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

[AbdulAlhazred]

I'm not missing anything. I'm just not as dogmatic as you seem to be.

Well, I been doing this since 1975. I don't claim to be some genius, but there's definitely things you seem to be missing. It isn't rocket science, I play, and your statements simply don't match what I actually see with my eyes and hear with my ears. Case closed.

All of this is precisely the problem. Each game should be taken at face value, without preconceived notions from any other game.

I don't know what this even means.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Oh, I agree with @JConstantine that there's a lot of GM driving play in all games that apportion a role to a "GM." The question is largely "what's your primary heuristic for making the decisions" and "are there explicit restrictions on how you do so" and we've mostly beaten that to absolute death.

Eg: in Blades the GM frames out the scene when we kick a score off using the Approach/Detail and Engagement Roll outcome, using what they interpreted Gather Info rolls to reveal (the player asks the question, but the GM still provides the answer), and poses the first obstacle. That's a ton of authority and direction. But I'm doing it given explicit directions of the course of play, and tying back to challenging the players via their character flags directly.

Right, GMs are flush with power in BitD, etc. I don't really subscribe to the idea that there's some zero-sum kind of pool of authority where someone has more and thus someone else has less. My experience is these games are creative, and the more people contribute creatively to the whole thing, with fewer hard constraints, the more good stuff happens on both sides.

 

[JConstantine]

Well, I been doing this since 1975.

To echo a previous post in this thread:

So, appeal to authority now? Really? That's your play?

I'm not going to engage with that.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I just think it’s weird. Even the worst GMs I’ve had in the past—the antagonistic ones, the one who was cool with sexual harassment, the one who tried to run worst railroad I’ve ever seen—none of them were “you must trust me!” Like, at all. And the people I play with now? Definitely not. I just find it hard to believe that I’ve somehow managed to snag the only GMs who don’t demand unfailing player trust without earning it.

I feel like to some people it's either demanding unfailing player trust without earning it, or adhering to a strict, restrictive mechanical heuristic rigidly enforced so the terrible GM can't impose their tyranny on the poor players, with no spectrum in between.

 

[robertsconley]

I feel like to some people it's either demanding unfailing player trust without earning it, or adhering to a strict, restrictive mechanical heuristic rigidly enforced so the terrible GM can't impose their tyranny on the poor players, with no spectrum in between.

I understand your frustration. I’ve been thinking about this too, and as folks have probably noticed, I like to dig into what assumptions are actually driving our different playstyles. Way back in the thread, we touched on some of these clashes, but I don’t think we ever really addressed what makes our respective styles appealing at the core.

With the recent back-and-forth about trust and control, I think the root of it comes down to this:

In my Living World Sandbox campaigns, as well as other traditional and sandbox styles, the referee describes the world first. The players react to what’s going on. The referee then adjudicates or describes what happens next.

In fiction-first (or player-first) systems like Burning Wheel, PbtA, and Blades in the Dark, the players declare what matters to their characters fictionally. The referee then frames the situation to reflect and challenge those priorities. From there, descriptions and adjudication follow.

So simplified, it’s referee-first versus player-first. Not in the sense of who dominates socially, but in terms of who goes first to establish the stakes or context of play.

Both styles value consistency and plausibility. Both can lean heavily on prep or improvise on the fly. Both are fully capable of producing deep, character-rich campaigns with consequences and arcs that matter. They just do it through different means and priorities, which gives each a distinct feel at the table and creates different appeal for different groups.

And because both approaches use many of the same techniques, the clash can be easy to miss. But when discussing one of these approaches, it can feel like that discussion misses the point of the other. To a fiction-first player, referee-first play may feel like it’s ignoring character intent. To a referee-first player, fiction-first play may feel like skipping over the world.

For me, referee-first play works because the setting is dynamic and situational awareness is critical. There are things going on that the characters don’t know, until they encounter them. That means I need to describe first. But I’ve learned over time that this creates specific consequences I need to address. So I make space for questions, encourage player initiative, and rely on solid leadership techniques to make it all work.

And I know fiction-first games have their own set of challenges, which their systems solve in different ways. And the reason that fiction-first or player-first doesn't work for my campaign is that style of situational awareness forms a crucial part of the appeal of my campaign for the players.

Hope that helps explain where the real tension lies. It’s not just about trust, it’s about structure, sequence, and what each style needs to thrive.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I'm honestly still pretty fuzzy as to what benefit is received from adding additional constraints to the GM. Why would you want restrictions on what you can do running the game?

