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

[Enrahim]

I'm guessing because, with more people online and able to talk about gaming, people couldn't as easily talk about their games anymore when they were using houserules. You had to talk about the RAW in order to have common ground, and that led to people thinking you had to play by RAW.

If it had been that simple. There were factions that were very explicit about how encouraging play deviating from RAW was "lazy design". And there was also those that were very explicit about how their game was so tightly and well designed that if you missed or deviated on even the tiniest detail on how you played the game, then you had no reason to complain that it didn't provide the great experience advertised.

I think there might have been a solid overlap between these two.

This thread is the first time I have heard the "we just talk about RAW to have something to talk about" argument you present here.

 

[Remathilis]

Maybe. I guessed 2.5% are "bad" GMs, even though I don't think we even agree on what defines a bad GM. But I'm willing to accept that the actual number of certifiably "bad" GMs might be considerably higher than 2.5%. It's kind of a going nowhere thing to debate, though, because of the subjectivity of it all.

Are you willing to accept that our definitions of "bad" GMs probably also differs by a great deal? Because that's been a sticking point in this thread too. If someone says, "That GM is bad because x, y, z..." I'm thinking, "I would have just schmoozed 'em better and come to a more beneficial agreement."

GMs and players are all people. I know you've played at tables where some of the players are getting along swimmingly with the GM and loving the game while other players are feeling bad or left out. Not everyone at that table would define that same GM as "bad." Same person is probably being rated as "good" in other polls elsewhere.

I'd be curious* to know what you think the percentage of bad musicians are. Or bad artists. Or bad football players. Or bad authors. My wager is that whatever that number is, it's about the same as bad DMs and it's going to be significantly higher than 2.5%.

* Actually, I'm not. its rhetorical.

 

[Faolyn]

Also all codifications I have seen attempted are not covering the width of techniques I have employed as a GM.

This is true.

That being said, I can't think of any narrative game that's tried to limit what techniques are employed except than those that rely too heavily on rolling skills.

But I wouldn't consider that to be any different than, say, D&D failing to include rules for building castles. Just because it's not in the book, it doesn't mean it's not allowed. It just means that they didn't put the rules in the book and you either have to figure them out for yourself or buy a supplement that goes into detail. If you want to play a narrative game and want to have a lot of skill rolls, you can do that. There's bunches of games that do that.

 

[Enrahim]

This is true.

That being said, I can't think of any narrative game that's tried to limit what techniques are employed except than those that rely too heavily on rolling skills.

But I wouldn't consider that to be any different than, say, D&D failing to include rules for building castles. Just because it's not in the book, it doesn't mean it's not allowed. It just means that they didn't put the rules in the book and you either have to figure them out for yourself or buy a supplement that goes into detail. If you want to play a narrative game and want to have a lot of skill rolls, you can do that. There's bunches of games that do that.

We are here explicitly talking about rules of a form that limits what a GM can do.. Not about narrative games in general?

 

[Minigiant]

If it had been that simple. There were factions that were very explicit about how encouraging play deviating from RAW was "lazy design". And there was also those that were very explicit about how their game was so tightly and well designed that if you missed or deviated on even the tiniest detail on how you played the game, then you had no reason to complain that it didn't provide the great experience advertised.

I think there might have been a solid overlap between these two.

This thread is the first time I have heard the "we just talk about RAW to have something to talk about" argument you present here.

RAW
RAW with common houserules
RAW with setting variants from popular settings

Discussion gets harder when you are too far from the share experience.

 

[gban007]

We are here explicitly talking about rules of a form that limits what a GM can do.. Not about narrative games in general?

