# The GM is Not There to Entertain You



## Reynard (May 19, 2022)

I wanted to spin this out of the "power creep" thread because I think it is worth its own discussion.

I see a lot of people making comments that strongly suggest they think that it is the GM's job to provide them with entertainment. Most obvious is the "restaurant" analogy I see popping up more and more often, with the GM cast in the role of chef and restaurateur. I think this is wrong headed and detrimental to the fun of everyone at the table. An RPG is more like a dinner part, where everyone is contributing to the enjoyment of all. Even if one person is cooking, they aren't the "chef" in what that implies about service.

Now, this might not be true with paid GMing -- which is why after having done it a little, I am not a fan. Even at a convention, I am still a facilitator of fun, rather than a vendor of it, if that makes sense.

Do you think the GM is responsible for your fun when you play? Does how you feel depend on whether you are playing with friends, randos or pros?


----------



## billd91 (May 19, 2022)

Do I think the GM is responsible for my fun when we play? *Yes, but it's a shared responsibility*. It's also mine and every player at the table's responsibility. So I'm on board with the idea that the game is more of a dinner party with the GM hosting and not a restaurant where I'm presented with an experience that I receive. And that's true whether I'm playing with friends, random weirdos, or a professional GM.


----------



## payn (May 19, 2022)

So, are you saying gaming is more like Sauceman's?


----------



## Reynard (May 19, 2022)

payn said:


> So, are you saying gaming is more like Sauceman's?



Man, when I say to myself, "Reynard, you really shouldn't click that link," I desperately need to start listening.


----------



## aco175 (May 19, 2022)

I'll say it.







I do think be default the DM has the most responsibility for making the game work and be fun for all.  It is he who is looked at to make decisions and given the power over the world.  He who generally gets the people together and does the most work.  It is right, likly not, but that is the way it is.


----------



## Fenris-77 (May 19, 2022)

I have no time for players who feel entitled to passive entertainment. Active and engaged players, on the other hand, provide an appropriate amount of grist for that mill. Entertainment at the table is a team sport IMO.


----------



## MGibster (May 19, 2022)

Reynard said:


> I see a lot of people making comments that strongly suggest they think that it is the GM's job to provide them with entertainment. Most obvious is the "restaurant" analogy I see popping up more and more often, with the GM cast in the role of chef and restaurateur. I think this is wrong headed and detrimental to the fun of everyone at the table. An RPG is more like a dinner part, where everyone is contributing to the enjoyment of all. Even if one person is cooking, they aren't the "chef" in what that implies about service.



If you want to use the dinner party analogy, then think of the DM as the host who has all the responsibilities associated with that position.  And all the players are guests with the responsibility of being good guests.


----------



## Morrus (May 19, 2022)

The GM is a player. Just happens to have a different role in the game to the other players. When a group of people get together to enjoy a a social activity together, they’re all responsible for it.

(I’m not sure how I’d translate that to the idea of pro GMs though; they’re service provider, I guess?)


----------



## Yora (May 19, 2022)

The best term I could come up with for the function of the GM in a game is as the facilitator of play.

The GM provides the players with toys to play with. But the players still have to play with the toys themselves. RPGs are not a puppet show.

(That being said, the vast majority of published adventures are "come gather around, old GM is reading you a story.")


----------



## HaroldTheHobbit (May 19, 2022)

MGibster said:


> If you want to use the dinner party analogy, then think of the DM as the host who has all the responsibilities associated with that position.  And all the players are guests with the responsibility of being good guests.



This.


----------



## payn (May 19, 2022)

Yora said:


> (That being said, the vast majority of published adventures are "come gather around, old GM is reading you a story.")



I think this is the result of GMs that only know how to use a microwave to make food.


----------



## pogre (May 19, 2022)

It is important to me for a group to bring energy to the table or I get burned out. I have had some groups who have sat back and basically wait for me to give them a show - that gets exhausting in a hurry. I do hope to bring a fun and entertaining session, but not a one man show.

I think this is a big reason online play is so exhausting for me - I just cannot engage and feel the players' energy in the same way.


----------



## Jer (May 19, 2022)

Reynard said:


> Do you think the GM is responsible for your fun when you play? Does how you feel depend on whether you are playing with friends, randos or pros?



I'll flip it around -  I'm the GM most of the time so my players are at least partly responsible for my fun.  If I wasn't amused and engaged by what they were doing at the table I wouldn't run games.

So by that metric yeah, I'm also partly responsible for their fun.  If they aren't engaged and amused by what I'm doing then they're not coming back.  And this comes back to my feeling that the division between "GM" and "player" is silly - we're all players.  The GM's role as a player is just different. 

Now is the GM _solely responsible _for the fun of the other players?  No of course not.  Anyone who makes that argument is likely either a GM who is putting the weight of the world onto their own shoulders and needs to dial it back or someone who has never GM'd and needs to try it to get a different perspective.  Or a GM who is a frustrated entertainer and uses gaming as an outlet for their desire to have an audience listen to them perform I guess (I had one of those once at a con a few decades ago - worst game of anything I've ever played in my life.)

I take issue for that reason even calling the GM's role the "facilitator of fun" .  The GM is the host of a party that they want to attend - you can have party hosts who are so busy worrying about everyone else's fun that they don't have fun at their own parties, but it's a sad event when it happens, not a typical one or a goal to shoot for.  (I guess in this analogy a paid GM would be an event planner who gets to also attend the party? Analogies are failing here...)


----------



## Yora (May 19, 2022)

payn said:


> I think this is the result of GMs that only know how to use a microwave to make food.



Because the companies only sell microwave food.


----------



## Helldritch (May 19, 2022)

The dinner analogy is great.
Bad, boring guests makes for bad boring dinners.
Same for gaming.

A bad cook just makes a bad dinner.

Both cook and guests must be good to each others.


----------



## payn (May 19, 2022)

Yora said:


> Because the companies only sell microwave food.



This just sounds like a lack of culinary experience.


----------



## BookTenTiger (May 19, 2022)

I just know from experience that the more work I put into making the game fun for my players, the more fun I wind up having.

A character died last session after two years (in real life) of adventuring. Personally I find permanent death fun... I like the shock, the sense of gravitas, knowing there are real consequences... But I left it up to the player, and they really want to keep playing their character. So we are finding a cool way to bring them back.

Even though their fun is a little different than mine, I know that my experience as a DM is going to be better because I'm making the game more fun for my players.


----------



## beancounter (May 19, 2022)

The GM is not solely responsible for the players fun.

The GM provides the setting and scenario. It's up to the players to decide how to interact within that framework.


----------



## Yora (May 19, 2022)

I think fun is a misleading term for GMs.

Running games isn't meant to be "fun" or "entertaining". You're not doing it to get the kind of adventure that you want to see. It should definitely be enjoyable and rewarding, otherwise there'd be little point in doing it. But there are many kinds of work that are very enjoyable to certain kinds of people, even though they are work and not play, and you couldn't call them fun. And plenty of people do them for free, investing their own time and effort.

I think that's a much more productive approach to being a great GM than trying to make the game "fun" for yourself.


----------



## MGibster (May 19, 2022)

Dance!  Dance, GM!  <shoots six-shooter at GM's feet while he dances in terror>


----------



## billd91 (May 19, 2022)

Yora said:


> I think fun is a misleading term for GMs.
> 
> Running games isn't meant to be "fun" or "entertaining". You're not doing it to get the kind of adventure that you want to see. It should definitely be enjoyable and rewarding, otherwise there'd be little point in doing it. But there are many kinds of work that are very enjoyable to certain kinds of people, even though they are work and not play, and you couldn't call them fun. And plenty of people do them for free, investing their own time and effort.
> 
> I think that's a much more productive approach to being a great GM than trying to make the game "fun" for yourself.



Enjoyable and rewarding doesn't add up to "fun"?!?


----------



## Reynard (May 19, 2022)

Yora said:


> I think fun is a misleading term for GMs.
> 
> Running games isn't meant to be "fun" or "entertaining". You're not doing it to get the kind of adventure that you want to see. It should definitely be enjoyable and rewarding, otherwise there'd be little point in doing it. But there are many kinds of work that are very enjoyable to certain kinds of people, even though they are work and not play, and you couldn't call them fun. And plenty of people do them for free, investing their own time and effort.
> 
> I think that's a much more productive approach to being a great GM than trying to make the game "fun" for yourself.



I don't think it is an either/or situation, and certainly not a prerequisite for being a "great" GM (by whatever metric we are going to apply). There is a difference between when I run for a regular group versus at a convention, but they are both still "fun".


----------



## Campbell (May 19, 2022)

In the context of RPGs I do not see as anyone as responsible for anyone else's fun. There are other expectations that vary from game to game, but no one can tell what is going to be fun for you (often even you).


----------



## Blue (May 19, 2022)

It is absolutely the responsibility of everyone around the table to provide the most enjoyment for everyone.  The DM has different tools and responsibilities that often make them more visible and/or more able to affect such.

On top of that, part of the DM's responsibilities is to make sure that over time every character has a chance to shine and their moment in the spotlight.  That is one of the places where it rests more directly on the DM's shoulders.

So the DM, _like everyone else_, is responsible for entertaining everyone at the table, and that role both has a different toolset that can have a larger impact then the players, and has taken on responsibilities that partially include giving everyone opportunities for enjoyment.

So the DM IS there to entertain me.  (And everyone else.)  Just like I'm here to entertain the DM.  (And everyone else.)


----------



## Jer (May 19, 2022)

Yora said:


> I think fun is a misleading term for GMs.
> 
> Running games isn't meant to be "fun" or "entertaining".



It's a game.  If it isn't fun, why would I play?

I absolutely have fun when I GM.  If it ever turned into work, I'd stop doing it.


----------



## MGibster (May 19, 2022)

I frequently DM because I find it entertaining.  As with all social activities, it is the responsibility of all involved to make sure we're all having a good time.  Those responsbilities might not be the same, and they might not be evenly distributed, but they exist nontheless.


----------



## Reynard (May 19, 2022)

Blue said:


> So the DM IS there to entertain me.  (And everyone else.)  Just like I'm here to entertain the DM.  (And everyone else.)



I don't think "entertain you" is the same as "provide opportunities for you to create your own fun."


----------



## Blue (May 19, 2022)

Reynard said:


> I don't think "entertain you" is the same as "provide opportunities for you to create your own fun."



That's true, but not really relevant to my declaration.  Because of the toolset the DM is given, if as a player all I was given was opportunities to amuse myself, I would not consider the DM to be doing their job well.  D&D should be more than playing solitare, where I can focus just on my own fun.


----------



## Reynard (May 19, 2022)

Blue said:


> That's true, but not really relevant to my declaration.  Because of the toolset the DM is given, if as a player all I was given was opportunities to amuse myself, I would not consider the DM to be doing their job well.  D&D should be more than playing solitare, where I can focus just on my own fun.



Maybe I am not following you exactly. Can you articulate where the line is, for you personally?


----------



## BookTenTiger (May 19, 2022)

Reynard said:


> I don't think "entertain you" is the same as "provide opportunities for you to create your own fun."



To me they are analogous.

I think switching up the metaphor could help. To me, a DM is the architect. An architect's job is to design a space that serves the people who will use it. An architect who designs a playground does want to entertain the kids who will use it.

The playground architect isn't necessarily pushing the kids on the swing or playing lava tag. But they are, in a way, entertaining the kids by designing a space in which the kids can have fun.

I see my role as a DM as being a playground architect. I am designing structures through which my players create fun. At the same time I can be a really adaptive architect and add, subtract, or change my structures as needed to make things even more fun for the players.


----------



## Reynard (May 19, 2022)

BookTenTiger said:


> To me they are analogous.
> 
> I think switching up the metaphor could help. To me, a DM is the architect. An architect's job is to design a space that serves the people who will use it. An architect who designs a playground does want to entertain the kids who will use it.
> 
> ...



But an architect is removed from the process after designing it. That's a more apt analogy for the game designer or adventure writer, I think. The GM doesn't have to be involved in the design process at all. In my dinner party analogy, they could have ordered everything pre-made from their favorite restaurant and hired a decorator to set up the house before the guests come over and still be the host of the dinner party.


----------



## Morrus (May 19, 2022)

Yora said:


> Running games isn't meant to be "fun" or "entertaining".



Sure it is. Nobody at the game should not be having fun.


----------



## Umbran (May 19, 2022)

Reynard said:


> Do you think the GM is responsible for your fun when you play?




I find this to be a poorly posed question.

I think everyone at the table shares responsibility for fun for everyone at the table.  I think the GM has a lot of responsibility, as they hold a lot of the creative power and control of flow at the table - with that power comes responsibility.  But the players do also hold responsibility for their own fun, as well as the fun of others at the table, each in their measure.

RPGs are _collaborative_ endeavors, so everyone's got at least some responsibility for the outcome.




Reynard said:


> Does how you feel depend on whether you are playing with friends, randos or pros?




I think of myself as a service-oriented GM.  I am there to present a game _for the players_.  I am there for them, not the other way around.  So, I take significant responsibility for presenting a game the players are apt to like.


----------



## Umbran (May 19, 2022)

MGibster said:


> Dance!  Dance, GM!  <shoots six-shooter at GM's feet while he dances in terror>




That's not a constructive picture.  One can (and generally does) have responsibility without being made to dance at whims. 

How about we engage in some nuance here, folks?


----------



## MGibster (May 19, 2022)

Umbran said:


> That's not a constructive picture. One can (and generally does) have responsibility without being made to dance at whims.



It was just a joke.  I've made my feelings known in other posts throughout the thread.


----------



## BookTenTiger (May 19, 2022)

Reynard said:


> But an architect is removed from the process after designing it. That's a more apt analogy for the game designer or adventure writer, I think. The GM doesn't have to be involved in the design process at all. In my dinner party analogy, they could have ordered everything pre-made from their favorite restaurant and hired a decorator to set up the house before the guests come over and still be the host of the dinner party.



Whether you are using a premade adventure or homebrewing, you are still providing opportunities for the players to have fun. To me that seems like entertaining.


----------



## Reynard (May 19, 2022)

BookTenTiger said:


> Whether you are using a premade adventure or homebrewing, you are still providing opportunities for the players to have fun. To me that seems like entertaining.



I think it is a case of using imprecise language on my part. I think I made it clear in my OP if not the thread title, thought, that what I meant was the GM is not solely responsible for the fun at the table or to make sure the players are entertained in a passive way. RPGs are not movies or TV. They demand a significant input by the participants for the entertainment of everyone involved, even if there's only one GM. hence the dinner party analogy.


----------



## Umbran (May 19, 2022)

MGibster said:


> It was just a joke.




It looked less a joke than a snarky comment in joke's clothing.  Thus my comment.


----------



## eyeheartawk (May 19, 2022)

Umbran said:


> It looked less a joke than a snarky comment in joke's clothing.



Yeah, to avoid this sort of situation I always wear the same clothes when I'm joking, so there's no confusion. 

Crocs, fanny pack and Starter jackets.


----------



## Reynard (May 19, 2022)

Umbran said:


> I think of myself as a service-oriented GM.  I am there to present a game _for the players_.  I am there for them, not the other way around.  So, I take significant responsibility for presenting a game the players are apt to like.



That is one way to view the job, and that's very close to how I view it when i am running at a convention. But I don't think of myself as performing a service for my regular groups. We are all playing together and it so happens I much prefer to be the GM, they in a way they are doing me a service by letting me take on that role.


----------



## Umbran (May 19, 2022)

Reynard said:


> That is one way to view the job,




Yeah, there's a reasonably large stack of valid takes on the role.



Reynard said:


> But I don't think of myself as performing a service for my regular groups. We are all playing together and it so happens I much prefer to be the GM, they in a way they are doing me a service by letting me take on that role.




I'm in a different position.  In terms of engaging in the activity itself, I prefer playing to running the game.  However, nobody else wants to run the game, and even if they did, I'm rather better at it than the rest of the group.

Luckily, I'm a fairly service-oriented person.  I _like_ helping.  So, I get a goodly chunk of enjoyment out of their enjoyment.


----------



## Ralif Redhammer (May 19, 2022)

Totally agree. Certainly, I'm heavily invested in the players having fun, but for a game to truly be great, the whole table needs to put that same good energy into the game. When you have a player at the table that doesn't care about everyone else's fun, that's going to hold the game back from greatness. And, depending on how much they don't care, could completely wreck a session.



billd91 said:


> Do I think the GM is responsible for my fun when we play? *Yes, but it's a shared responsibility*. It's also mine and every player at the table's responsibility. So I'm on board with the idea that the game is more of a dinner party with the GM hosting and not a restaurant where I'm presented with an experience that I receive. And that's true whether I'm playing with friends, random weirdos, or a professional GM.


----------



## BookTenTiger (May 19, 2022)

Something to think about is how much control the players and DM have in making the game fun.

As a player, I can help make the game fun by designing a character who fits in with group dynamics, interacts proactively with the campaign world, and doesn't hog the spotlight. I can take an active role in talking with NPCs, exploring dungeons and the setting, and supporting other characters. But if I really like to solve puzzles, fight undead, or command followers... well, my ability to bring those elements into the game is limited.

On the other hand, as a DM it's extremely easy to put what I find fun into the game! If I like traps... Poof! There's a trap! If I let political drama... Abracadabra! Political drama!

I think it should be a player's responsibility to communicate with the DM about what they find fun... And a DM's responsibility to listen and do their best to provide opportunities for players to have fun.


----------



## JThursby (May 19, 2022)

If I'm running a game, I assume most of the responsibility, but there's a couple of things I expect from players and quickly get peeved if they don't meet their obligations on:

-Players should know what their own character is, what it can do, and generally be ready to answer questions I or other players may have.  Not knowing their basic features, spells, or even fundamental things like how many actions are in a turn will quickly draw my ire if it's an experienced player that should know better.
-Players should be paying attention and _not_ be multitasking while we play.  I understand checking email or messages, but playing a game gets an instant request to refocus their attention.  Not complying with this request after being asked several times is grounds for ejection, I have no patience for someone that won't respect the time and effort the rest of us put into the game by giving no effort on their part.
-Players connecting online should have decent microphone etiquette.  Intrusive background noise, talking over other players, talking to IRL people interchangeably without muting, or persistently having garbled or incomprehensible audio is extremely obnoxious and wastes everybody's time.
-Players should expect rulings based on the rules we agreed on beforehand; excessive bargaining or whinging for special treatment will not be appeased.
-General sportsmanlike conduct.  Antagonism, sabotage, and other types of conflict should be within the confines of the narrative and not mean spirited.  This also covers treating everyone at the game table with due respect.  Being a jerk for no reason over and over again is an ejectionable offense.

Thankfully very few players I've had need correction of any kind.  You'd think that you'd need these rules more in a professional GM setting but no, it turns out players that are spending their money to be there take their investment a bit more seriously on average.  I have never had to actually eject anybody from the table, but these policies are ones I have laid out so everyone knows the score.


----------



## Lanefan (May 19, 2022)

Reynard said:


> I wanted to spin this out of the "power creep" thread because I think it is worth its own discussion.
> 
> I see a lot of people making comments that strongly suggest they think that it is the GM's job to provide them with entertainment. Most obvious is the "restaurant" analogy I see popping up more and more often, with the GM cast in the role of chef and restaurateur. I think this is wrong headed and detrimental to the fun of everyone at the table. An RPG is more like a dinner part, where everyone is contributing to the enjoyment of all. Even if one person is cooking, they aren't the "chef" in what that implies about service.
> 
> ...



The GM is there to entertain us.

Each one of us is there to entertain - among other people - the GM.

I can't imagine how much less fun GMing would be were I getting paid to do it and thus have greater expectations legitimately placed on me.


----------



## South by Southwest (May 19, 2022)

I'm DMing right now and I guess I do rather think it's my job to give the players something distinctly entertaining. It's not my job to keep them passively entertained, certainly, as that cannot work in a collaborative game like D&D, but giving them something that draws them in and makes them want more? I figure I owe them that.


----------



## bloodtide (May 20, 2022)

The DM is very much there to entertain the players.  The DM is a special elite role, while the players just stumble in and want to "play".  

The vast majority of players I have ever meet, can't even be bothered to bring a character sheet or dice to a game.  And that is on top of the problem where they can't be bothered to even know the game rules.  

Even most of the players that show up with a character and dice, most just sit there and wait to react to something the DM does.  Even if they are asked anything they will answer with a "Idonno", and asking them to do something is just talking to a wall.

And while the DM is making the game for all, most players are there to take from others and run a selfish solo game for themselves.  Few players will 'play in a group' or anything like that on their own.  If the DM asks them too, they might sort of make a tiny effort, or most likely ignore the DM.  

The players that even come close to 1% as engaged in the game as the DM are Rare to the extreme.


----------



## Composer99 (May 20, 2022)

I think the table as a whole is responsible for the engagement, enjoyment, and satisfaction of each player (of whom the GM is one) present.

That said, the GM often has a larger share of responsibility toward that end by virtue of their expanded role in establishing the shared fiction.

(Parenthetically, I think entertainment and fun are part of it, absolutely. At the same time, it seems to me there are folks who approach TTRPGs the way others might approach model train collecting, gardening, or scrapbooking, as an enjoyable hobby that isn't necessarily fun in the way we usually think of when we play games.)


----------



## aramis erak (May 20, 2022)

Reynard said:


> Do you think the GM is responsible for your fun when you play? Does how you feel depend on whether you are playing with friends, randos or pros?



The GM is, by convention...

Obligated to provide suitable content for the players to engage with
obligated to be fair with the players
supposed to make the players decisions meaningful in the context
supposed to keep a story emerging
The GM is not 

obligated to be an entertainer by convention; they are more likely to find players if they are, but I've had fun with a GM who was, to be honest, subpar as a reader of text, and not great about RP itself... but he kept the game going, and story emerged,.
obligated to play Game X just because the players want Game X. Same for Adventure X or campaign X.
obliged to continue a campaign they are not enjoying.
Ideally a GM is...

Entertaining 
Enjoyable to play under (which isn't the same as Entertaining.)
Fair
Rules Knowledgeable
Mentally Flexible
having fun.
One of the most entertaining GM's I've seen wasn't fun to play under. He did the voices. He did the Minis. He was joy to listen to... but he also was a control freak from hell, and none of the PC's decisions mattered. 

I''d rather play under the severely limited skillset GM mentioned above, because he was fair, and let the story emerge rather than forcing it upon us. Our characters mattered (And I got my AL PC back out of Ravenloft.)


----------



## aramis erak (May 20, 2022)

Yora said:


> I think fun is a misleading term for GMs.
> 
> Running games isn't meant to be "fun" or "entertaining". You're not doing it to get the kind of adventure that you want to see. It should definitely be enjoyable and rewarding, otherwise there'd be little point in doing it. But there are many kinds of work that are very enjoyable to certain kinds of people, even though they are work and not play, and you couldn't call them fun. And plenty of people do them for free, investing their own time and effort.
> 
> I think that's a much more productive approach to being a great GM than trying to make the game "fun" for yourself.



If the GM isn't enjoying the game, it very often shows up very quickly in play and can ruin the experience far worse than a barely competent GM who is having fun while the players are too.

When a campaign ceases being fun for me, I tell the players, and tell them what it is that's ruining my fun. In a couple cases, that's been a harsh as 1st year strings student ensembles at rehearsal of a wake up call.

(and I've done a lot of time around 1st year strings students... It can be seriously cringe-worthy, especially second semester)


----------



## dragoner (May 20, 2022)

Yes, as an Italian friend told me: "If it can't be fun, then it can't be done." Truer words were never spoken.


----------



## Reynard (May 20, 2022)

bloodtide said:


> The DM is very much there to entertain the players.  The DM is a special elite role, while the players just stumble in and want to "play".
> 
> The vast majority of players I have ever meet, can't even be bothered to bring a character sheet or dice to a game.  And that is on top of the problem where they can't be bothered to even know the game rules.
> 
> ...



Jeezus, do you need a hug?


----------



## MNblockhead (May 20, 2022)

Regarding paid DMing, sure, the DM has more responsibility to entertain. But that doesn't obviate the responsibilities as a player. You still have other participants to think about. And for that matter, I think we all have responsibility to anyone providing us with a service to make their job more enjoyable. Positive engagement and empathy just make life better.


----------



## Hex08 (May 21, 2022)

Reynard said:


> Do you think the GM is responsible for your fun when you play? Does how you feel depend on whether you are playing with friends, randos or pros?



As someone who primarily DMs I definitely feel that one of my primary duties is being responsible for running an entertaining game, and consequently, entertaining my players. However, it does run both ways and my players are also responsible for being engaged and making the game fun for me and the other players. The burden though. does fall on me. I set the tone, develop the story and determine how difficult the game is (and my responsibilities don't stop there). Most of my group has gamed with me for decades but there is also a new player in the group and I need to accept and cater to the idiosyncrasies of my long term players and learn the idiosyncrasies of my new player so that I can craft a game that allows them to feel comfortable, engaged and entertained.

As I said earlier, this does run both ways. One of my best friends of 38 years also has gamed with me for most of that time. Of all of my regular players he was the one I found most difficult. Like most of my players, he didn't own the rules and only knew them through play. Unlike my other players, however, he was a rules lawyer (who didn't really know the rules) but I delt with it for years because  he was a good player otherwise. A few years ago he had one bad thing after another happen in his life and because of those frustrations he became more and more confrontational in his rules lawyering. I did my best to be tolerant because of his situation but he got so bad that I started cancelling gaming sessions because I didn't want to deal with him. Eventually I booted him from the group because he was sucking the joy out of playing for me. He wasn't holding up his end of the bargain.

It runs both ways but as DM, I have more control and power so it's my job to wield that power for good.


----------



## MNblockhead (May 21, 2022)

Not much new to say on the topic. But first and foremost I feel that the game must be fun for me. No matter how much the other players are enjoying a campaign, if I'm not, I feel obligated to end it. I only have time to run one campaign. I take 8 hours--a full work day--per month for my monthly sessions, not including the prep time.  That is time that isn't spent with family or on work. Or the many other things I could spend my personal time. I'm also of an age where I have more years behind me than ahead of me.

Of course, perhaps the most important part of my enjoyment is when the whole group of players is enjoying it. I just  don't want to subsume my enjoyment to that of the other players out of some sense of duty. I'm not being paid and nobody's life is on the line.

Understanding this helps me not drag on a bad campaign too long and to take the group's temperature more often.  A bit of selfishness and self-awareness can make things better for everyone.


----------



## Emirikol (May 21, 2022)

Bratty players exist for certain who dont realize they need to bring their A-game.

I like that phrase Yoda says from Empire':
LUKE  What's in the cave?
YODA  Only what you bring with you.


----------



## pemerton (May 22, 2022)

BookTenTiger said:


> To me, a DM is the architect. An architect's job is to design a space that serves the people who will use it. An architect who designs a playground does want to entertain the kids who will use it.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I see my role as a DM as being a playground architect. I am designing structures through which my players create fun.





BookTenTiger said:


> Something to think about is how much control the players and DM have in making the game fun.
> 
> As a player, I can help make the game fun by designing a character who fits in with group dynamics, interacts proactively with the campaign world, and doesn't hog the spotlight. I can take an active role in talking with NPCs, exploring dungeons and the setting, and supporting other characters. But if I really like to solve puzzles, fight undead, or command followers... well, my ability to bring those elements into the game is limited.
> 
> ...



This is why I prefer RPGing where the GM is not the one in charge of deciding what the game will be about, what the setting contains, and the like!


----------



## Ruin Explorer (May 22, 2022)

Reynard said:


> Do you think the GM is responsible for your fun when you play? Does how you feel depend on whether you are playing with friends, randos or pros?



I would say "The DM is responsible for fun" and "The DM is responsible for entertainment" are two entirely different things.

The DM often is responsible for whether a game is fun, to a large degree, in terms of how they make rulings, how they adjudicate the game, how they ensure every player has a chance to be in the spotlight, how they run encounters to make them engaging rather than punishing/tedious, and so on.

I don't think there's really any way around that except for giving the DM far less power, as a few games do. But even in stuff like PtbA which reduces the role of the DM somewhat, the DM is pivotal in determining whether things are likely to be fun. The DM has the power to push things in either direction.

But "responsible for entertainment" is different. That's more like treating the DM as the storyteller, and everyone else listens and interacts when appropriate, but essentially puts the entire burden of telling the tale on the DM. That the DM has to come up with everything - i.e. instead of the PCs deciding how to rescue the prince, the DM has to provide the PCs with an approach or multiple approaches, and to essentially present them to the players. I've seen groups who operate like this, but I don't think it's a great approach myself.


----------



## soviet (May 26, 2022)

I don't think there is one particular way to GM, I think different games require different approaches. When I GM something on the storygame/narr side of the spectrum I am trying very hard to provide springboards for the players and to run with their crazy shenanigans wherever it takes us. When I GM something more traditional like MERP I am instead trying to present a living gameworld that has a reality of its own and does not really adapt to the desires of the players or their characters - or at least, it is up to them to make it.


----------



## Jd Smith1 (May 28, 2022)

The group exists to entertain me, the GM. If I do not find them entertaining, I discard them and bring in new ones. 

The chef analogy is somewhat apt: I cook what I enjoy cooking, and I am willing to tweak the cooking in certain ways upon request, but the fact is that the menu is steak, potatoes, corn, and bread, and if you don't like that, then you don't eat.

Therefore the key to a good gaming group is finding people who enjoy those foods.


----------



## overgeeked (May 29, 2022)

Reynard said:


> Do you think the GM is responsible for your fun when you play? Does how you feel depend on whether you are playing with friends, randos or pros?



The DM puts in 99% of the work. It’s their game. But they set it up for the players to have fun. The DM should be entertaining, but the DM is absolutely not responsible for the players’ fun or entertainment.

The DM sets up the world and situations and the players control their characters and make decisions. If the results and outcomes of those decisions are fun and entertaining, great. If they’re not, too bad. The DM is under no obligation to change the world or bend over backwards to deliver personalized fun to each player in a box with a bow on a silver platter. The DM is not a storyteller nor is the DM an organ grinder.


----------



## Campbell (May 30, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> The DM puts in 99% of the work. It’s their game. But they set it up for the players to have fun. The DM should be entertaining, but the DM is absolutely not responsible for the players’ fun or entertainment.
> 
> The DM sets up the world and situations and the players control their characters and make decisions. If the results and outcomes of those decisions are fun and entertaining, great. If they’re not, too bad. The DM is under no obligation to change the world or bend over backwards to deliver personalized fun to each player in a box with a bow on a silver platter. The DM is not a storyteller nor is the DM an organ grinder.




I certainly don't put in anywhere close to 99% of the work in the game I run. Maybe 30% if I'm feeling frisky.


----------



## This Effin’ GM (May 30, 2022)

The idea of the GM putting in 99% of the work (or whatever variation in which the majority of the work is put in by the GM) is odd to me. Like I get the sentiment. But I also believe a lot of this work is self imposed, with little thought to actual payout or seeing if it’s necessary for game enjoyment.

Example: I paint minis and build terrain for my games. I also make databases and spreadsheets to link factions and information and move and such together. It’s fun! Good old lonely fun. But none of that is necessary to run a good game with my players. I could claim that this work is 99% or whatever, but it’s somewhat disingenuous to imply that it’s necessary work needed to be done for the game to happen.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (May 30, 2022)

Reynard said:


> I wanted to spin this out of the "power creep" thread because I think it is worth its own discussion.
> 
> I see a lot of people making comments that strongly suggest they think that it is the GM's job to provide them with entertainment. Most obvious is the "restaurant" analogy I see popping up more and more often, with the GM cast in the role of chef and restaurateur. I think this is wrong headed and detrimental to the fun of everyone at the table. An RPG is more like a dinner part, where everyone is contributing to the enjoyment of all. Even if one person is cooking, they aren't the "chef" in what that implies about service.
> 
> ...



On the other hand, many GMs viewing running the game as inherently an act of service, much like hosting and cooking for a dinner.  

But, even then I agree with the sentiment that GMing isn’t a “job”. Still, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to talk about reasonable expectations, nor does it not being a job remove the obligation of the GM to do thier best to facilitate a satisfying experience, and make sure the players are comfortable and feel safe, just like a dinner host.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (May 30, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> The DM puts in 99% of the work. It’s their game. But they set it up for the players to have fun. The DM should be entertaining, but the DM is absolutely not responsible for the players’ fun or entertainment.
> 
> The DM sets up the world and situations and the players control their characters and make decisions. If the results and outcomes of those decisions are fun and entertaining, great. If they’re not, too bad. The DM is under no obligation to change the world or bend over backwards to deliver personalized fun to each player in a box with a bow on a silver platter. The DM is not a storyteller nor is the DM an organ grinder.



That’s one way to play D&D, sure. Not to my taste, but as they say, some people juggle geese. 

The dismissively hyperbolic language like “on a box with a silver platter” is probably counterproductive, though. No one who sees the GM role as having obligations expects a silver platter, literally or metaphorically.  

As well, the idea that the GM isn’t a storyteller is _very_ particular to a set of play styles, and not remotely close to widely true enough to declare like an axiom. 


Campbell said:


> I certainly don't put in anywhere close to 99% of the work in the game I run. Maybe 30% if I'm feeling frisky.



Yeah seriously, and at least 1/4 of the work I do put in is wholly voluntary. The players aren’t demanding personalized magic items or a homebrew world.


----------



## dragoner (May 31, 2022)

All the world building I do, is for myself, I mean I could just run a pre-made world ...


----------



## Reynard (May 31, 2022)

doctorbadwolf said:


> On the other hand, many GMs viewing running the game as inherently an act of service, much like hosting and cooking for a dinner.



Hosting and cooking is only half the story, at best, unless you are a hired chef. Guests bring bottles of wine and dessert and good conversation.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (May 31, 2022)

Reynard said:


> Hosting and cooking is only half the story, at best, unless you are a hired chef. Guests bring bottles of wine and dessert and good conversation.



There was a whole post. I feel like the rest of it addressed this.


----------



## Hex08 (May 31, 2022)

I expect my DM to dance a jig for my amusement.....


----------



## Reynard (May 31, 2022)

Hex08 said:


> I expect my DM to dance a jig for my amusement.....



Lol. Not quicker path to a quick death and a disinvitation.


----------



## Piratecat (May 31, 2022)

I think everyone at the table is responsible for making the game more fun for everyone else at the table. It doesn't always happen, but It's something I encourage.


----------



## Committed Hero (May 31, 2022)

The GM is there to run 99% of the world, and ideally that should be done in an entertaining fashion. But she has as much a right to be entertained as well.


----------



## MNblockhead (May 31, 2022)

I've noticed that the tread uses "GM" and is filed under TTRPG General, but nearly all the answers about how the DM is responsible for running most of the game seem most applicable to D&D and D&D-like games. There are games where the the DM is a facilitator and the players do nearly everything. Not all TTRPGs require a great deal of prep and require the GM to be responsible for all the lore, options, NPCs, etc. And, playing games like this, can help you realize that the same can be true in DnD to some extent.


----------



## Reynard (May 31, 2022)

MNblockhead said:


> I've noticed that the tread uses "GM" and is filed under TTRPG General, but nearly all the answers about how the DM is responsible for running most of the game seem most applicable to D&D and D&D-like games. There are games where the the DM is a facilitator and the players do nearly everything. Not all TTRPGs require a great deal of prep and require the GM to be responsible for all the lore, options, NPCs, etc. And, playing games like this, can help you realize that the same can be true in DnD to some extent.



It hardly seems worth debating or discussing outside of traditional RPGs, though. It's a given other kinds of RPGs that, where ig is not so obvious with D&D and traditional games.


----------



## MNblockhead (May 31, 2022)

Reynard said:


> It hardly seems worth debating or discussing outside of traditional RPGs, though. It's a given other kinds of RPGs that, where ig is not so obvious with D&D and traditional games.



I don't find it worth debating but it is worth discussion. I think a lot of DMs put to much on their shoulders. You can hand off quite a lot to your players and that kinds of collaborative running of the game can be a lot of fun. How much and how often depends on the group, but most games can benefit from throwing some of these techniques into their games.


----------



## 77IM (Jun 1, 2022)

As a DM, I don't even try in the slightest to make the game fun. I make the game _interesting_. Then the players bring the fun.


----------



## willrali (Jun 6, 2022)

I’m pretty much the forever GM. And I acknowledge that my job is to do almost all the work in bringing the fun. I need to provide the story hooks, NPC interactions, fun scenarios, opportunities for loot and advancement — basically the whole framework for the fun.

The one thing I expect from my players is to *read and understand the damned rules before you arrive at the table.* Know what your character can do, how to advance your character, and how the game works. That’s all I expect. If you can’t even do that then you’ve no place in my game.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Jun 6, 2022)

MNblockhead said:


> I don't find it worth debating but it is worth discussion. I think a lot of DMs put to much on their shoulders. You can hand off quite a lot to your players and that kinds of collaborative running of the game can be a lot of fun. How much and how often depends on the group, but most games can benefit from throwing some of these techniques into their games.



This is one the best reasons for a D&D GM to play indie games. Especially with 5e, you can just use a lot of systems and ideas from others games, like flashbacks, metacurrency, escalation mechanics, rolling to find out not pass/fail but what effect _doing your thing_ has on you, and a ton of others, without any actually adjustment of mechanics needed on the 5e side.


----------



## MGibster (Jun 6, 2022)

MNblockhead said:


> I've noticed that the tread uses "GM" and is filed under TTRPG General, but nearly all the answers about how the DM is responsible for running most of the game seem most applicable to D&D and D&D-like games. There are games where the the DM is a facilitator and the players do nearly everything. Not all TTRPGs require a great deal of prep and require the GM to be responsible for all the lore, options, NPCs, etc. And, playing games like this, can help you realize that the same can be true in DnD to some extent.



I pretty much use DM and GM interchangeably.  And while you're right about games where the GM is a facilitator and the palyers do nearly everything, I think those games are in the minority.  The most commonly played games have the same DM/Player dyanmics as D&D.  


77IM said:


> As a DM, I don't even try in the slightest to make the game fun. I make the game _interesting_. Then the players bring the fun.



I try a little bit.  If I know a player is interested in something in particular, I'll try to make sure it's in the game.  But I'm such an awesome DM that I make it look effortless.


----------



## Reynard (Jun 6, 2022)

doctorbadwolf said:


> This is one the best reasons for a D&D GM to play indie games. Especially with 5e, you can just use a lot of systems and ideas from others games, like flashbacks, metacurrency, escalation mechanics, rolling to find out not pass/fail but what effect _doing your thing_ has on you, and a ton of others, without any actually adjustment of mechanics needed on the 5e side.



A lot of people don't want meta currency and other similar tools in their game because they are immersion killers.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Jun 6, 2022)

Reynard said:


> A lot of people don't want meta currency and other similar tools in their game because they are immersion killers.



Okay. They don’t have to use them?


----------



## Reynard (Jun 6, 2022)

doctorbadwolf said:


> Okay. They don’t have to use them?



Then why assert that DMs should play indie games to learn those techniques?


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Jun 6, 2022)

Reynard said:


> Then why assert that DMs should play indie games to learn those techniques?



Because there was a whole list of techniques, which wasn’t even an exhaustive list, and you not liking some of the line items doesn’t negate the usefulness of learning other systems to steal from them.  

Nothing I said implied that a DM has to use any given technique, so why are you coming at me as if I set forth some sort of list of rules for DMing?


----------



## Reynard (Jun 6, 2022)

doctorbadwolf said:


> Because there was a whole list of techniques, which wasn’t even an exhaustive list, and you not liking some of the line items doesn’t negate the usefulness of learning other systems to steal from them.
> 
> Nothing I said implied that a DM has to use any given technique, so why are you coming at me as if I set forth some sort of list of rules for DMing?



I think we are misunderstanding each other. I was just stating a rebuttal to the idea that DMs "should" do a thing. I wasn't trying to say they shouldn't ever do that thing. Things like meta currency and player world building don't necessarily fit with traditional RPGs like D&D, especially for immersion focused players. Rather than DMs incorporating those elements into D&D I think groups should play some of those other games and see if they fit better, rather than trying to "fix" trad games with intrusive non-trad elements.

In any case, I did not intend to "come at you" and apologize if that's how I came off.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Jun 6, 2022)

Reynard said:


> I think we are misunderstanding each other. I was just stating a rebuttal to the idea that DMs "should" do a thing. I wasn't trying to say they shouldn't ever do that thing. Things like meta currency and player world building don't necessarily fit with traditional RPGs like D&D, especially for immersion focused players. Rather than DMs incorporating those elements into D&D I think groups should play some of those other games and see if they fit better, rather than trying to "fix" trad games with intrusive non-trad elements.
> 
> In any case, I did not intend to "come at you" and apologize if that's how I came off.



I didn’t say that DMs should incorporate any given idea. I said they should try other games, and consider what they can use to enhance their own game.  

I think the DM who literally cannot find anything of use in any other system is…unlikely to exist.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Jun 7, 2022)

Umbran said:


> I find this to be a poorly posed question.
> 
> I think everyone at the table shares responsibility for fun for everyone at the table.  I think the GM has a lot of responsibility, as they hold a lot of the creative power and control of flow at the table - with that power comes responsibility.  But the players do also hold responsibility for their own fun, as well as the fun of others at the table, each in their measure.
> 
> ...



I wonder if this last bit is what the OP was getting at.  Is it necessary to be a "service-oriented DM", where your job is to give the players what they want?


----------



## Umbran (Jun 7, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> Is it necessary to be a "service-oriented DM", where your job is to give the players what they want?




Few things are truly _necessary_.  Like, you know, air, food, water, and such.  So, again, I find the question poorly posed.

I respond then, with a pair of questions, the answers to which are surely subjective - Why not be service oriented?  And, if not, is what the group gains worth what it loses?


----------



## pemerton (Jun 7, 2022)

Reynard said:


> A lot of people don't want meta currency and other similar tools in their game because they are immersion killers.



OK. There are plenty of indie games that don't use metacurrency. The best-known is probably Apocalypse World.


----------



## MGibster (Jun 7, 2022)

Eh, I'll take a strong stance here.  I think a GM _should _try to play a variety of games, even ones with rules he or she don't think sound appealing.  Hell, I think players _should _also try to play a variety of games.


----------



## payn (Jun 7, 2022)

MGibster said:


> Eh, I'll take a strong stance here.  I think a GM _should _try to play a variety of games, even ones with rules he or she don't think sound appealing.  Hell, I think players _should _also try to play a variety of games.



"You can't knock it until you rock it" is what I always say. I have played plenty of games I dont care for that either gave me good experience as a GM/player or good mechanics to yoink.


----------



## Reynard (Jun 7, 2022)

MGibster said:


> Eh, I'll take a strong stance here.  I think a GM _should _try to play a variety of games, even ones with rules he or she don't think sound appealing.  Hell, I think players _should _also try to play a variety of games.



It's not a bad idea to do so, but ultimately this is an entirely leisure activity and people _should_ engage it however they want. There's no mandate to be a "better GM" (whatever that means for any individual judge of "good GMing"). Some folks are super happy with the game(s) they play, how they play them, with neither need nor desire to branch out or broaden their horizons or whatever.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Jun 7, 2022)

MGibster said:


> Eh, I'll take a strong stance here.  I think a GM _should _try to play a variety of games, even ones with rules he or she don't think sound appealing.  Hell, I think players _should _also try to play a variety of games.



I agree. Trying new games is certainly something that people should be open to. 

At worst, you have less fun than you'd hoped for an evening or two.


Reynard said:


> It's not a bad idea to do so, but ultimately this is an entirely leisure activity and people _should_ engage it however they want. There's no mandate to be a "better GM" (whatever that means for any individual judge of "good GMing"). Some folks are super happy with the game(s) they play, how they play them, with neither need nor desire to branch out or broaden their horizons or whatever.



And they're missing out, and stunting their GMing and roleplaying skills. And they are skills, just like any other hobby has. More than some.


----------



## MGibster (Jun 7, 2022)

Reynard said:


> It's not a bad idea to do so, but ultimately this is an entirely leisure activity and people _should_ engage it however they want.



Should is an ideal not a proscriptive statement.  I'm not going to strap someone to a chair with some weird device attached to their head to force their eyes to stay open _A Clockwork Orange _style or anything like that.  



Reynard said:


> Some folks are super happy with the game(s) they play, how they play them, with neither need nor desire to branch out or broaden their horizons or whatever.



And some folk think they are perfectly happy never knowing the joy of chicken tikka masala.  Maybe they avoided Indian food for years because their mother cooked something with curry once, and it was so bad he decided all Indian food must be bad.  But then, one day, he said, "I'm a big boy now (I'm 41), and I'm going to try Indian food," and once he did, he realized just how much he had been missing over the years.  (He loves his mother, but she's a horrible cook.)  No, there's no reason example is so very, very specific.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Jun 7, 2022)

MGibster said:


> Should is an ideal not a proscriptive statement.  I'm not going to strap someone to a chair with some weird device attached to their head to force their eyes to stay open _A Clockwork Orange _style or anything like that.
> 
> 
> And some folk think they are perfectly happy never knowing the joy of chicken tikka masala.  Maybe they avoided Indian food for years because their mother cooked something with curry once, and it was so bad he decided all Indian food must be bad.  But then, one day, he said, "I'm a big boy now (I'm 41), and I'm going to try Indian food," and once he did, he realized just how much he had been missing over the years.  (He loves his mother, but she's a horrible cook.)  No, there's no reason example is so very, very specific.



