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

[Bedrockgames]

I see it as a very different kind of thing.

Again, every time I see people make a blog post or a website or a "quick primer" etc., etc. about "rulings, not rules" and its attendant philosophical extensions (like "invisible rulebooks" and "FKR" and such), there is an outright disdain for the very idea of having codified rules the DM is supposed to abide by. Past adjudications are no more than a loose guideline to future adjudications, and rules written down anywhere are viewed with overt suspicion bordering on (or outright becoming) hostility.

4e did something very different with non-combat things. It created what I call "extensible framework" rules.

There are multiple clear frameworks. Quests. Skill Challenges (which, I admit, needed some polish but were much more solid than many give them credit for....it's just that WotC had an at best 50% success rate for designing them in official adventures.) Group checks. Page 42. These things provide a solid, reliable, abstract foundation--one that can be applied to nearly any situation and produce useful gameplay and (even if done merely adequately) exciting experiences as well. Learning to work with these systems requires the DM to....y'know, actually LEARN them. They can't just go off hog wild, do whatever they want, rip out mass chunks of the system and rewrite them however they like, which is what "rulings, not rules" results in 90% of the time (or more!) in both my personal direct experience with it and in the ways folks talk about it online. There really are still systems, and those systems really do have durable importance within the experience, as opposed to the "the only system is in my head", "we don't need RULEBOOKS because we have our personal understandings!", etc. that "rulings, not rules" directly fosters.

That's...always been the key, fundamental difference between how I see nearly everyone talk about "rulings, not rules" and how...systems that have rules get talked about. Rules matter. They aren't the answer to Life the Universe and Everything, but they matter. System matters. According to pretty much every "rulings, not rules" person I ever talk to, system either absolutely does not matter one whit, or it matters only in the slimmest, most diaphanous gossamer way possible, the thinnest veneer of importance when 99.9999% of what actually matters has nothing to do with system at all.

Hell, I'm pretty sure it was in this thread where someone outright told me that system doesn't matter, and that they think it's simply a truism that it doesn't, which means my position (that system does in fact matter, a lot, not infinitely but a lot) is thus fundamentally and inherently wrongheaded.

No one is wrongheaded here. People just have different preferences and like to play the game different. Sometimes even if the same individual wants different things from an RPG at different times. I like rulings over rules, but I also enjoy systems that are comprehensive and require a degree of system mastery. What I like about the rulings over rules approach, is it allows you take steps outside what the rules have defined, and to me that is as real as it gets in terms of feel (because it gives me the sense, when I am a player, that I can try anything and I am not limited by a set of pre-programmed ideas). But that said, I also love games that reward use of system, deliver objective and consistent ways of handling different things that come up in games. That does have its benefits, just as rulings over rules has its benefits. It isn't that system doesn't matter. It is more like "it doesn't always matter nor is it always the most important thing". With anything it depends on the game and the group

 

[Umbran]

But 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.

That's not an accurate description of what happens.

What happens is that the player rolls well enough, and grabs the cup that others didn't particularly notice and wasn't explicitly described before.

We, as GMs do NOT generally describe scenes in excruciating detail. We give rough sketches. Like, when the PCs enter a library, we do not detail EVERY title of every one of hundreds of book on the shelves. We don't note the precise length of every candle in every candlestick - or even the existence of every candlestick.

There's a lot of unspecified, assumed set dressing. It isn't that the cup "appears", it is that the cup is now known to exist as part of that previously unspecified stuff in the space.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I think some people are likely not very good at running sandbox campaigns and I don't necessarily see a different system helping much. Fortunately for them there are plenty of modules as options.

But you've also at the very least heavily implied that every GM and group would benefit from guardrails.

No. I've outright said most would. Not the same statement. Individuals are individuals, and there are people who either are very good at consistency, or are more willing to accept player input on the solutions they come up with (and are not obsessed with speed so much they aren't willing to take the time) who can likely get by.

But I have sufficiently minimal evidence this describes most groups for my position to not be what it is.

