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

[EzekielRaiden]

Not everything suggested in every traditional RPG is part of my repertoire, but the core of it (the GM handles everything in game that isn't the PCs, and is guided by their own judgement and the social contract in how he does so) is what I do.

Okay. I want to know how "guided by their own judgemnt" works. Because that's...like...literally the whole THING.

Saying "well it's just the GM's judgment" is almost, but not entirely, a non-answer. It just passes the buck forward to, what does "just the GM's judgment" mean?

I have zero idea what Chesterton's Fence is, and frankly not sure why you would apparently assume I would.

My apologies. It's come up a fair bit on the forum. Common rhetorical answer to people challenging tradition solely because it is tradition that might be getting in their way. Analogy: You are walking down a road, and encounter a fence that impedes you. The (implied) "typical" non-traditionalist says, "This fence is an annoyance to me. It must be removed." G.K. Chesterton, for whom it was named, says: absolutely not, do not remove that fence until you know why it was put there. Perhaps it was put there by a jerk trying to claim part of the common fields for himself. Perhaps it was put there by a prudent farmer who simply doesn't want their cows escaping. Perhaps it was put there by a benevolent county authority, who knows that predators--who have no qualms about eating humans--frequent the other side of the fence. Unless you know why it was put there, removing it is not yet okay--but if you do know, and you disapprove of that reason, even if Chesterton does approve of the reason, it's perfectly fine for you to remove it or at least advocate for its removal.

I'm also rather irritated at the rhetorical tactic of implying I'm an adversarial jerk GM because I said I prefer to cleave to the GM's traditional role in my play and didn't specifically exclude certain less than friendly practices that have sometimes been associated with it in the past.

Then I sincerely apologize. The thought genuinely never entered my head. I was not, in any way, trying to do so. I was, purely, pointing out that both of us agree that 100% adherence to "the GM's traditional role" isn't acceptable. Hence, I cannot know what you mean by "the GM's traditional role", because I have no idea which specific parts you're including or excluding (edit: no, your options are not "exclude or exclude"!!). Some of them, we agree are objectively unacceptable. Some, we agree are completely unobjectionable. Some, you will like and I won't; perhaps even a few will be some I like and you won't (though I find that somewhat unlikely).

It's a microcosm of the vague-terms thing. I cannot know what you mean by it, and yet it is utterly central to your position. Without knowing what you mean by such a vague term, discussion isn't possible.

I don't like many of the style preferences you seem to, but I've never suggested you might be a bad actor for having them, or yelled at people for not answering my questions to my satisfaction.

You haven't, no. But others absolutely, 100% have. Every time these threads come up, it happens. I've seen it multiple times just in this thread alone. Again, however, I apologize for the implication. That was not my intent, but I can completely see how my words can be read that way, and that was a stupid mistake on my part. I thought I had clarified enough that I wasn't casting any aspersions. I failed to do so. I'm sorry.

 

[pemerton]

Not everything suggested in every traditional RPG is part of my repertoire, but the core of it (the GM handles everything in game that isn't the PCs, and is guided by their own judgement and the social contract in how he does so) is what I do.

What do you think I mean? We've been posting in the same threads for years now. Do you really have no idea what I could be talking about, or are you just trying to show me up?

I don't know whether you regard the map-and-key that you have prepped as binding. Nor do I know to what extent you make decisions, in advance, about non-geographical/architectural aspect of the fiction that will then determine outcomes for player action declarations (eg this NPC will never do XYZ).

I assume that you plan in advance for certain trajectories of events in your setting (eg the giants from the mountain pass are going to invade the plains and steal all the cattle). I don't have an especially clear sense of how you decide that the players, via their PCs, have done "enough" to alter such an anticipated/planned event. For instance, if the PCs assassinate the giant's leader, will that mean the invasion is off? Or will a second-in-command step up and lead it nevertheless?

You’re seriously downplaying the player’s role in all this and focusing too much on the referee’s. In my Living World sandbox, the referee doesn’t steer play by deciding what’s important in the moment, the players do that through their choices and initiative.

The magic hat, or any other object or situation, only becomes relevant because the players engage with it. That’s not GM-driven focus, it’s player-driven exploration within a World In Motion. The referee doesn’t point the spotlight; the players do.

I'm not "downplaying" it. And the language of "steer play" is yours, not mine.

My point is simply that it is the GM who has (i) made the hat an element in the setting, and (ii) decided what happens when the hat is put on (or otherwise activated), and (iii) who has made the decisions that establish frameworks for how information about the hat can be obtained (eg what other NPCs know; what the rumours are; etc).