Man the first time I let a girlfriend bully me into eating sushi...so much regret for so much missed sushi. I'm just glad I was only 19, not 41. That's rough, buddy. 

Curry is just so good.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Jun 7, 2022)

pemerton said:


> OK. There are plenty of indie games that don't use metacurrency. The best-known is probably Apocalypse World.



That's true, but PbtA games are strongly genre-simulative with major narrative mechanics and that doesn't really work for me as a GM anyway.

I'm going to start a Star Trek Adventures game soon in an attempt to break me of this tendency.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 7, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> That's true, but PbtA games are strongly genre-simulative with major narrative mechanics



I'm not sure what you mean by "major narrative mechanics". The basic structure of the mechanics in AW is not very different from 1977 Traveller, or even modern D&D.

The difference is in the rules about what the GM is supposed to say, and when.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Jun 7, 2022)

pemerton said:


> I'm not sure what you mean by "major narrative mechanics". The basic structure of the mechanics in AW is not very different from 1977 Traveller, or even modern D&D.
> 
> The difference is in the rules about what the GM is supposed to say, and when.



That's basically what I mean.  The rules are designed to emulate the genre, and so the GM is restricted in how to adjucate situations ("scene framing", to use a term I've seen you use often).  I generally want my sim to be process as opposed to genre.


----------



## overgeeked (Jun 7, 2022)

Reynard said:


> It's not a bad idea to do so, but ultimately this is an entirely leisure activity and people _should_ engage it however they want. There's no mandate to be a "better GM" (whatever that means for any individual judge of "good GMing"). Some folks are super happy with the game(s) they play, how they play them, with neither need nor desire to branch out or broaden their horizons or whatever.



Right? It's such a weird attitude. It's playing a game. Once it becomes work or a job it's no longer play. Once it's no longer fun, what's the point? If the players are bent about the referee not being tip top or not striving for perfection, they can run the game themselves. Play how you like to. Gather with other people, hopefully friends, who like to play in similar ways to you...or at least not diametrically opposed ways to yours. Throw dice, have fun. It's a hobby, no a side hustle to be perfected and/or monetized.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 7, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> That's basically what I mean.  The rules are designed to emulate the genre, and so the GM is restricted in how to adjucate situations ("scene framing", to use a term I've seen you use often).  I generally want my sim to be process as opposed to genre.



Apocalypse World doesn't rely heavily on scene framing techniques - there are indie games that do!, but it's not really one.

The key rule that I think you would bump into is that _the GM is restricted in making hard moves_. In this context, "hard move" means what it sounds like - telling a player that their PC didn't get what they wanted.

I think you would take it for granted that a GM could make a hard move by reference to their notes - eg the PC stepped through the doorway and so triggered the trap, or the PC looked in the wrong place and so didn't find the thing they're looking for. But that's not part of AW - the GM can only make a hard move if (i) a player fails a throw, or (ii) the GM has already set up the threat/risk/possibility _in play, at the table_ and then a player gives the GM an opportunity to follow through.

It turns out that that change to how the GM does their thing has a big impact on play!


----------



## Ovinomancer (Jun 7, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> That's basically what I mean.  The rules are designed to emulate the genre, and so the GM is restricted in how to adjucate situations ("scene framing", to use a term I've seen you use often).  I generally want my sim to be process as opposed to genre.



Hmm.  AW really isn't built to emulate genre.  It has a strong genre vibe, yes, but it's system is built to generate drama and put characters through the wringer.  The genre is backdrop to that.  Which is why PbtA uses the same core system across a ton of genres, with the hacks being to shift the kind of drama.

FATE is a genre emulation engine.


----------



## Campbell (Jun 7, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> That's basically what I mean.  The rules are designed to emulate the genre, and so the GM is restricted in how to adjucate situations ("scene framing", to use a term I've seen you use often).  I generally want my sim to be process as opposed to genre.




I mean the GM is always restricted in how to adjudicate, but yeah the restrictions are different in AW then they are in something like D&D. You don't usually get to decide what success looks like, but an AW GM has pretty broad powers in adjudicating what failure looks like. A lot of the stuff a GM is expected to do in Apocalypse World would be unacceptable in a typical D&D game. Still, you pretty much have the right of it.


----------



## Reynard (Jun 7, 2022)

Campbell said:


> I mean the GM is always restricted in how to adjudicate



Are they?


----------



## Maxperson (Jun 7, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> The DM puts in 99% of the work. It’s their game. But they set it up for the players to have fun. The DM should be entertaining, but the DM is absolutely not responsible for the players’ fun or entertainment.
> 
> The DM sets up the world and situations and the players control their characters and make decisions. If the results and outcomes of those decisions are fun and entertaining, great. If they’re not, too bad. The DM is under no obligation to change the world or bend over backwards to deliver personalized fun to each player in a box with a bow on a silver platter. The DM is not a storyteller nor is the DM an organ grinder.



The DM does generally put in the Lion's share of the work.  Take @Campbell.  Even if he only puts only 25% of the work, if he has 5 players they are putting in around 15% each, so he's putting in more than any player is.  However, the DM is not there to be the entertainment for the players.  It's not the DM's job to do voices and put on a show. That said, fun is the goal of the game, so the DM is responsible to provide a fun game(even if some moments are not fun, like the death or capture of a PC).  So are the players, though.  They are also individually responsible to provide a fun game experience by not being asshats or Leroy Jenkinsing monsters(unless the group enjoys that).  As a group fun is our responsibility to one another.


----------



## Maxperson (Jun 7, 2022)

77IM said:


> As a DM, I don't even try in the slightest to make the game fun. I make the game _interesting_. Then the players bring the fun.



I would argue that interesting = fun.  You provide fun by making it interesting.  The players provide fun by interacting with the game world that interests them.  Fun is a full group effort.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 7, 2022)

Campbell said:


> I mean the GM is always restricted in how to adjudicate





Reynard said:


> Are they?



Yes.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Jun 7, 2022)

Perhaps everyone is responsible for their own fun, and to not create an unfun experience for others.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Jun 7, 2022)

pemerton said:


> Yes.



Can you elaborate?  I'm curious as to your take on this.


----------



## Maxperson (Jun 7, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> Perhaps everyone is responsible for their own fun, and to not create an unfun experience for others.



Not unfun =/= fun, though.  The responsibility goes a bit further than that since fun is the ultimate goal of the game.  You can have a game that isn't unfun, but is meh and not fun.


----------



## MGibster (Jun 7, 2022)

Reynard said:


> Are they?



I think so.  A GM is generally expected to follow the rules though it's their prerogative to break them when necessary.  But the GM needs to have a good reason for breaking the rules.  I know I've misinterpreted rules and ended up apologizing to players later because I had prevented them from doing something they should have been able to do.


----------



## Reynard (Jun 7, 2022)

MGibster said:


> I think so.  A GM is generally expected to follow the rules *though it's their prerogative to break them when necessary.*  But the GM needs to have a good reason for breaking the rules.  I know I've misinterpreted rules and ended up apologizing to players later because I had prevented them from doing something they should have been able to do.



Emphasis mine.

That takes out the "always" part, which was the primary element I was questioning.


----------



## MGibster (Jun 7, 2022)

Reynard said:


> That takes out the "always" part, which was the primary element I was questioning.



From a certain point of view I guess.  The way I was thinking, if they can only do it under certain circumstances, then they're always restricted.


----------



## Reynard (Jun 7, 2022)

MGibster said:


> From a certain point of view I guess.  The way I was thinking, if they can only do it under certain circumstances, then they're always restricted.



Those circumstances aren't prescribed in trad games, though.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Jun 7, 2022)

Reynard said:


> Those circumstances aren't prescribed in trad games, though.



I agree.  The only constraint on GMs in D&D is the social contract.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Jun 7, 2022)

I suppose it's true that the GM can do whatever they want, but we all know that's not how a game typically goes, nor do I think it's what most folks expect to happen. 

Like, if the ogre has a 15 AC and I roll a 19, I expect the GM to tell me I hit and to roll damage. If he instead tells me I missed, with nothing more than his authority as a GM to back up that decision, then I'd say that's poor GMing. 

So I do think GMs are always constrained. Yes, they may have the ability to ignore constraints, but I think such is expected to be held for rulings on edge cases and the like rather than simply as a matter of course.


----------



## Reynard (Jun 7, 2022)

hawkeyefan said:


> I suppose it's true that the GM can do whatever they want, but we all know that's not how a game typically goes, nor do I think it's what most folks expect to happen.
> 
> Like, if the ogre has a 15 AC and I roll a 19, I expect the GM to tell me I hit and to roll damage. If he instead tells me I missed, with nothing more than his authority as a GM to back up that decision, then I'd say that's poor GMing.
> 
> So I do think GMs are always constrained. Yes, they may have the ability to ignore constraints, but I think such is expected to be held for rulings on edge cases and the like rather than simply as a matter of course.



I agree with all this, which is one of the reasons I don't  understand the need for or like the PbtA method of GM constraint. It is unnecessary and limiting for no benefit. Some folks argue it isn't limiting and only articulates things that were always true anyway, in which case I say that means it is also pointless.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Jun 7, 2022)

Reynard said:


> I agree with all this, which is one of the reasons I don't  understand the need for or like the PbtA method of GM constraint. It is unnecessary and limiting for no benefit. Some folks argue it isn't limiting and only articulates things that were always true anyway, in which case I say that means it is also pointless.




I don't agree with that. It just makes the GM perform their duties in a principled manner. It provides clear expectations to all participants about who has which responsibilities. 

Let's just imagine that the 5e PHB or DMG specifically described the process of play as "Before any ability checks are made, the DM must always announce the target DC for the roll, no matter what". This creates specific guidance on how the DM is expected to behave. Is it limiting? Sure, in that the DM can not keep the DC hidden (or in doing so, he's specifically going against the rules as described, which likely will require some form of house rule agreement or something). Is it pointless? No, now the players will always know their chances before they roll. I value my players making informed decisions, so I view this as a benefit.

Thats just one small example. Many PbtA games, and Apocalypse World in particular, care very much about these kinds of clear and specific directions for the processes of play.


----------



## Campbell (Jun 7, 2022)

There are all sorts of constraints that apply to the GM of a trad game that do not apply to the MC in Apocalypse World. Examples include freedom of exploration for player characters, not engaging much in the way of hard framing, being very careful about direct action taken against the player characters, neutrally describing the scene, letting everyone act, not putting direct pressure on one particular player, not adjudicating anything psychosocial for the player characters. If I ran 5e in the someway as I run Apocalypse World the players would rightfully freak out. Like as a hard move for a player character pulling a gun on the leader of the territory they are in who fails their go aggro roll I can precede right to the next scene of them being interrogated, surrounding by that leader's men. 

Do something like that in D&D and most players would flip out. I know because I have done it and seen the response. 

We just do not tend to see the constraints we are used to as real constraints.


----------



## Reynard (Jun 7, 2022)

hawkeyefan said:


> I don't agree with that. It just makes the GM perform their duties in a principled manner. It provides clear expectations to all participants about who has which responsibilities.
> 
> Let's just imagine that the 5e PHB or DMG specifically described the process of play as "Before any ability checks are made, the DM must always announce the target DC for the roll, no matter what". This creates specific guidance on how the DM is expected to behave. Is it limiting? Sure, in that the DM can not keep the DC hidden (or in doing so, he's specifically going against the rules as described, which likely will require some form of house rule agreement or something). Is it pointless? No, now the players will always know their chances before they roll. I value my players making informed decisions, so I view this as a benefit.
> 
> Thats just one small example. Many PbtA games, and Apocalypse World in particular, care very much about these kinds of clear and specific directions for the processes of play.



I understand where they come from, I just don't think they are necessary. Systemic attempts to bind the GM to a prescribed set of outcomes feel like either trying to turn the GM into a processor, or trying to defend the players against some mythical viking hat bad GM. I get that people like PbtA games, but I can't abide the basic design goals as you articulated them.


----------



## Reynard (Jun 7, 2022)

Campbell said:


> There are all sorts of constraints that apply to the GM of a trad game that do not apply to the MC in Apocalypse World. Examples include freedom of exploration for player characters



How is this a GM constraint?


Campbell said:


> , not engaging much in the way of hard framing,



I'm not sure what you mean, or how this would be a constraint.


Campbell said:


> being very careful about direct action taken against the player characters,



This isn't a thing in a system, it is a table thing.


Campbell said:


> neutrally describing the scene,



?


Campbell said:


> letting everyone act,



Again, how is this a constraint?


Campbell said:


> not putting direct pressure on one particular player,



I am not sure what you mean.


Campbell said:


> not adjudicating anything psychosocial for the player characters.



Do you mean telling the player how their character feels? I'll give you that one: the GM should not tell the player how to play their character. A system may define how a character feels though (fear mechanics, vices and virtues, etc).


Campbell said:


> If I ran 5e in the someway as I run Apocalypse World the players would rightfully freak out.



How do you mean? What things happen in a PbtA game that would make 5E players "freak out"? Moreover, whoa re these "5E players" you are speaking of?


Campbell said:


> Like as a hard move for a player character pulling a gun on the leader of the territory they are in who fails their go aggro roll I can precede right to the next scene of them being interrogated, surrounding by that leader's men. Do something like that in D&D and most players would flip out.



I am not sure why you think a successful intimidation check leading to an interrogation in 5E would make 5E players flip out.


Campbell said:


> We just do not tend to see the constraints we are used to as real constraints.



I disagree on your use of "constraint" in almost every example above.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Jun 7, 2022)

hawkeyefan said:


> I suppose it's true that the GM can do whatever they want, but we all know that's not how a game typically goes, nor do I think it's what most folks expect to happen.
> 
> Like, if the ogre has a 15 AC and I roll a 19, I expect the GM to tell me I hit and to roll damage. If he instead tells me I missed, with nothing more than his authority as a GM to back up that decision, then I'd say that's poor GMing.
> 
> So I do think GMs are always constrained. Yes, they may have the ability to ignore constraints, but I think such is expected to be held for rulings on edge cases and the like rather than simply as a matter of course.




I think there's a problem here, and it has to do with how groups define "edge cases" and your use of "matter of course".

The problem is that in many groups, no one but the GM is assumed to be able to define what an "edge case" is.  As such, the places it happens are fundamentally arbitrary.  As such while it may not be done as a "matter of course", but there's no predicting when the GM will decide to do it so any theoretical binding of his choices is vague at best and more in gestalt than in the moment.

(This is not helped by the fact there's a strong current in trad game culture to consider challenging a GM on things like this a faux pas) .


----------



## billd91 (Jun 7, 2022)

Reynard said:


> I am not sure why you think a successful intimidation check leading to an interrogation in 5E would make 5E players flip out.



I see you're new here (here meaning ENWorld, the internet, discussions about D&D...).


----------



## Reynard (Jun 7, 2022)

Thomas Shey said:


> (This is not helped by the fact there's a strong current in trad game culture to consider challenging a GM on things like this a faux pas) .



Is there? I don't know any GMs like that. Most of the GMs I know are so busy with all the balls their juggling that they appreciate it if a player brings up a misinterpreted ruling _in good faith_. I know I offload as much rule checking as is practical on the players, especially the ones waiting for their turn or otherwise not immediately doing something else. It keeps everyone engaged, keeps the game moving, and frees me up to do the important work of targeting the gnome. Again.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Jun 7, 2022)

Reynard said:


> Is there?




If you haven't seen that, you're _extremely fortunate_.  You'll see people hopping on to fora and the like to bitch about it regularly, and I've seen people act like it was an act of lese majestie.  Its particularly common in the D&D sphere, but it exists well eslewhere.



Reynard said:


> I don't know any GMs like that. Most of the GMs I know are so busy with all the balls their juggling that they appreciate it if a player brings up a misinterpreted ruling _in good faith_. I know I offload as much rule checking as is practical on the players, especially the ones waiting for their turn or otherwise not immediately doing something else. It keeps everyone engaged, keeps the game moving, and frees me up to do the important work of targeting the gnome. Again.




"In good faith" is doing a lot of heavy lifting in this paragraph.  There are any number of GMs who are unwilling to assume that's what's happening there, or consider the interruption in speed and flow unacceptable _even if it is_.


----------



## Mannahnin (Jun 7, 2022)

Campbell said:


> If I ran 5e in the someway as I run Apocalypse World the players would rightfully freak out. Like as a hard move for a player character pulling a gun on the leader of the territory they are in who fails their go aggro roll I can precede right to the next scene of them being interrogated, surrounding by that leader's men.
> 
> Do something like that in D&D and most players would flip out. I know because I have done it and seen the response.
> 
> We just do not tend to see the constraints we are used to as real constraints.






Reynard said:


> How do you mean? What things happen in a PbtA game that would make 5E players "freak out"? Moreover, whoa re these "5E players" you are speaking of?
> 
> I am not sure why you think a successful intimidation check leading to an interrogation in 5E would make 5E players flip out.



I think you've misunderstood.  I believe in Campbell's example the player _failed _their roll on a Go Aggro move to pull a gun and intimidate the leader of the territory they're in.  And that the consequence of that failure was immediately skipping to a scene of the PCs being interrogated, surrounded (and presumably at the mercy of) said leader's men.

I tend to concur that in D&D if they failed their Intimidate check, players would balk at the DM switching scenes like that, and would expect instead to be able to fight rather than be automatically captured.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Jun 7, 2022)

Mannahnin said:


> I think you've misunderstood.  I believe in Campbell's example the player _failed _their roll on a Go Aggro move to pull a gun and intimidate the leader of the territory they're in.  And that the consequence of that failure was immediately skipping to a scene of the PCs being interrogated, surrounded (and presumably at the mercy of) said leader's men.
> 
> I tend to concur that in D&D if they failed their Intimidate check, players would balk at the DM switching scenes like that, and would expect instead to be able to fight rather than be automatically captured.




Yeah.  Honestly, most players will assume they can throw one solution after another at a problem until they're satisfied, and even if none of them work they'll often resent being put in the situation at all.  In other games, that sort of result is just assumed to be part of the price of doing business.


----------



## Reynard (Jun 7, 2022)

Mannahnin said:


> I think you've misunderstood.  I believe in Campbell's example the player _failed _their roll on a Go Aggro move to pull a gun and intimidate the leader of the territory they're in.  And that the consequence of that failure was immediately skipping to a scene of the PCs being interrogated, surrounded (and presumably at the mercy of) said leader's men.
> 
> I tend to concur that in D&D if they failed their Intimidate check, players would balk at the DM switching scenes like that, and would expect instead to be able to fight rather than be automatically captured.



Gotcha. I did in fact misunderstand. And in this case, I do think most trad players would balk, with good reason. I think most trad players would prefer to play out the consequences of that failure, rather than be told the story of what happened.

I don't care for some core conceits of PbtA games (as I have enumerated) so I don't have much experience with them (I played Dungeon World once and tried to run Monster of the Week once) so I admit I could be wrong, but it seems to me the goal is "to tell a story" as opposed to letting one emerge. I don't want to be told a story and I don't want to tell my players a story.

This goes back to the core component of this thread. I want to discover the story with the players, and upon choosing a system I want that system to be the mechanism of that discovery alongside the input of all the participants.


----------



## Mannahnin (Jun 7, 2022)

Reynard said:


> I don't care for some core conceits of PbtA games (as I have enumerated) so I don't have much experience with them (I played Dungeon World once and tried to run Monster of the Week once) so I admit I could be wrong, but it seems to me the goal is "to tell a story" as opposed to letting one emerge. I don't want to be told a story and I don't want to tell my players a story.
> 
> This goes back to the core component of this thread. I want to discover the story with the players, and upon choosing a system I want that system to be the mechanism of that discovery alongside the input of all the participants.



To be fair, I think that example Campbell gave is still letting a story emerge.  If the player had passed the check, presumably his intimidation attempt would have worked, and the emergent story wouldn't have involved the PCs being interrogated.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Jun 7, 2022)

Mannahnin said:


> To be fair, I think that example Campbell gave is still letting a story emerge.  If the player had passed the check, presumably his intimidation attempt would have worked, and the emergent story wouldn't have involved the PCs being interrogated.




Yes.  While I have issues with PbtA, its not a top-down "tell a story" game; its an interactive "tell a story" game.  Its very much emergent.  Its just very big into cutting out what the design ethic considers the cruft of trad games in getting to that aim.  One of the consequences is that a single roll embodies a lot of things that would involve many more rolls in most trad games, because they don't find that extra process option valuable.


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 7, 2022)

Mannahnin said:


> I think you've misunderstood.  I believe in Campbell's example the player _failed _their roll on a Go Aggro move to pull a gun and intimidate the leader of the territory they're in.  And that the consequence of that failure was immediately skipping to a scene of the PCs being interrogated, surrounded (and presumably at the mercy of) said leader's men.
> 
> I tend to concur that in D&D if they failed their Intimidate check, players would balk at the DM switching scenes like that, and would expect instead to be able to fight rather than be automatically captured.



Indeed.

It's not the end-result outcome that would be at issue, but rather the (lack of) level of detail and perceived arbitrariness in jumping straight to said outcome without any intervening play and-or opportunities for the players/PCs to change their situation (for better or worse!).  Further, the jump as written assumes none of the PCs act independently (e.g. to try to escape, or to suicide-rush a guard to cause a distraction so others might escape, etc.) and that they are all captured en bloc.


----------



## Mannahnin (Jun 7, 2022)

Lanefan said:


> Indeed.
> 
> It's not the end-result outcome that would be at issue, but rather the (lack of) level of detail and perceived arbitrariness in jumping straight to said outcome without any intervening play and-or opportunities for the players/PCs to change their situation (for better or worse!).  Further, the jump as written assumes none of the PCs act independently (e.g. to try to escape, or to suicide-rush a guard to cause a distraction so others might escape, etc.) and that they are all captured en bloc.



Right. It's reliant on the players understanding the potential consequences of blowing the roll and giving (what I understand to be) a Hard Move to the GM.

When the player decides to whip out a gun in that situation, he and the group presumably know the potential level of consequence.  He's escalating the situation considerably.


----------



## Reynard (Jun 7, 2022)

Mannahnin said:


> Right. It's reliant on the players understanding the potential consequences of blowing the roll and giving (what I understand to be) a Hard Move to the GM.
> 
> When the player decides to whip out a gun in that situation, he and the group presumably know the potential level of consequence.  He's escalating the situation considerably.



Which makes sense in the context of that particular set of rules, which is why I don't like that set of rules. It feels like someone trying to craft a story. "In this scene, if you fail to bully the gang leader into submitting, you will all end up captured and on the rack." That's not an inherently bad outcome, but I don't like the way it turns play into plotting, if that makes sense.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Jun 7, 2022)

Reynard said:


> I understand where they come from, I just don't think they are necessary. Systemic attempts to bind the GM to a prescribed set of outcomes feel like either trying to turn the GM into a processor, or trying to defend the players against some mythical viking hat bad GM. I get that people like PbtA games, but I can't abide the basic design goals as you articulated them.




I don't think that all GM bias is "viking hat bad GM". I think that allowing the system to help determine the outcomes helps allow for surprise by all parties, including the GM.

I get that relinquishing some control can be tough. But I think games like AW and its offshoots help support that idea.



Thomas Shey said:


> I think there's a problem here, and it has to do with how groups define "edge cases" and your use of "matter of course".
> 
> The problem is that in many groups, no one but the GM is assumed to be able to define what an "edge case" is.  As such, the places it happens are fundamentally arbitrary.  As such while it may not be done as a "matter of course", but there's no predicting when the GM will decide to do it so any theoretical binding of his choices is vague at best and more in gestalt than in the moment.
> 
> (This is not helped by the fact there's a strong current in trad game culture to consider challenging a GM on things like this a faux pas) .




Edge cases are, to me, those that are not accounted for in the rules or processes of play.

My comment on “matter of course” is that I don’t tend to consider the GM as the ultimate authority. Their position obliges them to administer the rules and make rulings in a way that is faithful to the rules and to the expectations of the participants.

“Because I’m the GM” isn’t a suitable reason for such a decision.


----------



## Campbell (Jun 7, 2022)

The reason those constraints are in place in Apocalypse World is that the GM is not a referee. They are not an adjudicator. They do not enable players to explore a fictional world. Apocalypse World is also not a game where players go on adventures. It's a game about the trouble that find them. Not the trouble they find. When a GM is actively framing players into adverse situations there is no real way for a GM to make the context switch to that referee headspace when they are instead focused on keeping the momentum of play going. It has different restrictions because it has different expectations. The GM is also given powers that other GMs do not have.

The basic play loop in traditional games is pretty much :
1. GM neutrally describes the environment.
2. The player group collectively decides what actions to take and let's the GM know what they are trying.
3. The GM decides what happens and describes how the environment changes.

That entire process is grounded in the exploration of an environment. Players moving through it, investigating it, acting upon it through their characters. For that to work players need to have a chance to meaningfully investigate and explore the environment with it only really acting upon them when they do something to provoke it. You need GM as adjudicator because that enables exploration as the primary motivator of play. As soon as you step into actively provoking player characters it starts to break down.

Apocalypse World does not work like that. In Apocalypse World trouble comes to you. You decide how to handle it, but it's going to keep coming in some form. The GM's job is to apply pressure in a fair way. You cannot be in the right headspace for that if you are also responsible for deciding how things should go.


----------



## overgeeked (Jun 7, 2022)

Reynard said:


> I understand where they come from, I just don't think they are necessary. Systemic attempts to bind the GM to a prescribed set of outcomes feel like either trying to turn the GM into a processor, or trying to defend the players against some mythical viking hat bad GM. I get that people like PbtA games, but I can't abide the basic design goals as you articulated them.



It's such an odd impulse. Like the words on the page can somehow protect you from a bad referee. Hint: they can't. At most the bad referee will look at those and reject them and run the game however they want anyway. The players can either put up with it or point to the text and object. If the referee persists, the players can either continue to put up with it or walk. But the words on the page don't constrain the referee.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Jun 8, 2022)

hawkeyefan said:


> Edge cases are, to me, those that are not accounted for in the rules or processes of play.



But again, those are designated as such by whom?  I'll leave it to the viewer as to who is usually expected to do that in a trad game.



hawkeyefan said:


> My comment on “matter of course” is that I don’t tend to consider the GM as the ultimate authority. Their position obliges them to administer the rules and make rulings in a way that is faithful to the rules and to the expectations of the participants.
> 
> “Because I’m the GM” isn’t a suitable reason for such a decision.




Very many traditional GMs and players either don't agree with you, or don't even think your opinion matters in such cases unless you_ are_ the GM.

Basically, I think you're presenting this from of POV that is anything but typical in the hobby as a whole.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Jun 8, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> It's such an odd impulse. Like the words on the page can somehow protect you from a bad referee. Hint: they can't. At most the bad referee will look at those and reject them and run the game however they want anyway. The players can either put up with it or point to the text and object. If the referee persists, the players can either continue to put up with it or walk. But the words on the page don't constrain the referee.




However when the text overtly says what the GM is doing is not intended, there's a rather different dynamic when it either seems to suggest what they're doing is expected, or is equivocal about it.

Your position only makes sense if setting expectations doesn't matter.


----------



## Reynard (Jun 8, 2022)

Campbell said:


> The reason those constraints are in place in Apocalypse World is that the GM is not a referee. They are not an adjudicator. They do not enable players to explore a fictional world. Apocalypse World is also not a game where players go on adventures. It's a game about the trouble that find them. Not the trouble they find. When a GM is actively framing players into adverse situations there is no real way for a GM to make the context switch to that referee headspace when they are instead focused on keeping the momentum of play going. It has different restrictions because it has different expectations. The GM is also given powers that other GMs do not have.
> 
> The basic play loop in traditional games is pretty much :
> 1. GM neutrally describes the environment.
> ...



That's interesting. I have never heard it explained that way. I don't think it makes it any more for me, but I think I understand it a little better. Thank you.


----------



## overgeeked (Jun 8, 2022)

Reynard said:


> Which makes sense in the context of that particular set of rules, which is why I don't like that set of rules. It feels like someone trying to craft a story. "In this scene, if you fail to bully the gang leader into submitting, you will all end up captured and on the rack." That's not an inherently bad outcome, but I don't like the way it turns play into plotting, if that makes sense.



I think that's literally the point of it. To get on with the story. To skip the skill dogpilling and the PCs' seeming eternal refusal to accept defeat or even negative consequences of any kind. It mirrors storytelling a lot more closely than most RPGs. If that's the goal of the design, it does a good job of it. When it comes to scenes you start late and get out early. Don't waffle with the preamble, cut to the chase. Get right to the heart of the scene. Work through that a bit and once you get to the crux of it, the disaster, that's when you roll. Once that's resolved, cut to the next scene. Just like in most TV shows and movies. Prose fiction of course has a lot more wiggle room.


----------



## Reynard (Jun 8, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> I think that's literally the point of it. To get on with the story. To skip the skill dogpilling and the PCs' seeming eternal refusal to accept defeat or even negative consequences of any kind. It mirrors storytelling a lot more closely than most RPGs. If that's the goal of the design, it does a good job of it. When it comes to scenes you start late and get out early. Don't waffle with the preamble, cut to the chase. Get right to the heart of the scene. Work through that a bit and once you get to the crux of it, the disaster, that's when you roll. Once that's resolved, cut to the next scene. Just like in most TV shows and movies. Prose fiction of course has a lot more wiggle room.



I don't allow skill dogpiling in D&D. The rule at my table is "settle on a strategy and I'll tell you what to roll (if necessary); if you fail you don't get to roll again unless you change your strategy." Some situations, of course, don't allow for changing strategies because of the consequences of failure. But there's no need to skip the series of actions and reactions that COULD lead to the PCs being captured.


----------



## Yora (Jun 8, 2022)

Most people in the hobby have no idea what they are talking about.
Anyone can have fun drawing with colored pencils, but only a few can draw really well. Which is fine of course, as having fun is the goal, not quality.
But when talking techniques, common practice by most people is not a good yardstick.
At least not when the goal is to improve your own skills.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Jun 8, 2022)

Of course you still need a common metric of some sort as to what "skill" even means.


----------



## Yora (Jun 8, 2022)

Reynard said:


> That's interesting. I have never heard it explained that way. I don't think it makes it any more for me, but I think I understand it a little better. Thank you.



Apocalypse World spells out specifically and goes into further detail "Be a fan of the characters" and "Make the characters' lives not boring."

It's instructing to leave the disinterested attitude of GMs in many other unplotted RPGs behind.


----------



## Reynard (Jun 8, 2022)

Yora said:


> Apocalypse World spells out specifically and goes into further detail "Be a fan of the characters" and "Make the characters' lives not boring."
> 
> It's instructing to leave the *disinterested* attitude of GMs in many other unplotted RPGs behind.



Emphasis mine.

That is a strange word choice. Maybe "dispassionate" is better? Or just "fair"? I am a fan of my players and usually their PCs, but I also play the world like the worl -- NPCs act like I imagine they would, and nature doesn't care one way or the other.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Jun 8, 2022)

Reynard said:


> Emphasis mine.
> 
> That is a strange word choice. Maybe "dispassionate" is better? Or just "fair"? I am a fan of my players and usually their PCs, but I also play the world like the worl -- NPCs act like I imagine they would, and nature doesn't care one way or the other.




Dispassionate seems reasonable; I wouldn't use "fair" because there's too much semantic loading there that I think begs disagreement.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Jun 8, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> It's such an odd impulse. Like the words on the page can somehow protect you from a bad referee. Hint: they can't. At most the bad referee will look at those and reject them and run the game however they want anyway. The players can either put up with it or point to the text and object. If the referee persists, the players can either continue to put up with it or walk. But the words on the page don't constrain the referee.




This is a very strange take. Like, imagine if the dealer in a card game just got to ignore the rules of the game on a whim. Or the banker in Monopoly. These are roles that have some amount of authority, but not carte blanche to just ignore or reinterpret the rules.

In some RPGs, when a GM ignores the rules, it’s incredibly obvious. Like, a lot of times you simply can’t get away with it. Other RPGs have a lot of fuzzy areas, and so the GM may be able to exercise their judgment without disturbing the expectations of the players. 

But to just assume absolute authority for the GM? As I said…it’s strange. 



Thomas Shey said:


> But again, those are designated as such by whom?  I'll leave it to the viewer as to who is usually expected to do that in a trad game.




The GM will be involved. But so may the players. I bring things like this to the GM in my 5e game all the time. “The rules donmt really say it for sure, so I think you’ll have to decide.” Recognizing such edge cases would seem to me to be everyone’s job. 



Thomas Shey said:


> Very many traditional GMs and players either don't agree with you, or don't even think your opinion matters in such cases unless you_ are_ the GM.




We should round such folks up and launch them into the sun. 



Thomas Shey said:


> Basically, I think you're presenting this from of POV that is anything but typical in the hobby as a whole.




In the hobby as a whole? I doubt that. 

But even if so, I’d be all right with it.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Jun 8, 2022)

hawkeyefan said:


> The GM will be involved. But so may the players. I bring things like this to the GM in my 5e game all the time. “The rules donmt really say it for sure, so I think you’ll have to decide.” Recognizing such edge cases would seem to me to be everyone’s job.




But that's it; I don't think with the majority of people's expectations in most trad games, that the players are routinely involved.  The GM may or may not pay attention to them, but there's not a lot of expectation that they have any formal say.  As I said, if it was otherwise there wouldn't be so much hostility to a player making an issue out of it.



hawkeyefan said:


> In the hobby as a whole? I doubt that.




As you wish.  But I think assuming otherwise has to ignore a pretty fair amount of commonly presented evidence.



hawkeyefan said:


> But even if so, I’d be all right with it.




As you should be.  But that doesn't mean convincing yourself its not true does your ability to discuss the issues with others any favors.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Jun 8, 2022)

Thomas Shey said:


> But that's it; I don't think with the majority of people's expectations in most trad games, that the players are routinely involved.  The GM may or may not pay attention to them, but there's not a lot of expectation that they have any formal say.  As I said, if it was otherwise there wouldn't be so much hostility to a player making an issue out of it.




So we started off with talking about “defining edge cases” and that’s what my comments have been about. 

You seem to have moved on to “adjudicating edge cases”.  




Thomas Shey said:


> As you wish.  But I think assuming otherwise has to ignore a pretty fair amount of commonly presented evidence.




Sure. I think granting the role of GM such a privileged position where the very rules of the game are subject to GM approval is advice that should be ignored. I realize that there are some folks for whom it works or is enjoyable. That’s fine. 

But as widespread advice or as a kind of default expectation? I think it’s terrible advice. 



Thomas Shey said:


> As you should be.  But that doesn't mean convincing yourself its not true does your ability to discuss the issues with others any favors.




There are significant numbers of games where that’s not the case, and significant numbers of folks I know who, even when playing traditional games, hold the social contract above the GM’s authority. 

Is it most? I don’t know, but I didn’t claim that it was.


----------



## bloodtide (Jun 8, 2022)

In games like D&D, a GM technically follows the rules, but it does not really matter because the GM is outside the rules.

The big thing is that a GM can just say things, make up and add whatever they want to a game world on a whim.  

A new, inexperienced,  clumsy, bad or a GM lacking any game mastery might just say "yuk yuk, the goblin is immune to your spells" and not have anything to back that up with.

A good, skilled, smooth, experienced or a GM with game mastery can with EASE make a "goblin with immunity to magic" by USING the rules.  The GM just says the goblin has x, that makes it immune to spells.

And sure, hostile players can watch every number, but it's a bit meaningless.  To say goblin Bob was hit with a roll of 12, so for some reason a roll of 12 must always hit is just silly.  The players hit Bob with a 12 on Monday, but when encountered again on Friday he has X to improve his defense....but the players would not know....but "suddenly" a 12 does not hit Bob anymore.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Jun 8, 2022)

hawkeyefan said:


> So we started off with talking about “defining edge cases” and that’s what my comments have been about.
> 
> You seem to have moved on to “adjudicating edge cases”.




Not really.  When it turns into a question of whether a GM can intervene, it can very easily turn into a "The rules say..." "They don't apply here." argument.  That's absolutely about whether its an edge case or not.



hawkeyefan said:


> Sure. I think granting the role of GM such a privileged position where the very rules of the game are subject to GM approval is advice that should be ignored. I realize that there are some folks for whom it works or is enjoyable. That’s fine.
> 
> But as widespread advice or as a kind of default expectation? I think it’s terrible advice.




I don't disagree with you.  I've been arguing against the Divine Right of GMs now for at least 25 years.  But that doesn't mean I doubt its an extremely common expectation.  Its been carried over from the earliest days of D&D, and barring games specifically designed with power-sharing assumptions, fairly few games even _try_ to move away from it that hard its so baked into assumptions in the hobby as a whole.




hawkeyefan said:


> There are significant numbers of games where that’s not the case, and significant numbers of folks I know who, even when playing traditional games, hold the social contract above the GM’s authority.




Significant /= majority.  Even if you pulled out the D&D-sphere I seriously doubt that would be true.



hawkeyefan said:


> Is it most? I don’t know, but I didn’t claim that it was.




When talking about things in a general sense, having an idea how most people are doing things is kind of important, though, and I'll note this thread is a general thread on the topic.


----------



## Campbell (Jun 8, 2022)

bloodtide said:


> In games like D&D, a GM technically follows the rules, but it does not really matter because the GM is outside the rules.
> 
> The big thing is that a GM can just say things, make up and add whatever they want to a game world on a whim.
> 
> ...



The type of rules you are speaking to here are not the constraints I'm speaking to. GM facing mechanics are basically pixie dust* (much of the time). They make us feel better, but they aren't really all that binding. The type of things players hold GMs accountable for in more traditional games are structural in nature. What sort of scenes are you allowed to frame? How do you treat space and time? Do things hold up to inspection? If I have a conversation with this NPC do they seem like a real person? If I gain leverage over the setting with information I have discovered is it effective?

You can only be accountable for things players can actually observe and care about enough. In terms of most traditional play that includes respecting fictional positioning, giving players a chance to suss out the information they need to succeed, the setting holding up under extended scrutiny, providing chances for characters to shine and players to feel awesome, giving players time to plan, etc.

* I'm not saying they never matter. GMs can exercise a great deal of self discipline to use them. I do when I run traditional games (which is quite often) I treat them very seriously, but as a player I never depend on them.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Jun 8, 2022)

Thomas Shey said:


> Not really.  When it turns into a question of whether a GM can intervene, it can very easily turn into a "The rules say..." "They don't apply here." argument.  That's absolutely about whether its an edge case or not.




Right, but I'm not denying the GM will be involved. They certainly will render decisions about what's an edge case or not. I just was saying that the players will, also (or should, in cases where that's not true). It should be a group activity. 



Thomas Shey said:


> I don't disagree with you.  I've been arguing against the Divine Right of GMs now for at least 25 years.  But that doesn't mean I doubt its an extremely common expectation.  Its been carried over from the earliest days of D&D, and barring games specifically designed with power-sharing assumptions, fairly few games even _try_ to move away from it that hard its so baked into assumptions in the hobby as a whole.




Sure, I recognize that. I think it should change.



Thomas Shey said:


> Significant /= majority.  Even if you pulled out the D&D-sphere I seriously doubt that would be true.




I don't know. I'm aware there's a significant portion of the DM population, and passive players who go along with it, who feel this way. It may be the majority. 



Thomas Shey said:


> When talking about things in a general sense, having an idea how most people are doing things is kind of important, though, and I'll note this thread is a general thread on the topic.




I think perhaps I was unclear. I don't think most instances of the text actually mean for this to be the case. I don't think a common sense reading of the text (meaning, reading it as you would any other game instruction book) would lead to the conclusions that are often drawn from a few passages in the books. 

Such is the drawback of natural language, though. It has benefits, but the 5e books certainly have many areas which are ambiguous, where other games are explicit. 

Those fuzzy areas are used as justification for something that I don't think is intended. 

I hope that is clearer. My point was not about how such passages often are interpreted, but rather how they should be.


----------



## overgeeked (Jun 8, 2022)

bloodtide said:


> In games like D&D, a GM technically follows the rules, but it does not really matter because the GM is outside the rules.



In all games with referees the referee is outside the rules. The referee changes the rules and the players have no recourse but to put up with it or walk. What can they do? Appeal to the rules? The referee is already ignoring the rules. Appeal to the referee? They already made up their mind.

The rules cannot protect players from the referee. 


bloodtide said:


> The big thing is that a GM can just say things, make up and add whatever they want to a game world on a whim.



Exactly. 


bloodtide said:


> A new, inexperienced,  clumsy, bad or a GM lacking any game mastery might just say "yuk yuk, the goblin is immune to your spells" and not have anything to back that up with.
> 
> A good, skilled, smooth, experienced or a GM with game mastery can with EASE make a "goblin with immunity to magic" by USING the rules.  The GM just says the goblin has x, that makes it immune to spells.



And the only difference is in how it’s presented to the players. The players can’t demand to see the stat block. They can. But the referee will likely laugh. 


bloodtide said:


> And sure, hostile players can watch every number, but it's a bit meaningless. To say goblin Bob was hit with a roll of 12, so for some reason a roll of 12 must always hit is just silly. The players hit Bob with a 12 on Monday, but when encountered again on Friday he has X to improve his defense...but the players would not know...but "suddenly" a 12 does not hit Bob anymore.



Yeah. It’s such a weird mindset. Players looking for gotchas or wanting to thump a rulebook and tut tut the referee for making something up…when that’s literally their job.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Jun 8, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> In all games with referees the referee is outside the rules. The referee changes the rules and the players have no recourse but to put up with it or walk. What can they do? Appeal to the rules? The referee is already ignoring the rules. Appeal to the referee? They already made up their mind.
> 
> The rules cannot protect players from the referee.
> 
> ...



Interesting argument.  Rules don't matter because people can break the rules.  GM are special because they're above the rules, and there is no recourse.  

Rules that constrain what the GM is supposed to do in the game are pointless because the GM is above the rules and there is no recourse.

Rules that attempt to constrain the GM are only there to prevent the GM from breaking the rules, which is pointless because the GM is above the rules and there is no recourse.

Players just need to accept that they are at the mercy of the GM, that the game they think they're playing isn't anything at all, because the GM is above the rules and there is no recourse.

Of course, we need to close with the important reiteration of the mantra that you should trust your GM.  Because they are above the rules and there is no recourse, so, really, what other choice do you really have?


----------



## Thomas Shey (Jun 8, 2022)

hawkeyefan said:


> I hope that is clearer. My point was not about how such passages often are interpreted, but rather how they should be.




Then I think we've simply been talking past each other.  No harm, no foul.


----------



## macd21 (Jun 8, 2022)

Ovinomancer said:


> Interesting argument.  Rules don't matter because people can break the rules.  GM are special because they're above the rules, and there is no recourse.
> 
> Rules that constrain what the GM is supposed to do in the game are pointless because the GM is above the rules and there is no recourse.
> 
> ...




The other choice you have is to not play the game. If you don’t like what the GM is doing, don’t play with that GM. That's your recourse.

I’ve been in plenty of games where the GM has broken the rules. It never had any bearing on whether the game was fun or not. Conversely I had a GM who was often a total ass, and yet who was a stickler for the rules. We stopped playing with him because he occasionally liked to make certain players' lives miserable - but he didn't have to break a single rule to do so.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Jun 8, 2022)

macd21 said:


> The other choice you have is to not play the game. If you don’t like what the GM is doing, don’t play with that GM. That's your recourse.
> 
> I’ve been in plenty of games where the GM has broken the rules. It never had any bearing on whether the game was fun or not. Conversely I had a GM who was often a total ass, and yet who was a stickler for the rules. We stopped playing with him because he occasionally liked to make certain players' lives miserable - but he didn't have to break a single rule to do so.




I’ve been in games where the GM disregarded the rules and it did impact our fun. And we talked it out, and came to a resolution to avoid it in the future. And the game improved.

I’ve also, as a GM, solicited feedback from my players and then actually taken it into consideration. And our game improved as a result. 

This idea that rules don’t matter just seems so alien to me. They absolutely matter. 

And of course there’s recourse other than some all or nothing approach. Simply behave like adults and have a discussion and sort it out.


----------



## overgeeked (Jun 8, 2022)

Ovinomancer said:


> Interesting argument. Rules don't matter because people can break the rules. GM are special because they're above the rules, and there is no recourse...





hawkeyefan said:


> This idea that rules don’t matter just seems so alien to me. They absolutely matter.



That's not actually the argument. The rules do matter. System does matter. Absolutely. Clearly the rules matter, otherwise this wouldn't be such a contentious topic. The rules and system 100% limit and constrain everyone's imagination and focus it into certain areas. The rules define the limits and boundaries of the play. With a lot of wiggle room, of course. It's an RPG with a referee there to adjudicate things when the rules don't cover something...or to change the rules when they feel the need.

The argument is that there's no authority above the referee to force the referee to comply. Appeal to the rules? That's not going to end well, as we'll get to in a moment. It's a social situation. One person is the referee. The players can appeal to the same referee who's already decided that they want to change some rule or ignore it. What recourse do they have? Write a strongly worded email to WotC? Jump on twitter? Make a reddit post? A post here? What does that accomplish, exactly? Generally nothing. But, what they can do is...


hawkeyefan said:


> And of course there’s recourse other than some all or nothing approach. Simply behave like adults and have a discussion and sort it out.