Why do the players have constraints?

That depends on what precisely you mean by "awareness of gameplay". If you've elaborated on it previously, I've missed it. This thread moves faster than I type.

Well like I said, Harper designed Doskvol with a mind for the fiction but also with a mind for gameplay. I mentioned earlier in the thread that GMs, when creating settings and scenarios, should do so with both the fiction and the gameplay in mind.

So a location should be sensible within the fiction and should be recognizable as such to us (a city should be city-like, with citizens and a power structure and all that) but it should also be considered in how it will shape play. In what opportunities it offers the players.

I think GMs should be thinking of both of these elements when they are creating settings and the NPCs, locations, and factions within them. How does X fit into the world fictionally? How does X shape gameplay?

This recommendation was met with bewilderment or hostility when I brought it up. I’m curious for your take on it.

One those are statements by two entirely different people, who have said they don't run things exactly the same. But I am not seeing the contradiction. GM as storyteller, is a very specific type of game, where the players are there for the GMs story. You don't have to believe it, but the kind of sandbox play I and Rob are talking about were actively avoiding that type of campaign. Having stuff prepped, doesn't mean you are telling the players a story.

See I don’t think it needs to go that far. I’m not saying that you or @robertsconley or anyone else has a specific story to tell. My view is more that the more elements of “the story” (I know none of us really like that label, I use it reluctantly) that are created by the GM… especially devoid of any consideration of or input by the players… the more GM-focused the game is.

But the character is never a vehicle for exploration of setting. Setting is always a vehicle for exploration of these player characters.

This is well said, and very much gets at the distinction that I think is key.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Why do the players have constraints?

Because in games I play (once play begins) the players are, by mutual agreement, responsible solely for their characters, and their influence on the setting is limited to that of which those characters are capable. The GM is responsible for literally everything else happening in the game. Those differing level of responsibility lead to different levels of constraint.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Because in games I play (once play begins) the players are, by mutual agreement, responsible solely for their characters, and their influence on the setting is limited to that of which those characters are capable. The GM is responsible for literally everything else happening in the game. Those differing level of responsibility lead to different levels of constraint.

Yes… but why are the players constrained?

 

[Bedrockgames]

See I don’t think it needs to go that far. I’m not saying that you or @robertsconley or anyone else has a specific story to tell. My view is more that the more elements of “the story” (I know none of us really like that label, I use it reluctantly) that are created by the GM… especially devoid of any consideration of or input by the players… the more GM-focused the game is.

Well here I would say, I think this isn't the case as a general matter. The players not inputing creating setting elements, doesn't mean they aren't driving the direction of the campaign. I would say a campaign where the players are along for the ride, is what I would call GM driven, and a campaign where the players can shoot the clerk, take his car and go on a cross country killing spree the GM never imagined, is a player driven campaign (normally i call this character driven actually but the players are the ones literally in the drivers seats here). I get that you can empower the players even more to actually have a say over what gets introduced, beyond acting through their characters, but like I said before, I don't see that as adding agency or adding 'player driven-ness to it'. I see that as being more about the mechanics of the game and the structure of play

All that said, I think you are simplifying what I do when you say "devoid of any consideration or input by the players". I may not tend to use the kinds of systems you are using, and I am much more on the trad side of things. But I said before I usually talk with my players about campaign concept and that is naturally going to lead to certain things being created for the campaign to fit what they are trying to do. And as the campaign unfolds, I am going to create in response to what they are trying to do and what they do. An example of this would be in my Paths from Nowhere campaign where the party was just kind of finding its way. One of the players wanted to join a group of local bandits. I had to make the bandits in response to what the player did. Then the player ended up betraying the bandit leader, on behalf of a roaming magistrate he took on as a new Sifu. I used 'pinning it down' throughout, so that the players in game choices would have weight, but he was moving in the direction of betraying the bandit leader, I had to create family connections, which led to the emergence of Lady Yang as a nemesis. This was all stuff I wouldn't have introduced or created had the player not been making these choices and pushing the boundaries of the campaign in that direction. So yes, the GM is the one making this stuff, but it isn't always happening in a vacuum, and it is often a direct response to actions the players take (and this is the thing in my experience that both expands and brings a setting to life)

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yes… but why are the players constrained?

Because...they job is to play their characters? Was my last post confusing? What's your call to action here?