So I agree that some people need more guidance and structure but for those that don't? I think the guardrails and restrictions are unnecessary. I don't personally care for multiple aspects of PbtA games, the limits on what I can do whether I'm GMing or player is one of the reasons.

I'd agree with that. The difference is, I think, your perception of how common "those that don't" are.

To me it just sounds like GMs need more guidance, which i think the 2024 DMG does better. When people start GMing, none of us are particularly good at it. It's one of the reasons I'd recommend linear campaigns for most newbies along with planning on short term campaigns for a while. Fortunately there are also a lot of blogs and streams out there.

This is a separate issue from preference on the games approach to play, it's great if it works for you. But as usual I ask for actual examples and details gets the expected "predictable resolution is better". Which is kind of meaningless.

You did catch that I'm a trad gamer, right? It really, really would be helpful to stop trying to force everyone who disagrees with someone in the D&D-sphere in this thread into the the same camp with Pemerton and company; as noted, the only person on here coming from a vaguely similar camp with me is Pedantic, even if I occasionally agree with Ezekiel or Campbell.

 

[JConstantine]

People in general massively over rate systems and how impactful they are.

I think system matters, but I do agree. Not to harp on the BitD community, but a prevalent attitude I've seen is how they will insist that any problem someone had with the game was the result of a bad GM or simply not understanding the game, but when people enjoy the game, they're quick to sing the praises of the system. It's never the other way around - no acknowledgement that a person can understand the system and just not enjoy it, no recognition that those enjoyable games were thanks to the GM. And then those same exact people will moan about D&D as a system not facilitating what they want, with no sense of irony or self-awareness.

 

[AlViking]

No. I've outright said most would. Not the same statement. Individuals are individuals, and there are people who either are very good at consistency, or are more willing to accept player input on the solutions they come up with (and are not obsessed with speed so much they aren't willing to take the time) who can likely get by.

Then I guess I disagree with "most". The vast majority of GM's I've had were just fine running linear campaigns and modules. Could some benefit? Probably.

But I have sufficiently minimal evidence this describes most groups for my position to not be what it is.



I'd agree with that. The difference is, I think, your perception of how common "those that don't" are.



You did catch that I'm a trad gamer, right? It really, really would be helpful to stop trying to force everyone who disagrees with someone in the D&D-sphere in this thread into the the same camp with Pemerton and company; as noted, the only person on here coming from a vaguely similar camp with me is Pedantic, even if I occasionally agree with Ezekiel or Campbell.

I know tone doesn't carry and I wrote this on about 6 hours of sleep, but a lot of explanations fall back on game specific keywords. It's frustrating to see the repeated explanation of how things work when it looks a lot like "If the GM kafloozles the player can always kabobble in response." It doesn't really explain the limits of what is happening. So sorry if that came off as overly harsh.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I want, and encourage, people to think outside the box. I'll work with the player to figure out if there's a way to achieve their goals within the limits of what I think is possible. But I think always saying yes isn't necessarily the best approach either.

Going to respond to this slightly out-of-order because it will flow better that way.

You're objectively correct with this statement....and I never said anything contradictory to it. Far from it. I pretty much explicitly said otherwise. However, I find that the costs of saying "no" too often are much, much, much worse than the costs of saying "yes" too often; I find that DMs are much, much, much more prone to saying a flat unequivocal "no" when they should have said some variation of "yes" (or at least "no, but...") than they are to saying some variation of "yes" when they should have said a flat unequivocal "no"; and that players in general respond very negatively to even a very slight excess of flat unequivocal "no" answers, while even an egregious excess of some variation of "yes" is far from guaranteed to cause a problem.

Point being: "Yes" is something DMs need to learn to use, whereas "no" seems to be the default for situations the DM wasn't already well-prepped to respond to, and that both the benefits of saying "yes" in the cases where you definitely shouldn't say "no" far outweigh the costs of saying "yes" when you shouldn't, and the costs of saying "yes" when you definitely should have said "no" far outweigh the costs of saying "no" when you shouldn't.