Exactly. The people involved can discuss it. And they can come to an agreement. But there's basically five options here. 1) The referee relents. 2) The referee is adamant, the players accept it, and everyone keeps playing together. 3) The referee is adamant, the players don't accept it, and everyone quits playing together. 4) Everyone reaches a compromise. 5) Split result of some players staying and some players walking.

"But the rules!?" you say. The referee is in charge of the rules. It's in the rules that the referee is in charge of the rules. The players accepting that the referee is in charge of the rules _is_ literally the players following the rules. So appealing to the rules about how the referee needs to follow the rules is not a winning argument.

"The rules don't say the DM's in charge of the rules!"

Yes, they explicitly do.

"A Dungeon Master gets to wear many hats. As the architect of a campaign, the DM creates adventures by placing monsters, traps, and treasures for the other players' characters (the adventurers) to discover. As a storyteller, the DM helps the other players visualize what's happening around them, improvising when the adventurers do something or go somewhere unexpected. As an actor, the DM plays the roles of the monsters and supporting characters, breathing life into them. *And as a referee, the DM interprets the rules and decides when to abide by them and when to change them*." DMG, p4. 

So, we're back to one. The referee can change the rules. The players can accept any given change or walk. There is no appeal to a higher authority, like say the rules...because the rules explicitly give the referee this power. WotC staffers are not standing by to come to your referee's house and take their DMG away.

The argument about trusting the referee is utterly bizarre. So...you trust this person enough to invest your time, energy, and creativity with them...spend hours talking, laughing, enjoying each other's company (hopefully)...share meals, if you're friends outside the game you might work through good times and bad...and generally become really close with each other over years of playing together. In meatspace, in the before times, I've heard tell that people actually met up...went to each others' houses...met each others' spouses, kids, and pets. So this other human being that you're letting into a significant part of your life, literally your dreams and imagination, into your home, or they're letting you into their home...that same person can be trusted with all that...can be trusted to I dunno, not steal from you, not harm you, etc...can be trusted to not shout "rocks fall, everyone dies!" and mean it...can be trusted to provide some level of gaming entertainment, interesting description and storytelling...to do or not do the laundry list of most gamers' basic expectations, such as fairness, not playing favorites, etc...but that same person absolutely cannot and never should be trusted to decide on a rule change in an elfgame. 

Honestly. If you don't trust the referee, why are you playing with them? You put all that trust in them, generally without batting an eye. Yet the rules is a line too far? Come on.


----------



## macd21 (Jun 8, 2022)

hawkeyefan said:


> I’ve been in games where the GM disregarded the rules and it did impact our fun. And we talked it out, and came to a resolution to avoid it in the future. And the game improved.
> 
> I’ve also, as a GM, solicited feedback from my players and then actually taken it into consideration. And our game improved as a result.
> 
> ...



The rules matter. Whether the GM obeys them or not doesn’t. 

Certainly if it bothers you, you can talk to your GM about it. And they’ll either agree with you, or they won’t — at which point you can continue playing with them, or stop. But a GM deciding to ignore the rules can still be a great GM. And a GM who obeys every rule can be terrible. It’s something that bothers some players, but it isn’t really an important factor in determining whether a GM is good or not. If anything, I think knowing when to ignore the rules is a valuable GM skill. I’d rather play with a GM who’ll ditch the rules on occasion than one who never does so.


----------



## Yora (Jun 8, 2022)

Reynard said:


> Emphasis mine.
> 
> That is a strange word choice. Maybe "dispassionate" is better? Or just "fair"? I am a fan of my players and usually their PCs, but I also play the world like the worl -- NPCs act like I imagine they would, and nature doesn't care one way or the other.



No. Disinterested is precisely the exact term that I mean. In many games, and I would argue most games, the GM should have no preference for what the players do, and whether their actions are successful or not. The GM should not be inclined to bend things in the players' favor or against it. Simply look at the situation objectively and proceed with the results of rolls as they fell.

Apocalypse World is one prominent example of games where that is not the case. But most games are designed with the GM meant to be objective with no preferences, so that any accomolishments and failures of the players are their own work and not the GM's whim.


----------



## Reynard (Jun 8, 2022)

Yora said:


> No. Disinterested is precisely the exact term that I mean. In many games, and I would argue most games, the GM should have no preference for what the players do, and whether their actions are successful or not.



"We try and sneak along the wall, staying hidden while the ritual goes on, until we can get to the prisoner cages and release them before the sacrifice begins."
"Whatever."


----------



## Reynard (Jun 8, 2022)

Serious question: why does AW (and by extension PbtA in general) even have a GM. It seems like the role as defined above could be performed by a set of charts governing situations and die roll results.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Jun 8, 2022)

Reynard said:


> Serious question: why does AW (and by extension PbtA in general) even have a GM. It seems like the role as defined above could be performed by a set of charts governing situations and die roll results.



It cannot.  You have a very incorrect view of how the game plays.

Given that D&D has had a number of successful computer game adaptations, where your argument is literally true, but there's no way to do so for PbtA, this is somewhat of an own goal.


----------



## Reynard (Jun 8, 2022)

Ovinomancer said:


> It cannot.  You have a very incorrect view of how the game plays.
> 
> Given that D&D has had a number of successful computer game adaptations, where your argument is literally true, but there's no way to do so for PbtA, this is somewhat of an own goal.



So what does the GM do in AW if they don't decide what happens?


----------



## Ovinomancer (Jun 8, 2022)

Reynard said:


> So what does the GM do in AW if they don't decide what happens?



You remember @Campbell's post about some example AW play earlier in this thread?  You commented on it at least twice.  I'm struggling to reconcile your comments about that example of play and the above question, and I'll admit it's hard to take this question as being in good faith.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Jun 8, 2022)

macd21 said:


> The other choice you have is to not play the game. If you don’t like what the GM is doing, don’t play with that GM. That's your recourse.
> 
> I’ve been in plenty of games where the GM has broken the rules. It never had any bearing on whether the game was fun or not. Conversely I had a GM who was often a total ass, and yet who was a stickler for the rules. We stopped playing with him because he occasionally liked to make certain players' lives miserable - but he didn't have to break a single rule to do so.



This is the same thing if a player breaks the rules.  Players can break rules without repercussion just as much as the GM can.  The only difference is the artificial social difference that the GM is indispensable while players are interchangeable.  So, of course, the answer to this is that the GM can kick the player out of the GM's game.  That this structure exists -- the GM's game -- is a fairly toxic outgrowth of the hobby.  It's essentially saying that since you have an assigned role in a game, that you now have real world social authority over others that play the same game but do not have your role.  It's a usurping of a healthy social contract at the table.  Everyone at the table should be equal outside the game, and all should have the same authority to call out others that break the norms of the social contract, which can very much include breaking the agreed rules of the game being played under that contract.  GMs included equally with players.

But, no, I get it, GMs have to be better people than players because they volunteer to put in more work and gain enjoyment from doing so but that's not enough, you also need to have unhealthy social authority with which to lord it over those players.


----------



## Aldarc (Jun 8, 2022)

Reynard said:


> "We try and sneak along the wall, staying hidden while the ritual goes on, until we can get to the prisoner cages and release them before the sacrifice begins."



Spencer from Harmonquest: "You do that."


----------



## Mannahnin (Jun 8, 2022)

Reynard said:


> "We try and sneak along the wall, staying hidden while the ritual goes on, until we can get to the prisoner cages and release them before the sacrifice begins."
> "Whatever."



_Dis_interested, as in not having a personal stake or bias toward an outcome, not *UN*interested as in uncaring.



Aldarc said:


> "We try and sneak along the wall, staying hidden while the ritual goes on, until we can get to the prisoner cages and release them before the sacrifice begins."
> 
> Spencer from Harmonquest: "You do that."



Yup.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Jun 8, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> That's not actually the argument. The rules do matter. System does matter. Absolutely. Clearly the rules matter, otherwise this wouldn't be such a contentious topic. The rules and system 100% limit and constrain everyone's imagination and focus it into certain areas. The rules define the limits and boundaries of the play. With a lot of wiggle room, of course. It's an RPG with a referee there to adjudicate things when the rules don't cover something...or to change the rules when they feel the need.
> 
> The argument is that there's no authority above the referee to force the referee to comply. Appeal to the rules? That's not going to end well, as we'll get to in a moment. It's a social situation. One person is the referee. The players can appeal to the same referee who's already decided that they want to change some rule or ignore it. What recourse do they have? Write a strongly worded email to WotC? Jump on twitter? Make a reddit post? A post here? What does that accomplish, exactly? Generally nothing. But, what they can do is...
> 
> ...



The fault here is the assumption that the GM is specially privileged at the social contract level.  I absolutely can appeal a ruling in the game, I can appeal it to the table.  The continuing idea that the GM is socially privileged because they have a role in the game being played is bogus.  This hobby has a particularly toxic attitude that players complaining about how the GM runs the game is bad behavior.  GM's are above reproach.  You see this in so many statements like 'there are always more players.'


----------



## Mannahnin (Jun 8, 2022)

Ovinomancer said:


> The fault here is the assumption that the GM is specially privileged at the social contract level.  I absolutely can appeal a ruling in the game, I can appeal it to the table.  The continuing idea that the GM is socially privileged because they have a role in the game being played is bogus.  This hobby has a particularly toxic attitude that players complaining about how the GM runs the game is bad behavior.  GM's are above reproach.  You see this in so many statements like 'there are always more players.'



Ugh.  I'm definitely somewhere in the middle.  The GM is by no means above reproach.  But in most groups they ARE put in a position of doing a lot more work to create the game and make it enjoyable, and entrusted with a lot of responsibility both as author of the game's content and referee of its conflicts.  I will quote Uncle Ben once more that "with great power comes great responsibility", which is applicable; the GM is indeed normally privileged and given benefit of the doubt/deference, while still within the bounds of a social contract.


----------



## Reynard (Jun 8, 2022)

Ovinomancer said:


> You remember @Campbell's post about some example AW play earlier in this thread?  You commented on it at least twice.  I'm struggling to reconcile your comments about that example of play and the above question, and I'll admit it's hard to take this question as being in good faith.



Take it however you want.

The way I understood his explanation was that the GM in AW does not have the same authority to conduct the trad loop of explain-listen-explain. So I was musing and thinking that the model seems like a reasonable base for a GM-less game, since you can use procedural generators to "make life hard for the PCs."

But feel free to continue to respond in bad faith.


----------



## Reynard (Jun 8, 2022)

Aldarc said:


> Spencer from Harmonquest: "You do that."



I see. I don't think that is particularly satisfying from a play perspective, though.


----------



## AnotherGuy (Jun 8, 2022)

macd21 said:


> The rules matter. Whether the GM obeys them or not doesn’t.



I believe the frequency with which the GM obeys the rules (whether RAW or Homebrewed) plays a major role.
Also we may have differing view on what _disobeying rules_ is.

For me it would have to be a pretty big infraction and & which made no in-game sense. 
Increasing a monster's health by 20hp or giving it an additional Legendary Action or advantage on an attack for something in game is not breaking the rules in my book.


----------



## Mannahnin (Jun 8, 2022)

Reynard said:


> I see. I don't think that is particularly satisfying from a play perspective, though.



I believe the "you do that" is a response to "we try to sneak along the wall", or "we try to sneak along the wall and stay hidden while the ritual goes on", rather than a declaration that the entire plan works and the prisoners are now free.  Although I guess it could be.

My adjudication would usually include a little more enthusiastic narration, adding some details and color/drama, even if the fundamental ruling is "yup, your plan to get there worked and you're now at the cages, apparently undetected".


----------



## Reynard (Jun 8, 2022)

AnotherGuy said:


> I believe the frequency with which the GM obeys the rules (whether RAW or Homebrewed) plays a major role.
> Also we may have differing view on what _disobeying rules_ is.
> 
> For me it would have to be a pretty big infraction and & which made no in-game sense.
> Increasing a monster's health by 20hp or giving it an additional Legendary Action or advantage on an attack for something in game is not breaking the rules in my book.



I think intent matters. If the Gm does those things to make the game more fun, it is a positive. If they do it because they are mad that the PCs are winning, it is bad. As someone who is CONSTANTLY out played (tactically) by my players (I'm just not a great tactician), I am always trying to do the former without doing it because of the latter.


----------



## Reynard (Jun 8, 2022)

Mannahnin said:


> I believe the "you do that" is a response to "we try to sneak along the wall", or "we try to sneak along the wall and stay hidden while the ritual goes on", rather than a declaration that the entire plan works and the prisoners are now free.  Although I guess it could be.
> 
> My adjudication would usually include a little more enthusiastic narration, adding some details and color/drama, even if the fundamental ruling is "yup, your plan to get there worked and you're now at the cages, apparently undetected".



I think there are inflection points ina  description of action like that, places where interesting stuff can happen depending on how things go. I tend to want to take it one step at a time, up to each inflection point, and see what happens based on the dice and the choices the players make.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Jun 8, 2022)

Reynard said:


> Take it however you want.
> 
> The way I understood his explanation was that the GM in AW does not have the same authority to conduct the trad loop of explain-listen-explain. So I was musing and thinking that the model seems like a reasonable base for a GM-less game, since you can use procedural generators to "make life hard for the PCs."



Yes, he was saying the game has a different structure to play.  This loop doesn't make sense for how AW plays at all -- it doesn't play like this.  This question is like asking why players in Risk aren't buying properties and charging rent because that's how Monopoly works.


Reynard said:


> But feel free to continue to respond in bad faith.



I'm not the one that opened this by asking if another game isn't just better off with charts.  Your questions aren't coming across as actually interested in learning about a different game that plays very differently, but rather looking to find ways to dismiss and belittle it.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Jun 8, 2022)

AnotherGuy said:


> I believe the frequency with which the GM obeys the rules (whether RAW or Homebrewed) plays a major role.
> Also we may have differing view on what _disobeying rules_ is.
> 
> For me it would have to be a pretty big infraction and & which made no in-game sense.
> Increasing a monster's health by 20hp or giving it an additional Legendary Action or advantage on an attack for something in game is not breaking the rules in my book.



It would be in mine.  Absolutely, 100% of the time.  Whether or not it's acceptable to the social contract of the table, though, is open.  We can give permission to change the rules, and even permission to one person to have great leeway to do so. but this authority comes from the social contract at the table and does not inhere to a game role.  The game role of GM is given their authorities by the rules of the game.  I'm fundamentally floored that a game role defined by rules is somehow completely free of them and yet retains the authorities defined by the rules.  And that this authority is being leveraged up to above the table social contract!


----------



## Mannahnin (Jun 8, 2022)

Reynard said:


> I think there are inflection points ina  description of action like that, places where interesting stuff can happen depending on how things go. I tend to want to take it one step at a time, up to each inflection point, and see what happens based on the dice and the choices the players make.



Sure.  But whether it's more satisfying from a play perspective to stop and play out each little step or to swish cut ahead past the smaller details to the next potential or actual crisis point is kind of a matter of taste.  

IME taking it one step at a time is a pretty common approach in D&D (which is what I'm most familiar with), but I can definitely see how running or playing in the previously-described AW situation would be fun and suspenseful, while playing faster.


----------



## AnotherGuy (Jun 8, 2022)

Ovinomancer said:


> It would be in mine.  Absolutely, 100% of the time.



Lets put social contract aside for the sake of conversation.

The hit points listed in the MM are the average, therefore one could technically increase them.
If you (as a player) had not read the MM, and fought a creature, and the DM played it differently (additional Legendary Action) and you would only discover this while reading the stats of the creature post game, would you then accuse the DM of cheating or breaking the rules?
Do you never amend monsters as DM?

To be clear I'm not talking about Adventure League games. In that constructed game format I'd expect all to play the rules down to the T.


----------



## Campbell (Jun 8, 2022)

Apocalypse World is absolutely dependent on GM judgement in terms of framing the situation, resolving consequences, shifting the spotlight from player to player, what sort of GM move is appropriate to keep the situation moving forward that both follows the fiction and puts the appropriate level of pressure on the appropriate player's character. In general when running Apocalypse World I am making judgement calls approximately every minute of play. They're just different ones.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Jun 8, 2022)

AnotherGuy said:


> Lets put social contract aside for the sake of conversation.
> 
> The hit points listed in the MM are the average, therefore one could technically increase them.



I took you to be saying adding hitpoints during a combat.  If you mean rolling hitpoints, or selecting a different value from the average (and including this choice in encounter design), then sure, that's within the set of choices the GM is allowed to make under the rules. 


AnotherGuy said:


> If you (as a player) had not read the MM, and fought a creature, and the DM played it differently (additional Legendary Action) and you would only discover this while reading the stats of the creature post game, would you then accuse the DM of cheating or breaking the rules?



Depends, were such changes included in encounter design?  Did the GM follow the rules for making changes to or creating new monsters?  The GM has many things they can do under the rules, but there's still rules for those.


AnotherGuy said:


> Do you never amend monsters as DM?



You seem to be on a kick of pointing out things there are rules for as a defense for not following the rules.


AnotherGuy said:


> To be clear I'm not talking about Adventure League games. In that constructed game format you play the rules down to the T.



 There seems to be quite a lot of leeway in AL games as well.  5e is a poorly constructed ruleset for providing clear rules of play, even with AL guidelines, and quite often just plugs the GM in as the rules.  To be clear, this is within the rules -- how stealth works is up to your GM, per the rules.  The GM being a total jerk about stealth and denying it in most all cases is by the rules of the game.  That's a different problem.  Here we're talking about if the GM is actually beholden to the rules or if they're special with regard to not having any rules apply to them.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Jun 8, 2022)

Campbell said:


> Apocalypse World is absolutely dependent on GM judgement in terms of framing the situation, resolving consequences, shifting the spotlight from player to player, what sort of GM move is appropriate to keep the situation moving forward that both follows the fiction and puts the appropriate level of pressure on the appropriate player's character. In general when running Apocalypse World I am making judgement calls approximately every minute of play. They're just different ones.



With different constraints from D&D.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Jun 8, 2022)

macd21 said:


> The rules matter. Whether the GM obeys them or not doesn’t.




My experience tells me this is very much not true.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Jun 8, 2022)

AnotherGuy said:


> I believe the frequency with which the GM obeys the rules (whether RAW or Homebrewed) plays a major role.
> Also we may have differing view on what _disobeying rules_ is.
> 
> For me it would have to be a pretty big infraction and & which made no in-game sense.
> Increasing a monster's health by 20hp or giving it an additional Legendary Action or advantage on an attack for something in game is not breaking the rules in my book.




Usually the most disruptive cases I've seen are GMs deciding a rule doesn't apply for reasons that are either only in his head or only matter to him.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Jun 8, 2022)

Reynard said:


> I think intent matters. If the Gm does those things to make the game more fun, it is a positive. If they do it because they are mad that the PCs are winning, it is bad. As someone who is CONSTANTLY out played (tactically) by my players (I'm just not a great tactician), I am always trying to do the former without doing it because of the latter.




The problem is there's a middle case; where the GM thinks it makes the game better but the players far from agree.  Or as I put it "Failures of motivation are a reason to walk away from a GM; failures of judgment have to be extended more slack, however."


----------



## Reynard (Jun 8, 2022)

Thomas Shey said:


> The problem is there's a middle case; where the GM thinks it makes the game better but the players far from agree.  Or as I put it "Failures of motivation are a reason to walk away from a GM; failures of judgment have to be extended more slack, however."



Yeah. it is easy, even for experienced GMs, to err in trying to make something cool or fun or whatever. Luckily, the game is a conversation, so we can talk about it when things don't go quite right.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Jun 8, 2022)

Mannahnin said:


> Sure.  But whether it's more satisfying from a play perspective to stop and play out each little step or to swish cut ahead past the smaller details to the next potential or actual crisis point is kind of a matter of taste.




Yup.  Its one of the issues with conflict versus task resolution.  People who prefer the latter often do want to sweat the details, but that doesn't make it intrinsically superior.  The alternative is a case of removing things the people involved don't care about (which I can respect) and improving speed of resolution (which I'm intrinsically less sympathetic to, because its often used as an excuse to cut out parts of what I often consider the interesting parts of the play loop).


----------



## Yora (Jun 8, 2022)

<disregard>


----------



## Thomas Shey (Jun 8, 2022)

Reynard said:


> Yeah. it is easy, even for experienced GMs, to err in trying to make something cool or fun or whatever. Luckily, the game is a conversation, so we can talk about it when things don't go quite right.




Or, honestly, just be in a hurry or have a blindspot.

You're correct that talking about it can solve a lot of this--if people were only more consistently good about doing that (and of course it gets back to the thing that some people have such a fixation on speed that anything that slows the game is considered close to a cardinal sin).


----------



## AnotherGuy (Jun 8, 2022)

Ovinomancer said:


> Depends, were such changes included in encounter design?  Did the GM follow the rules for making changes to or creating new monsters? The GM has many things they can do under the rules, but there's still rules for those.



Fair enough. To be honest, I do not bother with that given that encounter design is predominantly eye-balled based on my experience of the power level of the group which is significant given our house-rules and secondly I have dropped the xp and milestone awarding of XP for our current campaign favouring to level up at specific parts in the multi-AP.

EDIT: Not that I never use the encounter design rules, but likely for the most critical of fights - closing a chapter or module.



Ovinomancer said:


> You seem to be on a kick of pointing out things there are rules for as a defense for not following the rules.



That wasn't done on purpose. It was just a misunderstanding on my part.



Ovinomancer said:


> There seems to be quite a lot of leeway in AL games as well.  5e is a poorly constructed ruleset for providing clear rules of play, even with AL guidelines, and quite often just plugs the GM in as the rules.  To be clear, this is within the rules -- how stealth works is up to your GM, per the rules.  The GM being a total jerk about stealth and denying it in most all cases is by the rules of the game.  That's a different problem.  Here we're talking about if the GM is actually beholden to the rules or if they're special with regard to not having any rules apply to them.



As relevant as all that is and although I have never experienced AL play, I would consider myself as DM to be far more reserved during an AL game. Our own game has a lot of home-brewery, hence my questioning of _breaking rules, _given how fluid I design and run encounters.


----------



## Aldarc (Jun 8, 2022)

Yora said:


> <disregard>



No.


----------



## AnotherGuy (Jun 8, 2022)

Thomas Shey said:


> Usually the most disruptive cases I've seen are GMs deciding a rule doesn't apply for reasons that are either only in his head or only matter to him.



Does something come to mind? Is it possible for you to provide an example that is considered disruptive?

EDIT: Like if a DM ignores a success or a failure on a die roll that would be disruptive for our table.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Jun 8, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> That's not actually the argument. The rules do matter. System does matter. Absolutely. Clearly the rules matter, otherwise this wouldn't be such a contentious topic. The rules and system 100% limit and constrain everyone's imagination and focus it into certain areas. The rules define the limits and boundaries of the play. With a lot of wiggle room, of course. It's an RPG with a referee there to adjudicate things when the rules don't cover something...or to change the rules when they feel the need.
> 
> The argument is that there's no authority above the referee to force the referee to comply. Appeal to the rules? That's not going to end well, as we'll get to in a moment. It's a social situation. One person is the referee. The players can appeal to the same referee who's already decided that they want to change some rule or ignore it. What recourse do they have? Write a strongly worded email to WotC? Jump on twitter? Make a reddit post? A post here? What does that accomplish, exactly? Generally nothing. But, what they can do is...
> 
> Exactly. The people involved can discuss it. And they can come to an agreement. But there's basically five options here. 1) The referee relents. 2) The referee is adamant, the players accept it, and everyone keeps playing together. 3) The referee is adamant, the players don't accept it, and everyone quits playing together. 4) Everyone reaches a compromise. 5) Split result of some players staying and some players walking.




So we've gone from one recourse to several. How was I wrong to say there was more than two options? 



overgeeked said:


> "But the rules!?" you say. The referee is in charge of the rules. It's in the rules that the referee is in charge of the rules. The players accepting that the referee is in charge of the rules _is_ literally the players following the rules. So appealing to the rules about how the referee needs to follow the rules is not a winning argument.
> 
> "The rules don't say the DM's in charge of the rules!"
> 
> ...




A few things on this.

You've created a chicken/egg situation by citing the DM's authority as described by the rules. If the DM gets their authority from the rules, then I don't think we can accept that the rules are not the source of authority. 

The rules do give the DM the authority to revise rules as needed. I don't think that the intention is for the DM to simply start ignoring rules and doing anything he feels like. No, such authority is given with the expectation of being exercised responsibly. How is such responsible use to be determined? By the participants as a collective, with the text as their guide. 

If the DM overturns a rule, and a player questions it, I think we can all agree that the DM should have a justification for it. The bit from the DMG you've cited is not an invitation to just ditch all the rules and do things however you want. Otherwise the DMG would be one page long and all that it would say would be the bit you've quoted. 

Anyone sitting down at a new table should have the expectation that play will go according to the rules. That changes can be made to these rules does not invalidate them. 

Finally, and perhaps most relevantly, we're not only talking about D&D here. You've quoted the DMG. I could quote other games where there is no equivalent "rule zero" type of text. This is simply not true of all RPGs. I don't think it's true of D&D, but with other games there's not even a doubt. 



overgeeked said:


> The argument about trusting the referee is utterly bizarre. So...you trust this person enough to invest your time, energy, and creativity with them...spend hours talking, laughing, enjoying each other's company (hopefully)...share meals, if you're friends outside the game you might work through good times and bad...and generally become really close with each other over years of playing together. In meatspace, in the before times, I've heard tell that people actually met up...went to each others' houses...met each others' spouses, kids, and pets. So this other human being that you're letting into a significant part of your life, literally your dreams and imagination, into your home, or they're letting you into their home...that same person can be trusted with all that...can be trusted to I dunno, not steal from you, not harm you, etc...can be trusted to not shout "rocks fall, everyone dies!" and mean it...can be trusted to provide some level of gaming entertainment, interesting description and storytelling...to do or not do the laundry list of most gamers' basic expectations, such as fairness, not playing favorites, etc...but that same person absolutely cannot and never should be trusted to decide on a rule change in an elfgame.
> 
> Honestly. If you don't trust the referee, why are you playing with them? You put all that trust in them, generally without batting an eye. Yet the rules is a line too far? Come on.




You've flat out stated you trust no players, so I don't know why all of a sudden trust is so important to you. According to what you've said, you trust no one you game with. 

People aren't perfect, so all this stuff about trust is just a distraction. Like, I have people who I'd trust my life with....but I would not let them pick the movie for movie night because their taste in movies sucks. One has nothing to do with the other. 

The kind of "I needs all teh power" GMs that you're describing don't seem to be the kind of "I don't mind relinquishing my authority to the dice and/or the players" that I'd prefer to game with. When I GM I don't want or need all that authority. I absolutely enjoy finding out what happens as a result of play not as a result of my decisions as GM.  

I'll go one step further. I think GMing with constraints actually requires more skill to do than GMing without constraints. I like the creative challenge that it offers me as a GM. 



macd21 said:


> The rules matter. Whether the GM obeys them or not doesn’t.




It clearly does.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Jun 8, 2022)

AnotherGuy said:


> Does something come to mind? Is it possible for you to provide an example that is considered disruptive?
> 
> EDIT: Like if a DM ignores a success or a failure on a die roll that would be disruptive for our table.




Its usually about concepts of how the setting works rather than anything about the game-play cycle; that in that context, Rule X shouldn't apply because of setting-based reasons.  The alternate is because the rule seems to violate something that is the GM's understanding of how something works in the real world (and where nothing in the setting says it should work otherwise, so...).

As I noted, sometimes you don't even know _why_ a GM does something like this; its only going on in the GM's head and he  doesn't chose to share.


----------



## overgeeked (Jun 8, 2022)

hawkeyefan said:


> You've created a chicken/egg situation by citing the DM's authority as described by the rules. If the DM gets their authority from the rules, then I don't think we can accept that the rules are not the source of authority...
> 
> Finally, and perhaps most relevantly, we're not only talking about D&D here. You've quoted the DMG. I could quote other games where there is no equivalent "rule zero" type of text. This is simply not true of all RPGs. I don't think it's true of D&D, but with other games there's not even a doubt.



You seem to place primacy on the rules as written in the book. So I pointed out that the rules as written in the book give the referee authority over the rules, including interpretation and changing thereof. Many other games have similar explicitly stated text. Some don't, sure. Most traditional games and even some non-traditional games have similar text. It's mostly in the indie scene where this norm is broken. So while technically true that not every game has this setup, it's basically irrelevant as the vast majority of games as written and games that are actually played do.

The referee's authority derives from the social contract. Everyone agrees that this person will be in charge of the game. They trust the referee to run the game, provide interesting experiences, etc. Some players insist that trust goes only so far as following the rules to the letter, reducing the referee to some kind of wetware to run the software of the rules. Others are a bit more...open minded about things.

The point of having a person run the game instead of a computer is that freedom of choice. The ability to go off the map. To zig when the module thinks you can only zag. To create and run unique adventures molded to the PCs at the table instead of a generic party. To be creative and make rulings that suit the table. So why lessen that flexibility? Why would you? Just run a solo game at that point or play a video game.


hawkeyefan said:


> I don't think that the intention is for the DM to simply start ignoring rules and doing anything he feels like.



That's what you assume they will do. Literally no one's said that's what they will do or even want to do. I certainly haven't.

You keep saying things like this as if without the rules as written being followed perfectly, only, and precisely it's inevitable anarchy and chaos. I get that exaggerated rhetoric is just a thing on the internet, but come on. Which is why I quoted chapter and verse earlier. You really seem to be into the RAW as authority above everything else. I'm pointing out that's simply not true.

The point of contention seems to be ultimate authority (as in final say). At the end of the conversation it comes down to the referee and players hashing things out or no longer playing together. But at no point can the players demand and expect the referee to do something a particular way. Nor can the referee demand same. But, as the referee, with all the power and responsibility that goes with it, they can and often do step up to that line. Quite often, the players ask them to. Each and every single time the players do something that's not precisely covered by the rules. They trust the referee to make the call. If the players cannot convince the referee to do it how they want, the players have one choice: stay or go. There's no appeal to authority to be made. That's my point. At the end of the conversation, the referee makes the call. The players can stay or walk. But there's no appeals.

You _do_ trust the referee to improvise and make up rules to cover the things you want to do, but, paradoxically, you also _don't_ trust the referee to improvise and make up rules to cover the things you want to do. Seriously. Pick one. Either it's referee as wetware-automaton entirely beholden to the rules, or it's referee as thinking person able to make a call.


hawkeyefan said:


> No, such authority is given with the expectation of being exercised responsibly.



How is responsibility defined here? Can you recognize that there are different types of responsibility and that what one thinks is being responsible another would think is irresponsible? Once you acknowledge that, this very quickly goes back to trusting each other.


hawkeyefan said:


> How is such responsible use to be determined? By the participants as a collective, with the text as their guide.



Rules as guidelines, yes. Not written in stone.


hawkeyefan said:


> If the DM overturns a rule, and a player questions it, I think we can all agree that the DM should have a justification for it.



Absolutely. Now, what happens if/when the players do not accept that justification?

They go back to having one choice: stay or walk.


hawkeyefan said:


> The bit from the DMG you've cited is not an invitation to just ditch all the rules and do things however you want. Otherwise the DMG would be one page long and all that it would say would be the bit you've quoted.



Again, you instantly jump to anarchy and chaos. No one's said that but you. The fact is the referee can change and interpret the rules. Even without the book making that explicit.


hawkeyefan said:


> You've flat out stated you trust no players, so I don't know why all of a sudden trust is so important to you. According to what you've said, you trust no one you game with.



Trust is always important. Without trust we can't do anything. Assume people won't break your trust, and when they do, don't trust them after. I've refereed more than played in the nearly 40 years I've been engaged with the hobby. Referees need a whole lot more trust than players do. Players need to be trusted to honestly create a character and honestly engage with the game. The referee has to be trusted with...literally everything else that goes into an RPG. Something that you'd expect your referee to do, like fudging a number on a monster statblock is something you'd bounce a player for doing, i.e. giving themselves extra hit points, spells, spell slots, attacks, levels, gold, etc. The roles are not the same. The expectations are not the same. Pretending they are is not...wise.


hawkeyefan said:


> People aren't perfect...



Exactly. So why is the imperfect designer who's never met you in your life more trustworthy to make a rule than the referee sitting across from you who's played with you for years? The person at your table knows you infinitely better than some rando on the far side of the country. The rule some designer wrote down is not sacrosanct. The ruling your referee made is not immediately suspicious.


hawkeyefan said:


> Like, I have people who I'd trust my life with...but I would not let them pick the movie for movie night because their taste in movies sucks. One has nothing to do with the other.



Note how "would not let" in that sentence is you stating you don't trust them. So this person you trust with your life, you don't trust with your entertainment. That's pointing out there are different categories of trust. I'm not talking about trusting someone with your life. I'm talking about trusting the person you already trust with your entertainment...to keep being trustworthy with your entertainment. You already trust the referee with your entertainment, otherwise you wouldn't be sitting at their table. But you, for some reason, don't trust them with your entertainment...despite sitting at their table...explicitly giving them trust with your entertainment. Either you can trust the person with your entertainment or you can't. Pick one.


hawkeyefan said:


> The kind of "I needs all teh power" GMs that you're describing...



You're mistaking your assumptions about what I'm saying for what I'm actually saying. This is more of the "anarchy and chaos" assumptions you're making rather than what I'm actually saying.


hawkeyefan said:


> "I don't mind relinquishing my authority to the dice and/or the players" that I'd prefer to game with.



You're wrongly assuming it's perfectly one extreme or the other. There's a vast, vast excluded middle you're leaping right over.


----------



## Campbell (Jun 8, 2022)

Some games do not have referees. They may have a GM or a Watcher or a Master of Ceremonies, but those roles are not the same. The Master of Ceremonies in Apocalypse World is not a referee. They are a player of the game with a different set of responsibilities than the other players, but one that is also fundamentally different from a B/X referee. B/X and Apocalypse World have different structures of play.

In Apocalypse World players cannot go wherever they want and do whatever they want in the sense of exploring a fictional setting. The player's responsibility is to respond the situations presented by the GM and play their character with integrity while addressing the situation in some way. The reason we have a human MC is to frame vivid scenes that are fundamentally about the player characters, apply pressure to the players through their characters and respond to the actions players take to keep things in motion and centered around the characters. The structural restrictions in place are there so the MC can focus on providing that adversity  in a safe and fair way.

The reason we need those restrictions in place is because the game explicitly breaks from convention and grants the GM express powers that would be extremely fraught in the hands of a traditional GM because they do things like allow a GM to decide things like a character's emotional state or separate them from other characters without recourse. These sorts of broad powers require a more restricted view of GM authority in other places.

Let's please take this discussion elsewhere. This tangent has taken over this thread.


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 8, 2022)

hawkeyefan said:


> Sure. I think granting the role of GM such a privileged position where the very rules of the game are subject to GM approval is advice that should be ignored. I realize that there are some folks for whom it works or is enjoyable. That’s fine.
> 
> But as widespread advice or as a kind of default expectation? I think it’s terrible advice.



It's both good advice and bad at the same time, dependent on context.

If it's given in the context of before play begins, i.e. to encourage kitbashing the system to make of it what you want, then "the rules of the game are subject to GM approval" (and, by extension, review and-or alteration) is excellent advice.

If it's given in the context of during the run of play, then as you say that is terrible advice.  Once play begins, ideally the rules are pretty much locked in.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Jun 8, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> You seem to place primacy on the rules as written in the book. So I pointed out that the rules as written in the book give the referee authority over the rules, including interpretation and changing thereof. Many other games have similar explicitly stated text. Some don't, sure. Most traditional games and even some non-traditional games have similar text. It's mostly in the indie scene where this norm is broken. So while technically true that not every game has this setup, it's basically irrelevant as the vast majority of games as written and games that are actually played do.
> 
> The referee's authority derives from the social contract. Everyone agrees that this person will be in charge of the game. They trust the referee to run the game, provide interesting experiences, etc. Some players insist that trust goes only so far as following the rules to the letter, reducing the referee to some kind of wetware to run the software of the rules. Others are a bit more...open minded about things.
> 
> ...



Can the GM tell players what their characters do, think, and feel?


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 8, 2022)

Yora said:


> No. Disinterested is precisely the exact term that I mean. In many games, and I would argue most games, the GM should have no preference for what the players do, and whether their actions are successful or not. The GM should not be inclined to bend things in the players' favor or against it. Simply look at the situation objectively and proceed with the results of rolls as they fell.
> 
> Apocalypse World is one prominent example of games where that is not the case. But most games are designed with the GM meant to be objective with no preferences, so that any accomolishments and failures of the players are their own work and not the GM's whim.



I get - and agree with - what you're saying but "disinterested" still isn't the best term for it, in that a DM can be very interested in what's going on (in fact, I'd hope she is!) and yet still dispassionate and-or neutral in her running of the game.


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 8, 2022)

Mannahnin said:


> _Dis_interested, as in not having a personal stake or bias toward an outcome, not *UN*interested as in uncaring.



In common usage these days 'disinterested' generally carries the connotation of uncaring while 'uninterested' is rarely heard as a word any more.


----------



## Mannahnin (Jun 8, 2022)

Lanefan said:


> I get - and agree with - what you're saying but "disinterested" still isn't the best term for it, in that a DM can be very interested in what's going on (in fact, I'd hope she is!) and yet still dispassionate and-or neutral in her running of the game.



Just for the record, hoping to put this to bed, the primary definition of "disinterested" (and the one Yora was using) is "not influenced by considerations of personal advantage."  Not having a bias or predisposition toward a certain outcome.


----------



## Mannahnin (Jun 8, 2022)

Lanefan said:


> In common usage these days 'disinterested' generally carries the connotation of uncaring while 'uninterested' is rarely heard as a word any more.



My experience and the dictionary seem to disagree.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Jun 8, 2022)

Mannahnin said:


> My experience and the dictionary seem to disagree.




Assessment of semantic loading is inevitably going to be somewhat individualized.  When it comes to semantic association, dictionaries are almost always behind the times.  For what its worth, my experience of the usage of dispassionate is closer to Lanefan's than not.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Jun 8, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> You seem to place primacy on the rules as written in the book. So I pointed out that the rules as written in the book give the referee authority over the rules, including interpretation and changing thereof. Many other games have similar explicitly stated text. Some don't, sure. Most traditional games and even some non-traditional games have similar text. It's mostly in the indie scene where this norm is broken. So while technically true that not every game has this setup, it's basically irrelevant as the vast majority of games as written and games that are actually played do.




I feel this is all kind of semantics. I'm not looking to be "technically" right. I'm talking about how things go at the table. 

While I have no doubt that there are plenty of groups out there where the players simply accept that the GM calls all the shots, I have equally no doubt that there are many tables that wish that was not the case and don't realize it doesn't need to be, and equally no doubt that there are tables that already don't have that paradigm. 



overgeeked said:


> The referee's authority derives from the social contract. Everyone agrees that this person will be in charge of the game. They trust the referee to run the game, provide interesting experiences, etc. Some players insist that trust goes only so far as following the rules to the letter, reducing the referee to some kind of wetware to run the software of the rules. Others are a bit more...open minded about things.




I think this speaks to a misunderstanding of the role of GM in many games besides D&D and similar games. The GM role is vital in those. And I would say that advocating for only one way to GM as you seem to be doing here....and appealing to the majority as if that actually matters.... is the more closed-minded approach. 



overgeeked said:


> The point of having a person run the game instead of a computer is that freedom of choice. The ability to go off the map. To zig when the module thinks you can only zag. To create and run unique adventures molded to the PCs at the table instead of a generic party. To be creative and make rulings that suit the table. So why lessen that flexibility? Why would you? Just run a solo game at that point or play a video game.
> 
> That's what you assume they will do. Literally no one's said that's what they will do or even want to do. I certainly haven't.




You said players have two options. Accept the GM's decision or not play. 



overgeeked said:


> You keep saying things like this as if without the rules as written being followed perfectly, only, and precisely it's inevitable anarchy and chaos. I get that exaggerated rhetoric is just a thing on the internet, but come on. Which is why I quoted chapter and verse earlier. You really seem to be into the RAW as authority above everything else. I'm pointing out that's simply not true.




No, that's not what I'm saying. The GM may need to make a ruling. May alter a rule. But they must do so responsibly. They are still subject to the rules and the players in this regard. Yes, responsibility is subjective, that doesn't change that it's the group as a whole that decides how the game will proceed or if it won't. 



overgeeked said:


> They go back to having one choice: stay or walk.






overgeeked said:


> You're wrongly assuming it's perfectly one extreme or the other. There's a vast, vast excluded middle you're leaping right over.




No, I'm kind of talking about that whole middle ground as being the reality. You're the one framing this as either/or, as above.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 9, 2022)

pemerton said:


> Campbell said:
> 
> 
> > I mean the GM is always restricted in how to adjudicate
> ...





Micah Sweet said:


> Can you elaborate?  I'm curious as to your take on this.



Well, one part of it is what @Ovinomancer posted:



Ovinomancer said:


> The only constraint on GMs in D&D is the social contract.



But I think that understates things a bit. After all, in the context of the typically voluntary, leisure activity of RPGing all that ever makes rules binding is an agreement to play the game by the rules. And in the context of some D&D play, as much as any other RPG, there can be a social agreement to be bound by some rules.

As an example, I think in most D&D games, the GM is obliged to accept the PC sheet as a prima facie statement of the PC's mechanical capacities within the game. The GM has some liberty to secretly add to the sheet (eg the PC has a curse or a blessing the player doesn't know about yet) but is not entitled to do so in an arbitrary manner. For instance, the GM isn't normally allowed to make that sort of decision _in the course of working out whether or not a roll to hit succeeds against a target's AC_, or in the middle of a resolving _a climb walls roll_. And we can explain where the constraint comes from in at least some detail: _making the roll to hit, or to climb walls_ is something that occurs at the table that, and in that moment of actually rolling the dice and then consulting the relevant material (stat blocks, look-up tables, whatever they might be) _nothing has occurred in the fiction_ that might make a secret change to the PC and hence to the PC sheet.

@hawkeyefan gives similar examples to the ones I've given, in post 114.n

There are also constraints that relate to the narration of consequences of attempted actions. @Campbell gave examples in post 117. In a classic AD&D game, for instance, a GM is not generally permitted to adjudicate a failed roll to climb walls as the cliff starting to crumble and collapse on the character - whereas that might be fair game in Burning Wheel! The constraint here is something along the lines of: narrations of failure are expected to be narrations of how the character failed to manifest sufficient skill and/or luck in performing the attempted task, and not as circumstances or the larger environment conspiring against the character. Another example I once posted that caused much outrage on these boards: narrating a failed Diplomacy check as _it starts to rain, and so the crowd can't hear your words and drifts away to find shelter_. In standard D&D play that sort of narration of failure is not permitted.

Once we get beyond adjudication to other aspects of the GM's role, like framing and presenting adversity, @Campbell gives further example of what is out of bounds in standard D&D play. This is harder to state as a rule, but there are clearly widely accepted principles at work.

EDIT:


Reynard said:


> nature doesn't care one way or the other.



There's a constraint that typically operates on a D&D GM, that does not operate on a Burning Wheel one!


----------



## pemerton (Jun 9, 2022)

Campbell said:


> The type of rules you are speaking to here are not the constraints I'm speaking to. GM facing mechanics are basically pixie dust* (much of the time). They make us feel better, but they aren't really all that binding.



As per my post just upthread, I think that there is a bit more to the pixie dust than you are allowing here. But I also agree with you about the other sorts of constraints - which go to adjudication, but also to framing and the presentation of adversity.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 9, 2022)

Lanefan said:


> It's not the end-result outcome that would be at issue, but rather the (lack of) level of detail and perceived arbitrariness in jumping straight to said outcome without any intervening play and-or opportunities for the players/PCs to change their situation (for better or worse!).  Further, the jump as written assumes none of the PCs act independently (e.g. to try to escape, or to suicide-rush a guard to cause a distraction so others might escape, etc.) and that they are all captured en bloc.





Reynard said:


> I don't allow skill dogpiling in D&D. The rule at my table is "settle on a strategy and I'll tell you what to roll (if necessary); if you fail you don't get to roll again unless you change your strategy." Some situations, of course, don't allow for changing strategies because of the consequences of failure. But there's no need to skip the series of actions and reactions that COULD lead to the PCs being captured.



If the players settle on a strategy (say, an ambush), and then fail, and then are allowed to have _more rolls_ to avoid being captured, how is that not skill dogpiling?

Or to put it another way: given that it is up to the GM to decide the consequences of failure, how can those consequences act as a constraint on whether or not the GM allows more checks? That's literally saying that the players can make more checks unless the GM decides they can't!

And this isn't just a theoretical or verbal objection. As a referee of Rolemaster I've found myself stuck in these situations, where the rules don't tell me whether or not to allow more checks, and so whether or not the PCs suffer a hard failure is literally up to me to decide! (RM isn't always like that. It depends on the particular skill table and resolution process at issue: RM has many of those!)