When the players decide what bits of the setting to engage with, they are prompting the GM to bring this stuff that the GM has decided "onto the stage". But it's stuff that the GM decided.

 

[pemerton]

Okay. I want to know how "guided by their own judgemnt" works. Because that's...like...literally the whole THING.

Saying "well it's just the GM's judgment" is almost, but not entirely, a non-answer. It just passes the buck forward to, what does "just the GM's judgment" mean?

I don't really see why it's a non-answer.

The GM makes a decision. That's it.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Okay. I want to know how "guided by their own judgemnt" works. Because that's...like...literally the whole THING.

Saying "well it's just the GM's judgment" is almost, but not entirely, a non-answer. It just passes the buck forward to, what does "just the GM's judgment" mean?


My apologies. It's come up a fair bit on the forum. Common rhetorical answer to people challenging tradition solely because it is tradition that might be getting in their way. Analogy: You are walking down a road, and encounter a fence that impedes you. The (implied) "typical" non-traditionalist says, "This fence is an annoyance to me. It must be removed." G.K. Chesterton, for whom it was named, says: absolutely not, do not remove that fence until you know why it was put there. Perhaps it was put there by a jerk trying to claim part of the common fields for himself. Perhaps it was put there by a prudent farmer who simply doesn't want their cows escaping. Perhaps it was put there by a benevolent county authority, who knows that predators--who have no qualms about eating humans--frequent the other side of the fence. Unless you know why it was put there, removing it is not yet okay--but if you do know, and you disapprove of that reason, even if Chesterton does approve of the reason, it's perfectly fine for you to remove it or at least advocate for its removal.


Then I sincerely apologize. The thought genuinely never entered my head. I was not, in any way, trying to do so. I was, purely, pointing out that both of us agree that 100% adherence to "the GM's traditional role" isn't acceptable. Hence, I cannot know what you mean by "the GM's traditional role", because I have no idea which specific parts you're including or excluding (edit: no, your options are not "exclude or exclude"!!). Some of them, we agree are objectively unacceptable. Some, we agree are completely unobjectionable. Some, you will like and I won't; perhaps even a few will be some I like and you won't (though I find that somewhat unlikely).

It's a microcosm of the vague-terms thing. I cannot know what you mean by it, and yet it is utterly central to your position. Without knowing what you mean by such a vague term, discussion isn't possible.


You haven't, no. But others absolutely, 100% have. Every time these threads come up, it happens. I've seen it multiple times just in this thread alone. Again, however, I apologize for the implication. That was not my intent, but I can completely see how my words can be read that way, and that was a stupid mistake on my part. I thought I had clarified enough that I wasn't casting any aspersions. I failed to do so. I'm sorry.

I understand, and thank you for the apology; it is appreciated.

As far as the judgement thing goes, I wish I could tell you there's a mechanized system I use to make these decisions, but I simply don't GM that way. I base my choices on what I think makes the most sense in the setting and the specific circumstances. There are almost always multiple options there, so next I go to what would be exciting or interesting, both for the players and for myself. A lot of it is based on my feelings, and of course I'm not always right. I also accept correction from my players. My partner, who is a nurse and a survival enthusiast, calls me out on stuff all the time, and I listen.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I don't really see why it's a non-answer.

The GM makes a decision. That's it.

If I cannot know how a decision is made, if it is black-boxed, I cannot see any difference between that and not having any rules at all. Like I genuinely do not know how that looks any different: I cannot see the inputs, I cannot see the process, I can only see the outputs, and as I and others have said several times, most of the outputs are going to look exactly the same, but the long-term consequences are going to be quite different.

Like...I'm reminded of the card game "Mao". TL;DR: it's a card-elimination game (you want to discard all cards you carry, first do so so wins), but players cannot tell other players the rules--and in most cases, new rules get added without the players knowing, because they're supposed to just figure it out from observation alone.

If a game is literally nothing more than "the GM just decides, that's it", how is this different from Mao? The GM cannot explain the inputs to the decision--that would require opening the black box. And, per this, they cannot explain the process, because there literally isn't anything to explain. It just happens.

 

[Faolyn]

If I cannot know how a decision is made, if it is black-boxed, I cannot see any difference between that and not having any rules at all. Like I genuinely do not know how that looks any different: I cannot see the inputs, I cannot see the process, I can only see the outputs, and as I and others have said several times, most of the outputs are going to look exactly the same, but the long-term consequences are going to be quite different.

