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

[SableWyvern]

Wait a minute! How 'random' is it when the GM drew up the encounter table and made bandits (logically, I'm not criticizing it) the most common type of encounter? And there are going to be multiple chances for this to be rolled, at some point, while the GM has not literally dictated this exact instance of it MUST happen now, they've in effect engineered the overwhelming likelihood.

So, why exactly are we assuming that the bandits are most common, other than it's convenient for the argument you're making?

I'll let that pass. Let's assume the bandits are the most common. This means the PCs would almost certainly be aware that bandits are common. And yes, having established that fact, the GM then builds an encounter table that reflects the world. This is exactly the kind of thing we've been saying we do.

One could go and write up every single caravan schedule and work out exactly where the bandits are at all times and then never need to roll for encounters, but a table allows you to simulate this with an amount of work magnitudes of orders less.

Beyond that, I've read plenty of "well, sometimes I don't use the dice" statements, which again is fine, I imagine plenty of reasons for not doing so in all cases.

That's nice, I guess? If you would like the perspective of the people who have been making those statements, probably better to speak to them. I'm not going to comment on their behalf.

But beyond even the above, what happens if the bandits are not encountered? They just become a bigger and bigger threat, following some straightforward extrapolation, until finally the PCs WILL be called out to deal with them. It is super easy for the GM to build an overall situation which makes this inevitable, and 'plausible'. This is why plausibility, though necessary for a game to be comprehensible in play, is a weak criterion.

OK, now you are just inventing a scenario that proves your point. The thing is, in order to do so, you've assumed the GM isn't actually following the principles we're espousing. So, of course it doesn't work out the way I or others have been saying our games work.

How about, no, these things don't need to happen. The PCs might never even go the bandit region. And, if they do, the whole point of having encounters randomised so that the unexpected might happen. If the PCs don't seek out the bandits and the bandits don't show up in an encounter and the PCs don't interfere with their plans, then the bandits will just remain a backdrop. The PCs show up, do what they were there for and they leave. No bandit encounter is necessary or mandatory.

It may be that you cannot imagine being able to resist bringing the bandits to the front and centre, but this does not mean that others would also be unable to resist. And as soon as you allow for a GM who actually follows the principles, your entire example simply doesn't occur.

Now lets consider the Narrativist case and the trad LW case in contrast. What we find is that a bandit encounter in, say, my Dungeon World game, might easily arise. A player would describe through a bond/answer to a question/story they tell around the campfire how these bandits exist and are somehow part of his agenda, or maybe the GM would make a hard move and, say, they kidnap the dwarf's sister. Oh, but the dwarf previously was friends with one of the bandits, does he go wipe them out? In LW by contrast the GM thought, "bandits are a stock element that can develop into something, or at least be a fun encounter" and they go on the encounter tables. Later some story reason arises, like the dwarf's sister got put on a caravan and it was attacked. Why was THAT caravan attacked? Guess why!

In the end, it is a question of how the soup is made, not what the ingredients are.

OK, great. So, to be clear, in the non-narrativist method, the GM fails to adhere to all their principles and thus takes over the story and gives the PCs no options, while the narrativist group does adhere to their principles and and the game is very exciting.

My counter-example: In the non-narrativist group, the GM adheres to their principles and the PCs are able to drive play. In the narrativist group, everyone starts arguing about what one player did with their narrative control and there are hurt feelings and the group disbands. Oh noes! Narrativisim doesn't work!

 

[JConstantine]

In traditional play the players tend to have very clear well defined goals their characters strive toward, and victory is in achieving these. The GM cannot be said to have any similar victory condition they are actively striving toward. Rather like the quizmaster, they prepare (design) entertaining content, and their joy in the activity lies in presenting this and see how the players respond.

A quizmaster/gameshow host is effectively a master of ceremonies. I know a lot of PbtA games use that term in place of GM, but I find it equally as erroneous as referee, especially so as far as traditional GMs go. In hindsight, my 1vX comparison could be construed as comparable to antagonistic GMing, so I'd like to use another comparison: Deception: Murder in Hong Kong.
Deception is a social deduction game where players take on the roles of investigators trying to solve a murder, but where one of the investigators is the murderer (randomly determined at the start). This isn't where the asymmetry is though. That is provided by the role of forensic scientist, who knows who the murderer is and whose job is to provide the investigators clues without speaking (not strictly relevant, but it's done through tiles and cards). The murderer obviously has a different goal than the rest of the investigators (to get away with it), but they're one of the investigators so follow all the same procedures. Based on the narrative conceit, one could argue that the forensic scientist is on the same team as the investigators and thus shares the goal of catching the murderer, but it never feels like that in play because the forensic scientist already knows the answer - they're a participant with a wholly different set of constraints and procedures, who are trying to facilitate the play of the investigators, but they are absolutely a player, not an MC.

A traditional GM fills numerous roles - narrator; (ideally) impartial adjudicator, i.e. referee; possibly adventure designer; possibly worldbuilder if they they're not using a pre-made setting; possibly game designer if they're house ruling/homebrewing - but one of those roles is absolutely as player, especially if NPCs are built and run the same as PCs.