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 9, 2022)

hawkeyefan said:


> You said players have two options. Accept the GM's decision or not play.



Well, they do have other options but none are really any better than either of the above:

--- constantly argue with the GM about the decision
--- "accept" the decision and then quietly but actively work to undermine it during play
--- ignore it and just keep playing as if it never happened (i.e. in effect thumb their collective nose at the GM)
--- mutiny and replace that GM with another one, either with someone from within their number or external.


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 9, 2022)

pemerton said:


> If the players settle on a strategy (say, an ambush), and then fail, and then are allowed to have _more rolls_ to avoid being captured, how is that not skill dogpiling?



The way it was presented there wasn't any "settling on a strategy" beforehand, instead someone just pulled a gun.  Next thing, the PCs are all captured and under interrogation.

If the idea of such a surprise attack was agreed on beforehand as the party's plan then I suppose one could consider it a group action (even though only one PC does it) and apply a group-level success or fail to it.

But if one player just has their PC haul off and pull out a gun without warning, it seems only fair that everyone else should get a chance to react in character.


pemerton said:


> Or to put it another way: given that it is up to the GM to decide the consequences of failure, how can those consequences act as a constraint on whether or not the GM allows more checks? That's literally saying that the players can make more checks unless the GM decides they can't!



Keep in mind that those checks can also go against the PCs.  Playing it out in more detail doesnt necessarily mean they're automatically going to improve their lot; they could in fact make things much worse for themselves than they already are.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Jun 9, 2022)

Lanefan said:


> Well, they do have other options but none are really any better than either of the above:
> 
> --- constantly argue with the GM about the decision
> --- "accept" the decision and then quietly but actively work to undermine it during play
> ...




I had more of a "talk with the GM and come to a reasonable compromise" kind of thing in mind, but sure, we can just assume everything is negative all the time. Cool.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Jun 9, 2022)

hawkeyefan said:


> I had more of a "talk with the GM and come to a reasonable compromise" kind of thing in mind, but sure, we can just assume everything is negative all the time. Cool.



I'm reminded of that time @Manbearcat introduced a complication in our Blades game and I called him on it because we had expressly taken action and succeeded at that action to prevent that kind of complication.  And he acknowledged it, noted he had forgotten that bit, and the complication was withdrawn.  Not because it was nice or I was complaining about a judgement call, but because that's what the principles of play for Blades demanded.  The GM is beholden to the rules in Blades (including the principles of play) -- it's not optional.  There's no rule zero, and there doesn't need to be -- it would be detrimental to play.


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 9, 2022)

hawkeyefan said:


> I had more of a "talk with the GM and come to a reasonable compromise" kind of thing in mind, but sure, we can just assume everything is negative all the time. Cool.



If things get to the point where it's either accept the GM's decision or walk away, I assume we're past the talk-and-compromise stage.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 9, 2022)

Ovinomancer said:


> I'm reminded of that time @Manbearcat introduced a complication in our Blades game and I called him on it because we had expressly taken action and succeeded at that action to prevent that kind of complication.  And he acknowledged it, noted he had forgotten that bit, and the complication was withdrawn.  Not because it was nice or I was complaining about a judgement call, but because that's what the principles of play for Blades demanded.



A similar thing happened to me GMing 4e D&D: the players had succeeded at a skill challenge; and then in the next session one aspect of my opening framing for what followed didn't fully honour their success. One of the players pointed this out, and I corrected my framing.

It's not that big a deal, I don't think.


----------



## Manbearcat (Jun 9, 2022)

hawkeyefan said:


> I had more of a "talk with the GM and come to a reasonable compromise" kind of thing in mind, but sure, we can just assume everything is negative all the time. Cool.






Ovinomancer said:


> I'm reminded of that time @Manbearcat introduced a complication in our Blades game and I called him on it because we had expressly taken action and succeeded at that action to prevent that kind of complication.  And he acknowledged it, noted he had forgotten that bit, and the complication was withdrawn.  Not because it was nice or I was complaining about a judgement call, but because that's what the principles of play for Blades demanded.  The GM is beholden to the rules in Blades (including the principles of play) -- it's not optional.  There's no rule zero, and there doesn't need to be -- it would be detrimental to play.






pemerton said:


> A similar thing happened to me GMing 4e D&D: the players had succeeded at a skill challenge; and then in the next session one aspect of my opening framing for what followed didn't fully honour their success. One of the players pointed this out, and I corrected my framing.
> 
> It's not that big a deal, I don't think.




I have it on good ENWorld authority that GMs don’t make mistakes and players are entitled! 

I should have protested against how obviously entitled you guys are. Maybe I could have gotten a RAGEQUIT! Stuffed and hung that disgruntled player head on my wall.

GM’s game sucka


----------



## Mannahnin (Jun 9, 2022)

Thomas Shey said:


> Assessment of semantic loading is inevitably going to be somewhat individualized.  When it comes to semantic association, dictionaries are almost always behind the times.  For what its worth, my experience of the usage of dispassionate is closer to Lanefan's than not.



I presume you meant disinterested there, rather than dispassionate?

You're right that which definition and common meaning we most commonly associate is individualized.  But since Yora had already clarified exactly what they meant by disinterested in post 159, and I had echoed the clarification in 167, Lanefan going back to disagreeing based on a different understanding of the word in posts 199 & 200 seemed a bit strange and detrimental to the discussion.  We already knew exactly what Yora meant.

There may be a regional variation factoring in here too, since Yora is posting from Germany.  While the primary definition of disinterested showing on Google/Oxford Languages agrees with Yora's usage, I do tend to see that usage more commonly in British English, and IME it's fairly common for folks in Europe's English to be more similar to British English than American.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 9, 2022)

Reynard said:


> I don't care for some core conceits of PbtA games (as I have enumerated) so I don't have much experience with them (I played Dungeon World once and tried to run Monster of the Week once) so I admit I could be wrong, but it seems to me the goal is "to tell a story" as opposed to letting one emerge. I don't want to be told a story and I don't want to tell my players a story.



I think you're wrong, or at least confused.



Reynard said:


> Serious question: why does AW (and by extension PbtA in general) even have a GM. It seems like the role as defined above could be performed by a set of charts governing situations and die roll results.





Reynard said:


> The way I understood his explanation was that the GM in AW does not have the same authority to conduct the trad loop of explain-listen-explain. So I was musing and thinking that the model seems like a reasonable base for a GM-less game, since you can use procedural generators to "make life hard for the PCs."





Reynard said:


> I do think most trad players would balk, with good reason. I think most trad players would prefer to play out the consequences of that failure, rather than be told the story of what happened.



There's a degree of tension here: who do you think is going to come up with narrations like the one @Campbell suggested - of the tables being turned when a roll to Go Aggro fails - if not the GM?

So anyway, the function of the GM in AW is spelled out in the rules. There are two main components to the GM's role (I'm quoting from pp 109, 116-7):

Apocalypse World divvies the conversation up in a strict and pretty traditional way. The players’ job is to say what their characters say and undertake to do, first and exclusively; to say what their characters think, feel and remember, also exclusively; and to answer your questions about their characters’ lives and surroundings. Your job as MC is to say everything else: everything about the world, and what everyone in the whole damned world says and does _except_ the players’ characters. . . .

Whenever there’s a pause in the conversation and everyone looks to you to say something, choose one of these things [a GM move] and say it. . . .

Always choose a move that can follow logically from what’s going on in the game’s fiction. It doesn’t have to be the only one, or the most likely, but it does have to make at least some kind of sense.

Generally, limit yourself to a move that’ll (a) set you up for a future harder move, and (b) give the players’ characters some opportunity to act and react. A start to the action, not its conclusion.

However, when a player’s character hands you the perfect opportunity on a golden plate, make as hard and direct a move as you like. It’s not the meaner the better, although mean is often good. Best is: make it irrevocable.

When a player’s character makes a move and the player misses the roll, that’s the cleanest and clearest example there is of an opportunity on a plate. When you’ve been setting something up and it comes together without interference, that counts as an opportunity on a plate too.

But again, unless a player’s character has handed you the opportunity, limit yourself to a move that sets up future moves, your own and the players’ characters’.​
I don't think that a chart makes for very good conversation! Or is very good at extrapolating from established fiction to new fiction.



Reynard said:


> I agree with all this, which is one of the reasons I don't  understand the need for or like the PbtA method of GM constraint. It is unnecessary and limiting for no benefit.





Reynard said:


> I understand where they come from, I just don't think they are necessary. Systemic attempts to bind the GM to a prescribed set of outcomes feel like either trying to turn the GM into a processor, or trying to defend the players against some mythical viking hat bad GM. I get that people like PbtA games, but I can't abide the basic design goals as you articulated them.



I don't think you are really appreciating the significance of the rules that govern what a GM of an AW game says, as set out in what I just quoted above.

Think about how often, in typical D&D play, the GM makes hard moves (ie irrevocable consequences for the players) _without_ anyone having failed a roll, or otherwise handing an opportunity on a plate: for instance, a player says their PC walks through the doorway and the GM calls for a save because they triggered the trap; or the player looks in the chest hoping to find something-or-other, and the GM tells them it's not there; or the player asks the NPC, "So what's going on with <something or other the PC cares about>" and the NPC replies "I don't know".

And now imagine a game in which the GM can't make those hard moves, and has to make soft moves instead. Think about how that would ramify everything else in the game: the significance and function of prep, how consequences flow from action resolution, who gets to decide what is at stake in the fictional situations.

That's what flows from the rules for GMing AW. You can't get those benefits without the rules.


----------



## Mannahnin (Jun 9, 2022)

Lanefan said:


> The way it was presented there wasn't any "settling on a strategy" beforehand, instead someone just pulled a gun.  Next thing, the PCs are all captured and under interrogation.
> 
> If the idea of such a surprise attack was agreed on beforehand as the party's plan then I suppose one could consider it a group action (even though only one PC does it) and apply a group-level success or fail to it.



Campbell's example didn't specify one way or the other whether the other players were aware and consenting beforehand, or surprised.  You've added the assumption that the other players were unaware.



> But if one player just has their PC haul off and pull out a gun without warning, it seems only fair that everyone else should get a chance to react in character.
> 
> Keep in mind that those checks can also go against the PCs.  Playing it out in more detail doesnt necessarily mean they're automatically going to improve their lot; they could in fact make things much worse for themselves than they already are.



If the rules for AW specify the stakes of a failed Go Aggro move as including serious consequences like the one specified, then the example Campbell gave would certainly be fair.

Playing it out on a more micro-resolution level COULD indeed make things much worse for the PCs.  That's not necessarily a virtue.  One consistent experience I've had in D&D over the years is the difficulty of resolving the PCs losing a fight or confrontation without it turning into a TPK, without heavy-handed GM intervention or control over the PCs' actions and the scene framing.  AW sounds like its mechanics handle this better, if it allows for a quick transition to the "captured and interrogated" scene without a long, aggravating, un-fun combat having to be played out in the middle.

If AW lets a scene like that play out more like a movie or TV show- tough posturing with the local boss, one PC whips out a gun but it goes badly, suddenly PCs are revealed to be surrounded by a superior force with guns trained, transition to dramatic interrogation scene, then that seems like a good capability.  It's a different kind of game, certainly, but maybe it better emulates a lot of enjoyable fiction than D&D does.

The interrogation scene could easily turn around into an "uneasy allies" situation, if, say, it's revealed during that scene that both sides have a common enemy, or are working for a common ally.  If we didn't just spend 30 minutes or an hour playing out the PCs getting beaten down by these guys, the PCs won't have taken a bunch of damage/expended a bunch of resources, and the players won't have formed a strong emotional reaction to these guys as enemies.  Which are both very likely outcomes if we played out a fight in D&D and had the PCs captured.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Jun 9, 2022)

Mannahnin said:


> I presume you meant disinterested there, rather than dispassionate?




Well, I may have phrased it really clumsily since I was trying to make a point about the difference between the two in usage.



Mannahnin said:


> You're right that which definition and common meaning we most commonly associate is individualized.  But since Yora had already clarified exactly what they meant by disinterested in post 159, and I had echoed the clarification in 167, Lanefan going back to disagreeing based on a different understanding of the word in posts 199 & 200 seemed a bit strange and detrimental to the discussion.  We already knew exactly what Yora meant.




Never assume everyone participating has read the whole discussion in detail.  It often explains apparently confusing responses if you, in fact, assume the opposite.


----------



## Mannahnin (Jun 9, 2022)

Thomas Shey said:


> Well, I may have phrased it really clumsily since I was trying to make a point about the difference between the two in usage.



Ah; ok.  I did not follow.



Thomas Shey said:


> Never assume everyone participating has read the whole discussion in detail.  It often explains apparently confusing responses if you, in fact, assume the opposite.



A reasonable maxim.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Jun 9, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> The referee changes the rules and the players have no recourse but to put up with it or walk.



In practice, not really. Social pressure is a thing. 

Seriously, feel free to tell your DM “no”, folks. They only have “authority” at the discretion of the group as a whole.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Jun 9, 2022)

Mannahnin said:


> Ah; ok.  I did not follow.




Probably my fault.  Don't get old.



Mannahnin said:


> A reasonable maxim.




And it becomes more and more likely the longer a thread gets.  Gods help you're trying to do the same thing on, say, a Discord where even if someone _wants_ to keep up with everything, they probably can't.


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 9, 2022)

Mannahnin said:


> If the rules for AW specify the stakes of a failed Go Aggro move as including serious consequences like the one specified, then the example Campbell gave would certainly be fair.
> 
> Playing it out on a more micro-resolution level COULD indeed make things much worse for the PCs.  That's not necessarily a virtue.  One consistent experience I've had in D&D over the years is the difficulty of resolving the PCs losing a fight or confrontation without it turning into a TPK, without heavy-handed GM intervention or control over the PCs' actions and the scene framing.



We've had different experiences, then.  Part of it might be that our characters often tend to see themselves (i.e. be seen by their players) as independent entities, and thus if one of them does something rash the others might just bail out and leave him to it rather than let themselves get dragged into whatever trouble he's just provoked - it's their choice, and they know it.  End result: TPKs are extremely rare, but individual character deaths etc. are not.


Mannahnin said:


> AW sounds like its mechanics handle this better, if it allows for a quick transition to the "captured and interrogated" scene without a long, aggravating, un-fun combat having to be played out in the middle.



What it doesn't allow for*, however, is two characters independently escaping in different directions while a third (the gun guy) gets disarmed and beaten to a pulp while the other three surrender quietly.  There seems to be no opportunity for independent action by the other PCs.

* - or doesn't seem to, as written.


Mannahnin said:


> If AW lets a scene like that play out more like a movie or TV show- tough posturing with the local boss, one PC whips out a gun but it goes badly, suddenly PCs are revealed to be surrounded by a superior force with guns trained, transition to dramatic interrogation scene, then that seems like a good capability.  It's a different kind of game, certainly, but maybe it better emulates a lot of enjoyable fiction than D&D does.



Thing is, I very much maintain that movies and TV shows are forced to function under constraints that RPGs are not, the most crucial of these being run-time.  A movie has to fit into a certain vague run time; a TV show into a precise-to-the-second one.  An RPG's "run time", however, is completely open-ended, thus that externally-forced reason to edit out details or skip potentially-relevant stuff does not exist.


Mannahnin said:


> The interrogation scene could easily turn around into an "uneasy allies" situation, if, say, it's revealed during that scene that both sides have a common enemy, or are working for a common ally.  If we didn't just spend 30 minutes or an hour playing out the PCs getting beaten down by these guys, the PCs won't have taken a bunch of damage/expended a bunch of resources, and the players won't have formed a strong emotional reaction to these guys as enemies.  Which are both very likely outcomes if we played out a fight in D&D and had the PCs captured.



Sure, no argument there; I've seen such things happen both as player and DM.

But if the PCs put themselves into a position where they're likely to get beaten down then it only makes sense that getting beaten down is the most likely (though by no means guaranteed!) outcome, with commensurate loss of resources and gain of hard feelings.  Further - and back to my point about PCs acting independently - playing out the fight also allows individual PCs to try to escape, to try to change sides, to try to bargain for their own lives, or any of a bunch of other possibilities denied them by jumpng straight to "You're caught and captured".


----------



## overgeeked (Jun 9, 2022)

Lanefan said:


> Thing is, I very much maintain that movies and TV shows are forced to function under constraints that RPGs are not, the most crucial of these being run-time. A movie has to fit into a certain vague run time; a TV show into a precise-to-the-second one. An RPG's "run time", however, is completely open-ended, thus that externally-forced reason to edit out details or skip potentially-relevant stuff does not exist.



This is true. It's why RPGs don't really emulate stories. They can crudely grope at replicating story structure and all the elements of story, but they're a fundamentally different art form. Though there clearly are RPGs that are designed to ape the style of TV shows and movies. PbtA games (generally) seem to be in that category. See also Fiasco. Can be great games, but they're incredibly limiting in regards to player agency, as you point out.


----------



## Manbearcat (Jun 9, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> This is true. It's why RPGs don't really emulate stories. They can crudely grope at replicating story structure and all the elements of story, but they're a fundamentally different art form. Though there clearly are RPGs that are designed to ape the style of TV shows and movies. PbtA games (generally) seem to be in that category. See also Fiasco. Can be great games, but they're incredibly limiting in regards to player agency, as you point out.




I would say “art form” is a huge area of disagreement.

* I’ve never considered any of (a) running games or (b) participating in the play or (c) the output of the play as “art form.”

I consider them games first, middle, and last.

@Lanefan (and plenty of other EBWorlders) and I see this very differently and we’ve clashed in this over the years.

Also:

* PBtA games do not remotely ape story nor story structure. They’re structured freeform. The structure is not about delivering Freytag’s Dramatic Arc or anything like it. It’s about precise delineation of authority so MC and players can push all chips in at every moment of play, about structuring conversation and content generation and resolving collisions in the shared imagined space so that play is always aggressive and aggressively on point (whatever the point of that particular game is).

Fate? Fiasco? Yeah for sure. You could certainly make a case that the PBtA game The Between pushes play toward a story structure (though there are a lot of confounds to that hypothesis as well).

* If you think that PBtA games actually limit player agency (meaning players control over the content of play and the trajectory of play is limited with respect to other games?), then something has gone haywire in either your reading of a system or your playing of a system or…it may be that your particular cognitive orientation toward _framing > action declaration > action resolution > consequences_ is fixated on a particularly high level of granularity and against abstraction (one that probably made 1 minute D&D combat rounds difficult for you?…one that makes various and sundry D&D-isms likely difficult for you still to this day?).


----------



## Ovinomancer (Jun 9, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> This is true. It's why RPGs don't really emulate stories. They can crudely grope at replicating story structure and all the elements of story, but they're a fundamentally different art form. Though there clearly are RPGs that are designed to ape the style of TV shows and movies. PbtA games (generally) seem to be in that category. See also Fiasco. Can be great games, but they're incredibly limiting in regards to player agency, as you point out.



That's an extremely bold claim.  I'd love to see some attempt to back it up.  Who knows, maybe me and my experience is dead wrong and you, totally from the outside, have an amazing insight.  Certainly would love to hear it.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 9, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> It's why RPGs don't really emulate stories. They can crudely grope at replicating story structure and all the elements of story, but they're a fundamentally different art form.



I've run RPGs that emulate stories, in the sense that characters are introduced, their dramatic needs emerge, they confront obstacles to realising those dramatic needs, and then there is a resolution.

I'm thinking particularly of two Cthulhu Dark sessions, and one Wuthering Heights session.

Also, the idea that Apocalypse World is somehow limiting in "player agency" is quite bizarre. I posted the allocation of authority not far upthread.


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 9, 2022)

@Mannahnin - curious what prompted the "sad" like to my post 222*, five above this one.  The idea of PCs acting independently?  The idea of RPGs having an open-ended run time?  Or ???

* - 222 in my feed anyway, might be different for others as I've reason to think someone's posting here who has me blocked.


----------



## bloodtide (Jun 10, 2022)

hawkeyefan said:


> This idea that rules don’t matter just seems so alien to me. They absolutely matter.



Odd it seems so alien to you, as it's how the vast majority of RPGs work.  The DM can do anything they want, on a whim.  The DM being beyond, above and outside the rules is really the whole point of a DM.



Ovinomancer said:


> Can the GM tell players what their characters do, think, and feel?



Yes.  The GM is in full control of the game reality and have omnisight into everything as they are outside the game reality.  The hostile players jump right to the wacky far extreme of the GM controlling characters like robots....but that is just beyond silly.

You could play a hardcore cutthroat game where the GM tells the players nothing about their characters, but that is an extreme game style.  The mind of the character, and that is the mind of the player, can only role play thoughts and feelings they know about.  But both the character and player don't have the GMs outside view.  Simply put, a player can not role play their characters unconscious mind.  Even IF the GM told the player all the needed outside the game information....it would STILL be the GM telling the player what their character feels and thinks.

It can be easy for some people, when say they meet a guy selling items of value on a street corner cheep, to feel and think "something is not right" by the conscious mind using common sense, your knowledge and logic.  But you also have an unconscious mind....those thoughts, feelings, instincts and your "gut" that all tell you things that  you don't have hard facts or data on.  You can feel something is "wrong" or "off", and have no idea why you feel that way.  Your instincts might tell you to trust someone or NOT to trust them....but again you won't know why.   And you know your Real Life "gut" is quite often correct, amazingly.  


So when a Character meets a halfing merchant, the conscious mind of the player/character might think or feel something based on what they see and hear.  But the player can't role play the "gut" or unconscious mind.  Only the GM can do that, as they know everything.  So if the halfling is planning on cheating the character, only the GM knows that (as they are role playing the halfling merchant after all) and ONLY the GM can tell the player if their character thinks or feels "something is off" or anything else.  

Also, just to note, plenty of games have "the GM tells the players how their characters think or feel" right in the rules.  When a player makes a roll to see if their character detects or feels or thinks something: it's the GM that tells the player what it is.  For example, when a character senses a motive of someone, it's the GM telling the character what they sense.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Jun 10, 2022)

bloodtide said:


> Odd it seems so alien to you, as it's how the vast majority of RPGs work.  The DM can do anything they want, on a whim.  The DM being beyond, above and outside the rules is really the whole point of a DM.
> 
> 
> Yes.  The GM is in full control of the game reality and have omnisight into everything as they are outside the game reality.  The hostile players jump right to the wacky far extreme of the GM controlling characters like robots....but that is just beyond silly.
> ...



You're describing a basis for play that I find to be extremely distasteful.  I run and play 5e.  So, this isn't a requirement to play that game, at least.


----------



## Jay Murphy1 (Jun 10, 2022)

Here are my criteria on what would make a “Great GM”. They enjoy interacting with a wide variety of people. They are great conversationalists, enjoy being around other people, fairly laid-back and easy to get along with. Tend to reserve judgment. Instead of making a decision or committing to a course of action, they would prefer to wait and see what happens. But mostly, mostly are immensely curious and focused on understanding the game world they are running, they are constantly absorbing new information and ideas and quickly arriving at conclusions in play, and they are able to understand new things quite quickly.


----------



## bloodtide (Jun 10, 2022)

Ovinomancer said:


> You're describing a basis for play that I find to be extremely distasteful.  I run and play 5e.  So, this isn't a requirement to play that game, at least.



Well...how do you do the skill Insight or animal handling(the intuit an animal's intentions) when you play 5E then?    These are examples when the GM will tell the player what their character thinks and feels.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Jun 10, 2022)

bloodtide said:


> Well...how do you do the skill Insight or animal handling(the intuit an animal's intentions) when you play 5E then?    These are examples when the GM will tell the player what their character thinks and feels.



That wasn't the part I had issues with.  Although, you can just describe what is seen and let the player take what they want.  "The animal bares it's fangs and snarls a warning."  "The merchants eyes are shifty, and they're sweating and fidgeting nervously, "sure, sure, that's an authentic item," they say."


----------



## niklinna (Jun 10, 2022)

bloodtide said:


> Odd it seems so alien to you, as it's how the vast majority of RPGs work.  The DM can do anything they want, on a whim.  The DM being beyond, above and outside the rules is really the whole point of a DM.



Well, I for one am quite glad I've never met such a DM.



bloodtide said:


> Yes.  The GM is in full control of the game reality and have omnisight into everything as they are outside the game reality.  The hostile players jump right to the wacky far extreme of the GM controlling characters like robots....but that is just beyond silly.



Huh?



bloodtide said:


> You could play a hardcore cutthroat game where the GM tells the players nothing about their characters, but that is an extreme game style.



Oh okay, yes, I have played such games, where my character wakes up with amnesia and learns about himself through play. It is indeed extreme. Very good for horror games. It needn't be cutthroat, though.



bloodtide said:


> The mind of the character, and that is the mind of the player, can only role play thoughts and feelings they know about.



Yes, and I can make those up as the player of my character.



bloodtide said:


> But both the character and player don't have the GMs outside view.



I've played in quite a few games where I do have an outside view, developed in collaboration with the GM and other players, up to and including the motives and thoughts of NPCs. It's fun, you should try it sometime.



bloodtide said:


> Simply put, a player can not role play their characters unconscious mind.  Even IF the GM told the player all the needed outside the game information....it would STILL be the GM telling the player what their character feels and thinks.



Hm, no. The GM tells me what my character sees, hears, etc., and I decide what my character feels and thinks based on that.

This is dfferent from impactful events that cause such things as fear and hallucinations, of course.



bloodtide said:


> It can be easy for some people, when say they meet a guy selling items of value on a street corner cheep, to feel and think "something is not right" by the conscious mind using common sense, your knowledge and logic.  But you also have an unconscious mind....those thoughts, feelings, instincts and your "gut" that all tell you things that  you don't have hard facts or data on.  You can feel something is "wrong" or "off", and have no idea why you feel that way.  Your instincts might tell you to trust someone or NOT to trust them....but again you won't know why.   And you know your Real Life "gut" is quite often correct, amazingly.



Yes, and depending on how the GM portrays the character, I will have gut feelings. If I have to rely on the GM to tell me such things (telling instead of showing), well, I'll certainly have a gut feeling _about that GM_.

And it's not amazing, it's pretty well-known neuroscience these days.



bloodtide said:


> So when a Character meets a halfing merchant, the conscious mind of the player/character might think or feel something based on what they see and hear.  But the player can't role play the "gut" or unconscious mind.



Nope. I can totally role-play my character's "gut" or unconscious mind.



bloodtide said:


> Only the GM can do that, as they know everything.



Well now, that's a strong claim. The GM doesn't know what _I'm_ thinking. They don't know what they haven't given any thought to yet.



bloodtide said:


> So if the halfling is planning on cheating the character, only the GM knows that (as they are role playing the halfling merchant after all) and ONLY the GM can tell the player if their character thinks or feels "something is off" or anything else.



If the GM is _role playing_ well, I'll likely be able to determine something from how the GM is _role playing_. And if not, again, I'll certainly have a feeling that "something is off" about that GM.



bloodtide said:


> Also, just to note, plenty of games have "the GM tells the players how their characters think or feel" right in the rules.



Please let me know which games these are, so I can avoid them.



bloodtide said:


> When a player makes a roll to see if their character detects or feels or thinks something: it's the GM that tells the player what it is.  For example, when a character senses a motive of someone, it's the GM telling the character what they sense.



Use of in-game mechanics such as skills to determine information that is hard to convey through mere verbal description and even _role playing_ is a formalism I am familiar with, yes.

Edit: Fixed a typo.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Jun 10, 2022)

bloodtide said:


> Odd it seems so alien to you, as it's how the vast majority of RPGs work.




[citation needed]

Or put less snarkily, however they theoretically are permitted there are a large number of game cultures that have a very sharp limit to what GMs are expected to be able to do, and will absolutely be called out if they exceed those.  And no, I don't just mean by people walking out.


----------



## bloodtide (Jun 10, 2022)

Thomas Shey said:


> [citation needed]
> 
> Or put less snarkily, however they theoretically are permitted there are a large number of game cultures that have a very sharp limit to what GMs are expected to be able to do, and will absolutely be called out if they exceed those.  And no, I don't just mean by people walking out.



Well, one of the big jobs the GM does is to create everything.  And the GM is free to make anything at any time.  

Also, not only can the GM make any person or creature in the game do or not do whatever they want on a whim......but the GM can also do anything.  Does it "suddenly" start raining....it does if the GM says it does.  

And as most games have fiction/magic/whatever, a GM can even make something like a rainstorm "out of a clear blue sky".


----------



## Thomas Shey (Jun 10, 2022)

bloodtide said:


> Well, one of the big jobs the GM does is to create everything.  And the GM is free to make anything at any time.




Again [citation needed].  In many groups, the GM is not free to change the already established things in the setting just because he feels like it.  He'll get called on it.



bloodtide said:


> Also, not only can the GM make any person or creature in the game do or not do whatever they want on a whim......but the GM can also do anything.  Does it "suddenly" start raining....it does if the GM says it does.




Again, you're overly projecting from the games you're familiar with.  To make it very clear, in many groups just doing that sort of thing for the hell of it is _not acceptable_.



bloodtide said:


> And as most games have fiction/magic/whatever, a GM can even make something like a rainstorm "out of a clear blue sky".




Just because there's some rationale he could pull out of his behind by no means means he won't be called on it.


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 10, 2022)

bloodtide said:


> Well, one of the big jobs the GM does is to create everything.  And the GM is free to make anything at any time.
> 
> Also, not only can the GM make any person or creature in the game do or not do whatever they want on a whim......but the GM can also do anything.  Does it "suddenly" start raining....it does if the GM says it does.



However, just because they can doesn't necessarily mean they should - at least not without some underlying reason or rationale other than pure whim - mostly because a GM doing too much by whim is likely to end up with some very confused players who have no idea how things in the setting are supposed to work.

The key word is consistency.


bloodtide said:


> And as most games have fiction/magic/whatever, a GM can even make something like a rainstorm "out of a clear blue sky".



In D&D a significant subset of PCs can also do this via the spells _Precipitation_ and-or _Cloudburst_; thus a GM having an NPC cast the spell is fair game.  As long as the underlying rationale - in this case someone casting a spell - is present, even if not obvious to the PCs e.g. the NPC who cast it is standing behind a hedge, all is good.

That said, note that those spells are also consistent with themselves in that they work in a somewhat predictable way each time one is cast.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 10, 2022)

bloodtide said:


> Well, one of the big jobs the GM does is to create everything.  And the GM is free to make anything at any time.
> 
> Also, not only can the GM make any person or creature in the game do or not do whatever they want on a whim......but the GM can also do anything.  Does it "suddenly" start raining....it does if the GM says it does.



So obviously there are a lot of RPGs in which this isn't true. The first one that came to my mind was Marvel Heroic RP.


----------



## Mannahnin (Jun 10, 2022)

Lanefan said:


> @Mannahnin - curious what prompted the "sad" like to my post 222*, five above this one.  The idea of PCs acting independently?  The idea of RPGs having an open-ended run time?  Or ???
> 
> * - 222 in my feed anyway, might be different for others as I've reason to think someone's posting here who has me blocked.



A lot about the post comes across to me as kind of assuming the worst about AW and incuriosity about how games that function on a different scope of resolution for conflict than we're used to with D&D could be fun and and do some things better.  Perhaps that's me being negative, but it seems like a lot of pushback.

Certainly the example Campbell gave is not how I'd want D&D to play, but I've also faced the problem of the "PCs captured/backing down from a fight" situation being nearly impossible in D&D and playing out in un-fun ways numerous times over my decades of play, so much so that it's become a trope.  I'm intrigued by the idea that another game has mechanics that handle that scene in a more fun way than I have found that D&D does.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Jun 10, 2022)

pemerton said:


> So obviously there are a lot of RPGs in which this isn't true. The first one that came to my mind was Marvel Heroic RP.



Marvel Heroic had a lot in common with FATE, which obviously is a very different game than D&D.  Genre emulation-heavy games like Marvel Heroic play entirely differently from traditional, to the point where they're even on many people's radar as a kind of RPG.  They are of course, but definitely a different genus (if not phylum).


----------



## Micah Sweet (Jun 10, 2022)

Mannahnin said:


> A lot about the post comes across to me as kind of assuming the worst about AW and incuriosity about how games that function on a different scope of resolution for conflict than we're used to with D&D can be fun and and do some things better.
> 
> Certainly the example Campbell gave is not how I'd want D&D to play, but I've also faced the problem of the "PCs captured/backing down from a fight" situation being nearly impossible in D&D and playing out in un-fun ways numerous times over my decades of play, so much so that it's become a trope.  I'm intrigued by the idea that another game has mechanics that handle that scene in a more fun way than I have found that D&D does.



I'd actually love to play out a situation like that some day.  But to me, the cost of having to use those kinds of mechanics makes it not worth it.


----------



## Mannahnin (Jun 10, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> I'd actually love to play out a situation like that some day.  But to me, the cost of having to use those kinds of mechanics makes it not worth it.



So far my experiences playing games really different from D&D (which I've loved since I was ten) have generally been very positive, and I appreciate that different games do different things.  

The games that function MORE differently than D&D also generally seem to be, at least for me, more fun than Fantasy Heartbreakers which retain D&D's basic play loop and structure.

I haven't even tried any PbtA games yet, but this discussion has definitely increased my desire to.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Jun 10, 2022)

Mannahnin said:


> So far my experiences playing games really different from D&D (which I've loved since I was ten) have generally been very positive, and I appreciate that different games do different things.
> 
> The games that function MORE differently than D&D also generally seem to be, at least for me, more fun than Fantasy Heartbreakers which retain D&D's basic play loop and structure.
> 
> I haven't even tried any PbtA games yet, but this discussion has definitely increased my desire to.



All my favorite games are fantasy Heartbreakers.

I am preparing to run a Star Trek Adventures game, which is a game more in line with FATE and other narrative games, as an experiment to see if I can handle that stuff.  I figured my love of Trek would ease the transition.


----------



## Mannahnin (Jun 10, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> All my favorite games are fantasy Heartbreakers.
> 
> I am preparing to run a Star Trek Adventures game, which is a game more in line with FATE and other narrative games, as an experiment to see if I can handle that stuff.  I figured my love of Trek would ease the transition.



In all sincerity, I wish you the best of luck and fun with it!  

Could you tell me a few of your favorite Heartbreakers?


----------



## Aldarc (Jun 10, 2022)

Mannahnin said:


> So far my experiences playing games really different from D&D (which I've loved since I was ten) have generally been very positive, and I appreciate that different games do different things.
> 
> The games that function MORE differently than D&D also generally seem to be, at least for me, more fun than Fantasy Heartbreakers which retain D&D's basic play loop and structure.
> 
> I haven't even tried any PbtA games yet, but this discussion has definitely increased my desire to.



Needless to say, there are a fair number of us here who would love to talk more about PbtA games with you, if you are interested in learning more.


----------



## Mannahnin (Jun 10, 2022)

Aldarc said:


> Needless to say, there are a fair number of us here who would love to talk more about PbtA games with you, if you are interested in learning more.



Thanks very much.  I've gotten an invite to a Discord server to observe someone's game one of these evenings, so hopefully I'll get to do that soon.   I think that'll be my next step, and I'll be more likely to pick your and other folks' brains once I eventually pick up the rules and try using them.


----------



## Aldarc (Jun 10, 2022)

Mannahnin said:


> Thanks very much.  I've gotten an invite to a Discord server to observe someone's game one of these evenings, so hopefully I'll get to do that soon.   I think that'll be my next step, and I'll be more likely to pick your and other folks' brains once I eventually pick up the rules and try using them.



I have been reading a Stonetop (a Dungeon World hack) playthrough by PTFO (Play to Find Out). You may also find their playthrough interesting: Stonetop Campaign: Table of Contents.


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 10, 2022)

Mannahnin said:


> A lot about the post comes across to me as kind of assuming the worst about AW and incuriosity about how games that function on a different scope of resolution for conflict than we're used to with D&D could be fun and and do some things better.  Perhaps that's me being negative, but it seems like a lot of pushback.



My pushback is around (what seems like) the loss of individual player agency over one's character in such a scene.

Sure, the one player pulls a gun - but what do the rest get to do other than accept as a group whatever outcome (good, bad, or neutral) that action leads to?  Does my PC get a chance to try to stop him, or try to flee, or to pull my own gun*, or do anything else independent of what he's doing?

* - and if so, do I get to decide whether to point it at my friend and try to get him to stand down (which would probably score me a brownie point or two with those we're dealing with!), or is that off the table?


Mannahnin said:


> Certainly the example Campbell gave is not how I'd want D&D to play, but I've also faced the problem of the "PCs captured/backing down from a fight" situation being nearly impossible in D&D and playing out in un-fun ways numerous times over my decades of play, so much so that it's become a trope.



I guess I need you to define your view of "un-fun" here as otherwise I'm not sure what you mean.  No player likes having their PC captured - it's a Bad Thing, and those are rarely if ever fun at the time though they're often memorable later - and some players would even rather send their character out in a "death before capture" blaze of glory.  It's their choice, isn't it?


Mannahnin said:


> I'm intrigued by the idea that another game has mechanics that handle that scene in a more fun way than I have found that D&D does.



Until we agree on a definition of fun, whether it's more fun is an open question.  What it clearly is is more time-efficient at the table, but is the loss of player agency really worth it?


----------



## overgeeked (Jun 10, 2022)

Lanefan said:


> My pushback is around (what seems like) the loss of individual player agency over one's character in such a scene.
> 
> Sure, the one player pulls a gun - but what do the rest get to do other than accept as a group whatever outcome (good, bad, or neutral) that action leads to?  Does my PC get a chance to try to stop him, or try to flee, or to pull my own gun*, or do anything else independent of what he's doing?
> 
> ...



I think this comes down to forcing RPGs to mimic stories. RPGs can produce story-like things, but RPGs are their own unique thing, they’re not procedures for story-making. In doing so you lose what’s unique about RPGs and fail to satisfyingly mimic stories. It’s the worst of both worlds rather than the best of either. A big loss, as you’re talking about here, is player agency. Literally the defining feature of RPGs. To mimic a story requires that the players lose agency. That’s too high a price for too little gain. Especially when the story-like thing produced is so flat and uninteresting as a story in itself. You can get more interesting stories from games that don’t force the issue and cripple player agency.


----------



## Mannahnin (Jun 10, 2022)

Lanefan said:


> I guess I need you to define your view of "un-fun" here as otherwise I'm not sure what you mean.  No player likes having their PC captured - it's a Bad Thing, and those are rarely if ever fun at the time though they're often memorable later - and some players would even rather send their character out in a "death before capture" blaze of glory.  It's their choice, isn't it?



I'm talking about how in D&D, mechanically, getting captured, unless everyone happens to fail a save vs certain powerful spells, normally involves playing out a whole extended combat in which the party gets beaten down. 

Loss of HP, waste of spells, and a roughly (depending on edition, level, play skill, etc.) 30-60 minute exercise in losing. 

Players don't enjoy it.  And they almost certainly attach a negative emotional view of the NPCs who did it.  If they later get a chance to take REVENGE on those bad guys, they may really enjoy that payoff.  But IME the game is NOT conducive to a) making that scene run quickly so it doesn't suck to play through, and consequently b) leaving the players in an emotional state where they are potentially open to a positive or working relationship with the guys who got one over on them.

This is a common trope in heroic fiction and fantasy, and D&D seems to be largely incapable of supporting it.


----------



## Campbell (Jun 10, 2022)

A couple of things.

Apocalypse World isn't for everyone. It does not have to be. Nor does any game. All I'm saying is that it's a legitimate thing and works in definitively different ways to provide a different sort of play experience. One that @overgeeked and @Lanefan happen to not like. Live and let live.
In Apocalypse World when it's your turn to speak it's your turn and only your turn. The spotlight (and the pressure) is on your character.
Player characters are not joined at the hip. It's very possible the only one taken in is the one who drew the gun. One of the GM moves is _separate them_ after all.
It's not even assumed player characters are always allies. The game explicitly instructs the GM to put NPCs between PCs to see if they can pull together and cooperate or not.
There's an art to these hard moves. The game says to make as hard a move as you like. One option might be to have the hardholder tell another player character to get this guy out of there.
Who gets to act and when is fundamentally up to the MC (GM).
Part of the fun of these games is to just accept what happens and see where the ride takes us. You advocate for your player character, but the game is still fun (for people like me) when things do not go your way.


----------



## overgeeked (Jun 10, 2022)

Mannahnin said:


> I'm talking about how in D&D, mechanically, getting captured, unless everyone happens to fail a save vs certain powerful spells, normally involves playing out a whole extended combat in which the party gets beaten down.
> 
> Loss of HP, waste of spells, and a roughly (depending on edition, level, play skill, etc.) 30-60 minute exercise in losing.



If that’s what the players choose to do, so what?


Mannahnin said:


> Players don't enjoy it.



They’d rather die than be captured. That’s how viscerally players react to even the potential of loss of agency. They’d rather waste hours in a losing fight and have their characters die than give up their agency. Maybe we should stop trying to force this as referees.


Mannahnin said:


> This is a common trope in heroic fiction and fantasy, and D&D seems to be largely incapable of supporting it.



Because RPGs are not stories. And they cannot replicate every aspect of stories. In Sword & Sorcery fiction, the author can simply decide for the character (no agency) to surrender. Whereas the referee in an RPG cannot decide for the player what that player’s character will do without violating player agency.

That players are so stubborn and resistant to loss of agency really shouldn’t be a surprise and really should inform design. Maybe stop trying to violate player agency as a general thing.


----------



## Blue (Jun 10, 2022)

bloodtide said:


> Odd it seems so alien to you, as it's how the vast majority of RPGs work.  The DM can do anything they want, on a whim.  The DM being beyond, above and outside the rules is really the whole point of a DM.



The GM has not a single iota of power above and beyond that granted by the players.  And at any time if they are abusing that power, the players can withdraw it by leaving the game - perhaps en masse.  The idea that GMs have unlimited power is not just false, but it's commonly considered one of the sins of running.  In reality there is a strong upper limit on what they can do, constrained by the shared understanding of the rules, the implied or explicit social contract, and the trust given by the players.

In response to "Can the GM tell players what their characters do, think, and feel?"


bloodtide said:


> Yes.  The GM is in full control of the game reality and have omnisight into everything as they are outside the game reality.  The hostile players jump right to the wacky far extreme of the GM controlling characters like robots....but that is just beyond silly.



This is the one place that is inviolate - the players are in control of their PCs in regards to their thoughts, intentions, feelings.  (Outside corner cases like being controlled by magic or psionic.)

This isn't even really debatable, it's one of the cornerstones of RPGs.  I can not picture someone who has actually played RPGs not understanding this.



bloodtide said:


> It can be easy for some people, when say they meet a guy selling items of value on a street corner cheep, to feel and think "something is not right" by the conscious mind using common sense, your knowledge and logic.  But you also have an unconscious mind....those thoughts, feelings, instincts and your "gut" that all tell you things that  you don't have hard facts or data on.  You can feel something is "wrong" or "off", and have no idea why you feel that way.  Your instincts might tell you to trust someone or NOT to trust them....but again you won't know why.   And you know your Real Life "gut" is quite often correct, amazingly.
> 
> So when a Character meets a halfing merchant, the conscious mind of the player/character might think or feel something based on what they see and hear.  But the player can't role play the "gut" or unconscious mind.  Only the GM can do that, as they know everything.  So if the halfling is planning on cheating the character, only the GM knows that (as they are role playing the halfling merchant after all) and ONLY the GM can tell the player if their character thinks or feels "something is off" or anything else.



It is the DM's job to be the window from character living in the world the player running them.  But it still isn't the DM's place to control the PCs, to tell them it's a gut feeling - that's for the player to decided how they want to portray it.  The DM could give it to them in mechanical terms like "your Insight check succeeds and the halfling is acting suspiciously" or in more narrative terms "ever time the halfling offers a price he doesn't meet your eyes" - both are within the purview of the GM.  But it is the player who decided how their character feels - do they have a "gut feel" about the halfling, or perhaps they are more calculating about it.


----------



## Arilyn (Jun 10, 2022)

Just want to pop in and say PbtA games do not step all over player agency. In fact, I feel like my character decisions matter a lot, scarily so! There's been a ton of discussions and explanations about these games but there is still so much misunderstanding. They are great games that do work. They aren't going to be loved by all. No system is. They are worth trying or at least understanding because the vast majority of criticism about PbtA games comes from lack of understanding how they actually play out at the table.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Jun 10, 2022)

Lanefan said:


> My pushback is around (what seems like) the loss of individual player agency over one's character in such a scene.
> 
> Sure, the one player pulls a gun - but what do the rest get to do other than accept as a group whatever outcome (good, bad, or neutral) that action leads to? Does my PC get a chance to try to stop him, or try to flee, or to pull my own gun*, or do anything else independent of what he's doing?
> 
> * - and if so, do I get to decide whether to point it at my friend and try to get him to stand down (which would probably score me a brownie point or two with those we're dealing with!), or is that off the table?




Whatever example you may be referring to seem to have become badly mangled over many posts. This isn't how Apocalypse World or most PbtA or similar games work. 

What's more, in many such games, the stakes are explicitly declared before a roll is made. This may be accomplished by a Soft Move to establish the threat, and then a subsequent Hard Move following up on it (Apocalypse World), or consequences may be explicitly stated as part of establishing the action roll (Blades in the Dark). You'll always know what's at stake before you make a roll in these games. 

