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

[Old Fezziwig]

As a side note - when deciding wetter to seek consultation or not it is possible to go wrong both ways. I think most also would feel pretty annoyed by a GM seeking consultation on every little decission point. "What do you guys and galls think what should be behind this door?" "I'm not sure what would be an aproperiate DC for this lock, what do you think?" "Who want to be crushed by rather ogre this round?".

Sure, this would be infuriating, though I'm not sure how much this actually happens? And, to be fair, though I read about it more online, I'm not sure that there's a meaningful population of my way or the highway type GMs either.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

The problem is that you keep dropping required, and instead say just "do not". And this is where the disonance start.

Because that's what people say. Whether or not discussion occurs, they will make their decision. The players are, at absolute most, providing suggestions. That's what has been insisted upon, here and elsewhere!

The question of when to call for consultation is a tricky one, and different GMs use different methods to aid them in that decission, because that is that single point of failure: The GM must decide when to just call the shots, and keep things going. The alternative of stoping the action, bring the players out of the fictional world, and pose a question is not an easy choice to make. Some times we get this wrong, that is the problem with being a single point of failure.

And then the question become: Do we get it wrong often enough to change style of game away from one where the GM is not required to consult with anyone? And the answer is no for most of us. Even if the problem sometimes arise, it do not affect most sessions - and we have still to find an alternative that is anywhere near as well suited for providing the experience we want.

Personally, I think people MASSIVELY over-inflate the alleged "risks" of asking a question and collaborating with their players rather than making pronouncements from on high.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

My bolding. Ah! There we have another one! I might want absolute power as a GM, but that doesn't mean I am very keen on exerting that power. There is a crucial difference between having and exerting.

....

When someone unrelentingly insists on having something, it is so they can use it. That's why one would insist on having it--so that it can be used. Otherwise, why be so bloody insistent about it???

But that is secondary. The players do have subsidiary authority - over their players characters. So it seem like they still fill your criteria for being advisors? (Your further examples seem to confirm this)

Sorry, no. That simply doesn't fly. That's like saying that because a student can decide what pencils they bring to class, they have subsidiary authority within the school. Complete balderdash.

Especially when the "traditional GM" is so often upheld specifically because of GM "vision" and so many of them--including many in this very thread--are quite keen on nailing down which things are absolutely forbidden to be played in their games. To the point of, for example, having already defined every political entity of any significance, every demographic group, and every geographic location with a sufficient level of specificity that it is (per their own words) not possible to add new places to the world nor new societies/cultures/(sapient) species.

 

[The Firebird]

....

When someone unrelentingly insists on having something, it is so they can use it. That's why one would insist on having it--so that it can be used. Otherwise, why be so bloody insistent about it???


Sorry, no. That simply doesn't fly. That's like saying that because a student can decide what pencils they bring to class, they have subsidiary authority within the school. Complete balderdash.

Especially when the "traditional GM" is so often upheld specifically because of GM "vision" and so many of them--including many in this very thread--are quite keen on nailing down which things are absolutely forbidden to be played in their games. To the point of, for example, having already defined every political entity of any significance, every demographic group, and every geographic location with a sufficient level of specificity that it is (per their own words) not possible to add new places to the world nor new societies/cultures/(sapient) species.

Does it matter that so many of us who favor this style want to play in these games as well? I want the GM to define political entities and demographic groups. As a player I'm insisting on someone else having this authority.

 

[Enrahim]

....

When someone unrelentingly insists on having something, it is so they can use it. That's why one would insist on having it--so that it can be used. Otherwise, why be so bloody insistent about it???

I absolutely want to have a fire extinguisher in my house. I absolutely hope to never have to use it.

Sorry, no. That simply doesn't fly. That's like saying that because a student can decide what pencils they bring to class, they have subsidiary authority within the school. Complete balderdash.

In that case I think your analogies has outlived their usefulness. They are no longer communicative, as we clearly do not understand each other with regard to these.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Absolutely! It is not meant be reassuring. It was meant to aid communication.

Okay...well...my conversation had very specifically been about seeking reassurance or efforts to address problems, perceived or enacted, so in context merely aiding communication is not necessarily the most productive thing.

The challenge with there being a single point of failure that might make poor decissions is there independently of the will to exercise the power is there. And for someone wanting to not rely on a single person this is a problem.

As a side note - when deciding wetter to seek consultation or not it is possible to go wrong both ways. I think most also would feel pretty annoyed by a GM seeking consultation on every little decission point. "What do you guys and galls think what should be behind this door?" "I'm not sure what would be an aproperiate DC for this lock, what do you think?" "Who want to be crushed by the ogre this round?".

