I may not be disagreeing with you! More like, bouncing off your comment to go on a rant!
But I am disagreeing with the notion that game rules should be essentially about determining the success of the players’ actions (combat, picking locks, climbing walls, seducing the guard); they can also be about collaborative world building and storytelling—not only “what happens?”, but also “what kind of world are we living in?”, “what kind of story is this?”, “What are this guy’s dreams and weaknesses?”.
Framing things as “dispute resolution” may carry the implication that the rules are mostly about disputes between characters (playing and non-playing) - for example, “My guy thinks the Sheriff should publicly resign now that his sins have been brought to light; he thinks he’s not taking any bullshit from nosy strangers”—wham, dispute! You’re going to need rules to handle intimidation, wit, maybe fistfights or gunfights, and maybe even escalation. But a dispute can also be “Bob wants the story to be about a band of outcasts going from town to town looking for thrill and adventure; Joe wants the story to be about the guilt and redemption of a pastor who made some mistakes”—often the “game rules” may not even frame that as a dispute and the resolution will be “The Dungeon master says fuck’em, today’s story is about killing dark elves in the forest and if you try to go muckin’ around the fields you’ll be fighting dark elves anyway!”.
(I checked out SpookyBeans, but didn’t see much in terms of rules, I guess you have to buy it :P)
Aha. SpookyBeans used to be a 1-page download. The dispute resolution mechanism is extremely simplistic and flexible, and is more about disputes between players rather than characters, like the kind you mentioned. Basically, anything can happen if anyone says it happens, and then the rules come into play when people disagree about what happens.
I agree that meta-level disputes about “what the story should be about” and such are outside the scope of the D&D rules. But I still haven’t seen anything that addresses those better than “have the players work that out somehow”.
It doesn’t sound like you’re actually disagreeing with me. I said:
The concept of the Dungeon Master having “last say” doesn’t even come into question until there’s a dispute.
See also SpookyBeans, which nicely refines all dispute resolution into a single mechanism.
I may not be disagreeing with you! More like, bouncing off your comment to go on a rant!
But I am disagreeing with the notion that game rules should be essentially about determining the success of the players’ actions (combat, picking locks, climbing walls, seducing the guard); they can also be about collaborative world building and storytelling—not only “what happens?”, but also “what kind of world are we living in?”, “what kind of story is this?”, “What are this guy’s dreams and weaknesses?”.
Framing things as “dispute resolution” may carry the implication that the rules are mostly about disputes between characters (playing and non-playing) - for example, “My guy thinks the Sheriff should publicly resign now that his sins have been brought to light; he thinks he’s not taking any bullshit from nosy strangers”—wham, dispute! You’re going to need rules to handle intimidation, wit, maybe fistfights or gunfights, and maybe even escalation. But a dispute can also be “Bob wants the story to be about a band of outcasts going from town to town looking for thrill and adventure; Joe wants the story to be about the guilt and redemption of a pastor who made some mistakes”—often the “game rules” may not even frame that as a dispute and the resolution will be “The Dungeon master says fuck’em, today’s story is about killing dark elves in the forest and if you try to go muckin’ around the fields you’ll be fighting dark elves anyway!”.
(I checked out SpookyBeans, but didn’t see much in terms of rules, I guess you have to buy it :P)
Aha. SpookyBeans used to be a 1-page download. The dispute resolution mechanism is extremely simplistic and flexible, and is more about disputes between players rather than characters, like the kind you mentioned. Basically, anything can happen if anyone says it happens, and then the rules come into play when people disagree about what happens.
I agree that meta-level disputes about “what the story should be about” and such are outside the scope of the D&D rules. But I still haven’t seen anything that addresses those better than “have the players work that out somehow”.