The only way that an entire group of PCs would collectively be on the line for one roll is if they were performing a group action, or one PC was performing an action where they all assisted, or otherwise established that they were at risk based on the outcome of the roll. 

This example where one person draws a gun and then everyone gets captured as a result simply does not happen in these games. 



overgeeked said:


> I think this comes down to forcing RPGs to mimic stories. RPGs can produce story-like things, but RPGs are their own unique thing, they’re not procedures for story-making. In doing so you lose what’s unique about RPGs and fail to satisfyingly mimic stories. It’s the worst of both worlds rather than the best of either. A big loss, as you’re talking about here, is player agency. Literally the defining feature of RPGs. To mimic a story requires that the players lose agency. That’s too high a price for too little gain. Especially when the story-like thing produced is so flat and uninteresting as a story in itself. You can get more interesting stories from games that don’t force the issue and cripple player agency.




Are you talking about Apocalypse World here? You don't directly cite any specific games, so it's hard to tell what game you're talking about.


----------



## Campbell (Jun 10, 2022)

@Lanefan brought the rest of the PCs into it. I was picturing a scene where a single PC pulled the gun and subsequently was captured. Wasn't even considering where the other PCs might be.


----------



## Campbell (Jun 10, 2022)

Back to the point of the thread I don't think the GM is there to entertain the group, but it is a leadership position. Leadership means accountability and trusting your team to deliver. It means taking responsibility. It means fixing problems. Not assigning blame. At least that's how I see it.


----------



## overgeeked (Jun 10, 2022)

I’ve played and run Dungeon World, World of Dungeons, Monster of the Week, Masks, Spirit of ’77, Zombie World, and Thirsty Sword Lesbians. Also backed that last one on Kickstarter. Along with playing and running various hacks like World of Secrets. 

Generally no, PbtA games don’t violate player agency. But sometimes they do…in pretty dramatic fashion. And not because of mind control or spells. Because of the moves, player and GM. It’s also in the difference between conflict resolution and task resolution.

When a PC fails, rolls 6-/2d6, the GM makes a move, generally a hard move but it’s the GM’s choice. But, importantly, the consequences are not limited to the PC who failed the roll, which is fine, but the GM moves often represent _sequences of events_ rather than singular isolated events. The problem is there. In that sequence the PCs should have agency…but they don’t.

For example, in Masks two moves are “bring them together” and “capture someone.” Spirit of ’77 has “separate them” and “take away their stuff.” Thirsty Sword Lesbians has “create misunderstandings and doubt about attachments.”

Unless those moves involve instant teleportation or time travel or superspeed or mind control, those are generally _sequences of events_ that _the PCs should have agency during_. It’s this skipping over the sequences of events and collapsing them into a single press of the button that violates player agency. 

This also pops up in aggressive scene framing. Actions the PCs should have had control over are skipped over to cut to the meat of scenes. To be fair, a lot of times this is fine and is often used in other games as a time saver, but I’ve seen more players balk at the aggressive scene framing in PbtA games than any other.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Jun 10, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> I’ve played and run Dungeon World, World of Dungeons, Monster of the Week, Masks, Spirit of ’77, Zombie World, and Thirsty Sword Lesbians. Also backed that last one on Kickstarter. Along with playing and running various hacks like World of Secrets.



Interesting that this pedigree is only so recently asserted.  Especially since you do not seem to be able to steelman PbtA play at all, despite this pedigree.  I'm skeptical.


overgeeked said:


> Generally no, PbtA games don’t violate player agency. But sometimes they do…in pretty dramatic fashion. And not because of mind control or spells. Because of the moves, player and GM. It’s also in the difference between conflict resolution and task resolution.
> 
> When a PC fails, rolls 6-/2d6, the GM makes a move, generally a hard move but it’s the GM’s choice. But, importantly, the consequences are not limited to the PC who failed the roll, which is fine, but the GM moves often represent _sequences of events_ rather than singular isolated events. The problem is there. In that sequence the PCs should have agency…but they don’t.
> 
> ...



This argument about agency is ridiculous.  You're splitting hairs, and pointing the differences in the scale of resolution in these games as if it's a salient point.  PbtA games aim to resolve conflicts.  D&D aims to resolve tasks.  You're pointing this difference out and claiming "aha, here PbtA removes agency because it doesn't resolve tasks!"  Well, D&D doesn't really resolve conflicts.  The GM chooses if a conflict is resolved or not, not the system (combat being a debatable exception, but then the combat engine of D&D has always been a different game within the game in many respects).  

Agency is about the ability to make meaningful choices.  PbtA certainly doesn't lack for these moments.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 10, 2022)

Mannahnin said:


> Thanks very much.  I've gotten an invite to a Discord server to observe someone's game one of these evenings, so hopefully I'll get to do that soon.



I don't want to stick my beak in too much into your personal stuff: but I was going to suggest you hit up @Manbearcat who likes introducing people to PbtA and other non-D&D-ish games; and from your post I'm replying to it seems maybe that's already happened!

If I'm way off base apologies - as I said, not wanting to interfere but just amused that what I was going to suggest looked like it might have already happened.


----------



## Reynard (Jun 10, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> I’ve played and run Dungeon World, World of Dungeons, Monster of the Week, Masks, Spirit of ’77, Zombie World, and Thirsty Sword Lesbians. Also backed that last one on Kickstarter. Along with playing and running various hacks like World of Secrets.
> 
> Generally no, PbtA games don’t violate player agency. But sometimes they do…in pretty dramatic fashion. And not because of mind control or spells. Because of the moves, player and GM. It’s also in the difference between conflict resolution and task resolution.
> 
> ...



What I find interesting about PbtA games, even if I don't like the way it seems to be implemented, is how those games provide a broad list of potential outcomes to situations. Strip out the idea of moves and what you have is a way of telling GMs things they can consider aside from overone on this side dies. That's cool and worth appreciating, even if I feel like the kind of moves in the quote above aren't granular enough o preserve what I think of as player agency and GM choice.


----------



## overgeeked (Jun 11, 2022)

Ovinomancer said:


> Interesting that this pedigree is only so recently asserted.  Especially since you do not seem to be able to steelman PbtA play at all, despite this pedigree.



Sorry that I don't preface every post with the complete list of games I've ever played to allay your suspicions. Here's a thought. You could start a thread where you demand everyone on the forums posts every game they've ever played just so you can check to be sure when they disagree with you. I'm sure that would work. Of course that's self-reporting, just like your assertions that you've played these games. Your claims are just as valid as mine. 

Any chance we can permanently skip the bit where you feel the need to question other people's geek cred whenever they disagree with you? It's boring, really.


Ovinomancer said:


> I'm skeptical.



Of course you are. Because I disagree with you. And because I disagree you cannot believe I have read or played or run these games. How's the sequence go: If you disagree with me you must not have read it, if you've read it you must not understand it, if you claim to understand it the fact that you disagree with me proves you don't understand. It's the same thing every time. 


Ovinomancer said:


> This argument about agency is ridiculous. You're splitting hairs, and pointing the differences in the scale of resolution in these games as if it's a salient point.



It is a salient point. Sorry you disagree, you must not have read the same PbtA games I have. Or you must not have played or run them as much as I have. Or...you know...we can both be real gamers and just have a disagreement.


Ovinomancer said:


> PbtA games aim to resolve conflicts. D&D aims to resolve tasks. You're pointing this difference out and claiming "aha, here PbtA removes agency because it doesn't resolve tasks!"



Because it's true. As seen from the example in the thread. One PC pulls a gun and the whole group is referee-fiat captured as a result. Removing the agency of the PCs to resist that capture in any way. That clearly causes problems with several posters' sense of agency. It's because the difference in resolution that some agency is removed. If the characters were real people in a real world facing that situation, they'd be able to do something about it. At least try. But PbtA games have a lower resolution, zoom out, etc and you lose granularity. You lose some agency as a result. It's not necessarily bad, but it's a bit weird to pretend it's not true.


Ovinomancer said:


> Well, D&D doesn't really resolve conflicts. The GM chooses if a conflict is resolved or not, not the system (combat being a debatable exception, but then the combat engine of D&D has always been a different game within the game in many respects).



So? The players control their characters. The referee controls the world. Conflicts aren't resolved until both sides decide they are, something forces one side to relent, or one side ceases to exist.

That's the point. The PC don't want the conflict to resolve this way, they want to fight it...but they can't. Their ability to fight it...their agency...is removed and the referee simply declares something to be true that the characters reasonably would be able to act against.


Ovinomancer said:


> Agency is about the ability to make meaningful choices. PbtA certainly doesn't lack for these moments.



Right. Up to a point. Players can make meaningful choices from a finite, curated list of moves. Anything not directly related to those is either out of bounds or up to the referee. PbtA certainly pushes things towards drama, I'm not claiming otherwise. But it does so by removing agency. You have to skip over agency to hard frame a scene. You have to skip over agency to make a sequence-of-events move in response to a failed player move.

A player rolls a failure on some check, now the referee gets a move. The referee picks hard or soft, say hard. The referee picks from a list or makes one up. The referee then spits that hard move out into the fiction...without the players being able to do anything about it. This is why I always start with soft move, to telegraph terrible things about to happen rather than just spring something on the players. It's such a cool idea that I basically stole it and use it to run all my games.

A separate example but shows the same thing. A player fails a move, the referee makes a hard move, separate the party. Cool. What form does that take? A wall falls between them. Okay. Sweet. Now, if you've played any RPG for more than five minutes, you know you'll have a table full of players shouting at you about all the things they're going to do to prevent this from happening before you can finish the sentence declaring the wall falls between them...or you have players gripe about how they wanted to do something but you won't let them. But nope. The wall falls, the party is separated. What agency do the characters have in that event? None.


----------



## overgeeked (Jun 11, 2022)

Reynard said:


> What I find interesting about PbtA games, even if I don't like the way it seems to be implemented, is how those games provide a broad list of potential outcomes to situations. Strip out the idea of moves and what you have is a way of telling GMs things they can consider aside from everyone on this side dies. That's cool and worth appreciating, even if I feel like the kind of moves in the quote above aren't granular enough o preserve what I think of as player agency and GM choice.



Absolutely. There's a lot of great referee advice on PbtA games. But they do produce a very forced style of play and forced kind of story-thing as a result. Something that pulled back a hair on the "push, push, push" mentality would be great. Something that builds in "quieter" moments like Masks is great. Between that and Marvel Heroic I don't really need any other superhero game ever. The referee advice from something like M&M3 tossed into the mix with either/both of those...that's about as solid as you could hope for.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Jun 11, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> Because it's true. As seen from the example in the thread. One PC pulls a gun and the whole group is referee-fiat captured as a result. Removing the agency of the PCs to resist that capture in any way. That clearly causes problems with several posters' sense of agency. It's because the difference in resolution that some agency is removed.




But that never happened. That example was misconstrued. See the posts not far upthread where @Campbell clarifies his example was about a solo PC, and it seems @Lanefan assumed it was about an entire group of PCs. 

Which isn’t how PbtA games tend to work. The example of one PC drawing a gun somehow leading to an entire group of PCs getting captured is obviously flawed; play would almost never go that way.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 11, 2022)

Mannahnin said:


> Certainly the example Campbell gave is not how I'd want D&D to play, but I've also faced the problem of the "PCs captured/backing down from a fight" situation being nearly impossible in D&D and playing out in un-fun ways numerous times over my decades of play, so much so that it's become a trope.  I'm intrigued by the idea that another game has mechanics that handle that scene in a more fun way than I have found that D&D does.





Mannahnin said:


> I'm talking about how in D&D, mechanically, getting captured, unless everyone happens to fail a save vs certain powerful spells, normally involves playing out a whole extended combat in which the party gets beaten down.
> 
> Loss of HP, waste of spells, and a roughly (depending on edition, level, play skill, etc.) 30-60 minute exercise in losing.
> 
> ...



I like your analysis.

The RPG where I've had the most amount of PCs being taken prisoner is Classic Traveller. At the front end, it makes it easy for the players to judge overwhelming firepower and hence have their PCs surrender. Probably more important, though, has been handling the back end - that is, how do they escape? Traveller isn't quite as robust here as Apocalypse World would be, but it offers more than just GM fiat too. One PC has been tried twice - once she was banished, the other time she blew up the tribunal with a concealed grenade. There is action resolution to help with these things, including rules and rolls for dealing with bureaucracy, for NPC reactions, etc.

Another time the PCs turned the tables on their captors, and managed to take control of the one suit of powered armour that was in the installation. On this occasion I made up some rules of my own: rules for grappling when a PC wrestled a guard wielding a submachine gun; and an ad hoc roll (10+ and it goes well, 7-9 and it goes OK) for when the same PC, having wrested the SMG from the guard, entered the installation to try and grab the powered armour.

The PCs have also from time to time made alliances with or secured recruits from NPCs who have captured them. I don't know if it's a Traveller trope, but in our game at least the PCs' band of hangers-on keeps growing and that seems more than mere coincidence: they pick up extra starship crew, specialists in various skills, etc; and the costs of paying salaries isn't very great compared to the cost of fuelling and servicing a starship!


----------



## pemerton (Jun 11, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> Marvel Heroic had a lot in common with FATE, which obviously is a very different game than D&D.  Genre emulation-heavy games like Marvel Heroic play entirely differently from traditional, to the point where they're even on many people's radar as a kind of RPG.  They are of course, but definitely a different genus (if not phylum).



I know it's fairly common to compare MHRP to Fate, but personally I don't really see it. It doesn't have compels (Limits can sometimes resemble compels, but they're much more targetted and "fine-tuned") and you don't earn Fate points for having your aspects invoked.

I think it's great for stylised and trope-heavy settings and situations. That's no surprise, given it's a super hero system. But has also made it easy to adapt for fantasy, including LotR/MERP.


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 11, 2022)

Mannahnin said:


> I'm talking about how in D&D, mechanically, getting captured, unless everyone happens to fail a save vs certain powerful spells, normally involves playing out a whole extended combat in which the party gets beaten down.
> 
> Loss of HP, waste of spells, and a roughly (depending on edition, level, play skill, etc.) 30-60 minute exercise in losing.



True enough - in a D&D setting, capturing people without using magic is best done via traps rather than brute force.

The loss of h.p. and spells, however, would be fine from the captors' point of view, in that weakened prisoners are usually easier to keep in place than are prisoners at full strength.


Mannahnin said:


> Players don't enjoy it.  And they almost certainly attach a negative emotional view of the NPCs who did it.  If they later get a chance to take REVENGE on those bad guys, they may really enjoy that payoff.  But IME the game is NOT conducive to a) making that scene run quickly so it doesn't suck to play through, and consequently b) leaving the players in an emotional state where they are potentially open to a positive or working relationship with the guys who got one over on them.



This depends greatly on the players and-or how they see their PCs, I think; and that varies player-to-player, never mind table-to-table.

A few years back I was DM in a situation where the PCs had sheltered in a dead-end cave and the bad guys (who the party knew to probably be more than they could handle) trapped them in there.  What followed, while the bad guys waited outside, was a long in-character debate within the party as to whether to surrender or go out fighting; with said debate only ending when one PC just said "Screw it", walked out without warning, and - much to my surprise as DM - surrendered.

Result: chaos all round!  Of a party of 8, three others ended up getting captured (one by force, two surrendered) while the other four each found ways of independently escaping and scattering once they realized rescuing the one who surrendered was pointless.  For a short time I was running 5 parties at once - the group of 4 captives plus 4 parties of one PC each - until the four started finding each other; and they somewhat later managed to find their companions...who had escaped on their own in the meantime.


Mannahnin said:


> This is a common trope in heroic fiction and fantasy, and D&D seems to be largely incapable of supporting it.



As written, yes.  It can be done, sort of, but it takes probably a bit too much buy-in to be feasible.

A partial workaround is to make missile weapons *much* deadlier - as in, as deadly as guns are in real life - at ranges of less than maybe 5 or 10 feet, to enhance their threat.  Mechanically this might be achieved by multiplying their damage by [double the target's level] in these conditions (not every gunshot kills), or by bespoke mechanics if one doesn't mind subsystems.


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 11, 2022)

Campbell said:


> @Lanefan brought the rest of the PCs into it. I was picturing a scene where a single PC pulled the gun and subsequently was captured. Wasn't even considering where the other PCs might be.



Your original example read as if the single PC pulled the gun and the next scene was the whole party captured and being interrogated.

If it was intended as you say above, however, I'm fine with it.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 11, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> As seen from the example in the thread. One PC pulls a gun and the whole group is referee-fiat captured as a result.





hawkeyefan said:


> But that never happened. That example was misconstrued. See the posts not far upthread where @Campbell clarifies his example was about a solo PC, and it seems @Lanefan assumed it was about an entire group of PCs.



Campbell wasn't clarifying, just reiterating. Here's the original post:


Campbell said:


> Like as a hard move for a player character pulling a gun on the leader of the territory they are in who fails their go aggro roll I can precede right to the next scene of them being interrogated, surrounding by that leader's men.



Campbell clearly used the singular "a player character", and was clearly using "they" and "them" as genderless singular pronouns.



overgeeked said:


> Players can make meaningful choices from a finite, curated list of moves. Anything not directly related to those is either out of bounds or up to the referee.



This isn't right either. The players in AW can have their PCs do whatever makes sense, given their fictional position. If what they do triggers a move, the move is resolved. Otherwise the GM does their bit, which is to make a soft move unless the player has handed them a golden opportunity to make a hard move.



overgeeked said:


> A player rolls a failure on some check, now the referee gets a move. The referee picks hard or soft, say hard. The referee picks from a list or makes one up. The referee then spits that hard move out into the fiction...without the players being able to do anything about it. This is why I always start with soft move



The players had their chance to do things when they declared actions and rolled the dice! And the soft move that sets things up will typically have already happened, when the GM had to say something earlier in the conversation.

I know you say you've played DW et al, but your description of the process of play is weird to me, because you don't seem to be recognising that not every player action declaration for their PC triggers a move, and hence the role of the GM in making soft moves that build up the stakes _until_ those stakes (or some of them) are settled one way or another when a player actually rolls for a move.



overgeeked said:


> A separate example but shows the same thing. A player fails a move, the referee makes a hard move, separate the party. Cool. What form does that take? A wall falls between them. Okay. Sweet. Now, if you've played any RPG for more than five minutes, you know you'll have a table full of players shouting at you about all the things they're going to do to prevent this from happening before you can finish the sentence declaring the wall falls between them...or you have players gripe about how they wanted to do something but you won't let them. But nope. The wall falls, the party is separated. What agency do the characters have in that event? None.



This reinforces my puzzlement about how you're describing play. Where did the wall come from (in the shared fiction? in the trajectory of play?) What did the players do that made the separation of the PCs by a falling wall a prospect?

Suppose that, in D&D, the PCs are exploring a dungeon that they know to be replete with traps. And they describe their PCs walking down a particular corridor. And then the GM declares that a portcullis falls, and calls for Reflex saves - whoever makes their save gets to decide which side of the portcullis they're on, and otherwise the GM makes a random roll (and anyone who rolls a natural 1 gets spiked for their troubles!). The players aren't normally entitled to dispute their Reflex roll. Maybe they can substitute something else for Reflex -say Fortitude to hold the portcullis up? But in that case they're bound by the result of that roll. They don't get endless saving throws.

So in a DW game, the PCs are exploring a dungeon that they know to be replete with traps. And then the GM mentions a corridor. And one of the players declares that they search it for traps: Discern Realities. And the throw fails. Well, the player has had their turn, and they failed their check, and now it's the GM's turn: "You notice the pressure plate too late - you've already stepped on it, and a portcullis falls between you and . . ." The player is not entitled to endless saving throws. If another player declares "I roll under the portcullis as it falls, to make sure they're not alone" that sounds like Defy Danger on DEX - if it fails a proverbial spiking would seem a fair hard move!

If another player declares "I grab the portcullis as it falls" I think it's fair for the GM to reply "Sorry, it's already fallen." Again, the Gm isn't obliged to permit endless saving throws. The player was prepared to take the benefits of traps being found: now they have to suck up the consequences - separation! - that are resulting instead.



overgeeked said:


> When a PC fails, rolls 6-/2d6, the GM makes a move, generally a hard move but it’s the GM’s choice. But, importantly, the consequences are not limited to the PC who failed the roll, which is fine, but the GM moves often represent _sequences of events_ rather than singular isolated events. The problem is there. In that sequence the PCs should have agency…but they don’t.



How are the other PCs implicated in the situation and its consequences? Did they try to help? Try to hinder? Want the advantages of the the move made by the other player?

A final comment: as a player who often advocates "trusting the GM", I'm puzzled that you would make moves as an AW or DW GM that your players would regard as unfair because the stakes weren't clear.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Jun 11, 2022)

pemerton said:


> I know it's fairly common to compare MHRP to Fate, but personally I don't really see it. It doesn't have compels (Limits can sometimes resemble compels, but they're much more targetted and "fine-tuned") and you don't earn Fate points for having your aspects invoked.
> 
> I think it's great for stylised and trope-heavy settings and situations. That's no surprise, given it's a super hero system. But has also made it easy to adapt for fantasy, including LotR/MERP.




And of course Cortex Prime is out now with a whole lot of discussion about how to adapt it to various purposes.

(I found the Lords of Gossamer and Shadow adaptation I did of it vaguely unsatisfactory on a game level, but that could very well been an artifact of my cutting some corners when putting it together).


----------



## pemerton (Jun 11, 2022)

Lanefan said:


> Your original example read as if the single PC pulled the gun and the next scene was the whole party captured and being interrogated.



@Campbell's example was of AW play. He referred to "a player character". In AW there is no "party".


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 11, 2022)

pemerton said:


> Campbell wasn't clarifying, just reiterating. Here's the original post:
> Campbell clearly used the singular "a player character", and was clearly using "they" and "them" as genderless singular pronouns.



Particularly in a context where the actual number involved is unclear, using "they" very strongly implies there is more than one.


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 11, 2022)

pemerton said:


> @Campbell's example was of AW play. He referred to "a player character". In AW there is no "party".



It's solo-play only?


----------



## pemerton (Jun 11, 2022)

A further thought on capture-and-escape.

Most RPGing involves larger-than-life adventure and/or drama. If action resolution procedures don't allow this to happen, then something is going wrong.

In D&D the combat procedures clearly do allow for it - eg mortal warriors going toe-to-toe with giants and dragons. If the procedures for resolving escape from captivity don't, that's a problem with those procedures!


----------



## pemerton (Jun 11, 2022)

Lanefan said:


> It's solo-play only?



No. It's a game - like many RPGs - in which the PCs are not members of a party or a warband.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Jun 11, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> Sorry that I don't preface every post with the complete list of games I've ever played to allay your suspicions. Here's a thought. You could start a thread where you demand everyone on the forums posts every game they've ever played just so you can check to be sure when they disagree with you. I'm sure that would work. Of course that's self-reporting, just like your assertions that you've played these games. Your claims are just as valid as mine.



Oh, you don't have to provide a pedigree, by no means.  But, you've suddenly chosen to do so.  Such a claim would have been rather relevant in previous discussions, where you've listed other games you've played, but not these.  So, the sudden appearance of a pedigree that's very clearly a claim to experience to bolster credibility seems interesting.  You're, of course, welcome to post whatever you'd like -- I have no say on that.


overgeeked said:


> Any chance we can permanently skip the bit where you feel the need to question other people's geek cred whenever they disagree with you? It's boring, really.



About the point people stop listing their geek cred as a reason to believe what they're going to say next, I guess.  I question this cred because you've not previously shown any real evidence of understanding of how these games play -- sometimes very far off -- and I find that hard to square with your newly claimed pedigree.  

So, to answer your question, sure, the moment it stops being used as a crutch.  If you present actual play from these games, examples that show your understanding -- you know, like I do, and @pemerton does, and @Manbearcat does, and... so on -- then you'll escape the questions.  Heck, a steelmanning of how these games are expected to play would suffice.  Can you steelman the expected play of a PbtA game?


overgeeked said:


> Of course you are. Because I disagree with you. And because I disagree you cannot believe I have read or played or run these games. How's the sequence go: If you disagree with me you must not have read it, if you've read it you must not understand it, if you claim to understand it the fact that you disagree with me proves you don't understand. It's the same thing every time.



Oh, no.  Plenty of people disagree with me.  My problem is that I've seen no evidence that you can make a strong argument for how these games are supposed to run.  You haven't yet.  So, if you have that knowledge, it's not something you've yet chosen to deploy.  I await with bated breath.  I'd love to have an actual discussion where we aren't argument about basic facts of how these games are supposed to work and so we can dive into differences (of opinion and play) with a solid foundation!

I've certainly done that with people that show they have a good grasp of the concepts but dislike them.  You can dislike these games all you want -- I'd welcome that. So long as it's paired with understanding.


overgeeked said:


> It is a salient point. Sorry you disagree, you must not have read the same PbtA games I have. Or you must not have played or run them as much as I have. Or...you know...we can both be real gamers and just have a disagreement.



Ah, you complain that I'm questioning your geek cred but now are flipping that script and saying I just must not have the depth of experience you do.  I mean, totally devoid of actual examples of such, sure, but I'm following.


overgeeked said:


> Because it's true. As seen from the example in the thread. One PC pulls a gun and the whole group is referee-fiat captured as a result. Removing the agency of the PCs to resist that capture in any way. That clearly causes problems with several posters' sense of agency. It's because the difference in resolution that some agency is removed. If the characters were real people in a real world facing that situation, they'd be able to do something about it. At least try. But PbtA games have a lower resolution, zoom out, etc and you lose granularity. You lose some agency as a result. It's not necessarily bad, but it's a bit weird to pretend it's not true.



Nope.  Example misstated.  And, had you had experience with the games you're claiming, the oddness of the structure of the misstatement of the example should have been obvious because it would violate the principles of play.  The actual example was 1 PC and the outcome applied only to that 1 PC.  No other PCs were mentioned, and, as @Campbell said about his example, even considered when the example was offered.

Right?


overgeeked said:


> So? The players control their characters. The referee controls the world. Conflicts aren't resolved until both sides decide they are, something forces one side to relent, or one side ceases to exist.
> 
> That's the point. The PC don't want the conflict to resolve this way, they want to fight it...but they can't. Their ability to fight it...their agency...is removed and the referee simply declares something to be true that the characters reasonably would be able to act against.



The players in a D&D game have no authority or say in when a conflict resolves.  None.  If the GM is asking for their input, that's the GM sharing things out, which isn't required.  And the GM retains full veto authority over any input that they do choose to loan out, thus retaining the full authority (basically asking for opinions before making their call).  So, no, analysis of the authority of these games is different.  Which is an interesting point because there's many complaints about how the GM is constrained in PbtA games, and not in D&D, and it's primarily this constraint!  In PbtA, the GM is actually constrained to resolve conflicts in the players' favor when they succeed.  There's some wiggle room in if it might take multiple actions to do so, but that's clearly laid out in play and understood among all players, but then, you already know this with your experience, right, so I really don't need to point that out.


overgeeked said:


> Right. Up to a point. Players can make meaningful choices from a finite, curated list of moves. Anything not directly related to those is either out of bounds or up to the referee. PbtA certainly pushes things towards drama, I'm not claiming otherwise. But it does so by removing agency. You have to skip over agency to hard frame a scene. You have to skip over agency to make a sequence-of-events move in response to a failed player move.



Oh, good grief.  You've just blown your entire claim to understanding and having experience out of the water.  That's expressly NOT how the move lists work.  The players declare actions for their PCs in the fiction -- they don't mention moves but say what their character does in the fiction.  Then, if their action implicates a move, the GM calls for the move to be made.  The players aren't picking from a curated list, and nothing is out of bounds.  In fact (and, again, given your experience with these games you surely know this), the basic moves are incredibly generic.  Things like persuade to try and get your way with words or deeds, or clash, where you get into a fight, or defend, where you're defending something.  Or the one that shows up all the time, Defy Danger, which is when you act in a contested way to do something.  You Defy Danger with every one of the attributes (Str, Dex, Con, Int, Wis, Cha for Dungeon World, which you've claimed experience with but may have forgotten this detail, so I'll remind you).  So Defy Danger CHA can be called for if you declare an action for your PC to try and charm their way out of a dangerous situation!

Example from last night's Stonetop game:  My PC, Dap, was trying to get to and heal a critically wounded person from another village.  This wounded person (fall from a horse, broken neck) was being cradled by a capable warrior from that same village who was extremely distrustful of my PC (my PC had just displayed some magical power, and this warrior was extremely superstitious).  What happened was that as I approached, the warrior rose to attack me, grabbing my shirt and cocking back a punch.  I declared my PC was going to calmly look him in the eyes, not resist at all, and say, "peace friend, the darkness holds no sway here." (The PC was superstitious about the powers of darkness.)  The GM called for a Defy Danger CHA move, which I hit (rolled a 10, +2 CHA, 12 result).  The warrior let his fist drop as he realized I was not an agent of darkness using foul sorcery, but an agent of the light (which my PC literally is).  Had I failed, the clear outcome here was harm to my PC from taking a punch without resisting.  Had I hit with a 7-9, the GM has some options, like offering reduced effect, meaning the danger is passed, but there's still no way this guy is letting me near his dying friend.

This is pretty darned clear if you actually have experience with these games.  If this is how you played those games, I'm deeply sorry for your experience.  If you gleaned that from reading them, then I suggest a re-read is in order, looking for the blatantly clear direction on how the game plays.  




overgeeked said:


> A player rolls a failure on some check, now the referee gets a move. The referee picks hard or soft, say hard. The referee picks from a list or makes one up. The referee then spits that hard move out into the fiction...without the players being able to do anything about it. This is why I always start with soft move, to telegraph terrible things about to happen rather than just spring something on the players. It's such a cool idea that I basically stole it and use it to run all my games.
> 
> A separate example but shows the same thing. A player fails a move, the referee makes a hard move, separate the party. Cool. What form does that take? A wall falls between them. Okay. Sweet. Now, if you've played any RPG for more than five minutes, you know you'll have a table full of players shouting at you about all the things they're going to do to prevent this from happening before you can finish the sentence declaring the wall falls between them...or you have players gripe about how they wanted to do something but you won't let them. But nope. The wall falls, the party is separated. What agency do the characters have in that event? None.



I've played plenty of RPGs.  I've never had that happen.  Certainly not in a PbtA game, but also not in my D&D playing.  If you've done the job of setting stakes, then these things don't happen.  

Where I have seen that happen is when I've assumed actions for the players in a D&D game where I've declared their task attempt for them, or a detail about it that wasn't clarified prior to the resolution (like touching something when the player just said they pushed their "investigate" button on their character sheet.  It's not an issue in games that stake conflict resolution because the stakes are known to be larger, and the failure is clear, and the result should be clearly following from the current situation.  It's where the GM, in a task resolution system, assumes actions not declared by the player.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Jun 11, 2022)

pemerton said:


> I know it's fairly common to compare MHRP to Fate, but personally I don't really see it. It doesn't have compels (Limits can sometimes resemble compels, but they're much more targetted and "fine-tuned") and you don't earn Fate points for having your aspects invoked.
> 
> I think it's great for stylised and trope-heavy settings and situations. That's no surprise, given it's a super hero system. But has also made it easy to adapt for fantasy, including LotR/MERP.



The aspects thing is what I was focusing on.  To me, its the most jarring part of the whole system for either.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Jun 11, 2022)

Ovinomancer said:


> Oh, you don't have to provide a pedigree, by no means.  But, you've suddenly chosen to do so.  Such a claim would have been rather relevant in previous discussions, where you've listed other games you've played, but not these.  So, the sudden appearance of a pedigree that's very clearly a claim to experience to bolster credibility seems interesting.  You're, of course, welcome to post whatever you'd like -- I have no say on that.
> 
> About the point people stop listing their geek cred as a reason to believe what they're going to say next, I guess.  I question this cred because you've not previously shown any real evidence of understanding of how these games play -- sometimes very far off -- and I find that hard to square with your newly claimed pedigree.
> 
> ...



What is steelmanning?


----------



## prabe (Jun 11, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> What is steelmanning?



Generally, arguing as strongly as possible for a position you don't agree with. Kinda the opposite of a strawman.


----------



## bloodtide (Jun 11, 2022)

Thomas Shey said:


> Again [citation needed].  In many groups, the GM is not free to change the already established things in the setting just because he feels like it.  He'll get called on it.




Sure you can say players might complain, but a DM can still do it.  And like really......so the players encounter character Bob and "think" he is a human.  The players can scream 24/7/365 that Bob is always and must be human....then the GM can "just say" that "oh Bob is a demon, shapeshifter, dragon, or anything else".  The players can stomp there feet all the live long day, but they are just being silly when they say "Bob must be human".





Thomas Shey said:


> Again, you're overly projecting from the games you're familiar with.  To make it very clear, in many groups just doing that sort of thing for the hell of it is _not acceptable_.




But again, this is how many games with GMs work.  The characters wake up in the morning and the Gm says it's raining.  Sure I guess some players might complain and demand it Always Be Sunny in RPGs.  



Thomas Shey said:


> Just because there's some rationale he could pull out of his behind by no means means he won't be called on it.



Sure, you can be a hostile player and nitpick everything.  That does not really make for a great game though.  



Blue said:


> This is the one place that is inviolate - the players are in control of their PCs in regards to their thoughts, intentions, feelings.  (Outside corner cases like being controlled by magic or psionic.)
> 
> This isn't even really debatable, it's one of the cornerstones of RPGs.  I can not picture someone who has actually played RPGs not understanding this.




Dare I say [Citation Needed]   ........   

Even the most BASIC "description" of things a GM might tell a player something feels strange or odd or off or comfortable or so on.  So, that IS the GM telling the player what the character feels.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Jun 11, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> What is steelmanning?



Opposite of strawmanning,  You make the best case argument that the supporting side would recognize as good, and then attack it.  With a strawman, you erect a false argument that's subbed in and easily defeated.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Jun 11, 2022)

bloodtide said:


> Sure you can say players might complain, but a DM can still do it.  And like really......so the players encounter character Bob and "think" he is a human.  The players can scream 24/7/365 that Bob is always and must be human....then the GM can "just say" that "oh Bob is a demon, shapeshifter, dragon, or anything else".  The players can stomp there feet all the live long day, but they are just being silly when they say "Bob must be human".
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It's pretty clear that it's feel (emotions) not feel (physical).


----------



## Manbearcat (Jun 11, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> What is steelmanning?




This GM is here to entertain you.


----------



## overgeeked (Jun 11, 2022)

Ovinomancer said:


> Oh, you don't have to provide a pedigree, by no means.



When people dismiss criticism out of hand and accuse those criticizing of not having read, understood, played, or run these games it seems appropriate to say otherwise.


Ovinomancer said:


> So, to answer your question, sure, the moment it stops being used as a crutch.  If you present actual play from these games, examples that show your understanding -- you know, like I do, and @pemerton does, and @Manbearcat does, and... so on -- then you'll escape the questions.



Ah. So when I agree with you, you’ll stop questioning my credentials. That’s nice.


Ovinomancer said:


> The players in a D&D game have no authority or say in when a conflict resolves. None.



News to me. They can’t walk away? They can’t retreat? They can’t surrender? They can’t relent? Any of which could resolve a conflict.


Ovinomancer said:


> You've just blown your entire claim to understanding and having experience out of the water.  That's expressly NOT how the move lists work.  The players declare actions for their PCs in the fiction -- they don't mention moves but say what their character does in the fiction.  Then, if their action implicates a move, the GM calls for the move to be made.  The players aren't picking from a curated list, and nothing is out of bounds.



You’re intentionally misreading what I said. So what happens in a PbtA game when a PC does something not covered by a move? Either nothing _mechanical_ or the referee makes it up. So, the mechanics only engage when the PCs do something on the curated list of moves. And yes, some of them are generic. Otherwise it’s free play, as I said before. But, importantly, there are times the referee can just make a move, like when the game stalls or the players look to the referee to see what happens next, etc.

So, again, a player makes a move and fails. The referee gets to make a move as a result. That move should either come from the fiction or introduce something new to the fiction. Great. And that referee move…if it’s a _sequence of events_, rather than a singular event…removes the players’ agency to respond.

And again, hard framing removes player agency because it’s the referee making a series of choices for the player that they might not have made.


Ovinomancer said:


> I've played plenty of RPGs.  I've never had that happen.  Certainly not in a PbtA game, but also not in my D&D playing.



Lucky you.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Jun 11, 2022)

bloodtide said:


> Sure, you can be a hostile player and nitpick everything.  That does not really make for a great game though.




Neither does a GM who changes everything on a whim.  You seem to be under the impression the GM somehow has some power the players as a group don't cede him.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Jun 11, 2022)

Lanefan said:


> It's solo-play only?




I think they're referring to the fact there's no special benefit given to the group as a group.  Best I can tell, most PbtA games are just as likely to be five characters doing different things than them doing anything collectively.  In any case, the collective group is not treated as particularly significant.


----------



## Aldarc (Jun 11, 2022)

pemerton said:


> I know it's fairly common to compare MHRP to Fate, *but personally I don't really see it. *It doesn't have compels (Limits can sometimes resemble compels, but they're much more targetted and "fine-tuned") and you don't earn Fate points for having your aspects invoked.
> 
> I think it's great for stylised and trope-heavy settings and situations. That's no surprise, given it's a super hero system. But has also made it easy to adapt for fantasy, including LotR/MERP.



I'm sorry, but how can you not? Here I am looking more broadly at Cortex Prime and Fate. Fictional descriptors for the character that involving Hindering or said descriptors in return for Plot Points. There are definitely differences between Aspects and Distinctions, PP and Fate Points, Hinderances and Compels, and other systems, but we are still looking at two games that operate with similar game philosophies and principles. IME, they both cultivate similar playstyles and game priorities. Moreover, there is an overlap of writers who have collaborated on the two systems, and there are even hybrid versions of the game out there.


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 11, 2022)

pemerton said:


> No. It's a game - like many RPGs - in which the PCs are not members of a party or a warband.



If the PCs usually operate as a group, ideally pooling their strengths and skills such that the whole ends up being a bit more than the sum of the parts, that sounds like a party from here.  They might do different things in different ways than a typical D&D group might, but they're still a group.  D&D's class system somewhat encourages this interdependence by giving each class specific strengths and weaknesses, though this has been watered down some in recent editions.

If the PCs generally travel etc. together but don't usually operate as a group then other than entirely-table-dependent in-character bonds of friendship etc. what keeps them together?

And if they operate entirely as individuals (which seems highly unlikely) then why have everyone at the same table each week?


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 11, 2022)

Ovinomancer said:


> Heck, a steelmanning of how these games are expected to play would suffice.  Can you steelman the expected play of a PbtA game?



Jargon question: what's "steelman" mean?

EDIT: ninja'ed by @Micah Sweet and answered by @prabe and others.  Thanks!


----------



## niklinna (Jun 11, 2022)

Lanefan said:


> Jargon question: what's "steelman" mean?











						Straw man - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## Campbell (Jun 11, 2022)

Lanefan said:


> If the PCs usually operate as a group, ideally pooling their strengths and skills such that the whole ends up being a bit more than the sum of the parts, that sounds like a party from here.  They might do different things in different ways than a typical D&D group might, but they're still a group.  D&D's class system somewhat encourages this interdependence by giving each class specific strengths and weaknesses, though this has been watered down some in recent editions.
> 
> If the PCs generally travel etc. together but don't usually operate as a group then other than entirely-table-dependent in-character bonds of friendship etc. what keeps them together?
> 
> And if they operate entirely as individuals (which seems highly unlikely) then why have everyone at the same table each week?




In Apocalypse World the players play prominent members of a hard hold, a post-apocalyptic community that is scarce in resources. Almost all the action takes place within the confines of the hard hold. The community faces outside threats as well as internal strife. We're largely playing to find out if the player characters will pull together or tear each other down. It's the GM's job to frame situations that put the bonds within the community in doubt as well as to present external threats. One of the things you're supposed to do as a GM is to introduce NPCs that create conflicts of interest between player characters in order to put pressure on their bonds with one another.

It's largely up to the players how much they cooperate with one another. The type of scenarios you deal with are a lot more like Deadwood than they are like a typical D&D adventure.


----------



## Aldarc (Jun 11, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> So, again, a player makes a move and fails. The referee gets to make a move as a result. That move should either come from the fiction or introduce something new to the fiction. Great. And that referee move…if it’s a _sequence of events_, rather than a singular event…removes the players’ agency to respond.
> 
> And again, hard framing removes player agency because it’s the referee making a series of choices for the player that they might not have made.



Do you have an actual example of hard framing that removes player agency or a move that entails a sequence of events that removes player agency from your play experiences in PbtA games that isn't this hypothetical capture scenario that no one seems satisfied with? And can you demonstrate how it removes player agency?


----------



## Campbell (Jun 11, 2022)

A big part of what we're trying to do in games like Apocalypse World, Sorcerer or Burning Wheel is to have characters with intersecting interests and frame the sort of situations that will likely involve multiple characters if not always the same characters. As players some of the fan is getting to see how things shake out for the other characters when it's not your turn in the spotlight. Also, those moments of tension between characters (but not players) can feel really special.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 11, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> You’re intentionally misreading what I said. So what happens in a PbtA game when a PC does something not covered by a move? Either nothing _mechanical_ or the referee makes it up.



Huh? The rules of AW are clear: if the table looks at the GM to see what happens next, the GM makes a soft move unless (i) it's a failed throw or (ii) the GM has been handed a golden opportunity to follow through with a hard move.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 11, 2022)

Aldarc said:


> I'm sorry, but how can you not? Here I am looking more broadly at Cortex Prime and Fate. Fictional descriptors for the character that involving Hindering or said descriptors in return for Plot Points. There are definitely differences between Aspects and Distinctions, PP and Fate Points, Hinderances and Compels, and other systems, but we are still looking at two games that operate with similar game philosophies and principles. IME, they both cultivate similar playstyles and game priorities. Moreover, there is an overlap of writers who have collaborated on the two systems, and there are even hybrid versions of the game out there.



I don't know anything about the overlapping writers and hybrids. And my remarks are about MHRP (and the treatment of it in the Hacker's Guide); I don't own and haven't read Cortex Prime.

My first association for Free Descriptor RPGing is Malestrom Storytelling and HeroWars/Quest (and I guess also Over the Edge), so to me that doesn't scream Fate.

The absence of compels strikes me as pretty significant. Also the fact that you don't normally include other people's Distinctions in your pool. And that Milestones generally include XP both for playing for and against type.

An increasingly big thing, for me, in MHRP/Cortex+ is using Scene Distinctions to establish stakes/goals - like Pursued By Giants or Uncertain As To What To Do Now - and to the best of my knowledge those wouldn't work as aspects in Fate. (My knowledge here is my recollection of Fate Core.)

So as I said, to me they seem fairly different.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 11, 2022)

Lanefan said:


> If the PCs usually operate as a group, ideally pooling their strengths and skills such that the whole ends up being a bit more than the sum of the parts, that sounds like a party from here.



OK? In which case, why would you assume that that's what is happening in Apocalypse World? 



Lanefan said:


> if they operate entirely as individuals (which seems highly unlikely) then why have everyone at the same table each week?



Because it's fun to play a game with one's friends?


----------



## Aldarc (Jun 11, 2022)

pemerton said:


> I don't know anything about the overlapping writers and hybrids. And my remarks are about MHRP (and the treatment of it in the Hacker's Guide); I don't own and haven't read Cortex Prime.
> 
> My first association for Free Descriptor RPGing is Malestrom Storytelling and HeroWars/Quest (and I guess also Over the Edge), so to me that doesn't scream Fate.
> 
> ...



The differences between Fate and Cortex are akin to the differences between FitD and PbtA. There are significant differences, but you can also recognize their close kinship when you look under the hood. If @Campbell can say that CoC and D&D are fundamentally the same game family in terms of how they operate regardless of their mechanical differences, then I think it's pretty clear that Fate and Cortex are as well.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 11, 2022)

Aldarc said:


> The differences between Fate and Cortex are akin to the differences between FitD and PbtA. There are significant differences, but you can also recognize their close kinship when you look under the hood. If @Campbell can say that CoC and D&D are fundamentally the same game family in terms of how they operate regardless of their mechanical differences, then I think it's pretty clear that Fate and Cortex are as well.



Well, because I don't know BitD/FitD other than by what I've read, I can't express a view about this issue of proximity.

I guess I would ask: will the techniques that work for Fate also work for MHRP? To me, at least, some of the big parts of GMing MHRP are coming up with Scene Distinctions and managing the Doom Pool, including choosing when to spend 2d12 to end scenes; and looking for ways to foreground the sorts of things that speak to the PC Milestones.

Without Fate experience other than having read the book, you (or someone else: I'm not setting you homeword!) would have to make the comparison to that system.

But I think if @Micah Sweet doesn't like Fate because of, say, compels or aspects, that MHRP is sufficiently different that I wouldn't say the dislike is going to obviously carry over.


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 11, 2022)

pemerton said:


> OK? In which case, why would you assume that that's what is happening in Apocalypse World?



System-agnostic in-character logic, perhaps; in that once the PCs got to know each other they might realize they're better off working together than separately.


pemerton said:


> Because it's fun to play a game with one's friends?