I assume you’ve played in games where GMs made decisions. Is it really that opaque when it happens? You honestly can’t tell, when you’re playing a game, where a decision is on the GM only to Player only scale?

Like...I'm reminded of the card game "Mao". TL;DR: it's a card-elimination game (you want to discard all cards you carry, first do so so wins), but players cannot tell other players the rules--and in most cases, new rules get added without the players knowing, because they're supposed to just figure it out from observation alone.

If a game is literally nothing more than "the GM just decides, that's it", how is this different from Mao? The GM cannot explain the inputs to the decision--that would require opening the black box. And, per this, they cannot explain the process, because there literally isn't anything to explain. It just happens.

I’ve rarely come across a GM where they absolutely refuse to explain why they made a decision. How often has that actually happened to you? Every GM you’ve had? Most of them? A couple?

 

[Micah Sweet]

If I cannot know how a decision is made, if it is black-boxed, I cannot see any difference between that and not having any rules at all. Like I genuinely do not know how that looks any different: I cannot see the inputs, I cannot see the process, I can only see the outputs, and as I and others have said several times, most of the outputs are going to look exactly the same, but the long-term consequences are going to be quite different.

Like...I'm reminded of the card game "Mao". TL;DR: it's a card-elimination game (you want to discard all cards you carry, first do so so wins), but players cannot tell other players the rules--and in most cases, new rules get added without the players knowing, because they're supposed to just figure it out from observation alone.

If a game is literally nothing more than "the GM just decides, that's it", how is this different from Mao? The GM cannot explain the inputs to the decision--that would require opening the black box. And, per this, they cannot explain the process, because there literally isn't anything to explain. It just happens.

Well I hate to tell you this, but I am very confident this is how a lot of people GM.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I assume you’ve played in games where GMs made decisions. Is it really that opaque when it happens? You honestly can’t tell, when you’re playing a game, where a decision is on the GM only to Player only scale?


I’ve rarely come across a GM where they absolutely refuse to explain why they made a decision. How often has that actually happened to you? Every GM you’ve had? Most of them? A couple?

I don't think the kind of explanations traditional GMs are likely to offer will be unsatisfying to @EzekielRaiden .

If I'm wrong about this, I am happy to discuss it.

 

[pemerton]

If I cannot know how a decision is made, if it is black-boxed, I cannot see any difference between that and not having any rules at all.

Sure.

Like...I'm reminded of the card game "Mao". TL;DR: it's a card-elimination game (you want to discard all cards you carry, first do so so wins), but players cannot tell other players the rules--and in most cases, new rules get added without the players knowing, because they're supposed to just figure it out from observation alone.

If a game is literally nothing more than "the GM just decides, that's it", how is this different from Mao?

I don't think the players are supposed to be working out the rules by observation.

I think they're supposed to be cultivating their own capacity to share the GM's intuitions.

Well I hate to tell you this, but I am very confident this is how a lot of people GM.

I think this is true.

I assume you’ve played in games where GMs made decisions. Is it really that opaque when it happens? You honestly can’t tell, when you’re playing a game, where a decision is on the GM only to Player only scale?

I could be wrong, but I don't think that @EzekielRaiden is confused about the fact that the GM is making a decision.

I think the concern is with (i) the lack of clarity over how that decision is made, which then means that (ii) there is a lack of clarity over how the players might shape the play of the game and the content of the shared fiction.

 

[Umbran]

That feels like moving the goalposts. Either practical, repeated play across many groups counts as meaningful evidence, or it doesn’t.

Fine, I'll try to clarify.

Do you know much about statistics? If you do, then you should realize that it is not enough to just be repeated, and over several groups. Getting what we'd call a "representative sample" takes more than that.

And when you, personally, are always involved, that means that there are very likely other things going on than just the stated method - we'd need to see information across not just your many groups, but several other GMs implementing the method across other groups.

And, we'd need them to be taking data scrupulously, rather than relying on memory and impressions well after the fact.

So, no, I am not moving the goalposts - I just have stronger opinions over what counts as data than you seem to.

And, by the way, pulling out your credentials about how many people you've played with and how many games and all fails to impress when the other people in the discussion, some who disagree with you, have similar levels of experience.

Like, dude - you aren't talking to a duffer, here. You're talking to someone dedicated enough to gaming to be moderating a place like this for... decades, now? You think I am not an incredibly active gamer myself? You think others here also aren't incredibly active? Give the folks you are speaking with more credit, please.