In general, some variation of "yes"--usually "yes, and" or "yes, but", or occasionally "no, but", which is functionally a "yes" answer along a new/different/alternate path--is simply better. There absolutely will be times when you should just say a flat "no." But those times should be exceedingly rare. Like "a couple times in a year of weekly games" rare. If you're needing to say a flat "no" more often than that, something is seriously wrong and you need to have a heart-to-heart with your players to figure out where and what the disconnect is.

I was watching a Sarah Silverman comedy special yesterday and something that she said made a lot of sense. She was talking about the fact that her mother was always honest, no matter what. The benefit of that was that when her mother did give her a compliment, she knew it was real so it meant even more. In the same way I prefer that the GM not always let me get my way because when I do succeed it feels more like I've earned it.

Well then, Ms. Silverman's mother was a good person. Honesty isn't just the best policy, it's the only policy. But it's also only the first step on that policy. As the Good Book says, we must speak truth in love. That is, lying never serves love--but as an old friend of mine once said, "The truth is not an excuse."

That's the critical bit missing here with the analogy from "always be honest" to "always make sure the players earn their fun". It has to be reasonable, achievable, actually "fair" in the way people usually want "fair" to mean, that is, giving folks plenty of chances even if they've foolishly ignored/overlooked/simply missed previous ones, adjudicating based (at least in part) on what was intended and not (exclusively) on what was actually done, giving folks ample time and space to explain themselves, and meeting them at least halfway if not much much more than halfway, etc., etc.

In other words, something that doesn't really look "impartial" at all, except for from the perspective of the participants themselves. Because what feels impartial, and what is actually impartial, are often two very different things. As is the case with so much of the stuff in this conversation, what often (not always, but often) matters is not the absolute truth of the situation, but the feeling of having a thing. The only place where both the feeling and the fact matter equally is agency itself, hence why I've spoken at length about the problem of invisible railroads and illusionism in this context.

That goes both ways of course. I ran a game last weekend where the group figured out a way to bypass what I thought would be a fun fight. I could have run the fight anyway because it would have been fun for me, but not as much for the players. On the other hand in another encounter they had to steal the McGuffin, did reconnaissance and made a plan for a distraction along with a stinking cloud and a silence spell. It really was a good plan that in all likelihood ... except they forgot to check if the back door was locked. Obviously I could have just changed my notes and made the door unlocked but the realization that they could have easily unlocked the door before they started the snatch and grab was a really fun moment for us all.

I've had a similar situation to your previous example. I had prepared this (I presume!) awesome encounter where several blood-obsidian spirits (long story--TL;DR: they're not-technically-undead wraiths made by evil druids binding the still-technically-living spirits of sapient beings to a sufficient quantity of ground-up blood obsidian) had been accidentally melted by soul-animated mechanical spiders (whose bodies were designed to be destroyed by their own flames); in the conflagration, because of the similar magics involved, the two opposing forces had fused into a towering molten-obsidian golem with mythril mechano-spider-leg claws coming out of its "hands".

And then they just...retreated and taunted it into walking into a pit trap full of water, which solidified it and they shattered it with a single weapon strike. I simply hadn't considered that possibility, they had, and although I felt a bit embarassed at having failed to foresee such a thing, my players loved that they'd figured out something clever. Talked about it for months after (not in a "haha see how we pulled one over on you" way, but rather a "that was AWESOME" kind of way).

So I very much understand where you're coming from on this. My problem mostly arises with...well. Taking the thing too far; shutting down too many plans because of an excessive commitment to realism over fun, treating the rule of cool as something absolutely verboten rather than a useful tool to be applied when appropriate and to be left aside when inappropriate. I've had both bad DMs I've personally dealt with and DMs I've heard horror stories about from my personal friends (not just randos online, who can say whatever they like even if it's pure fiction) who have taken "realism before fun" WAY too far. From that, it is my considered belief that taking this too far is both extremely easy to do--as in, it's one of the hardest-to-resist DM temptations out there, second only to the temptation to force outcomes to go the way you designed them to--and extremely easy to ad hoc justify when one should not have done so.