Except if there's five players at the table each with a character acting largely or completely on its own, while you're in the physical* company of your friends you're not playing a game with them - at any given moment you're either playing a game with the GM or watching one of four other people play a game with the GM.  If that works for a group then great; and it certainly can work well in unusual short-term situations e.g. when a group of PCs get split apart by something, but it seems like an odd dynamic for the long term.

Suggest a dynamic like this in a D&D set-up - particularly a modern one - and the squawks would rain down, as for many people watching counts as sitting out rather than playing, and sitting out (on average) 4/5 of the time wouldn't fly.  Oddly enough, old-school players might be in general a bit more accepting of this, as in older-edition D&D play (e.g. 0e-1e-2e) being forced to sit out for a variable length of time is fairly commonplace either due to one's character being paralyzed or held or killed or some other bad thing or due to a character having gone (or been sent) off on its own.

* - assuming in-person play here; if it's online play even this benefit goes away.


----------



## Aldarc (Jun 11, 2022)

pemerton said:


> Well, because I don't know BitD/FitD other than by what I've read, I can't express a view about this issue of proximity.
> 
> I guess I would ask: will the techniques that work for Fate also work for MHRP? To me, at least, some of the big parts of GMing MHRP are coming up with Scene Distinctions and managing the Doom Pool, including choosing when to spend 2d12 to end scenes; and looking for ways to foreground the sorts of things that speak to the PC Milestones.
> 
> Without Fate experience other than having read the book, you (or someone else: I'm not setting you homeword!) would have to make the comparison to that system.



Scene Distinctions are roughly equivalent to Situation Aspects. Fate doesn't have a Doom Pool per se, but the GM does have a number of Fate points for running a scene, which may also involve conceding a scene: GM Fate Points. Fate also includes Challenges, akin to 4e Skill Challenges. 

I would add that Doom Pools are also not required for running Cortex Prime, though they are an add-on tool option. 



pemerton said:


> But I think if @Micah Sweet doesn't like Fate because of, say, compels or aspects, that MHRP is sufficiently different that I wouldn't say the dislike is going to obviously carry over.



Here I agree that the distinction matters more, because of how Hinderances are more self-inflicted rather than lightning rods for character complications like Troubles.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 11, 2022)

Moving on from the issue of "how similar" to "in what ways similar/different":



Aldarc said:


> Scene Distinctions are roughly equivalent to Situation Aspects.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Fate also includes Challenges, akin to 4e Skill Challenges.



I don't think Fate has the idea of using aspects to convey what's at stake in a scene. This is one thing I really like in MHRP/Cortex+ Heroic, and have used more as I've become more comfortable with the system. For @Micah Sweet, though, it might be a bit "metagamey", as it can require some negotiation with the players to settle what's at stake. Not always - Being Pursued by Giants might be a GM-imposed outcome of an earlier scene. But sometimes - Not Sure of What to Do Next couldn't be imposed as a Scene Distinction if the players were dead-set on their next goal!



Aldarc said:


> Fate doesn't have a Doom Pool per se, but the GM does have a number of Fate points for running a scene, which may also involve conceding a scene: GM Fate Points.



But the Fate GM has unlimited fate points for compels, don't they? Whereas Limits have to be paid for by spending Doom Pool dice, unless the player chooses to take a Plot Point instead.


----------



## Aldarc (Jun 11, 2022)

pemerton said:


> Moving on from the issue of "how similar" to "in what ways similar/different":
> 
> I don't think Fate has the idea of using aspects to convey what's at stake in a scene. This is one thing I really like in MHRP/Cortex+ Heroic, and have used more as I've become more comfortable with the system. For @Micah Sweet, though, it might be a bit "metagamey", as it can require some negotiation with the players to settle what's at stake. Not always - Being Pursued by Giants might be a GM-imposed outcome of an earlier scene. But sometimes - Not Sure of What to Do Next couldn't be imposed as a Scene Distinction if the players were dead-set on their next goal!



You have little to no familiarly with Fate - certainly none running it - but you are telling me what ideas it has for what it can or can’t do? Maybe it’s time to practice what you preach about gaining working familiarity with a game before speaking against its weaknesses.



pemerton said:


> But the Fate GM has unlimited fate points for compels, don't they? Whereas Limits have to be paid for by spending Doom Pool dice, unless the player chooses to take a Plot Point instead.



The GM has a limited number of fate points for a scene but unlimited for compels and concessions. However, that does not mean that compels should be used willy nilly.

And again Doom Pools are not the default for Cortex Prime. So you are trying to apply a specific rule from a particular game of Cortex against a generalized one about Fate. Okay


----------



## pemerton (Jun 11, 2022)

Aldarc said:


> The GM has a limited number of fate points for a scene but unlimited for compels and concessions. However, that does not mean that compels should be used willy nilly.
> 
> And again Doom Pools are not the default for Cortex Prime. So you are trying to apply a specific rule from a particular game of Cortex against a generalized one about Fate. Okay



I think I've been pretty clear I'm talking about MHRP/Cortex+ Heroic.



Aldarc said:


> You have little to no familiarly with Fate - certainly none running it - but you are telling me what ideas it has for what it can or can’t do? Maybe it’s time to practice what you preach about gaining working familiarity with a game before speaking against its weaknesses.



I said something about what I don't think it has, based on my reading of Fate Core and also the link you provided. I've got no objection to being shown I'm wrong! And I wasn't positing it as a weakness, just a difference. The idea of Scene Distinctions for stakes is found in one of the PDF-only accompaniments to Civil War (maybe New Avengers?), where it's something like Get Everyone On Board the Plane! If the heroes succeed in stepping the Distinction down to d4 then the scene is over as the stakes are resolved. I don't think this idea is discussed in the Hacker's Guide; I don't know about Cortex Prime.

I think it's a clever idea, and I've taken it up in my Cortex+ Heroic GMing. Cortex+ Heroic doesn't have anything like a skill challenge, but this method can serve the same function, of allowing for Scene Resolution to work across a wider range of stakes than the more typical ones of defeating supervillains or keeping a crowd safe (say, by eliminating a Crowd In Danger scene Distinction) or similar.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 11, 2022)

Lanefan said:


> Except if there's five players at the table each with a character acting largely or completely on its own, while you're in the physical* company of your friends you're not playing a game with them - at any given moment you're either playing a game with the GM or watching one of four other people play a game with the GM.



There are a lot of assumptions built into this. Many of them may not be true when a group is playing Apocalypse World.


----------



## Manbearcat (Jun 11, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> When people dismiss criticism out of hand and accuse those criticizing of not having read, understood, played, or run these games it seems appropriate to say otherwise.
> 
> Ah. So when I agree with you, you’ll stop questioning my credentials. That’s nice.
> 
> ...




I’m just going to do some SWAG math here. In the last 11 years:

* I’ve averaged GMing around 4 sessions of various AW and derivative games per month. So roughly 48 per year.

* Roughly 3 hours per session w/ 6-8 player/follower/cohort moves triggered and resolved per hour, so roughly 18-24 moves triggered and resolved per session (with then bunching up in particular conflicts); let’s call it 21.

11 * 48 * 21 = 11,088

So I’ve roughly framed and resolved over 11 k moves made. All of those moves feature:

* Player(s) with nearly unparalleled control over dictating the point of play and the specific generation of content (huge input on situation framing and on decision-space + the ability to outright generate gamestate-and-imagined-space changing content + narrowing or mitigating or shutting down my consequence-space).

* Every move made with a complete table-facing architecture from the _what_ and _why_ of framing > decision-space > _how_ to marshal resources and _what_ the immediate and downstream impacts of that marshaling would be (including liability assumed for Cohorts/Followers helping and the like) > target numbers > consequence-space (including the ability to lock in taking outcomes off the menu).

* Never a complaint about this pathological arresting of agency you’re concerned with. In fact…only ever the opposite * EXCEPT ONE SINGULAR INSTANCE IN A VERY SPECIFIC SITUATION WHERE THE GAME OF “SPINNING PLATES” PLAYERS MUST MANAGE NEGATIVELY IMPACTED A PLAYER COGNITIVELY BECAUSE OF PERSONAL DISPOSITION (it felt overwhelming and “spiral-ey”…which has nothing to do with task vs conflict resolution).


So no.

Just no.

What you are depicting above is either a very unique situation where games aren’t being run correctly (the fiction isn’t being aggressively followed and/or the rules/principles aren’t being observed and/or the conversation of play is not yielding anywhere near the transparency that it should) and/or ** the players are of a very particular cognitive orientation toward granularity of action resolution mechanics with no mental malleability or toggle (and again…amplified by improper play and lack of transparency in framing > decision-space > consequence-space).

TLDR - If a “Separate Them” or equivalent move is made (and holy crap are these rare cases) everyone_at_the_table knows that going in…and they know how to take that off the consequence-space menu.

EDIT - This actual player * and these conceptual players ** do not have overlap (I mean…the conceptual players may possess the quality of * but the real player * does not possess the quality of conceptual players **).


----------



## pemerton (Jun 11, 2022)

Manbearcat said:


> If a “Separate Them” or equivalent move is made (and holy crap are these rare cases) everyone_at_the_table knows that going in…and they know how to take that off the consequence-space menu.



I quite like it as a move!

In my Classic Traveller game the PCs seem to get separated from time to time, often by one or more being taken prisoner but also (in the Annic Nova) by doors shutting or lifts failing. In Burning Wheel it happens in similar sorts of ways, probably less often. In 4e it's routine - push someone over an edge, erect a magical wall, etc.

There's also the softer version (that I think @Campbell alluded to) - of having a NPC invite one PC but not another to a meeting or event.

I'm not quibbling with your enumeration of your own instances. But given how significant this is in fiction - I was just rereading the Hellfire club episodes of the Dark Phoenix saga, where Wolverine is in the tunnels because Leland made him heavy; Luke has to go on his own to Dagobah; every second Star Trek episode where something goes wrong with the transporter; etc - it seems weird that it should be seen as so hard to implement in RPGing.


----------



## Manbearcat (Jun 11, 2022)

pemerton said:


> I quite like it as a move!
> 
> In my Classic Traveller game the PCs seem to get separated from time to time, often by one or more being taken prisoner but also (in the Annic Nova) by doors shutting or lifts failing. In Burning Wheel it happens in similar sorts of ways, probably less often. In 4e it's routine - push someone over an edge, erect a magical wall, etc.
> 
> ...




Yup, no I agree.

Soft move “opt-in” Separate Them (or them separating themselves!) are ubiquitous. That is routinely a part of my games. Like actually pretty much constant (though, again, it’s either opt-in or player-directed).

The hard move Separate Them on a 6- is there but profoundly less so…and if it’s on the table…you know about it…and how to take it off the table!

Typically in my games Separate Them is you’ve figuratively or literally vacated the premise and you’re in another place:


“the psychic maelstrom”
“the ghost field”
_*“your own head confronting personal demons”_
“your dreams or someone else’s”
“the spirit realm”
“the fey wild”
_[*]“lost in a white-out”
 [*]“drowning in the bog/underwater_”
“another room”
_[*]“on the other side of a cave-in”
 [*]“swept down an avalanche/landslide”
 [*]“down a crevasse or sinkhole”_



The italicized are the ones Ive primarily used. And it’s no mystery *that* you got there or *how* you got there!


----------



## Charlaquin (Jun 11, 2022)

Aldarc said:


> You have little to no familiarly with Fate - certainly none running it - but you are telling me what ideas it has for what it can or can’t do? Maybe it’s time to practice what you preach about gaining working familiarity with a game before speaking against its weaknesses.
> 
> 
> The GM has a limited number of fate points for a scene but unlimited for compels and concessions. However, that does not mean that compels should be used willy nilly.
> ...



Not sure what my quote from the locked jargon thread is doing there…


----------



## Aldarc (Jun 11, 2022)

Charlaquin said:


> Not sure what my quote from the locked jargon thread is doing there…



To be honest, I’m not sure either.


----------



## Manbearcat (Jun 11, 2022)

Charlaquin said:


> Not sure what my quote from the locked jargon thread is doing there…






Aldarc said:


> To be honest, I’m not sure either.




Feels like this requires a “Separate Them” hard move!

Make sure you transparently convey the situation to the quoted text and that you’re aggressively following the ENWorlf forum fiction!

Wouldn’t want the quoted post feeling their agency being shut down!


----------



## Ovinomancer (Jun 11, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> When people dismiss criticism out of hand and accuse those criticizing of not having read, understood, played, or run these games it seems appropriate to say otherwise.



Not at all.  You do not have to play any of these games.  The criticism isn't being challenged because you haven't played the right games, but because your criticism is entirely off-base.  It doesn't show any understanding of the structure, intent, or results of play.  That's what's being challenged.  And a suggestion is often made that a good way to understand these things is to play one (or more) of these games.  The statement isn't that you have to play to criticize, but that you at least have to understand to criticize.  It's pretty clear you do not understand, even after providing a claimed pedigree.  So, I'm challenging the pedigree you're claiming not because a pedigree is required, but because you've introduced it as a claim to knowledge.  Knowledge that still seems to not understand the thing you're trying to criticize.


overgeeked said:


> Ah. So when I agree with you, you’ll stop questioning my credentials. That’s nice.



Nope.  I don't really care about your credentials, and I don't really need you to agree with my tastes.  Show understanding of the thing you're criticizing seems a pretty acceptable requirement to have a discussion about it, though, and you're not doing that.


overgeeked said:


> News to me. They can’t walk away? They can’t retreat? They can’t surrender? They can’t relent? Any of which could resolve a conflict.



Not if the GM doesn't allow that.  They can be attacked for walking away.  The situation can change to disallow retreat.  Surrender doesn't have to be accepted.  No, the players have no authority to end conflicts in 5e, only the GM has this authority because they control the response to whatever the players do.

This is the analysis of the authorities in the game.  It's been claimed strongly in this very thread, and endorsed by you, that the GM has full control over everything but the PCs.  You cannot align that claim with one that says the players actually have authority and control to end conflicts.  The GM defines the conflict, enables it, resolves it, and narrates it.  The players can only declare actions that might influence how the GM choses to conduct these tasks.  But, as has been clearly noted, the GM is under no obligation to do so.


overgeeked said:


> You’re intentionally misreading what I said. So what happens in a PbtA game when a PC does something not covered by a move? Either nothing _mechanical_ or the referee makes it up. So, the mechanics only engage when the PCs do something on the curated list of moves. And yes, some of them are generic. Otherwise it’s free play, as I said before. But, importantly, there are times the referee can just make a move, like when the game stalls or the players look to the referee to see what happens next, etc.



I'm going to approach this in a few ways:

1) Everything the PC does in a 5e game is from a curated list of moves.  If the PC does something not covered by a move, then nothing mechanical happens or the referee makes it up.  So, mechanics only engage when the Pcs do something on the curated list of moves.

Do you see this issue here?  You're saying that the only time the game matters is if the mechanics engage, and then are claiming that because of this, you can only do the mechanical things.  You've established a circular argument.  One that applies to just about any game because it's, well, circular and proves itself!  So, on this ground, this argument fails to have any use as a criticism.

2) As a functional matter it's incorrect.  You're analyzing this as if it has the same structure as a 5e game.  Where, quite often, the GM presents a description with no obvious threat, situation, or conflict to resolve, and players state actions to explore the setting until they find one.  A good example is a description of the opening room of a dungeon, where there's no guards or obvious threats, but some interesting bit of decor and a few hallways leading out.  The GM describes this and asks, "what do you do."  Because here the point is to explore the setting by declaring actions that get the GM to tell you more information about the setting.  PbtA doesn't do this.  The above never happens, if you're engaged with the play as it tells you to play it.  Instead, there's always something immediate and pressing that requires attention and action.  So, in this case, the move list is broad, generic, and tuned to resolving conflicts.  There's not a thing you could suggest that cannot fit a move.  If it's trivial, you don't call for a move.  If lots of trivial things are happening, you need to step back and reexamine your play.


overgeeked said:


> So, again, a player makes a move and fails. The referee gets to make a move as a result. That move should either come from the fiction or introduce something new to the fiction. Great. And that referee move…if it’s a _sequence of events_, rather than a singular event…removes the players’ agency to respond.



This is a bold claim.  Let's look at it from the 5e perspective and see if it holds up.  The players declare they're resting for 8 hours in an inn.  If you skip to the next morning (a sequence of events) you're removing the players' agency to respond.  Yep, seems silly.  Let's do another.  The rogue is disarming a trap!  It's a dangerous trap, but they've failed their check to learn how dangerous so they do not know that if the trap fails, it will kill them.  The rogue fails their roll to disarm the trap, and the GM narrates the outcome.  Perhaps a saving throw is made, but the result doesn't matter because the fail result still kills the rogue (say, low on hp, trap is poison gas triggering a CON save for half, half exceeds hitpoints).  We can ignore death saves because there's no choices in death saves, so it doesn't go to agency at all.  Well, here we have the same problem -- the GM isn't telling the rogue about the eruption of the cloud of gas, or a hissing sound, or whatever and giving the player the option to declare another action to react.  No, instead we have a sequence of events (mechanism triggering, gas mixing and expelling, rogue breathing the gas in sufficient quantity to injure, death) that's been elided while removing the player's agency to respond.

So, then, the issue isn't eliding time, per se, but instead what's elided.  Okay, this is a better argument.  However, we then need to look at what's being staked.  In 5e, with a task resolution, what's being staked on a roll is often very unclear.  This is intentional, and many 5e moves are made to learn more about the setting, to discover hidden information.  So you make a move here (declare an action) and the GM tells you more, depending on the outcome.  The conflict isn't being staked on this, knowingly.  But it might resolve a conflict (like the trap, above), if the GM decides.  Usually not, in which case it makes sense that action declarations will continue until the conflict resolves to the GM's satisfaction.  The players have no ability to close out the conflict at any point, only to suggest more actions that might convince the GM to close the conflict.  Agency here is muddy -- a given decision may or may not be impactful and that knowledge only belongs to the GM.  The players certainly have no agency to close out the conflict in any way.

What about in PbtA?  Well, everyone is fully aware that the conflict is being staked, how it is, and that failure will trigger a serious consequence.  In this consideration, the player does have agency to close the conflict -- they can declare an action to do so and succeed.  The GM is constrained here to honor this.  But if they fail, they know that the GM can and will do things, including things that may be sequences of bad.  This is staked.  Willingly.  So the player is staking this against the reward.  How is this not agency?  

But, let's go with maybe definition agency not as the ability to make impactful and meaningful actions, but rather the ability to declare an action (meaningful or not) with some small enough time slices to satisfy your argument.  Let's accept the premise of your argument, here.  In that case, PbtA does absolutely remove agency if the GM chooses to make a hard move that has multiple component parts or is a sequence of events.  As an example, from our last Stonetop game, the Blessed was attempting to ward an Treant's sacred grove from a woodcutting party.  They tried to ward the area against the woodcutters so they would not be able to approach while not being seen.  He failed.  The GM chose to attack the attempt (safely ward away the woodcutters and not be seen doing so) by having the copse animate and begin attacking the woodcutters (totally in line with the fictional setting material about forests being dangerous for things like this and this being a treant's sacred grove), the Blessed being seen by the cutters still outside the copse, and those fleeing while screaming "woodwitch!"  The Blessed did not get the opportunity to react when the copse animated, nor when it began killing woodcutters, nor when the remaining woodcutters saw the Blessed, nor when they began to flee.  All of that was the consequence of their failure.  Now that the situation is irrevocably changed (and irrevocably change is a guiding principle to making hard moves, at least irrevocable within the scene), the Blessed's player has another choice to make.  In this example, given your requirements for agency, yes, agency was removed because the Blessed wasn't allowed to react to a sequence of events.  In compensation for this, though, had the Blessed succeeded, then the woodcutters would have 100% been warded from the area and the Blessed would have accomplished their goal.  So, here, PbtA is staking a large amount of agency against the potential (but not required) loss of agency if the GM decides a consequence is compound.  If we look to 5e, we see that we have many more small choices to make, so that provides agency through your definition. What's missing, though, is any agency to bring the conflict or situation to a close -- this belongs solely to the GM.

It's horse trading.  PbtA, even under your definition of agency, does give the GM the ability to remove agency in pursuit of a consequence for a failure, but in return they cede their agency to the player on a success - the GM has no agency here and has to give the player the conflict.  In 5e, the player is retaining the agency to keep declaring reactionary actions, but the GM always retains their agency to declare when the conflict is over.  It's not that there's more or less agency in either, but rather that it's differently proportioned.  If you're going to restrict your analysis of agency only to a narrow definition, then you're losing sight of the entire picture and making specious arguments on agency.


overgeeked said:


> And again, hard framing removes player agency because it’s the referee making a series of choices for the player that they might not have made.



No it's not.  What gives you this idea?  I've provided a few examples of play above to illustrate my points.  What example can you provide that shows how framing (I have no idea what hard means here, framing is framing) removes agency?  Framing in PbtA starts the action off with an immanent danger or conflict or situation.  It's here, now, and needs addressing.  There's no agency elided here because there's no impactful decisions to be made that were skipped.  Framing isn't about saying things like "hurr, your character is a moron and has stuck their hand in the hole and now it's being gnawed off, what are you going to do?"  That kind of thing absolutely violates the principles of play.  Instead, how framing happens is that there's a conversation between players and GM about what they want to do, and then we skip along that until a point the GM feels is one that has interest and conflict, and the GM frames that in and play happens.  This isn't the GM declaring actions for the PCs -- the players are already in agreement on the general shape of what's happening ("we're going to travel to Gordon's Delve, along the high roads") and then the GM is taking that and framing a particular situation ("Okay, after a day's travel (it takes 4), mark rations, you come across a small camp, maybe two families -- yeah, two men, their wives, and a gaggle of children.  The camp is nestled in a hollow below you as you crest the hill.  Across the hollow, and not seen by the camp, you see maybe 6 hillmen creeping towards the camp, blades out.  They're on the far side of the camp.  You also see that they have a few lookouts at the crest of the opposite hill.  Maybe horses behind the hill?  What do you do?").  Nothing here assumes actions outside of what the players have already indicated their doing.

I have no idea what it is you're describing here, but it doesn't align with my experience nor with the principles and agenda of play.


overgeeked said:


> Lucky you.



I supposed.  I don't think that the cause of what you're claiming is actually the cause.


----------



## Manbearcat (Jun 11, 2022)

Ovinomancer said:


> Not at all.  You do not have to play any of these games.  The criticism isn't being challenged because you haven't played the right games, but because your criticism is entirely off-base.  It doesn't show any understanding of the structure, intent, or results of play.  That's what's being challenged.  And a suggestion is often made that a good way to understand these things is to play one (or more) of these games.  The statement isn't that you have to play to criticize, but that you at least have to understand to criticize.  It's pretty clear you do not understand, even after providing a claimed pedigree.  So, I'm challenging the pedigree you're claiming not because a pedigree is required, but because you've introduced it as a claim to knowledge.  Knowledge that still seems to not understand the thing you're trying to criticize.
> 
> Nope.  I don't really care about your credentials, and I don't really need you to agree with my tastes.  Show understanding of the thing you're criticizing seems a pretty acceptable requirement to have a discussion about it, though, and you're not doing that.
> 
> ...




And on this, lets zoom out a little further.

What was the point of Gavin's (The Blessed) entire journey conflict from Stonetop to Marshedge?

_To ensure the already-at-issue (because the player in question, Trys' player, proposed a kicker to make it an issue!) relationship strain between Stonetop and Marshedge didn't escalate._

What was the point of Gavin's micro-conflict with the Marshedge Woodcutters and the Treant's grove?

_To convince the Treant to save his chosen charges (the Marshedge Inquisitor family) with its healing magic._


So.

Things go pear-shaped with his primal magic (infusing the area with wards and bindings) so I escalate on the grounds of the macro-conflict while giving Gavin what he wants in the micro-conflict; the Treant uses this primal power as a conduit to animate his grove and all hell breaks loose (4 woodcutters slaughtered immediately and the rest of the camp in disarray and terror with Gavin at the scene of the crime).  Now Gavin has significant danger to his primary objective.  What is he willing to do to resolve that?  What is he willing to stake to achieve the goal of the macro conflict?  Would he kill all of the woodcutters to prevent them from reporting back to Marshedge?  Would he act on his Instinct (the framing of this entire situation was player-directed from the outset of play; *Instinct - to protect the natural world*)?  Would he yield or balk in the face of all of these questions?

Ultimately..._he let the Woodcutters go. _ _His decision. _ _The overarching macro conflict was still in play until that decision_.  Now Stonetop has a real problem of an escalated threat.  He saved the Marshedge Inquisitor Family...they are now Stonetop residents (moved by his aid)...but he intentionally folded on preventing the escalation of relations with Marshedge (there is only one "Wood-witch"/Blessed of Danu...Gavin...and he resides in and represents Stonetop), and while he protected the natural order, he didn't do so in a way that was complete (the bulk of the woodcutters and their foreman got away...and they weren't made aware of the reason vengeance was laid upon them...hence there is no "moral hazard" in play for them which disincentivizes them from subsequent "natural order-defiling" action) .  So we learned quite a bit about Gavin in this little (not so little) affair.

So yeah...

There are levels to all of this agency stuff and that is why the simple "sequence of events" litmus test espoused in the post you're responding to doesn't do much work beyond satisfying some particular cognitive need for extremely granular action resolution.

EDIT - And really...this gets us back to Harper's Conflict Resolution vs Task Resolution diagrams that @Campbell posted from the other thread.


----------



## overgeeked (Jun 11, 2022)

Lanefan said:


> System-agnostic in-character logic, perhaps; in that once the PCs got to know each other they might realize they're better off working together than separately.
> 
> Except if there's five players at the table each with a character acting largely or completely on its own, while you're in the physical* company of your friends you're not playing a game with them - at any given moment you're either playing a game with the GM or watching one of four other people play a game with the GM.  If that works for a group then great; and it certainly can work well in unusual short-term situations e.g. when a group of PCs get split apart by something, but it seems like an odd dynamic for the long term.
> 
> ...



Apparently this is more an AW thing than a PbtA thing. A lot of other PbtA games explicitly have you set up as a group with varying levels of interpersonal drama. Like you, I’d hate to have to sit and watch other people play for the bulk of the game. 

In Masks you’re explicitly a team of teenage superheroes. DW too with it’s standard D&D setup. Spirit of ’77 is more team focused. Zombie World you’re all survivors in the same enclave. In Uncharted Worlds you’re all a starship crew. In Monster of the Week you’re a team of monster hunters.


----------



## bloodtide (Jun 11, 2022)

Thomas Shey said:


> Neither does a GM who changes everything on a whim.  You seem to be under the impression the GM somehow has some power the players as a group don't cede him.



Well, it's a lot more simple then complaining about power: The GM does whatever they want.  It's not about "power" or who is "on top": it's only about having a fun, great game.


----------



## Aldarc (Jun 11, 2022)

bloodtide said:


> Well, it's a lot more simple then complaining about power: *The GM does whatever they want.  *It's not about "power" or who is "on top":* it's only about having a fun, great game.*



I'm not sure how these ideas are causally connected or how the former is necessary for the latter.


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 11, 2022)

Aldarc said:


> I'm not sure how these ideas are causally connected or how the former is necessary for the latter.



My first thought is that it's somewhat table-dependent; in that some tables rely on the GM to produce/generate a "great, fun game" for the players to consume, and in order to do so the GM requires lots of latitude in how she does things; while other (most?) tables are not so reliant.


----------



## niklinna (Jun 11, 2022)

bloodtide said:


> Well, it's a lot more simple then complaining about power: The GM does whatever they want.  It's not about "power" or who is "on top": it's only about having a fun, great game.



Such a GM clearly doesn't need other players if they just do whatever they want. Which makes it pretty clear that it's *all* about power and who's on top, and about the game being fun and great—for him.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Jun 11, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> Apparently this is more an AW thing than a PbtA thing. A lot of other PbtA games explicitly have you set up as a group with varying levels of interpersonal drama. Like you, I’d hate to have to sit and watch other people play for the bulk of the game.
> 
> In Masks you’re explicitly a team of teenage superheroes. DW too with it’s standard D&D setup. Spirit of ’77 is more team focused. Zombie World you’re all survivors in the same enclave. In Uncharted Worlds you’re all a starship crew. In Monster of the Week you’re a team of monster hunters.



:blink:  This is the exact thing I talk about in my last response.  You say nonsense things like this -- nonsense in that anyone that has had any experience with AW would be going "what the hell is he talking about?"

As for spotlight time, is this not something that is explicitly said as advice to D&D GMs -- to manage and spread out spotlight time?  Is your complaint actually that you dislike letting other players get spotlight time, in equal measure?  Or is it that so long as you feel like you could jump in, even if you don't, that's okay because you can seize the spotlight if you need to?  That you're so much not a fan of the other PCs that you have no interest in seeing what happens to them if you're not directly involved?  I mean, okay, you can totally have this inclination (and ignore how D&D does combat turns), but it's not a great look.

ETA: in the expanded example above, Gavin was off on his own because my character had asked him to watch over the fleeing inquisitors.  While he was doing that, the game was cutting back and forth between his character and two other PCs.  I had taken my PC out of the action because previous actions had leveled some disabilities on my PC and I was resting to let the other PCs finish what they started -- I didn't have anything to add.  But, man, did I love witnessing it, and the repercussions of it absolutely affect my character.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Jun 11, 2022)

Aldarc said:


> I'm sorry, but how can you not? Here I am looking more broadly at Cortex Prime and Fate. Fictional descriptors for the character that involving Hindering or said descriptors in return for Plot Points. There are definitely differences between Aspects and Distinctions, PP and Fate Points, Hinderances and Compels, and other systems, but we are still looking at two games that operate with similar game philosophies and principles. IME, they both cultivate similar playstyles and game priorities. Moreover, there is an overlap of writers who have collaborated on the two systems, and there are even hybrid versions of the game out there.




I'll mention at least one important one between Cortex and the versions of Fate I was experience at the time I decided it wasn't for me: Cortex is not _dependent_ on its metacurrency to take advantage of environmental elements.  Its not even dependent on them to create them, though that's a quick and dirty method when you don't have the time to do otherwise.  There's just some real non-trivial differences between how dependent players are on fate points and plot points.

An element that matters here is that you can get by perfectly well with the die pool you put together in Cortex just from your steady state traits; its entirely possible that bothering to spend a Plot Point for anything else is getting you into diminishing returns.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Jun 11, 2022)

Manbearcat said:


> What you are depicting above is either a very unique situation where games aren’t being run correctly (the fiction isn’t being aggressively followed and/or the rules/principles aren’t being observed and/or the conversation of play is not yielding anywhere near the transparency that it should) and/or ** the players are of a very particular cognitive orientation toward granularity of action resolution mechanics with no mental malleability or toggle (and again…amplified by improper play and lack of transparency in framing > decision-space > consequence-space).




I think that latter is a particularly uncharitable way to phrase the reaction of players who simply dislike that particular coarseness of result.  You can very much argue they shouldn't be playing a PbtA game (and I'd agree) but I think "no mental malleability" is a bit of a harsh way to put a matter of taste.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Jun 11, 2022)

Aldarc said:


> To be honest, I’m not sure either.




Probably accidentally ended up in your reply buffer and you didn't notice.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Jun 11, 2022)

bloodtide said:


> Well, it's a lot more simple then complaining about power: The GM does whatever they want.  It's not about "power" or who is "on top": it's only about having a fun, great game.




And you're making assumptions now that only a GM who's allowed unlimited power can produce a fun game.  Tip: its not.


----------



## Manbearcat (Jun 12, 2022)

Thomas Shey said:


> I think that latter is a particularly uncharitable way to phrase the reaction of players who simply dislike that particular coarseness of result.  You can very much argue they shouldn't be playing a PbtA game (and I'd agree) but I think "no mental malleability" is a bit of a harsh way to put a matter of taste.




I didn’t mean it as an expression of a matter of taste and I wasn’t going for charity or lack of charity.

We all have deeply internalized mental models or cognitive biases or even predispositions (that are more affliction than actual work) that bind us in particular ways whereas others don’t have those so they’re more malleable under those exact same conditions.

God knows I have a metric effton on several fronts (do you have an hour?).

But the reality is that these are autobiographical features of self. They’re not objective features of the stuff we engage with like conflict resolution vs task resolution (one doesn’t give more or less agency than the other…they do different stuff and then their different stuff gets amplified or drawn back by the system tech they’re integrated with). They’re our personal orientation to them.


----------



## bloodtide (Jun 12, 2022)

Aldarc said:


> I'm not sure how these ideas are causally connected or how the former is necessary for the latter.



Well, if you stop being so hostile to the GM, and just get immersed and play the game, then everyone has fun.  Having a player that calls out the GM and complains every couple of minutes does not make for a fun game for most people.  Though sure, some peoples idea of fun is to disrupt the game.



Thomas Shey said:


> And you're making assumptions now that only a GM who's allowed unlimited power can produce a fun game.  Tip: its not.



Note that it is your assumptions, not mine.  I think it is the best way, but not the only way.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Jun 12, 2022)

Manbearcat said:


> I didn’t mean it as an expression of a matter of taste and I wasn’t going for charity or lack of charity.
> 
> We all have deeply internalized mental models or cognitive biases or even predispositions (that are more affliction than actual work) that bind us in particular ways whereas others don’t have those so they’re more malleable under those exact same conditions.
> 
> ...




I just think there's a significant difference between "doesn't want to" and "can't", and your statement implied the latter.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Jun 12, 2022)

bloodtide said:


> Well, if you stop being so hostile to the GM, and just get immersed and play the game, then everyone has fun.  Having a player that calls out the GM and complains every couple of minutes does not make for a fun game for most people.  Though sure, some peoples idea of fun is to disrupt the game.
> 
> 
> Note that it is your assumptions, not mine.  I think it is the best way, but not the only way.



Have you read The Impossible Thing Before Breakfast essay?   It's pretty short.  You're describing participationism.  Maybe some illusionism.



> Participationism, identified and named by _Universalis_ co-creator Mike Holmes, is not structurally different from illusionism. The referee still controls everything meaningful that happens in play, while the players add nothing but color. The difference is that the players know it, and are quite happy to let the referee tell his story about their characters.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Jun 12, 2022)

bloodtide said:


> Note that it is your assumptions, not mine.  I think it is the best way, but not the only way.




And other people don't, and get by perfectly fine without ceding unlimited setting/system control power to GMs.  You, on the other hand, seem to not accept that's possible.


----------



## bloodtide (Jun 12, 2022)

Ovinomancer said:


> Have you read The Impossible Thing Before Breakfast essay?   It's pretty short.  You're describing participationism.  Maybe some illusionism.



Nah, that is not my game.  Though I hate using other peoples Wacky Words to describe things I do. 

I sure disagree with that silly "the GM tells the story about the players characters". 

I think I will name mine Power Tapestry :  The referee still controls everything meaningful that happens in play, while the players add their small parts. The players know it(though really not most of them), and are quite happy to let the GM run the Game.



Thomas Shey said:


> And other people don't, and get by perfectly fine without ceding unlimited setting/system control power to GMs.  You, on the other hand, seem to not accept that's possible.



I just said so in the quote you quoted for this post.....


----------



## Ovinomancer (Jun 12, 2022)

bloodtide said:


> Nah, that is not my game.  Though I hate using other peoples Wacky Words to describe things I do.
> 
> I sure disagree with that silly "the GM tells the story about the players characters".
> 
> ...



Right, that's what the essay labeled participationism.  You seem to be quibbling around using 'small parts' when the essay used 'add color,' but not actually saying anything different.  This is a perfectly fine way to deal with the Impossible Thing (which is the paradox between the GM controlling the story but the players controlling the main characters -- these things can't coexist and so need to be reconciled in some way).


----------



## bloodtide (Jun 12, 2022)

Ovinomancer said:


> Right, that's what the essay labeled participationism.  You seem to be quibbling around using 'small parts' when the essay used 'add color,' but not actually saying anything different.  This is a perfectly fine way to deal with the Impossible Thing (which is the paradox between the GM controlling the story but the players controlling the main characters -- these things can't coexist and so need to be reconciled in some way).



Well, sure, I don't get what "color" is because it's all made up by you.  

I don't see the paradox either.  The only one I might see is you have a normal GM controlled game vs the the players just "wish" for everything and there is no game at all.  

My players can control thier main character players all they want.....inside my Power Tapestry.


----------



## niklinna (Jun 12, 2022)

niklinna said:


> bloodtide said:
> 
> 
> > Well, it's a lot more simple then complaining about power: The GM does whatever they want.  *It's not about "power" or who is "on top"*: it's only about having a fun, great game.
> ...






bloodtide said:


> I don't see the paradox either.  The only one I might see is you have a normal *GM controlled game* vs the the players just "wish" for everything and there is no game at all.
> 
> My players can control thier main character players all they want.....*inside my Power Tapestry*.



Oh look! I called it several posts back.

What a surprise.


----------



## Manbearcat (Jun 12, 2022)

bloodtide said:


> Well, sure, I don't get what "color" is because it's all made up by you.
> 
> I don't see the paradox either.  The only one I might see is you have a normal GM controlled game vs the the players just "wish" for everything and there is no game at all.
> 
> My players can control thier main character players all they want.....inside my Power Tapestry.




I love this post.

A lot of folks say that “Power Tapestry GMs” (I really like this…particularly how it’s not crappy Forge jargon but the good kind of jargon) are basically mythical unicorns that don’t exist. I love how you own it. Seriously.

In your experience, is “Power Tapestry GMing” common or uncommon?


----------



## bloodtide (Jun 12, 2022)

Manbearcat said:


> In your experience, is “Power Tapestry GMing” common or uncommon?



Uncommon.  Other then those I have trained and set on the path, I have met only a few.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Jun 12, 2022)

bloodtide said:


> Well, sure, I don't get what "color" is because it's all made up by you.



Um, no.  Color is the added details the provide spice.  This is part of the dictionary definition of the word.  To be fair, color has a lot of rather divergent definitions.


bloodtide said:


> I don't see the paradox either.  The only one I might see is you have a normal GM controlled game vs the the players just "wish" for everything and there is no game at all.
> 
> My players can control thier main character players all they want.....inside my Power Tapestry.



The paradox is that if the GM controls the story, how can the players control the main characters in that story.  There's a conflict there -- the GM cannot have total control over the direction of the story while players have total control over what their characters do in that story.  Has to be resolved.  Lots of ways to do so, plenty of good gaming.  You've clearly gone with participationism, and a strong statement of such.  Not denigrating your choice -- perfectly valid!


----------



## Manbearcat (Jun 12, 2022)

bloodtide said:


> Uncommon.  Other then those I have trained and set on the path, I have met only a few.




Appreciate the answer.

What does the training look like?

Like if you had to outline maybe 5 important techniques that you teach and 3-4 principles that you advocate for in your training, what would they be?

EDIT - and maybe talk about geography/topography/maps. What do you think about the answers given in this thread? 









						Why the focus on *geography* in RPGing?
					

In the published things Howard did describe the layout and history in broad strokes Is there a Howard-canon map of Conan's world?  And apparently had a sketch for his own use ("secret DM info"?):  Certainly more than a bit European inspired.  I was enamored with Hyboria as a teen, but as I...




					www.enworld.org
				




Any you like? Any you dislike?


----------



## Maxperson (Jun 12, 2022)

Blue said:


> The GM has not a single iota of power above and beyond that granted by the players.  And at any time if they are abusing that power, the players can withdraw it by leaving the game - perhaps en masse.  The idea that GMs have unlimited power is not just false, but it's commonly considered one of the sins of running.  In reality there is a strong upper limit on what they can do, constrained by the shared understanding of the rules, the implied or explicit social contract, and the trust given by the players.



So this isn't doing what you think it's doing.  When the players leave a game, they are leaving the DM's power and authority and going elsewhere.  They are not removing or diminishing his power or authority over his game.  That DM can go out and get more players and continue that game.  Players don't grant the DM authority. The game does.  The DM can cede some of that authority to the players, though.

The social contract is really the only limiter.  Groups gather to have fun, so the DM abusing his authority and removing or diminishing that fun is a violation of the social contract.  The vast majority of DMs choose to play within the confines of the social contract, so they do not use their authority in abusive ways.


Blue said:


> This is the one place that is inviolate - the players are in control of their PCs in regards to their thoughts, intentions, feelings.  (Outside corner cases like being controlled by magic or psionic.)



This again is due to the social contract.  There's nothing in the rules that prevents a DM from abusing his authority and engaging in such things.


----------



## Blue (Jun 12, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> So this isn't doing what you think it's doing.  When the players leave a game, they are leaving the DM's power and authority and going elsewhere.  They are not removing or diminishing his power or authority over his game.



There is no "his game".  It doesn't exist.  There is only "their game".  A GM with no players has no game.  They can have plans for a campaign or an adventure, but unless they are ignoring all player agency, players leaving or changing will mean the game will not take the same route and end up the same place it would have if they stayed, showing that the game belongs to all of them.

Lord of the Rings would be very different story if Samwise walked halfway through.

Power isn't a point source - it's a description between things.  Walk, and the GM has no power over you.  I've even walked with all the players away from a game before and we just started a new game.



Maxperson said:


> That DM can go out and get more players and continue that game.



No, the GM can (potentially) go out and get more players and create a new game that is based on what they have done before.  If they have retained some players there can even be more continuity, like a show where a lead actor or director leaves and something with that same name continues, but it doesn't have the same chemistry or the same energy and needs to rediscover itself.

And again, your statement seems to assume that players are cogs - you can replace them and they all bring the same thing to the table.  So there never a penalty to losing them.  That's a very senior management view you have there, one that isn't held up in the real world.



Maxperson said:


> Players don't grant the DM authority. The game does.



Please, exercise that authority given by the game over me.  *You can't*, because I don't grant you that authority over me by accepting you as a GM.  See, the rules grant you no authority, only I can grant it.  And take it away.

Tell me how the rules have FORCED a player to accept authority when the player wants to leave the game.  Again, your thesis is that the rules grant this authority and not the players, and by your thesis you can use that power even when the players do not want you to.  Please, tell me how.

*There is literally no way the game grants any authority not granted by the player.  There is no mechanism to make a player accept something if they do not wish to enough to leave the game.*



Maxperson said:


> The DM can cede some of that authority to the players, though.
> 
> The social contract is really the only limiter.  Groups gather to have fun, so the DM abusing his authority and removing or diminishing that fun is a violation of the social contract.  The vast majority of DMs choose to play within the confines of the social contract, so they do not use their authority in abusive ways.
> 
> This again is due to the social contract.  There's nothing in the rules that prevents a DM from abusing his authority and engaging in such things.



I'm not really sure where you are going with this, because it's a pointless distinction.  Regardless if it's because a DM is abusing their power, are just a bad DM, are a great DM but not a good match for how the player wants to play, if the DM claims the rules give them authority but also claim they can change the rules as they want, all of it doesn't matter.  If a GM is net decreasing fun the players can take away the power they have granted the DM over themselves by walking.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Jun 12, 2022)

bloodtide said:


> I just said so in the quote you quoted for this post.....




In the last post.  After acting like it was a given to be not true for the prior four.


----------



## Maxperson (Jun 12, 2022)

Blue said:


> There is no "his game".  It doesn't exist.  There is only "their game".  A GM with no players has no game.  They can have plans for a campaign or an adventure, but unless they are ignoring all player agency, players leaving or changing will mean the game will not take the same route and end up the same place it would have if they stayed, showing that the game belongs to all of them.
> 
> Lord of the Rings would be very different story if Samwise walked halfway through.
> 
> ...



If I owned a gun, I could walk out and shoot some random person.  I have that power.  That I would never do something like that doesn't mean that the ability is gone.  That the first person of few people can run away(leave my game) also doesn't stop me.  I can just go out and find more people(get new players).  The power resides with the DM, even if he would never abuse it.


Blue said:


> And again, your statement seems to assume that players are cogs - you can replace them and they all bring the same thing to the table.  So there never a penalty to losing them.  That's a very senior management view you have there, one that isn't held up in the real world.



The players leaving would be taking with them the pros and the cons that they brought to the table.  The new players would be coming in with new pros and cons.  They may not be exactly the same, but my game would still run the way I want it to.


Blue said:


> Please, exercise that authority given by the game over me.  *You can't*, because I don't grant you that authority over me by accepting you as a GM.  See, the rules grant you no authority, only I can grant it.  And take it away.



If you are playing in my game, I have authority over the game and everything that happens within it, even if I don't exercise that authority to the fullest.  You can remove yourself from that authority by leaving the game, but you cannot remain in the game without placing yourself under that authority, or remove my authority over the game by leaving it.   You have no ability to affect my authority over the game.


Blue said:


> Tell me how the rules have FORCED a player to accept authority when the player wants to leave the game.  Again, your thesis is that the rules grant this authority and not the players, and by your thesis you can use that power even when the players do not want you to.  Please, tell me how.
> 
> *There is literally no way the game grants any authority not granted by the player.  There is no mechanism to make a player accept something if they do not wish to enough to leave the game.*



You're arguing against something that I never said.  Either you stay in the game under the authority granted to me by the game, or you leave the game.  Leaving doesn't affect my authority over the game at all.


