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

[EzekielRaiden]

Well it's notoriously hard to pin down what the OSR 'is'. But at least for Into the Odd--a hugely influential game in one sector of the OSR--not following the referee advice is akin to not playing by the rules. But I would say this kind of advice is now pretty common among the most cited sources. For example, a couple of selections from the Principia Apocrypha:

View attachment 292920
--------
View attachment 292921

Honestly, this is both blowing my mind and making me even more frustrated by the conversations I've had over the years. If people talked about literally anything like this, I would have had few to no complaints. This is great stuff! As you say, it is very similar in spirit to the Principles and Agendas of PbtA games.

Instead I have seen literally nothing but statements that GMs have--and should use--absolute authority. That the "trust" the GM should have is that they trust their players won't balk at their dictates. And the things shown, there and elsewhere, are either explicitly or implicitly completely rejected.

I was trying to avoid going there because I didn’t think it would be constructive to the thread. Personally, I prefer Apocrypha Prinicipa to A Quick Primer for Old School Gaming. Sometimes it’s useful to contrast two different styles of play, so I’m not going to fault the latter for that per se, but the style of play it advocates is not really my thing. I want something different out of my “neutral referee”, which is why I deploy constraints the way I do in my homebrew system.

That's fair. I know that the QP is not the most beloved thing. That said, its history can't really be ignored; it was an early demonstration of the unfair-comparisons thing, which has remained a problem since.

 

[RareBreed]

The claim is that it is supposed to go both ways. The player trusts the GM AND the GM trusts the player. That has not been how people describe it to me, nor has it reflected any of the commentary I've seen on the subject up to now.

Ah I see where you are coming from now. I read the bi-directional trust as meaning that the employee/player is supposed to trust that the management/GM has their best interest in mind. But I can see your angle too.

 

[Fifth Element]

Part (or in some cases much) of a DM's role is that of referee; and the role of a referee in any game or sport is to assume the players are going to try to break the rules and to stop them from doing so using whatever enforcement mechanisms that sport or game provides.

Comparing the role of a referee in a sport - where there are competing factions of players trying to win according to well-defined winning conditions - to an RPG where a group of people with the same goal work together to achieve it, is very silly.

 

[Oofta]

That's the risk of setting precedent: sometimes you simply end up getting stuck with a mistake you have to live with. The solution is to get it right the first time and be prepared to live with it if you don't.

A lot of my rulings are quite situational and made off the cuff just to keep the game moving. There's no way I'd use them as established precedent if I thought the ruling was at all controversial. There's no reason to continue to use metaphorical duct tape to hold something together that worked in the moment when you can actually fix the thing correctly.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

A lot of my rulings are quite situational and made off the cuff just to keep the game moving. There's no way I'd use them as established precedent if I thought the ruling was at all controversial. There's no reason to continue to use metaphorical duct tape to hold something together that worked in the moment when you can actually fix the thing correctly.

Well, there are a few reasons.

Not caring enough to fix it properly. "Eh, it's fine." I'd say that's probably the most common of the possible reasons not to. The "shrug of God" as TVTropes puts it. Could be generic apathy ("who cares? I'll probably change my mind later anyway"), very specific apathy (just not caring about that situation), could be something between ("eh, if it comes up again..." every time because it happens just infrequently enough to always forget what the previous solution was.)

Wishing to project an inerrant appearance. "I don't make mistakes." This one can be pretty sneaky for many GMs in a high-GM-authority environment. Illusionism can be a very strong temptation rather than just admitting you goofed up. Pretending that every accident or unforced error was actually a brilliant move in disguise. Etc.

Caring about it...for the wrong reasons. Pettiness, stubbornness, righteous indignation, vindication-seeking. That last one affected me, as a player, for many years; I tried so hard to make 3.X be the game I wanted to be, convinced that it was just the right house-rule or homebrew alternative away from being exactly what I always wanted.

Ignorance. Not actually realizing that the solution was merely metaphorical duct tape, and instead thinking that it was a well-engineered solution to the problem. This one is particularly likely in very opaque systems with lots of disparate parts, because it's so much harder to see how those parts actually fit together.

It's good that you prefer to work out a proper solution after the slap-patch has done its job and gotten you through the session. The implication I have gotten from others is that this is, to put it very mildly, rather less than a universal preference.

 

[Oofta]

Well, there are a few reasons.