Almost all rpg rules limit what a GM can do, whether things like how many hp a PC has before can be taken down, how spells cast by or against DM controlled characters etc work, how AC works, how classes, subclasses, levels etc work.
But a GM can then house rule any of those if they want.
I dont see how a line saying how a DM is expected to run a particular game is any different, yes jt limits it, but can still be house ruled away if wanted.
It feels like there is this idea that any rules listed that bind on a player are okay, and can be changed from players expectations through house rules and that's okay, but anything that only binds on the DM isn't okay, even if can still be changed.
I do get that it can feel different, and not be something that want, but at same time to me it feels like the attitude is that players can be treated however, but DMs are sacrosant and must be given as much leeway as possible by the rules, and at heart I don't see why that is the case.
I don't think that 25% of DMs are bad, or that rules need to try and prevent bad DMs (a losing proposition i feel, as they are ones most likely to ignore advice anyway), but I also dont seem harm in putting a firmer idea of how the DM is expected to run a game as a baseline, to then deviate from if needed. Much like I feel it is easier / cleaner to house rule a spell away knowing what the original intent of spell was as able to highlight the differences, I think easier to explain to players why moving away from default DM expectation knowing what that expectation was.

 

[Lanefan]

"They" are "game designers and writers".

If they want to include hard rules to govern GM or player behavior in their games, they get to do that.

They get to try.

And I get to tell them to take off.

 

[Faolyn]

A title explicitly called out as a rant by the OP, and IMO clearly designed to ruffle the feathers of those who prefer traditional gaming playstyles.

But it's also quite true. Y'all are just so resistant to change, even though D&D itself has undergone enormous changes.

 

[Micah Sweet]

But it's also quite true. Y'all are just so resistant to change, even though D&D itself has undergone enormous changes.

I change (and have changed) my play when I think it's worth it. What changes the official games goes through are not particularly relevant to me. What possible reason would I have to keep following the leading edge if I don't like where it's going?

 

[Enrahim]

Almost all rpg rules limit what a GM can do, whether things like how many hp a PC has before can be taken down,

How is this a limitation on the person that decides how much damage anything does?

how spells cast by or against DM controlled characters etc work,

Nope, these are rules for how the spells work when player characters cast them. These only apply to a GM themselves deciding to use the same spells for their creatures.

how AC works,

Ac is hardly a limitation for the one that decides on the attack bonuses? Indeed there are plenty of examples of even fully reasonable ways to deal damage ignoring AC completely.

how classes, subclasses, levels etc work.

These only limits and guides how players build their characters. This doesn't affect the DM at all.


These are not the kind of rules I am talking about when talking about rules that limits GM. There are games out there that has rules that directly adresses the GM. For instance in Burning Wheel gold's "Let it ride" section the GM is explicitely forbidden for allowing any sort of re-rolls, or to call for more rolls than absolutely neccesary. Sane advice in any game, but formulated as a hard rule directed explicitely toward the GM.

But a GM can then house rule any of those if they want.

And here is the crux: This formulation rely on the GM having unilateral power of house-ruling. This power is explicit in many games, but far from all. BW is not giving GM unilateral power to house rule the game so that he can call for retries. This would require the participants to together agree to play something else than BW as written.

I dont see how a line saying how a DM is expected to run a particular game is any different, yes jt limits it, but can still be house ruled away if wanted.
It feels like there is this idea that any rules listed that bind on a player are okay, and can be changed from players expectations through house rules and that's okay, but anything that only binds on the DM isn't okay, even if can still be changed.

The rules "binding" the players can be changed by a quick petition to the DM, in the games that give those powers to the DM. The rules binding the DM must be addressed trough a more cumbersome process to be house ruled away. This is a qualitative difference.

I do get that it can feel different, and not be something that want, but at same time to me it feels like the attitude is that players can be treated however, but DMs are sacrosant and must be given as much leeway as possible by the rules, and at heart I don't see why that is the case.

I hope the above helps you see why this is usefull for making the experience smoother and more customisable - not just "feeling" different.

I don't think that 25% of DMs are bad, or that rules need to try and prevent bad DMs (a losing proposition i feel, as they are ones most likely to ignore advice anyway), but I also dont seem harm in putting a firmer idea of how the DM is expected to run a game as a baseline, to then deviate from if needed. Much like I feel it is easier / cleaner to house rule a spell away knowing what the original intent of spell was as able to highlight the differences, I think easier to explain to players why moving away from default DM expectation knowing what that expectation was.

I think advice and setting expectations are universaly regarded as a good thing. It is attempts at achieving this trough the means of codified rules that is problematic.