That Thread in Which We Ruminate on the Confluence of Actor Stance, Immersion, and "Playing as if I Was My Character"

[Emerikol]

This isn't strictly true, though. House rules can be overridden by the table, assuming non-dysfunctional social contracts. At functional tables, players can have input and suggest house rules as well, and the table agrees to them or not. In cases where the GM is exerting unilateral authority, I'd say that this is still either by implied consent of the table, or dysfunction exists.

In my gaming culture, it is assumed, but of course no player is held hostage and forced to play. I don't think a player though would try to force the DM to play his way. He might argue a rule that the DM ostensibly says he supports and is enforcing. But, if the DM makes a final judgment no one would dispute that. If you feel like the DM is ruling badly a lot then you just find one that isn't doing that and join that group. So sure these gamer "roles" are imbued into our gaming culture.

 

[prabe]

Imagine in the early days of D&D when most of the rules even in 1e AD&D did not exist but were brought into the game by the DM. For example, immunity to non-magical weapons. The DM might introduce that without notifying the players up front. The players might be surprised when they roll a 20 and the DM says your sword hits the target but there is no apparent damage. The rules as they know them make no mention of immunity to non-magical weapons.

Yeah, playing a game that is in the process of being written is different than playing one that's in print (or has been).

What I really wanted to react to, though, was this:

So players in this situation, who want my style of gaming, have to trust the DM.

Serious and sincere question: Is there any style of TRPG that works if the players don't (or can't) trust the GM? Seems to me the answer has to be "no," but I'm open to being wrong, here.

 

[Umbran]

You are making basic errors in your account of rules, authority, and the rule of law.

So, when talking about physics, there is a physical reality that does not care about our thoughts on the matter. Law is a human construct, however, so there is no objective reality to appeal to determine correctness.

For instance, I don't know of any thinker about the rule of law who thinks it is "what we apply to bad actors".

Lots of thinkers divorce themselves from practicalities.

To give one counterexample: I am not a bad actor; nevertheless I am bound by the principles of natural justice when I make decisions as an administrator of educational programs. This is a manifestation of the rule of law.

In human governance, law can be seen as a restriction or compulsion of action, explicitly or implicitly coupled with the consequences to be enacted by authorities for non-compliance. You are bound by law, insofar as there are professional or legal consequences for you if you do not comply.

Game rules are merely the restrictions and compulsions. Game rules do not address what happens to someone who fails to comply - The rules of D&D do not lay out what you do if someone rolls a d12 instead of a d8 for damage, for example.

But as I already said, I don't see any real profit in pursuing this discussion.

Then feel free to disengage. I won't chase you.

 

[Emerikol]

Yeah, playing a game that is in the process of being written is different than playing one that's in print (or has been).

I think a game that lacks any DM input creatively on the rules will not be as flavorful and good as it good be. So if Gygax had the complete rules, I don't doubt for a minute he'd still be adding something more to give his players a twist. So I don't view the lack of immunity to non-magical weapons as a flaw in the rules. Why would that be an essential component of D&D. I do consider it a flavorful enhancement and the sort of things a DM might add to his own game even in the world of 5e D&D.

Serious and sincere question: Is there any style of TRPG that works if the players don't (or can't) trust the GM? Seems to me the answer has to be "no," but I'm oen to being wrong, here.

Sure. I would imagine that a game that restricts what a DM can do and gives more power to the players would be better in this situation. Realize also that "distrust" does not equate to thinking the DM is evil. They may just not trust his judgment.

 

[prabe]

I think a game that lacks any DM input creatively on the rules will not be as flavorful and good as it good be. So if Gygax had the complete rules, I don't doubt for a minute he'd still be adding something more to give his players a twist. So I don't view the lack of immunity to non-magical weapons as a flaw in the rules. Why would that be an essential component of D&D. I do consider it a flavorful enhancement and the sort of things a DM might add to his own game even in the world of 5e D&D.

I can see that, but I think with, say, 1e AD&D there was an explicit expectation both in the books and among the players that the DM would tinker with the rules, which doesn't exist in 5E. I'll grant that 5E specifically allows it, but I don't think that's the same thing.

 

[dragoner]

Seems to me the answer has to be "no," but I'm open to being wrong, here.

I agree. A related issue is that most games I have seen die, or I myself killed as a GM, were due to the GM not having fun anymore.

 

[Emerikol]

I can see that, but I think with, say, 1e AD&D there was an explicit expectation both in the books and among the players that the DM would tinker with the rules, which doesn't exist in 5E. I'll grant that 5E specifically allows it, but I don't think that's the same thing.

I think they'd like to encourage it or at least not discourage it but sure I think Gygax had a strong opinion about what made a good DM and the work was mostly his at that point. So 1e is far stronger on that point. Agree on that.

 

[Ovinomancer]

In my gaming culture, it is assumed, but of course no player is held hostage and forced to play. I don't think a player though would try to force the DM to play his way. He might argue a rule that the DM ostensibly says he supports and is enforcing. But, if the DM makes a final judgment no one would dispute that. If you feel like the DM is ruling badly a lot then you just find one that isn't doing that and join that group. So sure these gamer "roles" are imbued into our gaming culture.

Are we doing "in my gaming culture" now? Weird. I think I see @Umbran's point, as the cultures of gaming have gone from a descriptive discussion of different play agendas to now being a claimed identity, with all of the baggage that entails. Of course, I think this would have happened regardless of the term used, so "culture" isn't really the culprit, here.

I didn't suggest at all anyone was forcing anyone to play outside of the bucket of dysfunction. That is a clearly dysfunctional situation, whoever is forcing whomever. Outside of this strange suggestion, it appears you're agreeing with my statement -- the GM does not have absolute power of any kind because it's, at best, an implied grant of power by the table. If this grant is abused, the GM is reduced to no power, as the game folds when players leave. Power at the consent of the governed, I believe is the canonical structure -- the GM has no power not granted by the table.

 

[prabe]

the GM does not have absolute power of any kind because it's, at best, an implied grant of power by the table. If this grant is abused, the GM is reduced to no power, as the game folds when players leave. Power at the consent of the governed, I believe is the canonical structure -- the GM has no power not granted by the table.

100% this. Whatever distribution of authority exists at a TRPG table is agreed upon by the people at the table, either by choosing the game they're playing, or by changing it. If I have ... final say over the setting at my tables (I allow players to put things into the setting at chargen, but otherwise very rarely) that's only because the players at those tables allow me to (or understand 5E to give me that say) and choose to stay at those tables.

 

[Emerikol]

100% this. Whatever distribution of authority exists at a TRPG table is agreed upon by the people at the table, either by choosing the game they're playing, or by changing it.

Agree. For those running campaigns like Gygax did, you may have many different adventuring groups passing through the world.

If I have ... final say over the setting at my tables (I allow players to put things into the setting at chargen, but otherwise very rarely) that's only because the players at those tables allow me to (or understand 5E to give me that say) and choose to stay at those tables.

Perhaps it's just phraseology here. The players allow it for them to play in the campaign but if a player or players refused it the campaign might go on with different players. Obviously, any players who do join have tacitly accepted the ground rules.