Not caring enough to fix it properly. "Eh, it's fine." I'd say that's probably the most common of the possible reasons not to. The "shrug of God" as TVTropes puts it. Could be generic apathy ("who cares? I'll probably change my mind later anyway"), very specific apathy (just not caring about that situation), could be something between ("eh, if it comes up again..." every time because it happens just infrequently enough to always forget what the previous solution was.)

Wishing to project an inerrant appearance. "I don't make mistakes." This one can be pretty sneaky for many GMs in a high-GM-authority environment. Illusionism can be a very strong temptation rather than just admitting you goofed up. Pretending that every accident or unforced error was actually a brilliant move in disguise. Etc.

Caring about it...for the wrong reasons. Pettiness, stubbornness, righteous indignation, vindication-seeking. That last one affected me, as a player, for many years; I tried so hard to make 3.X be the game I wanted to be, convinced that it was just the right house-rule or homebrew alternative away from being exactly what I always wanted.

Ignorance. Not actually realizing that the solution was merely metaphorical duct tape, and instead thinking that it was a well-engineered solution to the problem. This one is particularly likely in very opaque systems with lots of disparate parts, because it's so much harder to see how those parts actually fit together.

It's good that you prefer to work out a proper solution after the slap-patch has done its job and gotten you through the session. The implication I have gotten from others is that this is, to put it very mildly, rather less than a universal preference.

Well I make mistakes all the time, so I'm not worried about chatting about a ruling in detail after the fact. I'll still make the final call, but I don't remember the last time we didn't come up with a compromise that worked for everyone. Pretty much all DM's I've had are willing to discuss rulings after the fact. People posting here are frequently not representative of the many DM's I've played with over the decades.

The one exception where I've never had a good answer is heat metal. I hate the "perma-disadvantage on anyone wearing metal armor with no save" interpretation but I also don't want to completely nerf it either. We've kind of declared détente on that, along with counterspell and just ignore those spells.

 

[kenada]

That's fair. I know that the QP is not the most beloved thing. That said, its history can't really be ignored; it was an early demonstration of the unfair-comparisons thing, which has remained a problem since.

It’s been a while since I last read it, so I reread A Quick Primer to Old School Gaming this morning. I don’t think the comparison is that unfair. It says at the very beginning that the examples are meant to illustrate where the mechanics are used, and that good GMs in a “modern” game would not run them in such a boring way. Unlike the article, it’s not making a claim that rulings leading to more creativity. It’s demonstrating how play between the two styles differs.

To put it another way, I think even the examples were like worked example I did recently for my homebrew system, it would have a lot on the mechanical touch points. The process of setting up a Skill Check involves evaluating methods (skills) and approaches (attributes) along with resources you can deploy and how/whether the group is working together. It’s mechanically up front and in your face, but that’s by design. In practice, it doesn’t lead to the lack of creativity in play as the blog article would suggest, but there’s no denying that it may involve more mechanics than some should like.

Like I said in my previous post, the style described in A Quick Primer to Old School Gaming isn’t really my thing. I don’t want to be making rulings because I think it’s important the players are able to reason about the tools they have available and devise tactics they can trust will work. I also worry it would lead to turtling after getting burned a few times. I definitely don’t want my players doing that. I want them to be creative and try things, which appropriate rules can also facilitate.

For example, I suspect my players would not have tried to lead away a bulette from their settlement, lure a dragon into eating a poisoned corpse, or finally ambush that bulette in a rulings-based approach. They actually commented on that during the session with the dragon, indicating they thought I would block their plan (because it was kind of ridiculous), but the system is set up so that I can’t. If they succeed at setting up the corpse (which they did) and luring the dragon (which they also did), it will eat the corpse. It still gets a Defense Check, but getting to that point was handled by rules not rulings.

 

[jasper]

Hello, I'm Fiona and my gaming group consists of two Brads, an Amy, and three Emmas.

I trade you my Amy for one the Brads, and give you a free Emma.

 

[payn]

The 3e or 3.5e DMG? I never even bought the 3.5 one. I found the 3e one to be mostly useless to be honest. Other than the magic item listing. My 3e DMG is still pristine it was used so little.

Are you talking the 3E DMG? I mean the second 3E one called DMG II. I know its not uncommon to not have heard of it as one of the 9 people who have it

 

[Guest 7042500]

That's the risk of setting precedent: sometimes you simply end up getting stuck with a mistake you have to live with. The solution is to get it right the first time and be prepared to live with it if you don't.

Or say later "I screwed up and need to change this."