jjjalljs

I dunno man. I've had a lot of conversations with players that go like "do you think your character is the first to come up with this hijink? If it works, why doesn't the entire setting revolve about this infinite damage trick you're trying to sell me?"

Like, if it was as easy as casting Charm Person on the king to become the new ruler, other people would already be doing that. Therefore, there must be reasons why it doesn't work.

This joke is why I will say to DMs getting railroad-y, "are you sure you wouldn't rather write a book?"

No disagreement here.

I realized when reading one of the other comments that my similarly sized complaint is it creates a lot of potential for problems at the game level as well as narrative when people make their characters in isolation. I kind of assumed that comes packaged with "and you all meet in a tavern".

Like, everyone makes a fighter and shows up to session 1. The dm's going to have a head scratcher thinking about balance, and some players might be annoyed they don't really have a niche of their own. A weird party like that can work, but it'll be a happier experience if folks talk about it ahead of time.

It can work, as clearly shown by your rather wholesome example and many people's games. But it's also leaving a very large surface area for problems. Unlike real life, you can just avoid that by making your characters together.

Maybe I should have said in my previous thread that while the "you all meet for the first time" is kind of cliché, there are more serious problems at the game level. And like it can work if everyone makes a fighter, but you can also make everyone's lives easier if you discuss up front.

I think the best game I've done started as "it's a DND world and you're a band on tour".

It started with a simple "the bridge is out on the way to your next show", then there was a battle of the bands, a sketchy record label, and then the players organized a recall of the mayor that was in bed with the capitalists. That game went great places.

Yeah I don't think I would happily play another "and then you all meet for the first time and work together" game unless it was like intentionally subverting the trope. It adds so many problems and suspension of disbelief problems.

Yeah I think DND 3e had some wacky stuff with templates. Big effective level penalties if I recall for most of them

I didn't like the last few GMs decisions and calls, so I don't play with them anymore.

“Unilateral” GMing is completely necessary to the style of play and opens up player creativity and engagement in the ways I discussed in other comments.

I don't think a unilateral GM and the mother-may-I it implies are the only way to get player creativity and engagement.

They want to test themselves against an organic, immersive world where their actions have consequences, good or bad. You cannot get that experience from collaborative storytelling games,

Maybe?

Imagine a scene where the players are trying to jump from one roof top to another to escape pursuit. It's a pretty long jump, and there aren't explicit rules in this game for jumping distances. The GM says to roll the dice. On a good roll, they'll make it. The dice come up Bad.

In one mode of play, the GM unilaterally decides what happens. Maybe you fall and get hurt. Maybe you land in a pile of trash. It's all on them, and you have to accept it to keep playing. The actions have consequences.

In the mode I prefer, the player has more of a say. Maybe they suggest they succeed at a cost. They can offer "What if I make it across, but lose my backpack?" and the group can accept it, or say that's not an appropriate cost. They can also fail, and offer up ideas for what that looks like. The group achieves consensus, and the story moves on. The actions have consequences here, too.

That first mode, where the GM just dictates what happens and you take it? I hate it. I want either clear rules we agreed to before-hand, or a seat at the table for deciding ambiguous outcomes.

We don't have to play together. Many people want to immerse in their character and any sort of meta-game mechanics (like succeed-at-a-cost) ruin it for them. Some people love metal and some people love jazz. Neither's better than the other.

I probably shouldn't have posted in an OSR thread knowing I dislike the genre.

I mean, terrible GMs will be terrible no matter what system they are running.

True, but I think osr games encourage unilateral GMing, which encourages terrible behavior.

Hand in hand with this is, as the above commenter mentions, “rulings over rules” which emphasizes the GM making decisions about how player actions play out in the world rather than looking for mechanics in a rulebook.

It's kind of funny but I really like how Fate is open ended, but absolutely hate it in OSR games. I think because OSR games often feel unilateral and top down from the GM, and I don't enjoy that. Reminds me of teenage games where the DM would be like "you're crippled now because the orc hit your leg" just because they said so, and your only options are deal with it or quit.

I also never play in the "I am my character!" mode. I'm more of the writer's room style where we're writing a story together, so it doesn't take me out of the scene to be like "what if my succeed-at-a-cost roll means I get the window open, but wake up every dog in the house?".

I've never really been into random tables. Like,

I want to see more wizards and dragons and shit! 2.78% is way too low to see these cool guys on the end of the table,

So just put more wizards and dragons in. You don't need the dice's permission.

I guess they can be helpful if you're out of ideas, but then you just need a list.