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

[Lanefan]

Feel free to not respond of course but I still don't know what you mean. If someone is not following RAW there's nothing stopping them from not following it in any game, even if D&D is more open about it. What rules can stop bad judgement calls?

None.

I think the problem some are finding comes when rules stop or prevent good judgment calls.

 

[AlViking]

Just something I want to comment on trying to catchup on this thread...

We have posters discussing how they do not like the restrictions placed on the GM particularly those found in Narrative games.
In the same vein they argue that restrictions on players choices are important/necessary to highlight key peculiarities of the setting.

I find that amusing.

That's quite a turn. Because if the GM in narrative games has restrictions then the players also have restrictions. In D&D the DM and players have different roles but the players in my games have a lot of freedom. They choose the direction of the game. I regularly give them chances to do things not explicitly spelled out in the rules which, as far as I can tell is not allowed for anything critical in most narrative games. I could go on ... as DM I build the sandbox and put in some starting toys but the players are the ones that drive the game.

They're different, neither objectively better or worse. It doesn't help when you make jokes about people with a different preference.

 

[Campbell]

I would suggest that running roleplaying games in a conventional way comes with certain expectations and at least in the case of D&D, enumerated responsibilities - including acting as a referee, allowing mostly free exploration of the environment, adventure design, world building, etc. For most GMs on these boards this stuff is not viewed as a restriction because they like doing it.

You are used to a certain structure and see it as normal - do not see its restrictions as very restrictive. But at least for who I was when I was younger it felt like a burden. Like in order to get the parts I enjoyed about running games I had to accept all this stuff I did not want to do and learn all these unspoken rules about the limitations of stuff like speaking to what the players' characters might be feeling in the moment or having people react strongly to what were early attempts to engage in scene framing. I was constantly butting against the expectations and limits on GM authority we see in more conventional play cultures.

I have since gotten better at more conventional GMing but still does not feel as natural to me.

Look at how this conversation has unfolded and the visceral reactions people have to @pemerton 's account of normal Burning Wheel play and what the GM was allowed to do. Previous conversations around GM Moves in Apocalypse World show similar reactions. The reason people have these reactions are because what people do on the other side of the screen matters and in order to play and run roleplaying games effectively we need to know and have a shared expectation of appropriate responses.

 

[Lanefan]

I'm talking about writing rules in general, even if they take up more space, to define a wider range of usage without as much in the way of judgment calls.

In a game that has infinite possibilities, trying to have a written rule for everything results in one of two undesirable outcomes:

1. A staggering number of those infinite possibilities become disallowed and-or distorted so as to fit within the rules structure, or
2. The rule book ends up being the approximate size and weight of a house.

And I'm also talking about GMing culture; I think too many GMs either have an overly top down approach or are too fixated on speed to actually consult with players about things enough.

The fatal flaw with consulting players about rulings is that with extremely rare exceptions they'll exclusively support the ruling that is most in their favour right now, without regard for precedent nor any effects on the long-term viability of the game or campaign.

 

[AnotherGuy]

That's quite a turn. Because if the GM in narrative games has restrictions then the players also have restrictions. In D&D the DM and players have different roles but the players in my games have a lot of freedom. They choose the direction of the game. I regularly give them chances to do things not explicitly spelled out in the rules which, as far as I can tell is not allowed for anything critical in most narrative games. I could go on ... as DM I build the sandbox and put in some starting toys but the players are the ones that drive the game.

They're different, neither objectively better or worse. It doesn't help when you make jokes about people with a different preference.

I wasn't saying anything about better or worse. I just find US amusing to defend against calls for kitchen-sink player choice but "scoff" at anything that seeks to diminish kitchen-sink GM authority and vice versa.

We humans are funny. That is all. It's an appreciation of our silliness.

 

[JConstantine]

The fatal flaw with consulting players about rulings is that with extremely rare exceptions they'll exclusively support the ruling that is most in their favour right now, without regard for precedent nor any effects on the long-term viability of the game or campaign.

The fatal flaw of consulting players is the overwhelming majority don't RTFM to understand the GM's position.

 

[pemerton]

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).

If you're going to talk about me, I'd be grateful if you could @ me.

The RPGs that I've GMed in the past 5 or so years are Burning Wheel, Torchbearer 2e, Prince Valiant, Classic Traveller, Marvel Heroic RP (and a fantasy hack of this) and then some one-shot-y type play of Agon 2e, The Green Knight, AD&D, Moldvay Basic, In A Wicked Age, Cthulhu Dark and Wuthering Heights. I've also GMed a few sessions of 4e D&D, that follow on from a long campaign that mostly finished in 2018.

As a player (cf GM), I've played Burning Wheel.

The closest game to Apocalypse World in that list - as far as methodologies go - is Classic Traveller, which (I think) is best approached via "if you do it, you do it" which is one core methodology of AW.

The single RPG that I have GMed the most in my life is Rolemaster (1000s of hours), and there are many respects in which BW resembles RM: intricate PC build with very long skill lists; death spiral combat; D&D-esque flavour for spells, but no spell memorisation; etc. Next-most is probably 4e D&D, because the game that largely finished in 2018 ran for 9 years (so 100s of hours, but probably short of 1000).

The only RPG that I've played extensively (as opposed to one-shot-y) in the past 5 years, that is mechanically "light", is Prince Valiant. BW and TB2e are as intricate as any of the classic "sim" systems from the late 70s and 80s. MHRP and 4e D&D are mechanically different, but not "light" - particularly not the latter. Views probably differ on Classic Traveller, but I don't think I've ever seen it called a "light" game.

You can like what you like, and do what you do. But I'd be grateful if you could be more accurate in your descriptions of my RPGing.

 

[Bedrockgames]

No, of course not... that was obviously a bit of an exaggeration on my part. But you've very clearly binned me with narrativists in the sense that you do not believe or accept that my assessment of trad play is based on my own experiences with it, and my willingness to examine my own play and GMing of it over the years.

I have never questioned your experience. I don'y think our disagreement is due to you not playing them. I think you and I have had veery different experiences with trad play and you bring a perspective that is totally different from mine. Where I might disagree is you see the difference as coming from a 'willingness' to examine play and your own GMing. I don't think I am unwilling to examine play or my own GMing. While I don't claim to be the greatest by any stretch, I think one way I got better was to intentionally examining what was going on when a game was clearly failing (kind of like how a stand up comedian who is bombing learns from the experience). I am not unwilling or afraid to examine, I just have a different mindset from you when it comes to how I do that.

 

[Lanefan]

Also, in my experience, players who say “that’s what my character would do” often can’t back it up when questioned.

Your experience differs greatly from mine in this regard.

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.

Even if-when doing so would reveal in-game information that would otherwise be secret?

 

[Bedrockgames]

Frankly I see the dislike as more ideological. My experience here is that, at least in this forum, there's no appetite for an unvarnished look at, or revisions of, the perceived orthodoxy.

The flaw with the whole sentiment is that, objectively, the discussion and theory that was home at The Forge totally revolutionized thought on the subject. While EW may not be far off the path in terms of what average gamers think, it's a total backwater in terms of game design and theory.

Obviously we disagree here