TRPG General Chat

BESW

22:00

> The fact that original Dungeons & Dragons role-playing came out of wargaming means that a small bit of the adversarial relationship between player and gamemaster sort of survived hidden in the subtext of the game. You will find tables that rely upon the rules to protect [players] from what they see as a predatory GM who will kill their character given the chance. And in those tables the idea that, "No, storytelling together is what this is about" isn't what's happening. You might say, "Oh my god, we managed to tell a great story," but it was all under the guise of a contest.

2

godskook

@BESW Honestly, I'm very much the opposite way, believing that the best stories are told when players honestly believe that their characters are at-risk of dying at a moment's notice, not because they're weak, but because the challenges they face are extreme. Some of my favorite DMing stories come out of instilling this sense of mortality in my table, imho.

BESW

@godskook That's... not incompatible with the quote above.

But confusing the two is a good example of what he's talking about, I think.

godskook

It seems GROSSLY contradictory to the quote above, but I'd hear you argue how to square that circle.

BESW

There's a big difference between an antagonistic GM and a dangerous world.

godskook

Maybe I'm not sure of what "antagonistic GM" means to you.

BESW

22:10

Players and GM can collaborate to tell stories in a very dangerous world where character death is a constant possibility.

godskook

I should probably also call "collaborate" into question, too.

BESW

Just like player knowledge and character knowledge are separate things, GM goals and world goals are separate things.

Characters can contest the world without players contesting the GM.

godskook

What does it mean for the "players to contest the GM"?

BESW

In these of You might say, "Oh my god, we managed to tell a great story," but it was all under the guise of a contest.

That quote is talking about predatory GMs and the adversarial relationship between player and gamemaster.

godskook

My players might say such a thing. I'd say that the contest WAS the story, though.

BESW

22:13

You seem to be talking about risks to characters, for which the adversarial player/GM relationship is not necessary.

If both players and GM want a game where risks have teeth and death is a constant possibility, they're collaborating on a high-stakes story rather than the GM imposing a high-stakes story on a group that doesn't want one.

godskook

My group has always been negotiable enough that I negotiate the group for the game I intend on running, not vice versa, although I don't expect that to really matter much.

BESW

Are you familiar with Old Man Henderson?

Jan 27 at 1:59, by BESW

I think the best examination/deconstruction of adversarial style is Old Man Henderson, where the GM's failure to adhere to the players' expectations of good form led one player to exploit the GM's assumed gentleman's agreements.

godskook

Its been mentioned here before. Relevant salient points seem to be:

1. Assertion of a bad DM, with no explenation as to why or how.
2. Player explicitly cheating for his own benefit

Anything I miss?

BESW

22:32

Plenty of explanations of why and how, assertions that the problem isn't a bad actor but a mismatch of styles and bad communication leading to in-game responses to table-level issues.

godskook

The player explicitly admits to re-writing his backstory on the fly. That's a Ill-intentioned player.

BESW

And that changes the analysis how?

Anyway, this seems very distant from the original subject.

I suggest you read the linked context of the quote and see if that clarifies your objection to it.

godskook

I've read a few of the Henderson stories, both now and in the past.

I won't claim I'm comprehensive on it, though.

Although I'd rather not bog myself down reading the entire henderson story catalog thrice over. If you have a specific section that exemplifies what you're wanting me to pull from it, that'd simplify the matter.

BESW

Oh, you're talking about the text of the story and not the conversations in chat. That was unclear.

As you've said, the story's been discussed at length in chat and analyzed in the contexts I've mentioned above.

But when I say "the above quote" and its context link, I mean returning to the original subject of discussion‌.

Your basic thesis seems to be that in order for players to believe in the mortality of their characters, they must also believe the GM is working against the players as well as ruling on a world that is against their characters. I have personal experience where this is not the case; character mortality is not dependent on GM antagonism toward players.

godskook

@BESW I can accept that my basic thesis is, as originally stated, merely my own opinion, and no more valid than my opinion on how best to cook spaghetti.

Although we're clearly stuck in a limbo where I at least am convinced that we do not mean the same thing by "GM antagonism".

BESW

22:44

Quite possibly. Hence my urging you to read the context of the originating quote.

I'm trying to use terminology consistent with my understanding of the thing which sparked our conversation, so that the terms are accessible to everyone by virtue of a common touchstone.

godskook

Let' me poke this point: Are "Adversarial DMs" a bad thing?

BESW

No, of course not. Provided the whole group wants one.

godskook

Ok. The quote:

> The fact that original Dungeons & Dragons role-playing came out of wargaming means that a small bit of the adversarial relationship between player and gamemaster sort of survived hidden in the subtext of the game. You will find tables that rely upon the rules to protect [players] from what they see as a predatory GM who will kill their character given the chance.

Comes off that way to me

BESW

Right. "Tables which rely on the rules to protect them from a predatory GM" is an example of a group that doesn't want a predatory GM but thinks that's the way it has to be, and so lean on the rules to compensate for something which should've been a social decision.

Compare Paranoia or Dog Eat Dog, where the whole table has chosen to play a game about the adversarial relationship and the rules explicitly encourage the imbalanced contest.

The problem Heinsoo is getting at is that in D&D the adversarial relationship is "hidden in the subtext" so it's hard to get it out in the open and have a group make a conscious decision about what to do with it.

Adversarial play is not bad. Falling into adversarial play by accident often is.

2

godskook

So.....the bad thing is that the state of being Adversarial(or not), in D&D games is too implicit?

That I'll buy.

(as opposed to being more explicit)

BESW

22:56

Pretty much, yes.

This brings us back to Old Man Henderson, where the GM's assumptions about good gaming were at odds with the players', but because of the adversarial assumptions they'd bought into over years of "traditional" gaming--and the group being composed of people who didn't really socialize much outside the game--the players' felt like their only recourse was to respond by escalating the adversarial nature of the game.

godskook

Let's save analyzing Henderson for another day. Something tells me that you and are going to find quite a few more "bumps" to massage out down that conversational path.

BESW

To be clear, I'm not excusing the player in OMH. The whole game is a toxic mess that serves as a warning to others.

BESW

23:13

Terminator: Runners, a Psi*Run hack.

Ryan

this is going to take me forever to figure out how to level up to 8 :|

trogdor

@BESW this looks interesting

BESW

@trogdor I've got Psi*Run, so if you want to take a look at what it's like this afternoon, we can.

trogdor

mk

KorvinStarmast

23:45

@Ryan Hi, sorry late to the party

@Baskakov_Dmitriy Don't waste your time. Read the Silmarillion. He's a Solar, a Deva, or a planetar. "Gandalf was a level 5 Wizard" It was a stupid article when it came out, and it's still stupid.

@Adam Adam, when I gave away my 3.5 e books, and never wasted my time on 4e, the question I asked was "Why should I buy 5e since WoTC has ruined the game forever? My brother told me "read the basic rules, and then we'll talk." And I was back.

@kviiri Another reason why I like 4e is that I feel 5e depends too much on the GM's whim at times Philosophy wise, I hate the idea that the DM is a victim of the rule book. As Dave Arneson once said: The rules lawyers are the enemy.

Transcript for