Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 6865230" data-attributes="member: 6696971">Thanks!  I think it likely does.I run D&D in two very discrete ways and use two very different systems for those two ways.The first is straight-up pawn stance dungeon crawling where I'll use either RC, a house ruled 1e, or Torchbearer.  I used 5e basic once.  There I would say that I am pretty much as close to a referee/rules adjudicator (during play) as possible.  It is before play, during dungeon and table generation, that I I'm more.The second is heroic fantasy "story now" play where I'll use either 4e or Dungeon World (Cortex+ for a one shot now and again).  My primary job here is to plug into PC flags by:(a) framing the players into conflicts they have signaled they care about (through their PCs)(b) push the players as hard as I can by advocating for the opposing side, using the GM tools (principles, techniques, and system tech), and respecting the conflict resolution mechanics(c) evolve the post-conflict fiction by sticking to my principles, respecting PC build flags, and honoring the stakes + cohering with the established fiction prior to the conflict.  The latitude required for both styles is pretty similar (follow the rules/play procedure and maximal player agency in either "exploring a dungeon and trying to get out with as much treasure before the clock hits 0" or "generating emergent story that you care about").  There is some overlap in instruction and techniques but a fair amount that is mutually exclusive to one or the other.  Overhead is has some very, very key differences in both breadth and focus.In general, I do not disagree.  Where we might (or certainly might not!) disagree is where "the planchette"  [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] was referring to, GM latitude, player agency, and social contract meet...and butt heads.I framed my post the way I did for a reason.  Lots and lots of GMs will stridently deny that there exists player agency subordination in certain GMing techniques (of which latitude is an utter requirement).  However, if their players disagree with them, especially vehemently, there is a problem.  If the players disagree and this disagreement is a violation of social contract, then that problem becomes a major one.However.The covert deployment of GM force * to steer story in a direction would be proper GMing if the deployment of such techniques is expected by the players (see  [MENTION=6801328]Elfcrusher[/MENTION]'s post above).  If the other GMing tools, the (sometimes) difficulties of play conversation, and system tech isn't up to the task of delivering that organically, then it is not just proper, it is mandatory (therefore, good GMing). It is all about play priorities, honesty, and social contract.  If the ability for players to move the needle and drive outcomes via their play (agency) isn't the paramount concern, and something else is, then so long as that is canvassed honestly and agreed upon, then there should be no dysfunction at the table!But we (RPG dorks on a message board) should be able to have a conversation about play priorities and how certain techniques (driven by GMing latitude and/or system opacity) affect play and player agency.  Don't you think?* Dictating outcomes.  Typically by suspending/abridging the action resolution mechanics or outright using unestablished backstory, of which only you could possibly be privy to, to veto a player move because that move puts your metaplot/setting/scene in a precarious position with respect to your agenda.</blockquote>

Verification