 

[bloodtide]

Wait a minute! How 'random' is it when the GM drew up the encounter table and made bandits (logically, I'm not criticizing it) the most common type of encounter? And there are going to be multiple chances for this to be rolled, at some point, while the GM has not literally dictated this exact instance of it MUST happen now, they've in effect engineered the overwhelming likelihood. Beyond that, I've read plenty of "well, sometimes I don't use the dice" statements, which again is fine, I imagine plenty of reasons for not doing so in all cases.

Sure a traditional DM might do this. Though most DMs would just have the bandit encounter whenever they wanted on a whim.

Though all tables and rules even have the ability to engineer things: this is one of the huge bad things about them. When anyone makes a rule or table they might engineer things.

But beyond even the above, what happens if the bandits are not encountered? They just become a bigger and bigger threat, following some straightforward extrapolation, until finally the PCs WILL be called out to deal with them. It is super easy for the GM to build an overall situation which makes this inevitable, and 'plausible'. This is why plausibility, though necessary for a game to be comprehensible in play, is a weak criterion.

I'm not sure why you are stating this as something that must happen? Maybe you are saying this always happens in your games, and if so that is fine.

Now lets consider the Narrativist case and the trad LW case in contrast. What we find is that a bandit encounter in, say, my Dungeon World game, might easily arise. A player would describe through a bond/answer to a question/story they tell around the campfire how these bandits exist and are somehow part of his agenda,

So, okay, the DM sits back and lets the player create the bandits. I guess the twist here is the player knows all about the bandits and can sit back all smug and knowing? As opposed to a traditional player that would be culeless.

or maybe the GM would make a hard move and, say, they kidnap the dwarf's sister. Oh, but the dwarf previously was friends with one of the bandits, does he go wipe them out? In LW by contrast the GM thought, "bandits are a stock element that can develop into something, or at least be a fun encounter" and they go on the encounter tables. Later some story reason arises, like the dwarf's sister got put on a caravan and it was attacked. Why was THAT caravan attacked? Guess why!

I guess a DM could do this?

 

[Maxperson]

Okay but now you're doing that thing again--where only your terminology matters, and if I don't understand it or don't agree with it, I'm SOL, but if you disagree with my terminology or don't understand it...I'm also SOL.

The Forge and its terminology is very controversial. None of it is any kind of industry standard. So when you try to apply non-standard terminology to other folks, it will cause confusion and misunderstandings.

@Bedrockgames saying he doesn't use Forge terminology isn't saying only his terminology matters. He's saying that the non-standard Forge terminology isn't what he uses. He doesn't have to use it.

 

[hawkeyefan]

This originally started with the assertion that games are better if there are written rules for additional constraints on the GM. The reason for the assertion was never given. More than one poster has stated the same with it being stated as objective fact, not just preference. But when asked why you can hear the crickets.

As I said, constraints are essential. For instance, a GM being constrained to honor the rolls of the players is a pretty basic one. The GM, in some games, can technically override any rolls that are made in play… but they generally don’t do so. Why not? Because constraints are good.

Why is it essential? That the part that is unclear to readers.

See above and let me know of you’re still unsure.

I think I see where you might come from. Do you consider the GM a player of the game? In that case there is a case to be made that without constraints there are no play.

However the traditional way is not treating the GM as a player. Rather one of their main roles is as a designer. And making a claim that constraints is an essential part of design seem like a tougher point to argue? (Let us not enter the tangent that constraints tend to lead to better designs quite yet, before the essentiality question is settled at least)

Maybe? I do see the GM as a participant in that when I GM I want to be surprised by things that happen in play. Though my role may be different, I don’t want to be unconstrained.

So something like “yeah, there is a secret door here because the map says there is” or “there are three trolls here because that’s what my prep tells me” and so on… these are constraints that I want to hold on to. I don’t want to be able to just say “no, no secret door here” or “wow, there are 17 trolls here” just because I want to.

Constraints are present all the time in play, even if we don’t typically think of them that way.

 

[Micah Sweet]

As I said, constraints are essential. For instance, a GM being constrained to honor the rolls of the players is a pretty basic one. The GM, in some games, can technically override any rolls that are made in play… but they generally don’t do so. Why not? Because constraints are good.



See above and let me know of you’re still unsure.



Maybe? I do see the GM as a participant in that when I GM I want to be surprised by things that happen in play. Though my role may be different, I don’t want to be unconstrained.

So something like “yeah, there is a secret door here because the map says there is” or “there are three trolls here because that’s what my prep tells me” and so on… these are constraints that I want to hold on to. I don’t want to be able to just say “no, no secret door here” or “wow, there are 17 trolls here” just because I want to.

Constraints are present all the time in play, even if we don’t typically think of them that way.

I would much rather have such things presented as advice and/or suggestions rather hard rules.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

In comparison to the TSR editions, the WotC editions have very limited space for kitbashing without affecting the foundational core, thanks (no thanks) to the WotC designers having gone the unified design route rather than discrete subsystems.