----------



## overgeeked (Jun 12, 2022)

Blue said:


> Please, exercise that authority given by the game over me. *You can't*, because I don't grant you that authority over me by accepting you as a GM. See, the rules grant you no authority, only I can grant it. And take it away



Yep. Playing a game is all about consent. Players consent to the referee running the show. The referee consents to the players running their characters. And anyone can withdraw their consent at any time, for any reason. The only way it works is everyone agrees to engage in good faith…otherwise it falls apart.

If there is disagreement, those involved have limited options. In the game, the referee can do whatever they want, infinite dragons and all that. If that bothers the players, they have little recourse besides asking the referee to stop or walking away.

It’s interesting that referees almost always frame it as “there’s no game without the referee” while players almost always frame it as “there’s no game without the players.” In truth, it’s both. But considering there’s a burgeoning market for paid referees but no market for paid players…it’s not hard to see the demographic imbalance and the reality of who needs whom more.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Jun 12, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> Yep. Playing a game is all about consent. Players consent to the referee running the show. The referee consents to the players running their characters. And anyone can withdraw their consent at any time, for any reason. The only way it works is everyone agrees to engage in good faith…otherwise it falls apart.
> 
> If there is disagreement, those involved have limited options. In the game, the referee can do whatever they want, infinite dragons and all that. If that bothers the players, they have little recourse besides asking the referee to stop or walking away.
> 
> It’s interesting that referees almost always frame it as “there’s no game without the referee” while players almost always frame it as “there’s no game without the players.” In truth, it’s both. But considering there’s a burgeoning market for paid referees but no market for paid players…it’s not hard to see the demographic imbalance and the reality of who needs whom more.



Really?  You think that a player paying for a service isn't the customer, the person that is the most important and who will be catered to?


----------



## Aldarc (Jun 12, 2022)

bloodtide said:


> *Well, if you stop being so hostile to the GM, and just get immersed and play the game, then everyone has fun.*  Having a player that calls out the GM and complains every couple of minutes does not make for a fun game for most people.  Though sure, some peoples idea of fun is to disrupt the game.
> 
> 
> Note that it is your assumptions, not mine.  I think it is the best way, but not the only way.



Yeah again I don't think that "fun" is causally guaranteed from a complete submission to GM authority as you suggest here. By comparison, there is a jump to conclusion that involves the citizens shutting up and accepting the Divine Right of Kings to a fruitful and happy state.


----------



## aramis erak (Jun 12, 2022)

Arilyn said:


> Just want to pop in and say PbtA games do not step all over player agency. In fact, I feel like my character decisions matter a lot, scarily so! There's been a ton of discussions and explanations about these games but there is still so much misunderstanding. They are great games that do work. They aren't going to be loved by all. No system is. They are worth trying or at least understanding because the vast majority of criticism about PbtA games comes from lack of understanding how they actually play out at the table.




When coming from the Wargame tradition, the mechanics of wargames are a list of allowed actions; if there's a referee, they get to pick which of the allowed fits the action if one goes "off the list"... anything that has no fit. doesn't happen.

Meanwhile, AWE's list is 1+moves entries: the moves list, and "Anything else that makes sense - Autosuccess"

Most RPG GMs I've seen run run things somewhere closer to wargame tradition than AWE's "Anything but the moves is say-yes"

There also is a subset of the OSR that runs D&D as if it's AWE...

But it's a wide spectrum.


pemerton said:


> I know it's fairly common to compare MHRP to Fate, but personally I don't really see it. It doesn't have compels (Limits can sometimes resemble compels, but they're much more targetted and "fine-tuned") and you don't earn Fate points for having your aspects invoked.



The similarity is in play process. Crerate assets to use, then use them.
The plot point economy works very differently, but the basic cycle of "If you can't gank them yourself, build some assets, and then try again."
While it has no compels, it does have tagging complications for use in your pool. Compels aren't entirely needed; Distinctions as disads is equivalent and voluntary...

Both are built around building assets from existing ones, & using those, and flexing the expendable meta-point pool to pull off a number of related stunts, to go beyond the stated distinctions.

It's also worth noting that MHRP is NOT the archetypical Cortex Plus; the prototypical is Smallville; MHRP is the breakout, but Firefly was, while just as good, seriously different in the details, but nearly identical in process... MHRP is closer due to

If I'd not played Fate first, I'd not have found MHR nor Firefly nearly as intuitive. They're different, but in the details, not in the mindset.
If I'd not fought to understand AW itself, I'd have had a hard time with Sentinel Comics, since it's related (distantly - the quickstart set includes the thank-yous.)


pemerton said:


> Huh? The rules of AW are clear: if the table looks at the GM to see what happens next, the GM makes a soft move unless (i) it's a failed throw or (ii) the GM has been handed a golden opportunity to follow through with a hard move.



Not to everyone. In order to grasp what was being meant, I had to ask for help. That help came from Luke Crane and Thor Olavsruud. On their forums.


Blue said:


> There is no "his game".  It doesn't exist.  There is only "their game".  A GM with no players has no game.



False on several levels, the simplest of which is that prep is a form of play, usually unique to the GM.
Then, there's the function of solo-play, where one runs the game as both player and GM. Very common in the PBTA space.
There's also the solitare modules (esp. TFT, T&T, LAW) - but that's play sans GM, really.
There also is the tangible element: those books still constitute a game even if unused.


Blue said:


> *There is literally no way the game grants any authority not granted by the player.  There is no mechanism to make a player accept something if they do not wish to enough to leave the game.*
> 
> 
> I'm not really sure where you are going with this, because it's a pointless distinction.  Regardless if it's because a DM is abusing their power, are just a bad DM, are a great DM but not a good match for how the player wants to play, if the DM claims the rules give them authority but also claim they can change the rules as they want, all of it doesn't matter.  If a GM is net decreasing fun the players can take away the power they have granted the DM over themselves by walking.



There is the implied social contract as an aspect of selection of a ruleset. Which is a powerful lever. Not quite Archimedies' level of lever, but still a psychological lever of much utility. 

WHile I agree that it's bad GMing to abuse it, especially with Gygax's rule 0,


----------



## pemerton (Jun 12, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> Players consent to the referee running the show.



What RPGs are you talking about here? Or which tables?


----------



## pemerton (Jun 12, 2022)

aramis erak said:


> It's also worth noting that MHRP is NOT the archetypical Cortex Plus; the prototypical is Smallville; MHRP is the breakout, but Firefly was, while just as good, seriously different in the details, but nearly identical in process



OK. At all points I was quite explicit that I was talking about MHRP.



aramis erak said:


> If I'd not played Fate first, I'd not have found MHR nor Firefly nearly as intuitive. They're different, but in the details, not in the mindset.



I found MHRP pretty intuitive, except for managing the Doom Pool. There are a couple of places where I think the rules could be clearer, but I was able to work around that.



aramis erak said:


> Not to everyone. In order to grasp what was being meant, I had to ask for help. That help came from Luke Crane and Thor Olavsruud. On their forums.



I'm a pretty big fan of Luke and Thor! I think the biggest deal for some people in coming to AW seems to be taking literally the instruction to make a soft move unless the appropriate trigger for a hard move is in place.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 12, 2022)

Ovinomancer said:


> Interesting that this pedigree is only so recently asserted. Especially since you do not seem to be able to steelman PbtA play at all, despite this pedigree. I'm skeptical.



*Mod Note:*

How about we not gatekeeper like this?


----------



## aramis erak (Jun 12, 2022)

pemerton said:


> OK. At all points I was quite explicit that I was talking about MHRP.
> 
> I found MHRP pretty intuitive, except for managing the Doom Pool. There are a couple of places where I think the rules could be clearer, but I was able to work around that.



I mentioned the differences because Cortex Plus/Prime isn't a single game system in the same way 2d20 or YZE aren't... each is a group of closely related games with similar task resolutions.


pemerton said:


> I'm a pretty big fan of Luke and Thor! I think the biggest deal for some people in coming to AW seems to be taking literally the instruction to make a soft move unless the appropriate trigger for a hard move is in place.



For me, the sticking point was "To do it, do it." Which to me read as nonsense until explained by Luke and paraphrased by Thor. 

"To do it, do it." = "To engage the move rule, have the character do the action in the fiction." 

That was the hardest bit.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 12, 2022)

aramis erak said:


> For me, the sticking point was "To do it, do it." Which to me read as nonsense until explained by Luke and paraphrased by Thor.



For me, that contrasts with "say 'yes' or roll the dice" - instead of the stakes being determined by intent, we have a set of moves built around a conception of what sorts of actions in _this_ fiction raise the stakes. As I posted in another one of these recent threads, that's why custom moves become important - to allow specific sorts of stakes to be brought within the scope of the action resolution system.


----------



## Blue (Jun 12, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> Yep. Playing a game is all about consent. Players consent to the referee running the show. The referee consents to the players running their characters. And anyone can withdraw their consent at any time, for any reason. The only way it works is everyone agrees to engage in good faith…otherwise it falls apart.
> 
> If there is disagreement, those involved have limited options. In the game, the referee can do whatever they want, infinite dragons and all that. If that bothers the players, they have little recourse besides asking the referee to stop or walking away.



I'm with you here.

Well, for a subset of games at least like D&D.  The rules of some games put different levels of restrictions on the GM.



overgeeked said:


> It’s interesting that referees almost always frame it as “there’s no game without the referee” while players almost always frame it as “there’s no game without the players.” In truth, it’s both. But considering there’s a burgeoning market for paid referees but no market for paid players…it’s not hard to see the demographic imbalance and the reality of who needs whom more.



Being a GM is more work, especially away from a session - sure there are more players.  On the other side players are generally focused on the fun part - it is it's own reward for the entire time put in, while especially for traditional games like D&D the prep for a GM may be hours and may not be as enjoyable at all times.

That doesn't mean that a bad game you don't enjoy is better than no game.

So we have players just looking for enjoyment who could want a paid GM, either because they want a professional level of GMing that they can't get for free, or have a lack of GMs that they are willing to play with (such as abusive or bad GMs).  On the other hand because play is pretty much just enjoyment (when the table is good), the only people who would want paid players are those who provide an unpleasant game that can't attract players otherwise.

So yes, the market for high end GMs exists, and a market for players to be miserable does not.  That unbalance there explains why only one market exists.


----------



## Blue (Jun 12, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> If I owned a gun, I could walk out and shoot some random person.  I have that power.  That I would never do something like that doesn't mean that the ability is gone.  That the first person of few people can run away(leave my game) also doesn't stop me.  I can just go out and find more people(get new players).  The power resides with the DM, even if he would never abuse it.



I said power isn't a point source, it is a description between things.  With a gun, you can project that over others.  It's still a description between things.  If you tell no one you have a gun and never use it, it has no power.  It has power when you use it, when you threaten with it, when you intimdate with it, when you bring up owning it for some purpose.  Without doing any of those, the gun has no inherent power.  Not until it or it's existance interacts with something else.

But that's all pretty moot because the rules do not allow you to project power over someone who does not wish you to.

Can the rules force someone who hasn't granted power by agreeing to be your player?  No.  Can the rules force someone who wishes to revoke that power by leaving?  No.



Maxperson said:


> The players leaving would be taking with them the pros and the cons that they brought to the table.  The new players would be coming in with new pros and cons.  They may not be exactly the same, but my game would still run the way I want it to.



It's all very Ship of Theseus. If an abusing GM loses their players one by one and replaces them, is it still "the game"? From your point of view you've made it clear you feel "the game" is a construct of the GM running it and that individual players are not a defining point of "the game".

I disagree, I think everyone at the table is important in defining "the game".  That's why I called it "their game" when you were calling it "his game".

So your protests about still being able to run as you like (assuming you still have players) are just missing the point.  "The game" isn't just the construction of a single person.



Maxperson said:


> If you are playing in my game, I have authority over the game and everything that happens within it, even if I don't exercise that authority to the fullest.



Woo, _*thank you for finally agreeing to my point*_.  I'm glad you see that a GM only has power when people are agreeing to play in their games.  That power can be taken away by the player deciding not to play in the game.  It is not inherent in the rules, it is granted by the player.



Maxperson said:


> You can remove yourself from that authority by leaving the game, but you cannot remain in the game without placing yourself under that authority, or remove my authority over the game by leaving it.   You have no ability to affect my authority over the game.



Since "the game" isn't just yours, by removing my character I've already changed the game in a way you have no authority over.

Heck, if a group leaves and another GM picks up with the characters where they left, it would seem like you are removed from "the game" and all authority removed from you.  Unless you feel that changing the people at the table means it's not "the game", in which case removing myself as a player also means it's not "the game".  Either way you pick, you end up incorrect.



Maxperson said:


> You're arguing against something that I never said.  Either you stay in the game under the authority granted to me by the game, or you leave the game.  Leaving doesn't affect my authority over the game at all.



Something you never said?  You stated authority comes from the rules.  I said authority is granted by the player.  I am arguing that we can easily show that the player can revoke authority that the rules can not enforce.  And yes, you absolutely said authority does not come from the player, it comes from the rules in post #336 so what I am arguing is exactly to your point.


----------



## overgeeked (Jun 12, 2022)

aramis erak said:


> For me, the sticking point was "To do it, do it." Which to me read as nonsense until explained by Luke and paraphrased by Thor.
> 
> "To do it, do it." = "To engage the move rule, have the character do the action in the fiction."
> 
> That was the hardest bit.



Yeah, it's weird how bad some designers are at explaining what they mean by things. Jargon and obscuring phrases just take over.


Blue said:


> I'm with you here.
> 
> Well, for a subset of games at least like D&D.  The rules of some games put different levels of restrictions on the GM.



Sure, but then we're back to being unable to make any broad statement about RPGs because there will inevitably be a game that goes against that broad statement. The default, as in the vast majority of games as written or games that are actually played, is games that are incredibly lopsided in favor of the referee.


Blue said:


> That doesn't mean that a bad game you don't enjoy is better than no game.



The longer I'm at this the less I have patience for phrases like this. Just because you personally aren't enjoying a particular game doesn't make it bad. It's not a good fit for you or your preferences, sure, but that doesn't render you subjective opinion into objective fact about the quality of the game. 

And there's also the bizarre effect this kind of thing has on new referees. I don't think it's best practices to put even more pressure on new referees or normalize any mantra that makes it seem like unless they're perfect from the go they shouldn't bother trying. To me that seems like the opposite of what we should be doing.


Blue said:


> So we have players just looking for enjoyment who could want a paid GM, either because they want *a professional level of GMing* that they can't get for free, or have a lack of GMs that they are willing to play with (*such as abusive or bad GMs*).  On the other hand because play is pretty much just enjoyment (when the table is good), the only people who would want paid players are those who provide an unpleasant game that can't attract players otherwise.
> 
> So yes, the market for *high end GMs* exists, and a market for players to be miserable does not.  That unbalance there explains why only one market exists.



There's a lot of assumptions in there. Paid doesn't mean "professional-level GM," nor does a derth of referees mean lots that do exist are abusive or bad, nor does paid mean "high end GMs." It just means there are so many more players than referees that some players are desperate enough to pay referees to run games for them.


----------



## Maxperson (Jun 12, 2022)

Blue said:


> I said power isn't a point source, it is a description between things.  With a gun, you can project that over others.  It's still a description between things.  If you tell no one you have a gun and never use it, it has no power.  It has power when you use it, when you threaten with it, when you intimdate with it, when you bring up owning it for some purpose.  Without doing any of those, the gun has no inherent power.  Not until it or it's existance interacts with something else.
> 
> But that's all pretty moot because the rules do not allow you to project power over someone who does not wish you to.
> 
> Can the rules force someone who hasn't granted power by agreeing to be your player?  No.  Can the rules force someone who wishes to revoke that power by leaving?  No.



Do the rules allow full power over anyone(within the game environment) who remains playing the game? Yes.  You either remain under the authority or you leave the game and the authority behind.  In no case have you removed or altered the DMs authority over his game.


Blue said:


> If an abusing GM loses their players one by one and replaces them, is it still "the game"? From your point of view you've made it clear you feel "the game" is a construct of the GM running it and that individual players are not a defining point of "the game".



Yes and no.  The results of the game will be different, because different decisions will be made by the two groups.  The DMs full authority over the game remains unchanged, though. 


Blue said:


> I disagree, I think everyone at the table is important in defining "the game".  That's why I called it "their game" when you were calling it "his game".



I understand that, and to a degree you are correct.  The final creation is mutual, because of the dance between player decisions and actions and the DMs response and control over the game environment.  However, only the DM has complete authority over everything that happens within the game, so in that sense the game is his.

Think of it like this.  If I bring over Settlers of Catan, all the players are playing the game.  The results of the game will be a combination of all parties involved.  However, I own the game. It's mine and I retain full authority over it.  I can decide in the middle of the game to just pack it up. Or not.  It would be a jerk move on my part to do that, but it's my game.

That's what D&D is like.  Ultimately it's the DMs game, even if the end result is a creation that is mutually arrived at.


Blue said:


> That power can be taken away by the player deciding not to play in the game.



It can't.  If every last player leaves the game, the game is still mine as is the power. Only I can take it and find new players for it.  The others don't have my notes and ideas.


Blue said:


> Something you never said?  You stated authority comes from the rules.  I said authority is granted by the player.  I am arguing that we can easily show that the player can revoke authority that the rules can not enforce.  And yes, you absolutely said authority does not come from the player, it comes from the rules in post #336 so what I am arguing is exactly to your point.



Yes.  Something I never said.  Not once did I say that my authority could prevent a player from leaving the game or would exist outside of the game.  That's a construct you created for me. Within the game, though, my authority is absolute.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Jun 12, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> Yeah, it's weird how bad some designers are at explaining what they mean by things. Jargon and obscuring phrases just take over.



Juxtaposition!


overgeeked said:


> The longer I'm at this the less I have patience for phrases like this. Just because you personally aren't enjoying a particular game doesn't make it bad. It's not a good fit for you or your preferences, sure, but that doesn't render you subjective opinion into objective fact about the quality of the game.


----------



## Blue (Jun 12, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> Do the rules allow full power over anyone(within the game environment) who remains playing the game? Yes.



True, but since "in-game" is just a subset of the whole game, still irrelevant.



Maxperson said:


> Yes and no.  The results of the game will be different, because different decisions will be made by the two groups.  The DMs full authority over the game remains unchanged, though.



This isn't logical.  *The game has changed in ways the GM does not have control over by the player leaving.*  How can you claim that they still have full authority?



Maxperson said:


> I understand that, and to a degree you are correct.  The final creation is mutual, because of the dance between player decisions and actions and the DMs response and control over the game environment.  However, only the DM has complete authority over everything that happens within the game, so in that sense the game is his.



First, the GM has never had "complete authority over everything that happens within the game" unless they ignore all player agency.  So we can discard any notion of that.

Second, if a bunch of players fire the GM and a new GM picks up with the existing characters and situation, the first GM still "owns the game"?

(Oh, and I've done that personally.)



Maxperson said:


> Think of it like this.  If I bring over Settlers of Catan, all the players are playing the game.  The results of the game will be a combination of all parties involved.  However, I own the game. It's mine and I retain full authority over it.  I can decide in the middle of the game to just pack it up. Or not.  It would be a jerk move on my part to do that, but it's my game.



Sure, you can take your ball and go home.  But unlike Settlers of Catan this doesn't deprive the players of their characters.  Can another GM step in?  Heck, if you are running a published module can another GM pick up right where you left off?

"The game" isn't a physical thing like a Settlers set, it's an intangible shared creation.  The GM does a bigger share of the set design, the players do a bigger share of moving the story forward.

And you play lip service to players making a difference, but until you acknowledge that they are just as instrumental as the DM into the specific story that makes up a specific game, you just will be missing the point.

Or let's go the other way.  You bring over Settlers of Catan, and half way through the game the host throws you out.  What does your authority over Settlers allow you to change that?

EDIT: Or a player gets a work call and needs to take off.  Does your absolute authority over Catan by owning the physical game do anything about that?



Maxperson said:


> That's what D&D is like.  Ultimately it's the DMs game, even if the end result is a creation that is mutually arrived at.



Please explain how it's both the group effort but only belongs to one person.  It's not like we're creating a physical mural somewhere, it's in the shared imagination of the table.



Maxperson said:


> It can't.  If every last player leaves the game, the game is still mine as is the power. Only I can take it and find new players for it.  The others don't have my notes and ideas.



If you start another Settlers of Catan game later with different people, is it still the same game?  Or has that first game ("your game" in your parlance) gone away and now you are playing a new game with the same basic configuration.

I think we both know the answer to this.



Maxperson said:


> Yes.  Something I never said.  Not once did I say that my authority could prevent a player from leaving the game or would exist outside of the game.  That's a construct you created for me. Within the game, though, my authority is absolute.



If you insist that lighter than air is the only method of flight, you don't need to utter the words "The Wright Brothers will never get their 'aeroplane' to fly", it's implied in what you said.

When you disputed that the player grants authority and can take it away, and instead insisted that the authority comes from the rules, you are saying that the rules are a higher level of authority than the player.  Which means that your premise can _only_ be right if the rules can prevent a player from leaving.

You never posted it because even you know it's hogwash and would undermine the rest of your statements.  That does not mean that it isn't a necessary statement for your premise to be correct.


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 12, 2022)

Blue said:


> No, the GM can (potentially) go out and get more players and create a new game that is based on what they have done before.  If they have retained some players there can even be more continuity, like a show where a lead actor or director leaves and something with that same name continues, but it doesn't have the same chemistry or the same energy and needs to rediscover itself.



Or you just accept occasional player turnover as a fact of life.  This is essential if one intends to run a multi-year campaign, and note that said turnover may or may not have anything to do with the quality of DMing (i.e. life happens).


Blue said:


> And again, your statement seems to assume that players are cogs - you can replace them and they all bring the same thing to the table.



Au contraire - player turnover almost always brings new things to the table, which helps keep the campaign fresh.  Sometimes in hindsight there's a net gain, sometimes a net loss, but everyone brings something different.


----------



## Blue (Jun 12, 2022)

Lanefan said:


> Or you just accept occasional player turnover as a fact of life.  This is essential if one intends to run a multi-year campaign, and note that said turnover may or may not have anything to do with the quality of DMing (i.e. life happens).
> 
> Au contraire - player turnover almost always brings new things to the table, which helps keep the campaign fresh.  Sometimes in hindsight there's a net gain, sometimes a net loss, but everyone brings something different.



I never said player turnover was bad.  Though player turnover because the GM is being abusive is bad in my opinion.

I was debating that the player is the ultimate source of authority over them, not the rules.  That the rules can not force a player to join nor prevent a player from leaving, so the GM only has authority as voluntarily granted by the player.

Your points, which I agree with, are orthogonal to what is being discussed with Max.


----------



## overgeeked (Jun 12, 2022)

Lanefan said:


> Or you just accept occasional player turnover as a fact of life.  This is essential if one intends to run a multi-year campaign, and note that said turnover may or may not have anything to do with the quality of DMing (i.e. life happens).
> 
> Au contraire - player turnover almost always brings new things to the table, which helps keep the campaign fresh.  Sometimes in hindsight there's a net gain, sometimes a net loss, but everyone brings something different.



Exactly. And importantly, the referee is still in charge of the game. Players come and go, the game changes as a result, but the referee is still there running the game.


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 12, 2022)

Blue said:


> It's all very Ship of Theseus. If an abusing GM loses their players one by one and replaces them, is it still "the game"?



Yes.

And the same applies to a non-abusing GM.


Blue said:


> From your point of view you've made it clear you feel "the game" is a construct of the GM running it and that individual players are not a defining point of "the game".



To me "the game" (here synonymous with "the campaign") is a construct of the GM running it in a particular setting in a somewhat-continuous or related manner.

Same GM, different setting = different game.
Different GM, same setting = different game.

Same GM, same setting = (usually the) same game.


Blue said:


> So your protests about still being able to run as you like (assuming you still have players) are just missing the point.  "The game" isn't just the construction of a single person.



Well, it is once you realize that without that single person that "game" does not exist.


----------



## Manbearcat (Jun 12, 2022)

Lanefan said:


> Au contraire - player turnover almost always brings new things to the table, which helps keep the campaign fresh.  Sometimes in hindsight there's a net gain, sometimes a net loss, but everyone brings something different.




This is interesting to me.

I'm curious what you feel intra-game turnover yields in terms of "new players bring new things to the table?"  What "new things" do you have in mind?

I'm curious about this because I don't remember the last time I had intra-game turnover.  Like...I think it was 2 decades ago in a 3.x game I GMed due to someone moving out of town?  Yet, having the same players all the time hasn't affected "campaign freshness." 

The same players at every game (and just in the last 2 decades you're talking GMing probably 150 different players, yet every game had no more than 4 players with most of them 2-3 players) have consistently kept things fresh and brought new and different and very consequential things into play consistently...all the time.

So can you maybe elaborate on that second sentence above with some examples from your games?


----------



## overgeeked (Jun 12, 2022)

Lanefan said:


> Yes.
> 
> And the same applies to a non-abusing GM.
> 
> ...



I think that last bit is exactly what blue refuses to accept/acknowledge.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Jun 12, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> I think that last bit is exactly what blue refuses to accept/acknowledge.



Strawmen are easy to believe in, especially when tearing them down is vitally important to winning your point.  In other words, you really should have a second think on this.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Jun 12, 2022)

I think that the failure to connect here is because for many of us, any given game is specific to its participants. For others, its specific to the GM. 

If folks think of a game as “the GM’s game” rather than “our game” then no amount of describing it otherwise will convince them. 

And that’s fine, we can all look at games differently. But then those folks should probably be a little less likely to say that other games limit player agency while holding this stance.


----------



## bloodtide (Jun 12, 2022)

Manbearcat said:


> This is interesting to me.
> 
> I'm curious what you feel intra-game turnover yields in terms of "new players bring new things to the table?"  What "new things" do you have in mind?



Wow, does my game get a lot of turn over...that is players join, freak out, and then run away.  

So once upon a time I posted a classic "save the kingdom from a dragon" adventure, with my usual warnings "Unfair Unbalanced Anything Rolls Hard Fun Killer DM".  There is a pool of players desperate to play, so it's no problem getting five.  It does not take too long for players to leave.  And just as fast for a new player to join.  Each player brings new ideas, outlooks, experiences, and so forth.  BUT it's also important what the leaving players teach the players that stay.

The players start with the idea that they are too weak to just attack the dragon, and figure they need help.  So Bob had the idea to 'make an army' out of the kingdoms peasants, his character was killed by a local sheriff for being a nusince.  Bob complains his character dies and quits.  New player Joe picked up on that idea using wit and charm to get a peasant mob...that was killed by the dragon in one round.  Next Joe looks for epic level knights that are just sitting around and would be willing to be under his command....he fails to find any.   Joe quits as the "GM never makes any of his plans work".  Sally joins and is told about the silly "lets somehow get an army to kill the dragon for us" idea and suggests making an undead army.  Eric leaves here as it's "taking too long to kill the dragon".  Zoe joins, is told the new plan, and she points out that an army of weak undead will be killed in a round just like the peasants.  Sally leaves as now no one wants to do her undead army idea.  Kevin joins, and is told the story so far.....he asks why have they just not attacked the dragon yet?  The group complains about being too weak.  Tony wants to go on another adventure to get more powerful, but everyone else wants to finish the dragon one first.  Tony leaves.  Hank joins, and suggests tricking the dragon into a trap.  But for bait they will need lots of treasure, and the characters are poor.  Side adventure here where the group takes several games to steal all the local barons treasure.  Kim joins during this.  Eventually they get into the barons vault to find....not much treasure.  Hank leaves.  Kevin gets that a baron does not have millions of gold coins sitting in a room....and suggests going after a lost sunken ship of gold.  No one else wants too.  

*And this goes on for a long time*  Players, even old ones, come and go...

Eventually Zoe and Kevin get the idea of finding a good dragon, doing it a favor, in return for fighting their dragon.  This works, but Edsel has everyone ready with Back-up Plan A: "kill the wounded red dragon".  Sure enough the red dragon wins the dragon fight....and the group pounds on the wounded red dragon.  Characters die....but so does the dragon.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Jun 12, 2022)

bloodtide said:


> Wow, does my game get a lot of turn over...that is players join, freak out, and then run away.
> 
> So once upon a time I posted a classic "save the kingdom from a dragon" adventure, with my usual warnings "Unfair Unbalanced Anything Rolls Hard Fun Killer DM".  There is a pool of players desperate to play, so it's no problem getting five.  It does not take too long for players to leave.  And just as fast for a new player to join.  Each player brings new ideas, outlooks, experiences, and so forth.  BUT it's also important what the leaving players teach the players that stay.
> 
> ...



Sounds like you had a lot of fun with that.


----------



## Darth Solo (Jun 12, 2022)

It's INTERACTION.

The GM does their thing and the players do theirs. 

Is the GM entertaining the group? Yup. Are the players entertaining the GM? Yup. It's cooperative. You don't even have a tabletop RPG unless the GM is introducing and the players are reacting. 

How do you escape the entertainment value of a Gamemaster? It's historic and truly vital. With games that need a GM that person is KEY entertainer. The players just fill a lesser reactionary role. I've never seen my players as anything other than secondary to my role as CREATOR. The PCs exist in MY world dealing with MY conflict. Perhaps they aren't entertained on a personal level but, following the word "entertain" what I am doing as GM is providing scenes that the players may enjoy or be amused by. 

Am I as GM trying to amuse the players? Well, yeah. No matter how badly I attempt the act. Just as I look towards to being amused/entertained by the PCs. I mean --- we try to be amusing, right? What GM just throws "adventure" at players with zero intention of evoking amusement? If I run "Ravenloft" and the way I run Strahd is pure MurderHobo (kill the PCs) is that maybe entertaining to some of the players? Maybe not. It becomes a question of presentation, maybe. 

But I think if the GM & players are trying to entertain/amuse each other with what we're doing at the tabletop, real or virtual, it hits exactly why we play these games. I try it with violence and laughs. Maybe my players try another way. But, why even play if entertainment isn't the focus?


----------



## Maxperson (Jun 13, 2022)

Blue said:


> This isn't logical.  *The game has changed in ways the GM does not have control over by the player leaving.*  How can you claim that they still have full authority?



Because his authority over the game world and what goes on within it isn't diminished.  You the player can leave, but the PC remains or leaves at the DM's decision.  Or put another way, if your argument is true, there's nobody ever has full authority over anything.


Blue said:


> First, the GM has never had "complete authority over everything that happens within the game"



Nobody in the world ever does by your definition, because all authority is defied by someone.


Blue said:


> Second, if a bunch of players fire the GM and a new GM picks up with the existing characters and situation, the first GM still "owns the game"?



The DM literally cannot be fired.  Players can quit and find a new DM, but they cannot fire the DM.

In the case you describe above where the players quit and find a new DM, the former DM still owns his game 100%.  The players can do nothing about it.  He can go and get a new group, keeping the former PCs around as NPCs or not as he sees fit.  

The new DM can create a new game with the old PCs, but it won't be the game the players quit.  It's entirely new.


Blue said:


> Sure, you can take your ball and go home.  But unlike Settlers of Catan this doesn't deprive the players of their characters.  Can another GM step in?  Heck, if you are running a published module can another GM pick up right where you left off?



Not with the same game, no.  It will be a new game with a new game starting at the same point in the module, but it's a different game with a different authority figure running it.


Blue said:


> "The game" isn't a physical thing like a Settlers set, it's an intangible shared creation.  The GM does a bigger share of the set design, t*he players do a bigger share of moving the story forward.*



This is group dependent, not game dependent.  Proactive players do as much and sometimes more than the DM to move the story forward, but they still need the DM's backdrop to also move the story forward, and as the DM is reacting to them and controlling more, I'm not 100% convinced that they do more.  Reactive  players absolutely do not do more.


Blue said:


> What does your authority over Settlers allow you to change that?



Nothing.  But my authority over the game remains unchanged.


Blue said:


> Does your absolute authority over Catan by owning the physical game do anything about that?



I'm not sure what these Red Herrings have to do with the authority.  Yes there are things that the DM doesn't control.  Those things are all outside of the game.


Blue said:


> Please explain how it's both the group effort but only belongs to one person.  It's not like we're creating a physical mural somewhere, it's in the shared imagination of the table.



That's easy.  The end result was arrived at as a group effort, but the game itself and all of the authority resides with the DM.  There's nothing the players can do to change that.  Their options are 1) convince the DM to change/compromise things, 2) yield to the DM's authority, or 3) quit and leave the DM's authority behind.  At no point do the players ever gain authority of their own unless the DM cedes some to them.


Blue said:


> If you start another Settlers of Catan game later with different people, is it still the same game?  Or has that first game ("your game" in your parlance) gone away and now you are playing a new game with the same basic configuration.



Yes. It's always the same game.  It has the same pieces with the same rules and so on.  Game play can differ, but the game doesn't.


Blue said:


> If you insist that lighter than air is the only method of flight, you don't need to utter the words "The Wright Brothers will never get their 'aeroplane' to fly", it's implied in what you said.



I never implied it, either.  This is wholly a fabrication that you've come up with.  Then argued against.  That's called a Strawman.  Stop it.


Blue said:


> When you disputed that the player grants authority and can take it away, and instead insisted that the authority comes from the rules, you are saying that the rules are a higher level of authority than the player.  Which means that your premise can _only_ be right if the rules can prevent a player from leaving.



Nope!!!  Your logic is faulty.  When I said that the game grants the DM complete authority over the game, I am saying and imply ONLY that the DM has full authority over the game.  You are trying to twist things so that I'm saying that the game gives authority over the players, which it doesn't and is never the case.  The DM has zero authority over the players at any time.  At least not from D&D.

Conflating authority over the game with authority over the players isn't doing you any favors.


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 13, 2022)

Manbearcat said:


> This is interesting to me.
> 
> I'm curious what you feel intra-game turnover yields in terms of "new players bring new things to the table?"  What "new things" do you have in mind?



New approaches, new interpersonal dynamics, new character ideas-concepts, new playstyle, etc.


Manbearcat said:


> I'm curious about this because I don't remember the last time I had intra-game turnover.



In long campaigns like mine (currently over 14 years), player turnover is almost inevitable - people move away, new (or returning) people join, etc.  So far I've had a total of 13 players in the campaign, but never more than 8 at once (split between two groups with some overlap); and of 950-ish sessions totalled between all parties, no single player has been at the table for more than 560 of them. (covid had a lot to say here as well: the last 100-ish sessions have been solo with my SO; but she didn't start the campaign - she joined about 6 years in out of 14).


Manbearcat said:


> The same players at every game (and just in the last 2 decades you're talking GMing probably 150 different players, yet every game had no more than 4 players with most of them 2-3 players) have consistently kept things fresh and brought new and different and very consequential things into play consistently...all the time.
> 
> So can you maybe elaborate on that second sentence above with some examples from your games?



One example that leaps to mind from early-ish in my current game: for in-game reasons a couple of established players split their PCs away from the party and started a new sub-party of their own.  Shortly after this, an old friend and past player moved back to town after many years away and wanted to get into a game, so we took her in to this sub-party and it became a second main party (i.e. now I was running two sessions a week).

The returning player had never met the two existing players, but she fit in well with their somewhat-gonzo dynamic while at the same time changing it - her character concepts, being a bit more down-to-earth than theirs, pulled the party back a little bit toward the sane side and probably extended its lifespan significantly in so doing.

Half a year or so later another player joined that group, completely new as a player but otherwise well-known to most of us through work.  After a very brief period of learning the ropes he pushed things right back to the gonzo side, and due largely to sheer bad luck that group ended up becoming the only TPK I've ever DMed.

The timing on this worked out well in that the returned-from-out-of-town player was about to move out of town again (her career is as an ESL teacher in southeast Asia), so the three remaining players formed a new party - same setting, etc. - and took in yet another new-to-us player who I'd originally met through this forum.  This brought a different dynamic again - loads of fun, but not so gonzo and ultimately much more successful in their adventuring exploits.


----------



## aramis erak (Jun 13, 2022)

pemerton said:


> For me, that contrasts with "say 'yes' or roll the dice" - instead of the stakes being determined by intent, we have a set of moves built around a conception of what sorts of actions in _this_ fiction raise the stakes. As I posted in another one of these recent threads, that's why custom moves become important - to allow specific sorts of stakes to be brought within the scope of the action resolution system.



No argument; I'm fine with the concept. I just feel that the author didn't explicate it in a broadly intelligible way in the original Apocalypse world. There are a number of places where various folk didn't grasp what was being said.  

It's on par with giving someone the advice "to quit smoking, quit smoking" That the two dupicate words have different meanings is not evident. (I quit cold turkey in 2008... the day I mangled my knee... The trick to not smoking any further is to find a way to not give in to the urge to light up.  In my case, I went through a LOT of chewing gum.)


----------



## Mannahnin (Jun 13, 2022)

Mannahnin said:


> I'm talking about how in D&D, mechanically, getting captured, unless everyone happens to fail a save vs certain powerful spells, normally involves playing out a whole extended combat in which the party gets beaten down.






overgeeked said:


> If that’s what the players choose to do, so what?



Fun matters?  I want them to have fun, and for losses and setbacks for them in the game not to suck too much time and joy out of the session?

We have a common scenario from fantasy and dramatic fiction.  One that players can be expected to occasionally get into through their choices.  One game makes playing that scenario out lengthy and un-fun, and makes subsequent game scenes more difficult and less fun to play out.  A different game lets the scenario play out quickly and more enjoyably, and doesn't hinder following scenes the same way.

It seems to me like there's something to that second game.  Maybe it would be a fun one to play, and does this particular thing better, even if I love the first game.



Mannahnin said:


> Loss of HP, waste of spells, and a roughly (depending on edition, level, play skill, etc.) 30-60 minute exercise in losing.





overgeeked said:


> They’d rather die than be captured. That’s how viscerally players react to even the potential of loss of agency. They’d rather waste hours in a losing fight and have their characters die than give up their agency. Maybe we should stop trying to force this as referees.



I'm not sure that I grant your premise.  I'm not sure they really WOULD rather waste hours in a losing fight, or would make that choice if they realized that's what it would entail.  I think that situation sucks all around.  I don't think it's giving up agency to non-lethally lose a fight or confrontation once in a while, if you CHOSE to get into that fight or confrontation, and either misjudged your opposition or rolled so badly that you lost.  

I certainly do try to avoid forcing any loss of agency.  Part of honoring player agency is letting them get themselves into a bad situation and lose once in a while.  If we can have non-TPK losses, that seems like an improvement to the game.  More fun for everyone involved. 

I've certainly seen advice in OSR circles that you don't always have to kill the PCs- having bad guys take them prisoner can be fun.  But D&D doesn't offer a lot of mechanical support for that.



Mannahnin said:


> Players don't enjoy it.  And they almost certainly attach a negative emotional view of the NPCs who did it.  If they later get a chance to take REVENGE on those bad guys, they may really enjoy that payoff.  But IME the game is NOT conducive to a) making that scene run quickly so it doesn't suck to play through, and consequently b) leaving the players in an emotional state where they are potentially open to a positive or working relationship with the guys who got one over on them.
> 
> This is a common trope in heroic fiction and fantasy, and D&D seems to be largely incapable of supporting it.






overgeeked said:


> Because RPGs are not stories. And they cannot replicate every aspect of stories. In Sword & Sorcery fiction, the author can simply decide for the character (no agency) to surrender. Whereas the referee in an RPG cannot decide for the player what that player’s character will do without violating player agency.
> 
> That players are so stubborn and resistant to loss of agency really shouldn’t be a surprise and really should inform design. Maybe stop trying to violate player agency as a general thing.



I'm not.    I don't think I'm trying to replicate every aspect of stories either.  But I would like my games to be better able to handle common fictional situations and interactions.  This particular example Campbell gave just happens to have struck on something which my decades of experience with D&D have shown to be a weakness of the system, and engaged my curiosity about how a different game might handle it better.


----------



## loverdrive (Jun 13, 2022)

Agency-huyagency. All this stuff feels very silly to me.

My opinion on this is dead simple: "your" character isn't your character. It's _our_ character. Like everything else in life, it doesn't, (or, at least, shouldn't) belong to one individual, but to the collective.


----------



## Mannahnin (Jun 13, 2022)

loverdrive said:


> Agency-huyagency. All this stuff feels very silly to me.
> 
> My opinion on this is dead simple: "your" character isn't your character. It's _our_ character. Like everything else in life, it doesn't, (or, at least, shouldn't) belong to one individual, but to the collective.



I can't quite go that far about characters.

But I think it's entirely true of our story.  And while I always want to respect player agency with their characters, that means respecting their decisions, _not _always making the outcomes of those decisions what they were hoping for.

I'm fine with according the player full ownership of their character, but it's not in an authorial sense.  They don't get to dictate every win or loss. They don't get to decide everything good or bad that happens to the character. The way I prefer to play there generally isn't a story laid out ahead of time.  The GM sets up situations, sites and relationships, the players make characters and decisions, and we find out what the story is after the fact.

One thing that seems neat to me about PbtA rules is that who's deciding some stuff seems a little more transparent.  Someone earlier in the thread (IIRC) talked about PbtA doing conflict resolution whereas D&D mostly does task resolution.  So if the PC makes his Check in D&D, we know he succeeded at the task, but it's pretty much always up to the DM's judgement whether and when the conflict is resolved.  Whereas if the PC is making a Move in AW, the check generally resolves the conflict, and whether he succeeded or failed actually binds the GM in terms of limiting what kind of consequences ensue.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Jun 13, 2022)

Mannahnin said:


> We have a common scenario from fantasy and dramatic fiction.  One that players can be expected to occasionally get into through their choices.  One game makes playing that scenario out lengthy and un-fun, and makes subsequent game scenes more difficult and less fun to play out.  A different game lets the scenario play out quickly and more enjoyably, and doesn't hinder following scenes the same way.




On the other hand, this can be read as players telling you _they don't want to see that kind of scenario_.  The fact it occurs in related fiction doesn't mean they'll accept it here; as I've noted before, media matters when looking at genres.



Mannahnin said:


> It seems to me like there's something to that second game.  Maybe it would be a fun one to play, and does this particular thing better, even if I love the first game.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure that I grant your premise.  I'm not sure they really WOULD rather waste hours in a losing fight, or would make that choice if they realized that's what it would entail.  I think that situation sucks all around.  I don't think it's giving up agency to non-lethally lose a fight or confrontation once in a while, if you CHOSE to get into that fight or confrontation, and either misjudged your opposition or rolled so badly that you lost.




See above, however.  You're going in with the premise that the players aren't resistant to getting captured _at all_.  My time in the hobby suggests this is a big leap.  Even in superhero games, where its usually more benign just because of the genre conventions, people are pretty foot draggy about it, and elsewhere they tend to be outright hostile.



Mannahnin said:


> I certainly do try to avoid forcing any loss of agency.  Part of honoring player agency is letting them get themselves into a bad situation and lose once in a while.  If we can have non-TPK losses, that seems like an improvement to the game.  More fun for everyone involved.




Again, I think this misunderstands a good number of people; I've seen a fair number of people who would literally _rather their character die_ than get captured.

Basically, I think your argument has some sound basis as long as people are actually onboard getting captured at all, but just assuming that is not, I think, a great idea.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Jun 13, 2022)

loverdrive said:


> Agency-huyagency. All this stuff feels very silly to me.
> 
> My opinion on this is dead simple: "your" character isn't your character. It's _our_ character. Like everything else in life, it doesn't, (or, at least, shouldn't) belong to one individual, but to the collective.




You can have that attitude, but I can promise there's a large number of players who disagree, or only agree to a limited degree.


----------



## Mannahnin (Jun 13, 2022)

Thomas Shey said:


> On the other hand, this can be read as players telling you _they don't want to see that kind of scenario_.  The fact it occurs in related fiction doesn't mean they'll accept it here; as I've noted before, media matters when looking at genres.
> 
> See above, however.  You're going in with the premise that the players aren't resistant to getting captured _at all_.  My time in the hobby suggests this is a big leap.  Even in superhero games, where its usually more benign just because of the genre conventions, people are pretty foot draggy about it, and elsewhere they tend to be outright hostile.
> 
> ...



I think this is to some extent a self-fulfilling prophecy.  As a rule, players never want to lose any given encounter or situation.  Some may be philosophical and open to losing sometimes in general, but in the moment it almost always smarts.

I think that if occasionally losing were more often a setback rather than a death sentence, players might not loathe it so much.  

I certainly try to avoid using the trope much in D&D, even when the players are steering themselves toward it, precisely because of how negatively it tends to play out.  This heightens my curiosity about the possibility of another game handling it better.


----------



## niklinna (Jun 13, 2022)

Mannahnin said:


> I think this is to some extent a self-fulfilling prophecy.  As a rule, players never want to lose any given encounter or situation.  Some may be philosophical and open to losing sometimes in general, but in the moment it almost always smarts.
> 
> I think that if occasionally losing were more often a setback rather than a death sentence, players might not loathe it so much.
> 
> I certainly try to avoid using the trope much in D&D, even when the players are steering themselves toward it, precisely because of how negatively it tends to play out.  This heightens my curiosity about the possibility of another game handling it better.



You can also argue that in D&D (and quite a few other systems), nearly all combats are to the death for the NPCs. So many creatures just fight and fight til they die, instead of fleeing or surrending. It sets a precedent for the players, that those other options aren't viable.