I would consider this a ludicrously extreme caricature to the point of being intentionally absurd. As in, if you were actually going to base any kind of argument on this, I would simply reject it as unacceptable--indeed, as pushing into "intentionally inflammatory" territory. Nobody is asking for this. No one is saying that exercising judgment is a bad thing. I, for example, very much love certain mechanics in 4e that can only function because there is a real human making judgment calls behind the GM screen.

This is a far, far, far, FAR, FAR cry from what anyone here is talking about.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Does it matter that so many of us who favor this style want to play in these games as well? I want the GM to define political entities and demographic groups. As a player I'm insisting on someone else having this authority.

I made no comment whatsoever about defining them in general.

My comment was, very specifically, about defining such so thoroughly that (they claim) it is utterly impossible to add anything new, ever. The world's contents are completely fixed and (they allege) cannot, even in principle, be expanded. That degree of micromanagement of a setting is surely, I should hope, an extreme even in your eyes?

 

[Enrahim]

Because that's what people say. Whether or not discussion occurs, they will make their decision. The players are, at absolute most, providing suggestions. That's what has been insisted upon, here and elsewhere!

Now you are backing up to just talking about having power?

Personally, I think people MASSIVELY over-inflate the alleged "risks" of asking a question and collaborating with their players rather than making pronouncements from on high.

Possibly. There is at the very least a nasty default bias at play here. I think it is more constructive looking at the basis for making decissions on when it is advicable to consult, rather than proposing it to be required.

 

[Enrahim]

Okay...well...my conversation had very specifically been about seeking reassurance or efforts to address problems, perceived or enacted, so in context merely aiding communication is not necessarily the most productive thing.

Well, it has turned out to be a bit hard to reassure when we have not been able to communicate properly..

I would consider this a ludicrously extreme caricature to the point of being intentionally absurd. As in, if you were actually going to base any kind of argument on this, I would simply reject it as unacceptable--indeed, as pushing into "intentionally inflammatory" territory. Nobody is asking for this. No one is saying that exercising judgment is a bad thing. I, for example, very much love certain mechanics in 4e that can only function because there is a real human making judgment calls behind the GM screen.

This is a far, far, far, FAR, FAR cry from what anyone here is talking about.

You got it! It was intended as a caricature!

However, on a more serious note this is what blanket requiering consultation would actually look like. Which mean that I assume you would indeed like the GM to have absolute power over certain domains at least?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I absolutely want to have a fire extinguisher in my house. I absolutely hope to never have to use it.

But you want it so that you can use it. Like...you're putting up a smokescreen argument here (almost literally, heh). Your hope is not "I hope I never seek to actuate this device that produces foam." Your hope is, "I hope my house is never on fire." By having the fire extinguisher, you do in fact hope to use it--just in a situation that you hope never comes to pass. But, I imagine, you wouldn't just up and decide to cease living inside your house if you learned that your fire extinguisher was a dud, yes? You might make it a priority to get a replacement--but you wouldn't make it a prerequisite of continuing to live in that building.

That's rather different from the demand for "absolute power"/"absolute authority" as a "traditional GM", no? The clear pattern is that if this authority were somehow lost or damaged, they would immediately stop GMing until it was restored.

That's a pretty critical piece pointing to the fact that it's desired that it may be used.

In that case I think your analogies has outlived their usefulness. They are no longer communicative, as we clearly do not understand each other with regard to these.

What is the primary thing that every "traditional GM" has insisted about player control over their character backstory, for example? To paraphrase many sources: "nothing with mechanical benefit." (Or, if you prefer, "nothing with mechanical impact", to not imply a "backstories can be neutral or bad" thing.) Control over the character? Nothing that can ever impact the declarations the GM makes.

A son does not gain subsidiary authority in or over his mother's house simply because he can tack posters to the walls of his room. A daughter does not gain the ability to start or stop any service provided to the house, simply because she can choose what bedsheets cover her bed. A courtly advisor does, in fact, specifically gain authority, prestige, control over meaningful parts of the apparatus of state, even if their choices are ultimately ephemera should their absolute monarch liege decide so. Nothing of the kind occurs under a "traditional GM". Players do not, and cannot, declare anything to be or not be within the world.*

*Indeed, the "traditional GM" could decide that a particular character literally just...doesn't have parents. Not that their parents were alive and are now dead. The character just doesn't have any. Period. They spontaneously manifested, or something. I dunno! The GM is reality, as we were so recently reminded.