 

[Umbran]

By committing to a model or a process, even one with odds for irrational outcomes, I create stability in how the world behaves. Players can recognize that stability and use it as a foundation for their own choices. That’s what distinguishes a sandbox with internal logic from one driven purely by a referee's whim.

The problem with that assertion is that the GM's "whim" is present, regardless. I am pointing out that whether that whim is exerted at the time of making up a table of outcomes, or in the moment, is not relevant. It is still "whim".

That you externalize the model onto paper, or run it realtime in your head, it is still just your own, personal thoughts on how people behave. It is not "the setting's internal logic". It is the GM's reasoning, either way.

Let me make a really simple analogy...

It is Valentine's Day. You create a table - Roll a D4. On a 1-3, your loved one gets a box of their favorite candy treat. On a 4, you give them a bag of poo.

You are not going to get away with disclaiming that somehow the "internal logic of the universe" is responsible for the result when you hand them a bag of poo... You made the table. It is your logic. You own it.

You'd have a stronger position if the published game mechanic handed you the answer, and as a GM you are merely the mechanical processor, making no decisions of your own.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

No one is wrongheaded here. People just have different preferences and like to play the game different. Sometimes even if the same individual wants different things from an RPG at different times. I like rulings over rules, but I also enjoy systems that are comprehensive and require a degree of system mastery. What I like about the rulings over rules approach, is it allows you take steps outside what the rules have defined, and to me that is as real as it gets in terms of feel (because it gives me the sense, when I am a player, that I can try anything and I am not limited by a set of pre-programmed ideas). But that said, I also love games that reward use of system, deliver objective and consistent ways of handling different things that come up in games. That does have its benefits, just as rulings over rules has its benefits. It isn't that system doesn't matter. It is more like "it doesn't always matter nor is it always the most important thing". With anything it depends on the game and the group

Well, it would be nice if I could see even a sliver of that sentiment elsewhere. I almost never do.

 

[JConstantine]

Sorry, I didn't mean you were saying it was better...it's just a general impression I get from many posters. Sorry if I read things into what you said that aren't there.

I think there's a case of some subsect of certain games/styles/movements being dogmatic about their preferences, and that then breeds a reactionary pushback because it's ultimately subjective preferences.

I guarantee that most GMs aren't very good when we first start. Just not sure how transferable the techniques are from one game to the next. I will say the 2024 DMG is much better than we've had for a long time, if ever.

I think there's a small handful of fundamentals that are applicable across the board - but even then, understanding them allows you to know when and how to deviate from them to elicit a certain a tone/feel/reaction. I'd liken it to filmic techniques - as an example: if you have a sequence that's designed to build tension in the audience, it's generally recommended to break it up into multiple scenes by cutting away to something that's calm to allow the audience to release that tension, otherwise they get agitated. Knowing that, however, allows filmmakers to play around with it. So a horror film will extend those scenes to deliberately build tension, compared to say an action flick, while a comedy will try to keep them shorter.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Then I guess I disagree with "most". The vast majority of GM's I've had were just fine running linear campaigns and modules. Could some benefit? Probably.

You're welcome to your own opinion. I've come by mine over a very long time not just with my own experience but talking to others, and at this point it would require a whole lot of different data points to move my needle.

I know tone doesn't carry and I wrote this on about 6 hours of sleep, but a lot of explanations fall back on game specific keywords. It's frustrating to see the repeated explanation of how things work when it looks a lot like "If the GM kafloozles the player can always kabobble in response." It doesn't really explain the limits of what is happening. So sorry if that came off as overly harsh.

I'm just noting that you've repeatedly acted like I'm coming from the same place as Pemerton and some of the others, and I'm not. For the most part I'm not interested in most of the games they're fond of (I've got a couple versions of PbtA or offshoots, and I think I understand their virtues but they lack enough mechanical engagement for me, and one of the core premises of their approach I don't even need to guess whether would put off at least one of my players, because I've asked). The fact we have some overlapping positions when it comes to GM authority and approach doesn't mean we're playing the same games or want the same things in other respects, and repeatedly lumping us together starts to look like either not paying attention, or using it as a rhetorical tactic.