the players may be pursuing. If you are just talking about creative input in the direction of the campaign, then I definitely cover that because as I described, at the very beginning of the campaign I ask the players what they are interested in doing and much of the material comes from that, then once play begins, I am constantly reacting to what they do and this is giving the campaign direction (which I would say gives them some creative control).

Where we differ I think is means and control over specifics. The players can't control specific elements I introduce. They are never going to tell me that the bandit they killed had a daughter named Lady Yang, that is something they expect me to do. But they can certainly drive the campaign in the direction of a lady yang emerging.

And they aren't going to have wishlists on their sheet (though like I said they could theoretically in trad play have such things, as those are well established and could even exist in a sandbox). SO there is nothing stopping a GM from telling their players to write up a wishlist of stuff, and then having that stuff come up in play (in trad it is normally more keyed to things like magic items and abilities, but it could definitely happen around thematic stuff if you wanted). Where it might come up in play for me often is around kung fu techniques. While those do exist in the setting, if a player has an idea for a specific concept, we can work together in game to make that happen. It is a little fuzzier than a wish list but it comes up all the time. Just as an example, I will have players have their characters develop their own techniques, and the process is they develop it in game, the player give some a write up of the techniques mechanics and description, then I adjust it to fit to the system and setting (and perhaps to balance) and give them its final write-up. I would say that gives them reasonable creative input