Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Respect Mah Authoritah: Thoughts on DM and Player Authority in 5e
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8437119" data-attributes="member: 16814"><p>You've moved the pea, shift the goalposts, done some equivocation. I mean, I saw a lot of ways that this example might be attacked -- primarily that there's a large emotional difference between a committed relationship built on trust and a game -- but I didn't expect this.</p><p></p><p>When I'm railroaded in a game, as a player, that's not part of the fiction. It's my choices being overridden by another real person. This isn't a fictional thing.</p><p></p><p>No one's using an omniscient objective perspective -- this is intentionally not listening and inventing strawmen. People have been explicit that the approach is because they feel it better fits the information that the characters would have rather than secondhand prose from the GM that the players have to interpret for their characters.</p><p></p><p>I mean, you can prefer whatever you want, but if you have to lie about what other people are saying to make yourself feel better about your approach, that's not a good look.</p><p></p><p>What if the player finds out later that it didn't matter? Is it an issue then, or should they just feel pleased that they were entertained in that moment?</p><p></p><p>Honestly, this really seems to come down to an argument that the GM's job is to entertain the players, and, so long as that entertainment happens, methods are meaningless. What this ignores is anyone that doesn't want to just be entertained by being told a story by the GM, or by having the die rolls and things they say woven into a story by the GM (a slightly different thing). If I want to play a game to find out what happens, not what the GM thinks should happen, but what happens, then this isn't doing a thing for me.</p><p></p><p>Imagine we play a game like Gloomhaven, but instead of everything being in the open, there's a new role for a GM who handles all of the mechanics in a hidden way and tells you the results. You play a game where everything comes down to the line, and you win by the skin of your teeth. And so the next game as well. In fact, every game is close and a nailbiter! This is fun, right? I would not think so. I would be very leery that a game predicated on random resolution would reliably produce this effect. I've played a ton of Gloomhaven, and this happens -- for sure, had a few games that literally came down to a single moment and the right number showing up -- but it's usually not quite that close. You either win or lose by a clear margin. That's what that game generates, and I don't think it improves if someone's managing it for me to tell me a fun story because that's not what I want from that game.</p><p></p><p>So, this simple single sentence argument is utterly failing to consider that people might want something out of an RPG that is other than the GM deftly entertaining them with the GM's idea of the story.</p><p></p><p>Mine wouldn't, because it's rather hard to do this if I'm not helping the GM sell it to me. It gets obvious. Firstly, the game can't be about my character, and if I try to make my character matter, that will get shut down or dealt with in an unsatisfactory way. So, the game has to be about things that aren't my character. That's obvious. Secondly, no matter what we do, the arc/pacing will remain the same -- we cannot play in a skilled manner to affect events, because that steers the story away from what the GM wants. Thirdly, we won't be allowed to fail in a way that derails the game. So, when we screw up, something will happen that saves us, no, not us, the GM 's story. The way that this will be avoided is if the GM makes sure we understand that our characters are not important and our role can be filled by another set of bodies. That's the alternative to 'can't fail,' you're completely replaceable. These things do not engage me much, so it's pretty easy to tell when this is happening because the game is something that expressly discounts my character as being at all important to the game except as a pawn to push forward the story. I can detect this.</p><p></p><p>Given how poorly you seem to be able to articulate the other positions, up to and including actively misrepresenting them after being corrected multiple times, I'm not entirely convinced your interested in learning anything.</p><p></p><p>The discussion has long been not about Force bad or good. Every single person you've responded to in the last many pages has been explicit about this. Complaining now that this conversation is about that just shows that you're not actually engaged with the other posters, but instead pushing an agenda against something that you imagine.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 8437119, member: 16814"] You've moved the pea, shift the goalposts, done some equivocation. I mean, I saw a lot of ways that this example might be attacked -- primarily that there's a large emotional difference between a committed relationship built on trust and a game -- but I didn't expect this. When I'm railroaded in a game, as a player, that's not part of the fiction. It's my choices being overridden by another real person. This isn't a fictional thing. No one's using an omniscient objective perspective -- this is intentionally not listening and inventing strawmen. People have been explicit that the approach is because they feel it better fits the information that the characters would have rather than secondhand prose from the GM that the players have to interpret for their characters. I mean, you can prefer whatever you want, but if you have to lie about what other people are saying to make yourself feel better about your approach, that's not a good look. What if the player finds out later that it didn't matter? Is it an issue then, or should they just feel pleased that they were entertained in that moment? Honestly, this really seems to come down to an argument that the GM's job is to entertain the players, and, so long as that entertainment happens, methods are meaningless. What this ignores is anyone that doesn't want to just be entertained by being told a story by the GM, or by having the die rolls and things they say woven into a story by the GM (a slightly different thing). If I want to play a game to find out what happens, not what the GM thinks should happen, but what happens, then this isn't doing a thing for me. Imagine we play a game like Gloomhaven, but instead of everything being in the open, there's a new role for a GM who handles all of the mechanics in a hidden way and tells you the results. You play a game where everything comes down to the line, and you win by the skin of your teeth. And so the next game as well. In fact, every game is close and a nailbiter! This is fun, right? I would not think so. I would be very leery that a game predicated on random resolution would reliably produce this effect. I've played a ton of Gloomhaven, and this happens -- for sure, had a few games that literally came down to a single moment and the right number showing up -- but it's usually not quite that close. You either win or lose by a clear margin. That's what that game generates, and I don't think it improves if someone's managing it for me to tell me a fun story because that's not what I want from that game. So, this simple single sentence argument is utterly failing to consider that people might want something out of an RPG that is other than the GM deftly entertaining them with the GM's idea of the story. Mine wouldn't, because it's rather hard to do this if I'm not helping the GM sell it to me. It gets obvious. Firstly, the game can't be about my character, and if I try to make my character matter, that will get shut down or dealt with in an unsatisfactory way. So, the game has to be about things that aren't my character. That's obvious. Secondly, no matter what we do, the arc/pacing will remain the same -- we cannot play in a skilled manner to affect events, because that steers the story away from what the GM wants. Thirdly, we won't be allowed to fail in a way that derails the game. So, when we screw up, something will happen that saves us, no, not us, the GM 's story. The way that this will be avoided is if the GM makes sure we understand that our characters are not important and our role can be filled by another set of bodies. That's the alternative to 'can't fail,' you're completely replaceable. These things do not engage me much, so it's pretty easy to tell when this is happening because the game is something that expressly discounts my character as being at all important to the game except as a pawn to push forward the story. I can detect this. Given how poorly you seem to be able to articulate the other positions, up to and including actively misrepresenting them after being corrected multiple times, I'm not entirely convinced your interested in learning anything. The discussion has long been not about Force bad or good. Every single person you've responded to in the last many pages has been explicit about this. Complaining now that this conversation is about that just shows that you're not actually engaged with the other posters, but instead pushing an agenda against something that you imagine. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Respect Mah Authoritah: Thoughts on DM and Player Authority in 5e
Top