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

[hawkeyefan]

I don't see how that benefits the GM, which is what I asked.

Yes, but if you can figure out why it benefits players, then maybe you can figure out why it benefits GMs, too.

 

[AlViking]

Feels like we're into pretty meta territory, in that storyteller/not storyteller divide seems to be entirely down to the relationship between the GM and their output. I don't think we can or should remove the GM's intention and approach from any analysis of what they're doing.

To be honest, I thought it was a bit of a stretch the first time I saw RPGs described as "collaborative storytelling" in the first place. My view at the time was that stories get to cheat and make up new actions on the fly, exceed the basic effectiveness of the action economy and so on, not being bound by the constraints of being a game that runs on systems. It didn't occur to me for many years that this might be viewed as a problem, instead of a defining feature of the medium.

I kind of lean towards the folks who talk about how it's only really a story that you recognize after the fact. On the other hand I don't really care much one way or another about semantics because it doesn't really matter. It's a game. Something I do in my spare time because it's a social outlet that I enjoy and because I'm a good GM.

 

[SableWyvern]

I'm not hiding anything. I just don't agree with you.

This, exactly. To which I'll also I add, I don't think that it's mystifying. It might not be a process laid down in clear and formal terms, but neither is it some esoteric ritual. It's just a matter of making calls that are consistent and feel right; that's pretty much it.

 

[SableWyvern]

Yes, but if you can figure out why it benefits players, then maybe you can figure out why it benefits GMs, too.

So, using that logic, and feeling that the game is better with fewer constraints on players, you now understand why placing fewer constraints on the GM benefits the game?

 

[Bedrockgames]

This, exactly. To which I'll also I add, I don't think that it's mystifying. It might not be a process laid down in clear and formal terms, but neither is it some esoteric ritual. It's just a matter of making calls that are consistent and feel right; that's pretty much it.

Yeah I don't find it mystifying at all. I get some people don't like the kind of language we use, but for me the language is very clear and it is how I come to understand the style of play.

 

[pemerton]

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.

Is this ridiculous notion of "the terrible GM' ever going to go away? Or is it like some chewing stuck to the bottom of various rhetorical shoes?

The reason for wanting games with rules and principles has nothing to do with anyone being terrible. It's about wanting to play a game.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yes, but if you can figure out why it benefits players, then maybe you can figure out why it benefits GMs, too.

So rather than answer my question (which several others have done), you'd rather test me?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Is this ridiculous notion of "the terrible GM' ever going to go away? Or is it like some chewing stuck to the bottom of various rhetorical shoes?

The reason for wanting games with rules and principles has nothing to do with anyone being terrible. It's about wanting to play a game.

Are the rest of us not playing a game? What you're saying here makes no sense to me.

 

[JConstantine]

So rather than answer my question (which several others have done), you'd rather test me?

What is the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow?

 

[AlViking]

What is the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow?

African or European?