this post was submitted on 30 Jan 2026
35 points (100.0% liked)
rpg
4545 readers
5 users here now
This community is for meaningful discussions of tabletop/pen & paper RPGs
Rules (wip):
- Do not distribute pirate content
- Do not incite arguments/flamewars/gatekeeping.
- Do not submit video game content unless the game is based on a tabletop RPG property and is newsworthy.
- Image and video links MUST be TTRPG related and should be shared as self posts/text with context or discussion unless they fall under our specific case rules.
- Do not submit posts looking for players, groups or games.
- Do not advertise for livestreams
- Limit Self-promotions. Active members may promote their own content once per week. Crowdfunding posts are limited to one announcement and one reminder across all users.
- Comment respectfully. Refrain from personal attacks and discriminatory (racist, homophobic, transphobic, etc.) comments. Comments deemed abusive may be removed by moderators.
- No Zak S content.
- Off-Topic: Book trade, Boardgames, wargames, video games are generally off-topic.
- No AI-generated content. Discussion of AI generation pertaining to RPGs is explicitly allowed.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I think that's an ignorant take. "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. Do you really think the OSR would be thriving if it actively encouraged terrible behaviour? It seems like you play with young or immature groups, if you think this is a pervasive problem in the scene.
Players in OSR games want simulation, not collaborative story telling. 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, and games with a lot of fixed rules can't cover all of the possibilities of a complex world. This is the core appeal of OSR play and changing it removes the reason most people play it.
I don't think a unilateral GM and the mother-may-I it implies are the only way to get player creativity and engagement.
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.
You really sound like you don't trust the GMs you play with. If that's the case, why are you playing with them.
Yes.
I didn't like the last few GMs decisions and calls, so I don't play with them anymore.