----------



## Mannahnin (Jun 13, 2022)

niklinna said:


> You can also argue that in D&D (and quite a few other systems), nearly all combats are to the death for the NPCs. So many creatures just fight and fight til they die, instead of fleeing or surrending. It sets a precedent for the players, that those other options aren't viable.



Yeah, there's definitely something to be said for DMs needing to help establish the idea that conflict or encounters don't always lead to combat, and combat isn't always to the death.

I've definitely done more of this since digging into the OSR and starting to regularly use Reaction Rolls and Morale.  Potential enemies wanting to make a deal, or actual enemies fleeing or surrendering instead of fighting to the death adds more dimension to the game, and hopefully sets a precedent.

I also keep trying to improve/add rules for fleeing a fight.  Make it more viable.  Players still tend to be reluctant, and I'm not sure how much of that is pure resistance to ever losing, and how much is having been conditioned into being convinced that fleeing doesn't actually work and there's no point.


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 13, 2022)

Thomas Shey said:


> On the other hand, this can be read as players telling you _they don't want to see that kind of scenario_.



Players generally don't want their characters to die, either.  Doesn't mean it ain't gonna happen.


Thomas Shey said:


> See above, however.  You're going in with the premise that the players aren't resistant to getting captured _at all_. My time in the hobby suggests this is a big leap.  Even in superhero games, where its usually more benign just because of the genre conventions, people are pretty foot draggy about it, and elsewhere they tend to be outright hostile.



Players are generally resistant to any bad things happening to their characters, of which capture is but one.  No problem here.


Thomas Shey said:


> Again, I think this misunderstands a good number of people; I've seen a fair number of people who would literally _rather their character die_ than get captured.



Their characters, their choice.

And, ironically enough, this means their replacement PCs are almost certainly going to be brought in _having already been captured_, via meeting the surviving captured PCs while in captivity!


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 13, 2022)

Mannahnin said:


> Yeah, there's definitely something to be said for DMs needing to help establish the idea that conflict or encounters don't always lead to combat, and combat isn't always to the death.
> 
> I've definitely done more of this since digging into the OSR and starting to regularly use Reaction Rolls and Morale.  Potential enemies wanting to make a deal, or actual enemies fleeing or surrendering instead of fighting to the death adds more dimension to the game, and hopefully sets a precedent.



For me it depends on the enemy and how said enemy has been set up and-or presented.  Last night, for example, the party were up against a combined group of fanatical cultists who would fight to the death and hope their deity would aid them (and one actually got said aid!) and faux-Roman Legionnaires here as, in effect, guards and troop support.  More or less the "boss battle" of the adventure.

The Legionnaires were (mostly) honourable and disciplined sorts, and the party had been accepting their surrender through earlier encounters and treating well those who had surrendered.  Result: the Legionnaires came to see the PCs as decent-enough folk when it came to things like honour in combat etc., meaning that when last night's battle erupted it was fairly easy for some party Legionnaire captives to talk the other Legionnaires into neutrality.  This meant the PCs could, while keeping just a half-eye on the soldiers, focus on the Clerics.

Still cost them two party members out of six - one was outright beheaded in melee (thanks to the divine intervention noted above!) and another was (permanently?) changed into a giant ant with no memories of her former self - but they got through it.


Mannahnin said:


> I also keep trying to improve/add rules for fleeing a fight.  Make it more viable.  Players still tend to be reluctant, and I'm not sure how much of that is pure resistance to ever losing, and how much is having been conditioned into being convinced that fleeing doesn't actually work and there's no point.



Part of it might also be reluctance to split the party, as fleeing often works best if only some do it while the rest (often sacrificially) cover their flight.


----------



## aramis erak (Jun 13, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> I think that last bit is exactly what blue refuses to accept/acknowledge.



Blue's not the only one. I flat out reject the axiom of "One person leaves it's no longer the same game."

But Same GM, same Setting, same rules:  May or may not be the same game. Depends upon the characters and the story continuity.



Thomas Shey said:


> You can have that attitude, but I can promise there's a large number of players who disagree, or only agree to a limited degree.



I make it clear to most of my players that, if you aren't there, your character still is and gets used with or without you.
So, no, characters aren't personal property in the same way as dice, nor as book characters: your ownership only matters while you are present. And, for regulars, who gets to play your character when you're absent if it's prearranged.

Also, in some games, given the way the character creation works, you don't even have full control over the nature... Spirit of the Century being the clearest. 2 of your 5 aspects are created by other players.


----------



## overgeeked (Jun 13, 2022)

aramis erak said:


> Blue's not the only one. I flat out reject the axiom of "One person leaves it's no longer the same game."
> 
> But Same GM, same Setting, same rules:  May or may not be the same game. Depends upon the characters and the story continuity.



I think you might have lost track of who was saying what. 

Lanefan was saying that if the referee leaves the game ceases to exist. I agreed with that. 

Blue seems to think that the referee isn't that important and that if any one of the players leaves then the game ceases to exist. Likely he means "in the _exact same way_ as it did before that player left". But left that part unsaid for some reason. But that's flat out not true. 

If a player leaves, the band plays on. If the referee leaves, the game's over. 

Players are not on par with referees in their importance to the continuation of the game. We really need to stop pretending they are. Without the one referee there's no game. Without 1-40 players there's no game. The referee to player population ratio is still something like 1:20 or higher. Which is why you have paid referees as a thing now. So many players desperate to play that they'll pay for the pleasure.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 13, 2022)

Riffing on @Mannahnin's posts.

I think we can be pretty confident of the following: if having a PC build a castle in classic D&D required the players to write down every instruction to the engineers and mason, or describe where and how every brick is laid, fewer campaigns would involve building castles than they actually have done.

In the same context, when the GM makes a single Loyalty throw for the engineers, to see if they do their job properly, that is not taking away player agency just because the player doesn't get a throw to check if they persuade the engineer, or catch them goofing off, every time. Weeks or months of interaction is being bundled up into a single throw to make the ingame activity viable as an object of resolution at the table.

There is nothing magic about the interpersonal altercations that might result in capture that distinguishes them from the interpersonal dealings that might result in an engineer doing a better or worse job at building a castle. We can set the degree of resolution however we like, at whatever will make the game fun and interesting.

The same when it comes to consequences. _Being captured_ need not, in itself, be a more or less irrevocable outcome than _having a castle that is liable to fall down around you because of its shoddy construction_. We can choose what method(s) we use to resolve attempt by the players to have their PCs reverse or overcome these sorts of adverse consequences. We're not obliged, just because we're RPGing, to treat capture and escape just the same as D&D did 40+ years ago.


----------



## overgeeked (Jun 13, 2022)

Mannahnin said:


> Fun matters?



It's not an objective thing. It's entirely subjective. Something you find fun I might find tedious to the point of falling asleep. That's why you set expectations when you form a group.


Mannahnin said:


> I want them to have fun, and for losses and setbacks for them in the game not to suck too much time and joy out of the session?



Losses and setbacks aren't fun, so just remove them. Saves time and increases joy.

For me, I'm more interested in seeing what the players do. How they deal with losses and setbacks. That's the interesting part. If it takes the whole session for them to finally stop pounding their head against a brick wall, that's their choice to make, not mine. I set up the situations, it's up to the players to engage, ignore, or deal with them however they see fit. It's not my place to decide for them where they go, what they do, or how they handle obstacles.


Mannahnin said:


> We have a common scenario from fantasy and dramatic fiction. One that players can be expected to occasionally get into through their choices. One game makes playing that scenario out lengthy and un-fun, and makes subsequent game scenes more difficult and less fun to play out. A different game lets the scenario play out quickly and more enjoyably, and doesn't hinder following scenes the same way.



Again with the assumption that fun is somehow objective. It's still not.

Besides, it's the players' choice to pound their head against a wall. If that's what they find fun, or at least find more bearable than the alternative, it's up to them to choose. Because player agency matters. Like a lot. It's literally the only reason to have players at the table. Otherwise the referee can just write a story.


Mannahnin said:


> It seems to me like there's something to that second game. Maybe it would be a fun one to play, and does this particular thing better, even if I love the first game.



Sure. Lots of games out there. Knock yourself out.


Mannahnin said:


> I'm not sure that I grant your premise. I'm not sure they really WOULD rather waste hours in a losing fight, or would make that choice if they realized that's what it would entail. I think that situation sucks all around.



I've been doing this almost 40 years and I've never seen a group willingly get captured. I've seen a lot of referees try to force the issue and the resultant TPK pissed everyone off. Because most players would rather their characters die than lose agency.


Mannahnin said:


> I don't think it's giving up agency to non-lethally lose a fight or confrontation once in a while, if you CHOSE to get into that fight or confrontation, and either misjudged your opposition or rolled so badly that you lost.



Because you're the referee, not the player. You have an infinite supply of characters to play. In most games, your players will only have one at a time. If their one character loses agency...that player now doesn't get to play the game. Until you give them back control of their character. But, often, in capture scenarios referees will steal their agency...steal all their gear...then lock them in a cell. So they go from being powerful characters with agency...to weak characters with none. It's fine for you as the referee, because you haven't lost agency. Give that trick a try at a table with real players and see how it goes. Ask them what they think.


Mannahnin said:


> I certainly do try to avoid forcing any loss of agency. Part of honoring player agency is letting them get themselves into a bad situation and lose once in a while. If we can have non-TPK losses, that seems like an improvement to the game. More fun for everyone involved.



Sure. So don't take away their agency by capturing them. If they'd rather die than get captured, honor that. A TPK isn't a campaign killer. You just have to get creative. Resurrection. Animate Dead. Necromancers. Fighting your way out of hell.


Mannahnin said:


> I've certainly seen advice in OSR circles that you don't always have to kill the PCs- having bad guys take them prisoner can be fun. But D&D doesn't offer a lot of mechanical support for that.



Non-lethal damage has been clunky over the years, but it's almost always present. The part that's not supported is skipping over the fight and going straight to the capture. You could always ambush them in their sleep. Attack them in bed. Or any number of other nasty things. Might go over a bit better than an hours' long fight they can't hope to win. I doubt it very much though.


Mannahnin said:


> I'm not. I don't think I'm trying to replicate every aspect of stories either.
> 
> This particular example Campbell gave just happens to have struck on something which my decades of experience with D&D have shown to be a weakness of the system, and engaged my curiosity about how a different game might handle it better.



But that's the rub. RPGs are not fiction. They don't need to handle fictional situations that go against the basic premise of the game. I don't think it's a weakness in the system. I think it's a feature of players understanding what role-playing games are. These are games of power fantasy. An exercise in imagination and creativity and a chance to be cooler and more powerful than you are in the real world. Most times at least, some of us play horror games. This particular fictional situation is a denial of that. It stops the game from being what it is. It stops the players from getting to play their power fantasy. They'd rather go down swinging than give that up. That's a feature, not a bug.


Mannahnin said:


> But I would like my games to be better able to handle common fictional situations and interactions.



The secret is lighter rules and players who accept that. In a game like Fate you can just hand out fate points at the start and say, "you all wake up in a cell." The players still groan, but at least they get the fate point and you didn't waste their time with a fight. You could do the same with Inspiration in 5E, though players still being players are likely to be pissed.


----------



## aramis erak (Jun 13, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> I think you might have lost track of who was saying what.
> 
> Lanefan was saying that if the referee leaves the game ceases to exist. I agreed with that.
> 
> ...



Not all games have a GM.

My daughter took over GMing my L5R campaign. Same players save two: her and I. Same characters, again, sans hers and plus mine. Same themes, same ongoing plots... Same campaign all around, and everyone at table agreed it was. 

GM change doesn't axiomatically create a new campaign. If can, and often does... but there are lots of situations where the GM departing isn't an end. 

My steady group of AL players finished Hoard under Spencer when I had to leave state. He kept the same core 6, and took over where I left off (and we consulted a bit about it). He continued certain thematic "leanings" I'd been using.


----------



## overgeeked (Jun 13, 2022)

aramis erak said:


> Not all games have a GM.



Technically true and utterly irrelevant. Well done.


----------



## aramis erak (Jun 13, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> Technically true and utterly irrelevant. Well done.



Hardly - it's the most clear and factual refutation to your absurd assertion that the GM is the sole element of game.

THe other cases being examples of GM change also not doing what you claim.


----------



## overgeeked (Jun 13, 2022)

aramis erak said:


> Hardly - it's the most clear and factual refutation to your absurd assertion that the GM is the sole element of game.
> 
> The other cases being examples of GM change also not doing what you claim.



In a conversation centered on two games / families of games that both / all use referees as the main driver of the games in question, it's irrelevant. 

D&D, referee's clearly in charge. 

Powered by the Apocalypse, referee's clearly in charge. 

"Not all games have referees."

Again, technically correct but utterly irrelevant. 

Chess doesn't have a referee either, but it's not a relevant point to the discussion.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Jun 14, 2022)

Mannahnin said:


> I think this is to some extent a self-fulfilling prophecy.  As a rule, players never want to lose any given encounter or situation.  Some may be philosophical and open to losing sometimes in general, but in the moment it almost always smarts.




Yes, but in terms of that how many of them want to do so until they've done absolutely everything they could?  On a parallel case, there are a large number of people who don't want to flee an encounter they're losing, and for some of the same reasons; because most game systems make it so they lose one degree or another of control when trying to do so.



Mannahnin said:


> I think that if occasionally losing were more often a setback rather than a death sentence, players might not loathe it so much.




As I've said, it gets a pretty negative response in superhero games, where its pretty much _never_ a death sentence.



Mannahnin said:


> I certainly try to avoid using the trope much in D&D, even when the players are steering themselves toward it, precisely because of how negatively it tends to play out.  This heightens my curiosity about the possibility of another game handling it better.




I just find it really unlikely most people are going to find their character ending up in that situation with just one roll particularly loveable.  Admittedly, people playing PbtA games are used to a lot of things resolving on one roll that otherwise take a series, but that's also one of the things that turns some people off to it, and this is going to be a particular sticky point for many.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Jun 14, 2022)

niklinna said:


> You can also argue that in D&D (and quite a few other systems), nearly all combats are to the death for the NPCs. So many creatures just fight and fight til they die, instead of fleeing or surrending. It sets a precedent for the players, that those other options aren't viable.




There's absolutely something to that; I've mentioned before that most games have absolutely terrible mechanics for retreating if they have any distinct at all, so doing so often makes a bad situation worse.  On the other hand, a lot of things people fight in D&D are, pretty bluntly, fates worth than death by internal logic to surrender to; predatory undead, extradimensional abominations, and hellborn fiends do not seem a good idea, and some traditional depictions of various humanoid and quasi-humanoid races are not a vast improvement.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Jun 14, 2022)

Lanefan said:


> Players generally don't want their characters to die, either.  Doesn't mean it ain't gonna happen.




Depending on the genre and setting, it very much can be something that isn't going to happen, and not everybody considers the players wishes on either irrelevant.



Lanefan said:


> Players are generally resistant to any bad things happening to their characters, of which capture is but one.  No problem here.




I think you're being vastly more blithe here than is warranted.  I very much mentioned that a lot of players find death for their characters less unpleasant than capture.  There's "bad" and "bad".



Lanefan said:


> Their characters, their choice.




Which is why I say the matter at hand plays badly with them, because other than a single decision and die roll, it _isn't_ their choice.


----------



## Campbell (Jun 14, 2022)

Apocalypse World clearly does not have a referee. It has a Master of Ceremonies who is instructed to do everything in service to the listed agenda and no other, to always say what the rules demand, to always say what honesty demands, to always say what their prep demands, and to always say what their principles demand. Like any other game rules, the group may choose to ignore them, but I would advise against it. The entire game hinges on its GM procedures. If you take what the game permits GMs to do but ignore what it requires GMs to do chances are you will have a terrible power dynamic at the table.

The game clearly defines its GM role. Just as D&D clearly defines its GM role. D&D does not get to define how GMs function in other games. The designer of the game gets to define it.

Addendum: Powered by the Apocalypse is not a game or system. It's a design language. Each game still defines how it works.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Jun 14, 2022)

aramis erak said:


> Blue's not the only one. I flat out reject the axiom of "One person leaves it's no longer the same game."
> 
> But Same GM, same Setting, same rules:  May or may not be the same game. Depends upon the characters and the story continuity.




In fact, I'll argue that once you get away from pretty freeform sandbox type things, it doesn't take many players and/or characters to change to complexion of most campaigns significantly, sometimes to the degree there's no longer any point in continuing.  Not all campaigns have characters that are just interchangeable cogs.



aramis erak said:


> I make it clear to most of my players that, if you aren't there, your character still is and gets used with or without you.




To a limited degree, so do I; but even among the people I play with there's a difference between that and "your PC belongs to the group as a whole".  And there are absolutely people, and its not uncommon, that would find even my "If you miss a session sometimes someone else will just play your character" absolutely unacceptable.




aramis erak said:


> So, no, characters aren't personal property in the same way as dice, nor as book characters: your ownership only matters while you are present. And, for regulars, who gets to play your character when you're absent if it's prearranged.
> 
> Also, in some games, given the way the character creation works, you don't even have full control over the nature... Spirit of the Century being the clearest. 2 of your 5 aspects are created by other players.




I think the difference there, as with a lot of things, is people buying in up-front on that (same thing with things like the Shadow in Wraith).  That sets expectations.  But that doesn't mean one can reasonably expect everyone to be okay with such things, and taking it as a given they will is not a good plan.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Jun 14, 2022)

pemerton said:


> Riffing on @Mannahnin's posts.
> 
> I think we can be pretty confident of the following: if having a PC build a castle in classic D&D required the players to write down every instruction to the engineers and mason, or describe where and how every brick is laid, fewer campaigns would involve building castles than they actually have done.
> 
> ...




I suspect the same people I'm referring to would react badly to that degree of outcome for a single roll in the castle situation, too.  Pace-of-resolution matters to a great number of people.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Jun 14, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> In a conversation centered on two games / families of games that both / all use referees as the main driver of the games in question, it's irrelevant.
> 
> D&D, referee's clearly in charge.
> 
> ...




I felt it was relevant. Just the existence of an RPG without a GM makes it clear that the game need not revolve around the GM. 

Then even more relevant were the other examples where the GM changed and the game kept going. Those were great.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Jun 14, 2022)

aramis erak said:


> Not all games have a GM.
> 
> My daughter took over GMing my L5R campaign. Same players save two: her and I. Same characters, again, sans hers and plus mine. Same themes, same ongoing plots... Same campaign all around, and everyone at table agreed it was.
> 
> ...




The usual issue here is whether the rest-state can be conveyed to the new GM adequately, and that can turn on a lot of things.  My wife ran a sequel to a superhero campaign at one point; same setting, similar setup/group rationale, many of the same villains.  She had access to the same setting material I did, and handing over the villain write-ups for the ones she wanted to reuse did the rest.

The assumptions in this discussion on the part of people denying this is functional seem to be about setting/situations that only the GM knows and therefor only they are going to be able to continue with.  That's certainly a thing (sometimes the GM doesn't even have all of it on paper), but the Fragged Empire game I'm running could be picked up by someone else and they'd be able to continue it, perhaps not quite in the direction I'm going.  It'd just require someone to have been in the campaign and paid attention or got a good thorough briefing by someone who was.

I can't imagine but its easier with campaign structures where you heavily roll-as-you-go, though those (mostly) aren't my cuppa.


----------



## Campbell (Jun 14, 2022)

Speaking personally, I have pretty much zero interest in power fantasy. I do not want the lives of any of the characters I play. That would be entirely too messy.

I play and run traditional roleplaying games to engage in collaborative storytelling, express myself creatively through the design and play of my character and to revel in the setting (particularly the other characters and NPCs).

I play OSR games to overcome challenges and gain mastery over the game through understanding of the meta and lateral thinking skills.

I play and run Story Now games to experience visceral emotional experiences, take creative risks, and see what sort of narrative emerges through uncurated play.


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 14, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> I think you might have lost track of who was saying what.
> 
> Lanefan was saying that if the referee leaves the game ceases to exist. I agreed with that.
> 
> ...



With the sole exception being situations where there is only one player in the game.  In these cases, if that one player leaves the game (probably) ends.


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 14, 2022)

Thomas Shey said:


> I think you're being vastly more blithe here than is warranted.  I very much mentioned that a lot of players find death for their characters less unpleasant than capture.  There's "bad" and "bad".



Capture, death, level drain, limb loss, expensive-possession destruction or theft, loss of honour or reputation, sudden and debilitating aging, domination or mind control - all of these are things that PCs (and, by extension, players) are going to actively try to have their PCs avoid suffering while at the same time in many cases doing their best to inflict (some or all of) these same things onto their enemies.

What's less or more bad doesn't matter, as the definition of "less" and "more" may and will vary widely from player to player.  Ideally IMO a GM makes sure all of these arise at some point during a campaign; if nothing else doing so provides variance from death being the only real loss condition, which seems to have become the case with modern D&D.


Thomas Shey said:


> Which is why I say the matter at hand plays badly with them, because other than a single decision and die roll, it _isn't_ their choice.



On this I agree; IMO a more granular resolution is called for here, in whatever form that may take.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Jun 14, 2022)

Lanefan said:


> Capture, death, level drain, limb loss, expensive-possession destruction or theft, loss of honour or reputation, sudden and debilitating aging, domination or mind control - all of these are things that PCs (and, by extension, players) are going to actively try to have their PCs avoid suffering while at the same time in many cases doing their best to inflict (some or all of) these same things onto their enemies.




And I repeat, that doesn't mean they're all the same and players are required to accept all of them as the price of playing.




Lanefan said:


> What's less or more bad doesn't matter, as the definition of "less" and "more" may and will vary widely from player to player.




And that's why you pay attention to the overall trend of a group of players and don't just assume everyone will be good with all of them.  Otherwise you're just deciding its all about you and what they want is irrelevant.



Lanefan said:


> On this I agree; IMO a more granular resolution is called for here, in whatever form that may take.




"Required" is a strong word, but its absolutely what a lot of players expect.


----------



## innerdude (Jun 14, 2022)

I'm kind of sort of only "drive by thread-skimming", but PC capture is universally unfun.

Had a GM who did it twice, once running 3.5, once running GURPS. Both times we banged our heads against the wall for 90 minutes or so, trying to read his mind about how we were going to get out.

If it follows from general principles of play, I don't mind at all. Mind controlled as the result of an NPC casting a Domination spell and I fail my save? No problem. Compelled to act by a vow / background that's part of my character, and the principles of the system demand my character to act? (This is Ironsworn's bread and butter, by the way.) Almost always okay, as long as it's not someone abusing the "Lawful Stupid" or "Chaotic Doofus" character traits.

Unilateral imposition of a GM declaration of "You're captured" with no option for the PCs to declare their own actions?

"Okay. So can we skip to the part where the PCs get out, or should I go home now?"


----------



## loverdrive (Jun 14, 2022)

Mannahnin said:


> I can't quite go that far about characters.
> 
> But I think it's entirely true of our story. And while I always want to respect player agency with their characters, that means respecting their decisions, _not _always making the outcomes of those decisions what they were hoping for.



What character (any character, PC, NPC, or whatever else) can or cannot do is absolutely influenced by things outside of the character and outside of the player because, well, there are other participants. Unless it's a solo game, but then this whole discussion doesn't apply anyway.

In most games, you can't _really_ say "lol I take a dump on the table", even if it's something that your character would do and it's something you want your character to do (damn, this gets complicated). You have to put your desires aside for the needs of the collective. You get to exercise control over your character's actions/feelings/whatever only as long as it serves the game.

I don't mind someone (or something — like, say, the rules) else assuming control through aggressive framing _(e.g: You're at home, drinking yourself to death like you do every single day, when you hear commotion outside. What ya gonna do?)_, describing the outcome of an action _(You try to squeeze the trigger... And you can't. You're not that heartless.)_ or whatever else, as I don't expect to have it all the time.

What I see as violation of agency is when you're given a choice, but then it gets ignored. That I hate with burning passion.


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 14, 2022)

innerdude said:


> I'm kind of sort of only "drive by thread-skimming", but PC capture is universally unfun.
> 
> Had a GM who did it twice, once running 3.5, once running GURPS. Both times we banged our heads against the wall for 90 minutes or so, trying to read his mind about how we were going to get out.
> 
> ...



Curious what you'd think of some PCs being captured by falling into a chute trap that spits them out in a locked cage, where climbing back up the chute is difficult if not impossible.

I did this once.  Low-level party of seven.  The first PC in the marching order fell down the chute and came out in a cage, and was knocked out by guards clubbing through the bars.  A second PC went down on a rope to find the first one and also got knocked out.  Realizing there's now nothing on the end of the rope, four more dive in leaving one up top holding said rope.  Three of those also get captured, the fourth manages to scurry back up the rope.  The prisoners, meanwhile, were tended but left in cages and - much to their surprise - occasionally updated on the progress of their remaining companions!

The two remaining characters carried on as best they could but eventually also got caught, on which all learned the whole dungeon* was an elaborate test set by a potential (and, later, in fact) mentor.

* - of which maybe 15% actually saw play; a lot of prep went by the boards on that one as I-as-DM never thought that silly early-on trap would end up catching 5 out of 7 of them!


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 14, 2022)

loverdrive said:


> In most games, you can't _really_ say "lol I take a dump on the table", even if it's something that your character would do and it's something you want your character to do (damn, this gets complicated).



Sure you can, the way I see it; and the game-world will react as one might expect just like it reacts to any other action.

If your character wants to take a dump on the Duke's dinner table, I say have at it.  Just be aware (and odds are extremely high you already would be) the Duke probably has tough and powerful guards who will doubtless take extreme exception to this, never mind it's quite possible the rest of the PCs won't exactly come running to your aid and might even help the guards take you down.....


loverdrive said:


> What I see as violation of agency is when you're given a choice, but then it gets ignored. That I hate with burning passion.



On this we largely agree.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 14, 2022)

innerdude said:


> PC capture is universally unfun.
> 
> Had a GM who did it twice, once running 3.5, once running GURPS. Both times we banged our heads against the wall for 90 minutes or so, trying to read his mind about how we were going to get out.
> 
> ...



Setting the "unilateral" to one side, I think what you're identifying here is a limitation of 3.5 and GURPS as resolution frameworks.

In my Classic Traveller game there have been 3 PC escapes: in one, they took control of the ship onto which they had been taken; in one, they overpowered their captors (though one PC died in the firefight that resulted, after a series of failed checks to escape from the sick bay gurney where he was strapped down); in one, the PC in question was on trial but blew up everyone else with a well-timed grenade. A fourth time, that same PC was arrested, tried and banished.

In principle, capture doesn't have to pose any greater problems than any other scene-framing. If the GM treats the fictional position of being captured as a reason to declare that most attempts to escape fail, _that's_ a problem but one that flows from a poor system, not the fictional position as such. This example came into the discussion out of @Campbell's reflections on Apocalypse World, and Apocalypse World never allows the GM to declare a hard move simply on the basis of fictional position that exists only in their imagination. It has to either follow from a failed throw, or from a previous soft move that opens a door through which a player has their PC walk.


----------



## Mannahnin (Jun 14, 2022)

Lanefan said:


> For me it depends on the enemy and how said enemy has been set up and-or presented.



Of course.  But I'm talking about in the game as a whole.  If ALL enemies fight to the death, as DMs (especially ones who are unaware of Morale mechanics and don't come up with their own substitute), we're training the player that the stakes of combat always = death.  If every conflict and confrontation results in combat, then again, we're training our players that loss in a confrontation = likely death.



Lanefan said:


> Part of it might also be reluctance to split the party, as fleeing often works best if only some do it while the rest (often sacrificially) cover their flight.



Sure.  This is why I specifically referenced mechanics. I'm using the B/X mechanics for fleeing in my current old-school game, and I am likely to import a modified version of them into 5E if/when I run that again.  At the top of the round, the PCs can declare that they are fleeing as a group.  None of this awful person-by-person "Let's get out of here!" "Fine; I'll attack and move backwards." "No, wait, Jimdar is going to be surrounded!"  "Ok, I'll attack and half move."  (Jimdar's initiative rolls around) "Screw it, I want to make a full attack." Ugh.  Fleeing is another thing a lot of editions of D&D do badly.  

But if you have a mechanic where they all can declare it together, then resolve the escape and possible pursuit for the whole group instead of stranding anyone (unless someone has to be left behind for some reason, or insists on it), it can work a lot better.   I made a small handout specifically for the fleeing rules, titled "Fleeing for Fun and Profit" in my game.



overgeeked said:


> Because you're the referee, not the player. You have an infinite supply of characters to play. In most games, your players will only have one at a time. If their one character loses agency...that play now doesn't get to play the game. Until you give them back control of their character. But, often, in capture scenarios referees will steal their agency...steal all their gear...then lock them in a cell. So they go from being powerful characters with agency...to weak characters with none. It's fine for you as the referee, because you haven't lost agency. Give that trick a try at a table with real players and see how it goes. Ask them what they think.



I am writing both as a player and GM.  Some of what you're writing is responsive to my points, but enough of it just doesn't seem to be hearing me that it seems like we're mostly talking past each other.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Jun 14, 2022)

The WotC published adventure “Out of the Abyss” begins with the PCs as prisoners of the drow. That’s it, that’s how the adventure is intended to start. You’re prisoners and forced to work alongside several other captive NPCs.

I think it’s likely the easiest way for this scenario to work. Just boom, okay you’re captured, what are you gonna do? I do think it can work as a result of play, let’s say in place of a TPK you just have the PCs captured by the bad guys. It just likely needs to be handled with more care.

I think if you do this, though, it’s best of you give the players a lot of leeway about how to escape. Like offer then opportunities or be very cooperative with ideas they come up with on how to escape. Set aside concerns about what’s “realistic” or “verisimilitude” and go with what they come up with.

The more collaborative a given game tends to be (whether by rules design or by the way the group approaches the game) the less of an issue this tends to be.

As for player agency, I don’t think it’s generally helpful to consider any restriction at all on choice to be the removal of agency. If the natural consequence of the PCs’ actions and players’ decisions is that the PCs get captured, then following through on that is honoring their choice. That their actions are restricted by the fictional situation of being captured is not really any different from the other fictional constraints present in other situations.

I think it also helps if the players have other avenues of agency beyond just their character’s spatial freedom. When agency is limited to that, then yes, taking that away may be problematic.


----------



## billd91 (Jun 14, 2022)

hawkeyefan said:


> The WotC published adventure “Out of the Abyss” begins with the PCs as prisoners of the drow. That’s it, that’s how the adventure is intended to start. You’re prisoners and forced to work alongside several other captive NPCs.
> 
> I think it’s likely the easiest way for this scenario to work. Just boom, okay you’re captured, what are you gonna do? I do think it can work as a result of play, let’s say in place of a TPK you just have the PCs captured by the bad guys. It just likely needs to be handled with more care.



One also expects that this is covered as part of character generation for the adventure - at least I hope so. Since it's a starting condition for the adventure, the DM should be up front about it.



hawkeyefan said:


> As for player agency, I don’t think it’s generally helpful to consider any restriction at all on choice to be the removal of agency. If the natural consequence of the PCs’ actions and players’ decisions is that the PCs get captured, then following through on that is honoring their choice. That their actions are restricted by the fictional situation of being captured is not really any different from the other fictional constraints present in other situations.
> 
> I think it also helps if the players have other avenues of agency beyond just their character’s spatial freedom. When agency is limited to that, then yes, taking that away may be problematic.



The question comes up about whether or not the natural consequence is achieved by fiat or playing things out. It may be a natural consequence that they be captured, but as online discussions have shown, there are a *lot* of players who will insist on playing that out and will fight like hell, even to the point of TPKing, to avoid capture. It's like a widespread psychosis in the community. And I'm not entirely sure that other avenues of agency remedies that.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Jun 14, 2022)

pemerton said:


> In principle, capture doesn't have to pose any greater problems than any other scene-framing. If the GM treats the fictional position of being captured as a reason to declare that most attempts to escape fail, _that's_ a problem but one that flows from a poor system, not the fictional position as such.




I don't think it has anything to do with the system so much as the GM essentially viewing the situation as such with very limited options.  He's not obliged to do that with any system.  He may consider the situation in and of itself a failure state, in which case recovery from same may be also viewed as difficult, but again, that's not required.


----------



## Arilyn (Jun 14, 2022)

hawkeyefan said:


> The WotC published adventure “Out of the Abyss” begins with the PCs as prisoners of the drow. That’s it, that’s how the adventure is intended to start. You’re prisoners and forced to work alongside several other captive NPCs.
> 
> I think it’s likely the easiest way for this scenario to work. Just boom, okay you’re captured, what are you gonna do? I do think it can work as a result of play, let’s say in place of a TPK you just have the PCs captured by the bad guys. It just likely needs to be handled with more care.
> 
> ...



I think you've got to the heart of the issues. Players reacting badly to being captured may stem from GMs who curtail the characters escape plans over and over again, forcing long stretches of time with the heroes just sitting in a cell or forced into slave labour. If nothing much happens until the GM decides it's time or the characters get rescued by NPCs, (shudder) there is going to be game problems. Big bold escapes or leading a successful slave revolt and getting revenge on the baddies, on the other hand, can make for exciting sessions. 

Years ago, I had a GM who did not hesitate to have our characters captured. It didn't happen frequently, but when it did it led to fantastic gaming.  As players, we still fought tooth and nail to avoid it, but we never felt cheated, and then we had the exciting and (to our minds) brilliant escape.


----------



## Maxperson (Jun 14, 2022)

aramis erak said:


> Hardly - it's the most clear and factual refutation to your absurd assertion that the GM is the sole element of game.



D&D doesn't do a lack of DM well, and that you can force a DMless D&D game doesn't mean that it's worthwhile to do, or that the exception disproves the rule.  Rules can be broken.  They're still rules.

In D&D generally when the DM leaves the game is over.  In D&D generally when the player(s) leave it's not over as the DM can get new players.  The authority is very one sided.

If you want a game where the DM doesn't hold absolute authority or there isn't a DM, there are other games out there that are designed around that idea and are a much better fit than D&D is.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 14, 2022)

pemerton said:


> Setting the "unilateral" to one side, I think what you're identifying here is a limitation of 3.5 and GURPS as resolution frameworks.




There's no such thing as a _general_ resolution framework.  You must resolve something specific - tasks, conflicts, scenes, or the like.  3.5E and GURPS have decent _task resolution_ frameworks - many games that focus instead on conflict or scene resolution are crummy at task resolution.  

There is nothing generally superior about the design choice to focus on resolving one or the other of these.  They are simply different, and offload different things to the players/GM.  

So, in the capture scenario in D&D, the task resolution framework offloads the question of resolving the overall conflict to the GM, and not all GMs handle that well.  If the GM has a very narrow idea for how to resolve the situation, and does not communicate that well to the players, there's trouble.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Jun 14, 2022)

billd91 said:


> One also expects that this is covered as part of character generation for the adventure - at least I hope so. Since it's a starting condition for the adventure, the DM should be up front about it.




Sure, if you're starting the game this way, I'd expect that to be known. At the very least, the GM can help save some time by letting the players know not to bother selecting starting gear (unless the gear can be recovered or what have you). 

I think that being up front and open is a huge part of this. I think a lot of the time, players have been conditioned to think of a "capture" state as being a loss of some sort. Which I can understand and even agree with to an extent, but I don't think that having a loss here or there in a game is a bad thing. 



billd91 said:


> The question comes up about whether or not the natural consequence is achieved by fiat or playing things out. It may be a natural consequence that they be captured, but as online discussions have shown, there are a *lot* of players who will insist on playing that out and will fight like hell, even to the point of TPKing, to avoid capture. It's like a widespread psychosis in the community.




Well, as a consequence I meant like a direct consequence such as instead of a TPK, the PCs are captured, or similar. 

Also, I think calling it a "widespread psychosis" implies widespread brain damage among the community....and we all know how everyone thinks about that!

But I do think it speaks to players being conditioned in certain ways. Many will often assume the worst will happen if they're captured... they'll lose all their cool gear and they'll be subjected to scenes of punishment or torture and humiliation. If that's what's on the menu, I can understand people not wanting to sit down to eat. 

But if instead, it's just the new situation, the new challenge to overcome, and the players are allowed to come up with ways to escape, or negotiate, or otherwise get themselves out of this predicament... if players expect this rather than losing their gear and being humbled.... then I think it can work just fine. It's a matter of how the GM presents such situations, and how the players are allowed to deal with them. 

In other words, if players can be conditioned to think of capture as being something to avoid at all costs with even PC death being preferrable, then they can also be conditioned to think of it differently. Very often the idea of "trust" is mentioned in these discussions. I think this is about trends that have been in place for some time that promote distrust of the GM by the players... that this is the default stance for many players when faced with PC capture. If that's to change, I think it has to start with the GM showing that things don't need to go according to those preconceived notions. 

Just last night, I was a player in a 5e game where this came up. We're playing through the Temple of Elemental Evil. The PCs are second level and we'd just entered the moathouse. We dealt with the bandits, and then foolishly rushed into battle against the ogre, Lugash.  With most of our abilities and spells spent, we barely managed to beat him. Our paladin was down, and the other four members of the party (a rogue, a warlock, a cleric, and my wizard) were banged up, with 6 HP or less for each of us. 

At this point, five bugbears arrived and told us to come with them to meet with Lareth, a cleric we'd heard of that dwells beneath the moathouse. 

A pretty dire situation. There was a natural inclination to fight, even though it likely would have led to disaster. We attempted to Persuade them to let us go, and the rogue even attempted to trick them with a Deception check, but the rolls went poorly, and the bugbears insisted we go with them. Cooler heads prevailed and we went with them, and met with Lareth, who basically offered us some information pointing us elsewhere in exchange for leaving him alone. We agreed to do so, and we were allowed to leave the moathouse. 

So although not a full on capture scenario, I think it's a pretty useful example. We trusted that the GM introduced the situation not to force our capture, but to see how we would navigate the situation, and how that would inform our relationship with the NPC Lareth. Had we not trusted the GM and given in to our initial urge to only and always fight, the characters would have almost assuredly been killed. 



billd91 said:


> And I'm not entirely sure that other avenues of agency remedies that.




I would say that they must. If I know that as a player I have the ability to shape the trajectory of play... I can influence how things go in the fictional world of the game... then I know I'll always have some input on how things play out. 

So if I'm captured, I won't expect the game to become a case of "be humbled until we guess the one way the GM has devised for us to escape". I can trust in my ability to introduce my own solution to the problem.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Jun 14, 2022)

Umbran said:


> There's no such thing as a _general_ resolution framework.  You must resolve something specific - tasks, conflicts, scenes, or the like.  3.5E and GURPS have decent _task resolution_ frameworks - many games that focus instead on conflict or scene resolution are crummy at task resolution.
> 
> There is nothing generally superior about the design choice to focus on resolving one or the other of these.  They are simply different, and offload different things to the players/GM.
> 
> So, in the capture scenario in D&D, the task resolution framework offloads the question of resolving the overall conflict to the GM, and not all GMs handle that well.  If the GM has a very narrow idea for how to resolve the situation, and does not communicate that well to the players, there's trouble.



So, it's a limitation of the framework because it requires expert usage to even make it work?  Excellent point!

I mean, you spend time saying "different" but then try to minimize one of the differences.  When I run 5e, I absolutely try to avoid capture scenarios because the system makes them hard to do well.  I've managed a few times, but always on the back of some other houserule that helps enable it.  I have no such problems in quite a few of the conflict resolution systems because capture is just another conflict.  This is a difference.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Jun 14, 2022)

Arilyn said:


> I think you've got to the heart of the issues. Players reacting badly to being captured may stem from GMs who curtail the characters escape plans over and over again, forcing long stretches of time with the heroes just sitting in a cell or forced into slave labour. If nothing much happens until the GM decides it's time or the characters get rescued by NPCs, (shudder) there is going to be game problems. Big bold escapes or leading a successful slave revolt and getting revenge on the baddies, on the other hand, can make for exciting sessions.




While that can absolutely make the problem worse, I think its more simple: players hate any loss of control, and anything non-transient is worse.


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 14, 2022)

hawkeyefan said:


> The WotC published adventure “Out of the Abyss” begins with the PCs as prisoners of the drow. That’s it, that’s how the adventure is intended to start. You’re prisoners and forced to work alongside several other captive NPCs.
> 
> I think it’s likely the easiest way for this scenario to work. Just boom, okay you’re captured, what are you gonna do? I do think it can work as a result of play, let’s say in place of a TPK you just have the PCs captured by the bad guys. It just likely needs to be handled with more care.



Fine so far.


hawkeyefan said:


> I think if you do this, though, it’s best of you give the players a lot of leeway about how to escape. Like offer then opportunities or be very cooperative with ideas they come up with on how to escape.* Set aside concerns about what’s “realistic” or “verisimilitude”* and go with what they come up with.



The bolded is for me a complete non-starter.  If what they come up with makes sense (e.g. we try sweet-talking the guards, or we make makeshift weapons out of our food trays) then it'll have a chance; if what they come up with is hopeless (e.g. we beat down the prison's stone walls with our fists) then no way.


hawkeyefan said:


> As for player agency, I don’t think it’s generally helpful to consider any restriction at all on choice to be the removal of agency. If the natural consequence of the PCs’ actions and players’ decisions is that the PCs get captured, then following through on that is honoring their choice. That their actions are restricted by the fictional situation of being captured is not really any different from the other fictional constraints present in other situations.



Agreed on this - if by their own free choice going badly they've put themselves in a position to deny themselves free choice then so be it.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Jun 14, 2022)

Lanefan said:


> Fine so far.
> 
> The bolded is for me a complete non-starter.  If what they come up with makes sense (e.g. we try sweet-talking the guards, or we make makeshift weapons out of our food trays) then it'll have a chance; if what they come up with is hopeless (e.g. we beat down the prison's stone walls with our fists) then no way.




But does that happen? Do your players offer some absurd plan like that and then look to you with hopeful eyes? 

My point is more about plausible versus probable. 

From what I’ve seen in play, and in discussion here, many GMs with a more traditional approach tend to feel far more strongly about verisimilitude than the players ever will.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 14, 2022)

Thomas Shey said:


> I don't think it has anything to do with the system so much as the GM essentially viewing the situation as such with very limited options.



That _is_ a system thing, because "limited options" here really means declaring hard moves on the basis of stuff that is part of the GM's imagination but nothing more than that.



Thomas Shey said:


> He's not obliged to do that with any system.



Maybe so. My point is that, in some systems, the GM isn't _permitted_ to do so, and that seems more significant to me.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 14, 2022)

hawkeyefan said:


> I do think it can work as a result of play, let’s say in place of a TPK you just have the PCs captured by the bad guys. It just likely needs to be handled with more care.
> 
> I think if you do this, though, it’s best of you give the players a lot of leeway about how to escape. Like offer then opportunities or be very cooperative with ideas they come up with on how to escape. Set aside concerns about what’s “realistic” or “verisimilitude” and go with what they come up with.



This is what I'm saying about hard moves on the basis of fiction that exists only in the GM's imagination.



hawkeyefan said:


> The more collaborative a given game tends to be (whether by rules design or by the way the group approaches the game) the less of an issue this tends to be.



Yes, this would be one way of reducing the likelihood of the GM making hard moves on the basis of fiction that exists only in their imagination!



hawkeyefan said:


> I think it also helps if the players have other avenues of agency beyond just their character’s spatial freedom.



In Burning Wheel, for instance, one response to being captured would be to make a Circles check. Another would be to make some sort of Wises check.

In Apocalypse World, reading the situation, or reading a person (ie one of the PC's captors) would be fairly obvious things to do.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 14, 2022)

Umbran said:


> There's no such thing as a _general_ resolution framework.  You must resolve something specific - tasks, conflicts, scenes, or the like.  3.5E and GURPS have decent _task resolution_ frameworks
> 
> <snip>
> 
> So, in the capture scenario in D&D, the task resolution framework offloads the question of resolving the overall conflict to the GM, and not all GMs handle that well.  If the GM has a very narrow idea for how to resolve the situation, and does not communicate that well to the players, there's trouble.



To somewhat echo @Ovinomancer: this reads to me like you're agreeing that the problem with capture scenarios that @innerdude experienced seems like it is referable to the limitations of the systems, rather than to problems with capture scenarios as such.


----------



## aramis erak (Jun 14, 2022)

the hard moves limit has been cited as a reason for the ease of gm-less play of many PBTA games.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Jun 14, 2022)

pemerton said:


> That _is_ a system thing, because "limited options" here really means declaring hard moves on the basis of stuff that is part of the GM's imagination but nothing more than that.




Still don't buy it.  PbtA may make it more difficult to limit options than other games, but it can still be done simply by someone not playing to the system's strengths, and there's no requirement for people to limit options with other games just because the system doesn't force it.



pemerton said:


> Maybe so. My point is that, in some systems, the GM isn't _permitted_ to do so, and that seems more significant to me.




As I noted, at best that's only true if you assume people will use the tool as intended, and even then says that its somehow impossible or something a GM can't see as a good idea elsewhere.  PbtA may be a useful learning tool for people to get out of that habit, but its in no way necessary, and people who lean in too strongly to that will find their way around the structure of PbtA to do it.  Its not like people don't ignore parts of systems that are inconvenient to them when a GM (for good reasons or ill) all the time.


----------

