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

[Micah Sweet]

If your folks are dispassionate about your games, then maybe it doesn't apply to you?

Otherwise, I find the romantic relationship is kind of apt, as it highlights that there are responsibilities and expectations between you, and the people involved care pretty deeply about how it goes..

"Care pretty deeply"?. I enjoy RPGs a great deal, but I love my partner more. I really don't understand what you're trying to say here.

 

[JConstantine]

You should prep, prep is extremely important (IMO, the books don't do the best job of explaining this, but that might be a me thing? I dunno). But you don't prep story.

Can you clue the PbtA and FitD folk in on that? The amount of times I've heard/read "don't prep" is vexing. It's really no different than the Alexandrian's "prep situations, not plots".

You prep events, which act as calls to action

Seems @hawkeyefan disagrees with you on that one.

 

[Micah Sweet]

My objection has never been about the existence of a particular result. I am not saying anything in particular is badwrongfun. Generally, if everyone is aware, sure, that's fine.

But... (there's always a but)...

Specific situation beats general, and real people are more important than "setting logic". So, as a random example, if Player C's Dad died last week, and you TPK them... well. you own that, and claiming any upset is the player's fault for choosing to play that week shows a remarkable lack of empathy on the GM's part.

If a player is currently undergoing a personal crisis, that seems to me like an excellent time to curate a new activity tailored to them and their needs.

 

[robertsconley]

My objection has never been about the existence of a particular result. I am not saying anything in particular is badwrongfun. Generally, if everyone is aware, sure, that's fine.

Thanks for the answer.

But... (there's always a but)...

Of course—nuance is always part of the conversation.

Specific situation beats general, and real people are more important than "setting logic". If Player C's dad died last week, and you TPK them... well. You own that, and claiming any upset is the player's fault for choosing to play that week shows a remarkable lack of empathy on the GM's part.

I agree. While I didn’t speak specifically about real-life tragedy earlier, this falls under what I consider essential: a referee must practice good leadership. And that always takes precedence over campaign structure or adjudication technique. No element of a campaign should override the need to maintain a fun and comfortable environment for the group.

And this an area where I don't have a unifying essay works against me as this one of things I would have made clear that for a campaign to succeed, good leadership and good sportmanship need to be learned and practiced by everyone in the group and that is superceeds whatever method or play styles used for the campaign.

And so you are aware, I’ve taken some pushback for suggesting that leadership techniques developed in education, management, and community organization are often more applicable than anything found in a rulebook. But those methods come from people with far more experience in human dynamics than most game designers. But I understand if you disagree.

 

[Umbran]

You say my behavior can’t support a general approach to play, but actual play is the only meaningful testbed we have.

Individual behavior is anecdote, not data. Individual actual play is not a meaningful testbed or metric. Only in aggregate over many groups do we much of anything reliable.

Like: lots of GMs hide the setting logic from players - some, for example, ascribe to a "skilled play" approach in which they don't tell the players the odds most of the time. Ergo, we can't really assume players are aware of the probabilities coming out of setting logic.

While I haven’t yet written a unifying book or essay in the style of Edwards’ Forge essays, this discussion has helped clarify what that might look like. But I’m honestly not sure what standard I’m being asked to meet here.

I'm not asking you to meet a standard. You don't need my validation for anything you do.

 

[Old Fezziwig]

Can you clue the PbtA and FitD folk in on that? The amount of times I've heard/read "don't prep" is vexing. It's really no different than the Alexandrian's "prep situations, not plots".

I wish I could remember where I read it (a quick search of Apocalypse World 2e doesn't bring up the phrase), but the advice I've most often heard is "hold prep lightly." It seems more useful than "don't prep." For me, my prep is more reactive than proactive most of the time.

 

[Umbran]

"Care pretty deeply"?. I enjoy RPGs a great deal, but I love my partner more. I really don't understand what you're trying to say here.

Then don't worry about it. It isn't worth struggling over.

 

[Umbran]

And so you are aware, I’ve taken some pushback for suggesting that leadership techniques developed in education, management, and community organization are often more applicable than anything found in a rulebook. But those methods come from people with far more experience in human dynamics than most game designers. But I understand if you disagree.

I don't know if I'd use that precise language, but I come from a background in education. I pretty solidly agree with the sentiment.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Individual behavior is anecdote, not data. Individual actual play is not a meaningful testbed or metric. Only in aggregate over many groups do we much of anything reliable.

Like: lots of GMs hide the setting logic from players - some, for example, ascribe to a "skilled play" approach in which they don't tell the players the odds most of the time. Ergo, we can't really assume players are aware of the probabilities coming out of setting logic.



I'm not asking you to meet a standard. You don't need my validation for anything you do.

Your tone here has, to me, definitely indicated judgement. Maybe I'm misreading you, but IMO there's a lot of people here whose sole purpose looks to be busting chops.

 

[Umbran]

Your tone here has, to me, definitely indicated judgement.

I have my opinions, of course.
But, I'm just this guy. Who gives a fig what I think?