D&D General Respeckt Mah Authoritah: Understanding High Trust and the Division of Authority

[Malmuria]

Hmm, no. It seems like a stretch to try to tie it to that particular jargon. I think the issue is something more fundamental like getting trapped in binary thinking. Consider the example by @Oligopsony in post #25 where two approaches to OSR play are viewed by some proponents as lacking some dysfunction the other has. I don’t see any issue with “incoherence” there, but I do see a false dichotomy and binary thinking, which is the problem I’m identifying.

I guess I was picking up on the binary way of thinking as the result of only seeing extremes. For example, per the post you mention, there isn't really a strict dichotomy between FKR and blorbiness. It reminded me of this post

Minimalist Gaming Doesn't Exist!

Every so often, the topic of minimalist gaming arises, and we've concluded that it doesn't exist! Now this might seem strange coming from t...

pitsperilous.blogspot.com

 

[kenada]

I guess I was picking up on the binary way of thinking as the result of only seeing extremes. For example, per the post you mention, there isn't really a strict dichotomy between FKR and blorbiness. It reminded me of this post

Right. The issue is with those who get stuck in that way of thinking.

Minimalist Gaming Doesn't Exist!

Every so often, the topic of minimalist gaming arises, and we've concluded that it doesn't exist! Now this might seem strange coming from t...

pitsperilous.blogspot.com

That’s kind of an example of what I mean. A charitable ruling by the GM is being contrasted with an uncharitable rules-based approach. Where this can get problematic is when that alternative is taken as the only alternative (in my experience, it’s not).

 

[Clint_L]

As far as I'm concerned 1 and 2 here are the same thing; as in my view a "quick ruling" should set a binding precedent for the remainder of that campaign. If it doesn't, and the ruling can change from week to week, that's where trust in the DM will very quickly go out the window.

Which is why even "quick rulings" should be thought through and got right the first time, even if it means stopping a session for ten minutes and thinking/talking it over.

I've been kitbashing and houseruling for decades. Some changes work, some don't, so what? Trial and error.

Hmmm...I have no problem with revisiting a ruling at the end of the game, or even after that, like at the start of the next game if I've had time to think on it, or someone has made a really good argument, or we have new information. In general I agree that consistency is important, but sometimes you're just gonna get things wrong and I don't wanna be stuck with a ruling that I no longer like if it was, in retrospect, a mistake. That also helps keep the session moving.

Also, from a player's perspective, I won't get into a big rules argument during a game. Talking through a situation is great, but once the DM rules, I move on, and wait to bring it up later if I think it is important, so I don't derail the session. Even if I totally disagree with the DM, I won't push it.

So I totally agree with the "trial and error" part, but not the "binding precedent" part. What if you talked it through, made a ruling...and then later it becomes clear that the ruling just isn't working? Precedent, for sure, but not binding.

 

[Hussar]

Not to get edition warry here but there’s a very good reason why the 5e DMG is not really a guide or instructional book. It’s loose collection of bits and bobs that presumes that the dm is experienced.

The 4e DMG was an actual guide. It presumed that dms were coming in with little or no rpg experience.

Now, whether you consider the advice good or bad doesn’t really matter. People absolutely lost their poop over the advice. Even fairly innocuous bits of advice became stalking horses for edition warring. Bits were stripped of context and then presented as evidence that 4e was just so bad.

There was zero chance WotC was going to do that again. It’s why OSR books can get away with it - a much narrower fan base who is predisposed to agreeing with the advice before it’s offered.

I’d love to see the new DMG actually be a guide to running games but there is zero chance that WotC will take any sort of stand here. They just cannot afford it.

So we’re stuck with what is being called a high trust game without the guidance for GMs that comes with high trust games.

Fantastic for experienced dms. Terrible for new groups. The saving grace for 5e is the adventure path which serves as a really good teaching manual for how to create a campaign.

 

[Oligopsony]

If I were in charge of the 2024 DMG - terrible idea, but - I think the correct decision would be to outline a few different styles and include concrete advice around those. As a starting point, just take the Principia Apocrypha, Return of the Lazy Dungeon Master, and Dungeon World GM chapter and edit for newbies/inferential distance from there. Give people tools to mix and match, but also note where there might be tensions and tradeoffs and how to discuss those preferences with your players.

(I'd be shocked if 5.5 doesn't at least have some basic safety tools, which is a start, at least!)

 

[payn]

Not to get edition warry here but there’s a very good reason why the 5e DMG is not really a guide or instructional book. It’s loose collection of bits and bobs that presumes that the dm is experienced.

The 4e DMG was an actual guide. It presumed that dms were coming in with little or no rpg experience.

Now, whether you consider the advice good or bad doesn’t really matter. People absolutely lost their poop over the advice. Even fairly innocuous bits of advice became stalking horses for edition warring. Bits were stripped of context and then presented as evidence that 4e was just so bad.

There was zero chance WotC was going to do that again. It’s why OSR books can get away with it - a much narrower fan base who is predisposed to agreeing with the advice before it’s offered.

I’d love to see the new DMG actually be a guide to running games but there is zero chance that WotC will take any sort of stand here. They just cannot afford it.

So we’re stuck with what is being called a high trust game without the guidance for GMs that comes with high trust games.

Fantastic for experienced dms. Terrible for new groups. The saving grace for 5e is the adventure path which serves as a really good teaching manual for how to create a campaign.

I wish they would do a 5E DMG II like in 3E. That was a great book with lots of value for GMs.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Not to get edition warry here but there’s a very good reason why the 5e DMG is not really a guide or instructional book. It’s loose collection of bits and bobs that presumes that the dm is experienced.

The 4e DMG was an actual guide. It presumed that dms were coming in with little or no rpg experience.

Now, whether you consider the advice good or bad doesn’t really matter. People absolutely lost their poop over the advice. Even fairly innocuous bits of advice became stalking horses for edition warring. Bits were stripped of context and then presented as evidence that 4e was just so bad.

There was zero chance WotC was going to do that again. It’s why OSR books can get away with it - a much narrower fan base who is predisposed to agreeing with the advice before it’s offered.

I’d love to see the new DMG actually be a guide to running games but there is zero chance that WotC will take any sort of stand here. They just cannot afford it.

So we’re stuck with what is being called a high trust game without the guidance for GMs that comes with high trust games.

Fantastic for experienced dms. Terrible for new groups. The saving grace for 5e is the adventure path which serves as a really good teaching manual for how to create a campaign.

One more reason to give other games (not shackled with WotC's hang-ups) a real chance.

 

[Andvari]

“Against the Giants” is a high thrust adventure and “Against the Kender” is a low thrust adventure.

 

[Fifth Element]

And the people who are borderline engaged are still getting things out of the game, but they don't really want a higher level of engagement, at least in many cases.

Maybe they just like the experience of hanging out with their friends, and their friends happen to like playing D&D. You can't focus only on the game itself and ignore the social aspect when examining why players do what they do with the game.

 

[Umbran]

Just...I don't see it. Why do something, if you don't actually want to do it? Even OSR games quite clearly expect players to be active and invested.

Because "do it" and "active and invested" can mean a lot of different things.