"In comparison" is doing a hell of a lot of heavy lifting here. The assertion was not "absolute power to do whatever I like with the rules, whenever I like, for as long as I like". It was "some potential for DIY". You have changed the standard to something extreme. So: I would appreciate either a recognition that the original point remains (even though I wasn't even talking about "the WotC editions", I was talking about PbtA games) and that this is now a new and different standard being applied...or I'd appreciate the recognition that you have just moved the goalposts.

In 1e I can rip out entire subsystems and replace them with something different without (usually) too many knock-on effects to the rest of the game. I know this because I've done it.

But note the "usually". Even there, it's not guaranteed safe. Rip out the wrong thing, and it will still cause issues. Which things are the wrong things? I doubt even you know all of them, despite your formidible experience.

Not possible with any of the WotC editions, as a major change to the design here is inevitably going to cause knock-on effects everywhere else; it's more work than it's worth to go and find them all and stamp them out, and doing so can simply cause the knock-ons to cascade in any case.

It's a lot more possible than you seem to think. Further, if the game is designed transparently--which at least one of "the WotC editions" was--then you can almost always see the problems with a rules change before you even implement it.

I still remember the time a user on this forum described to me how an old-school-fan DM, before ever playing a single game of 4e, decided healing surges were stupid and just...eliminated them. All healing just worked (I don't recall how, some number of rolled dice), regardless. This then made the game...incredibly broken, as you might expect, when you can just heal people a fistful of dice every round and do other things and not spend any resources on it. This DM then declared 4e a "broken" (and IIRC "buggy") mess, horrifically imbalanced, etc., etc.--without ever once having used the actual rules of the system.

I'll grant that a game built out of 17 utterly disconnected subsystems is less likely to have knock-on effects if you change one of them. I don't grant that having interconnected subsystems is therefore a bad thing, nor an impingement upon the ability to have "some potential for DIY". Even you recognize there are some landmines in early-edition D&D if you rip out the wrong things--and I very much doubt you would ever claim that which things that's true of are easy to spot even for an experienced DM.

Interconnection is a tool. It has its (many) perks. It also brings with it expectations and limitations. Disconnection is also a tool, with its perks, expectations, and limitations.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I would much rather have such things presented as advice and/or suggestions rather hard rules.

You think that honoring rolls should just be a suggestion?

Okay, I guess.

 

[Enrahim]

A traditional GM fills numerous roles - narrator; (ideally) impartial adjudicator, i.e. referee; possibly adventure designer; possibly worldbuilder if they they're not using a pre-made setting; possibly game designer if they're house ruling/homebrewing - but one of those roles is absolutely as player, especially if NPCs are built and run the same as PCs.

So something like “yeah, there is a secret door here because the map says there is” or “there are three trolls here because that’s what my prep tells me” and so on… these are constraints that I want to hold on to. I don’t want to be able to just say “no, no secret door here” or “wow, there are 17 trolls here” just because I want to.

Ok, I think I can work with the terms provided here. This sub-sub-tread started with me reacting to

It’s not bad at all. It’s an essential part of play.

I brought it up because @Micah Sweet asked why place constraints on GMs. And the answer is basically the same… it’s an essential part of play.

The way this is formulated, that make me think it is supposed to apply to the GM in general. That would include GM as a adventure designer, GM as a worldbuilder, GM as a game designer and GM as a prepper. However if the claim is that the GM at some times are engaging in play, and that they during that period has to abide by constraints (which might be self imposed trough for instance prep as exemplified here) - then that seem absolutely uncontroversial to me.

(I am not saying there might not be room to argue that those activities you describe as play might be better explained as experience design than play, but then I feel we are splitting hairs compared to the larger conceptual issue I thought we had here)

 

[robertsconley]

For instance, a GM being constrained to honor the rolls of the players is a pretty basic one. The GM, in some games, can technically override any rolls that are made in play… but they generally don’t do so. Why not? Because constraints are good.

This is a clever rhetorical maneuver, structured similarly to a loaded question. It’s phrased so that anyone who disagrees risks appearing as though they don’t respect player rolls, which is clearly not the case for all RPGs. And if you do agree, it sets the stage for a follow-up that implies you've just conceded a larger point about GM constraints. This isn’t a neutral observation, it’s a framing tactic meant to position the debate on Hawkeyefan's ground.

What’s actually being referenced here are mechanical constraints such as those found in fiction-first or player-first systems like Powered by the Apocalypse. In those systems, when the fictional situation matches the trigger for a move, the move is automatically invoked and resolved. The referee (or MC) doesn't have the discretion over whether the move is invoked And once the move is invoked the roll as made and the result adjudicated per the description of the move. For example:

But this kind of mechanical constraint is not germane to the broader debate around GM constraints that been going on in recent posts. The example offered is a result of the designer deciding that the system will be made using a player-first/fiction-first approach.

As I said, constraints are essential.
See above and let me know if you’re still unsure.

Yes, I remain unsure, because the example you provided does not meaningfully engage with the discussion that has been going on with GM constraints. We already discussed the relevance and implications of designing systems and campaigns around referee-first and player-first approaches.