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

[AlViking]

I was making a more general point; though I'm not hostile to behavioral rules (as you presumably aren't completely since you reference two games that have them later in the post that I've clipped), that wasn't what I was referring to. I was just springing off the fact I consider consistent rules that sometimes tell me counterfactuals than inconsistent ad-hoc decisions.

I don't think we need game rules to prevent inconsistent ad-hoc decisions. That's kind of the whole point of talking about how we run games. Conversely, if the rules are so restrictive that it prevents a GM from inconsistent ad-hoc decisions, either I don't understand how that would work (which is quite possible) or it would feel restrictive to me as a GM.

 

[zakael19]

I don't think we need game rules to prevent inconsistent ad-hoc decisions. That's kind of the whole point of talking about how we run games. Conversely, if the rules are so restrictive that it prevents a GM from inconsistent ad-hoc decisions, either I don't understand how that would work (which is quite possible) or it would feel restrictive to me as a GM.

Very little can explicitly prevent a GM from inconsistent ad-hoc decisions. Rules can help shape the GM's decision space (eg: the presence of random tables by location for encounters, and random encounter procedures based on a x in 6 chance etc); signal to the GM what's expected of them and provide heuristics on decision making (Agendas and Principles in a PBTA, GM guidelines in OSE, etc); create gameplay that foregrounds stakes and player ideations (eg: FITD Action Rolls); and other similar design space.

The more open the GM decision making space is, the more open it is to unintentional inconsistency. This is why most games with fairly relaxed/loose mechanics that I've seen stress impartiality, preparation that fits within the procedures of the game (eg: Blorb style stuff), and recording rulings in an open way that creates a procedure from that moment forth.

Without any of that, the only thing preventing inconsistency is hope and wishes. Then you get sad posts to r/OSR or DMAcademy or whatever going "hey, so I did X in my game and I think it was wrong ."

 

[Bedrockgames]

Inconsistency around rulings isn't a problem for me. If I want consistent rules, I go more rules heavy. But sometimes I want light, with the GM making rulings, and I'd rather those not start becoming rules themselves, because the value for me with that is faster paced play and the GM making decisions that feel right for ht moment.

 

[Maxperson]

And yet IMO if one doesn't somehow take into account that those oddball events can and sometimes do happen, the disservice goes the other way and ultimately results in bland-ification. I'm not sure any of us wants that.

I've said so more than once in this thread. It's okay for longshots to happen. The existence of those things does not invalidate the idea that we sandbox DMs work on setting logic for what happens in the setting, as they are exceptions to the general rule.

Having those longshots occur frequently, though, is a game that is being run absurdly in my opinion and ruins the impact of a long shot happening.

 

[Maxperson]

I mean, unless you start from the Big Bang and evolve a model dr om that point on, you have any number of fiat choices - those are not driven by logic of the setting, because the setting doesn't exist yet to have logic!

Sure. I'm talking about after the setting exists. From that point on, you can use the setting and what is occurring in the fiction to logically figure out what might happen next.

Problem- much of what happens as consequence are the reactions of fictional people who are not logic-driven themselves. Their reactions are chosen. Not logical consequence.

Okay. This is correct. If there is an NPC who is not logic driven or crazy, their actions will not always be logical or perhaps even often be illogical. I'd argue, though, that having an illogical NPC act illogically is a logical outcome that extends from that sort of NPC.

 

[pemerton]

ask yourself what's more logical: the room is the type of room that would have a cup, or the player needs one and rolls well enough that one appears.

This makes no sense.

I believe that you (sometimes) play Fate. So I'm sure you're aware that Fate permits a player to spend a fate point to establish some detail of the scene/situation that hasn't yet been established.

Do you regard Fate as "illogical" because it permits players to adopt "director stance" based on spending fate points? I assume that you don't; but then I don't know why you think a roll, rather than a point spend, is any different from the point of view of logic?

I mean, as I'm sure you realise it's not the case, in the fiction, that the vessel "appears". Rather, it's the case that it is seen by the character who is looking for it.

Perhaps what you're really saying is that it is more logical that the GM exercise authority over the content of the fiction than that the player do so? In which case you will see why I regard your favoured approach as more railroad-y than the BW approach.

 

[pemerton]

The constraints have teeth just as sharp as the GM wants, even if they aren't enforced by the rules of the game.

This seems contradictory - something that only constrains me to the extent that I want it is hardly a constraint at all.

 

[Lanefan]

This seems contradictory - something that only constrains me to the extent that I want it is hardly a constraint at all.

Depends how true one is to one's self-imposed constraints, I suppose.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

All I can say is that if you believe in standing by your commitment to a principle, the last thing you want to hear at the table is "What the hell is up with that Rob?" Because that means just I screwed something up.

All I can say is, if you’re serious about sticking to your principles, the last thing you want to hear at the table is: “What the hell is up with that, Rob?” Because when I hear that, I know I’ve screwed something up.

In both my day job and my hobby, I rarely encounter people acting in bad faith. Most folks just want their issue solved (at work) or want to have fun pretending to go on adventures (in gaming). So when something goes off the rails, I take it as a sign of bad judgment on my part, maybe I didn’t give enough information, or the right kind, or I didn’t explain things clearly. Once we hash it out, I try to do better next time.

And when I do get it right, when I’ve been consistent and the players feel that events arise from a plausible world, something shifts. The atmosphere becomes more relaxed. Players take more risks. They’re more willing to accept adverse consequences, even a total party kill, because they trust the outcome was fair, not the result of me pulling strings behind the screen. And when they succeed, they relish the victory because it feels earned. To be clear, even this insight isn’t just theory, it comes from conversations I’ve had with my players about how the campaign was run.

I’ve been doing this a long time, and while I’ve enjoyed a lot of success, I’m still finding areas to improve. Mostly because even now, I haven’t experienced everything that’s possible, or even probable, in tabletop roleplaying.

Finally, I understand your skepticism, and that’s fine. I haven’t earned your trust on this, and honestly, a forum discussion isn’t the place where that kind of trust can be built. It has to happen at the table, session by session, through consistent play. And even then, it takes ongoing effort to maintain. So, for me, what the players are willing to put up with is a constraint. And that is the minimum. What I really want is for them to have fun and have interesting (to them) adventures visiting the world I created.

I don't really consider bad faith in any of these discussions either. Most of us are far past that, and in any case it is entirely aside from any discussion of technique or philosophy of play that we can get into here. Well unless you wish to compare techniques for busting heads at tables!

And, honestly I don't think we have mistrust going on either, perhaps skepticism. My experience is just that I found traditional techniques lack in really getting at character and motivation and such. Plus they're very time intensive. At a certain point I found that 'constructive laziness' got me a lot of positive mileage.

But we should be clear, at the level of presentation of a detailed and consistent fiction at the table I believe mine can compare with anyone's. But we all have different skill sets. Mine was never generating masses of prep. But describing stuff blue sky on the fly, I'm good!

I'm totally confident if I run a game like DW that pretty much any table will have a blast. Unless they're outright coming in intending to not let it work. You will have fun! But I'm actually pretty easy too, I am not actually all that ideological. Like @hawkeyefan I have played and generally will playost types of games, though I don't GM trad anymore.

 

[JConstantine]

We play weekly. Usually about 4 hour sessions, maybe 45-47 of them a year given that a few get skipped for various reasons.

Where are you people finding such stable groups?! Stop hogging them!