I think saying in general and most covers it all.Right, but you probably should. Whatever game you're talking about... I assume D&D... you apply what you're saying to all RPGs. Which is just inaccurate.
Right, I stated that a Casual game has little or no prep. This is true for this game type.You did. See below:
Are you saying that it's untrue that there are games that have little or no prep? That seems odd as there are such games. Or are you just saying that no Casual game can ever have little or no prep?This is just untrue of many games, even some within the overall umbrella of D&D.
Ok, agreed.No, that's not the only other way to do it. That's the whole point.
Guess it's odd to see someone dig in so much about a common game type. I can try again. A couple people meet and say lets play an RPG. They pick one, pick a time and place. Both the GM and players do little or no prep...many players don't even make characters ahead of time and the GM makes the bare minimum like a map on the back of a Starbucks napkin that says 'hometown' and 'dungeon' on it. No one shows up on time for the game...but not one cares either. One or two players will almost always be rushing to make characters as they had "no time" all week. It's very common for player Bob to make character Bob. Everyone will laugh, joke, relax, tell stories, watch you tube videos and hang out. Eventually someone will mention the game. The GM will then say random stuff, the players will then say random stuff...and some dice will be rolled. But really no one will care much. A roll of "19" hits...whatever. A roll of "3" misses..whatever. But still no one cares. It's all about having fun....the PCS kill six dragons in six minutes...because it's fun.I know what casual means in general usage. You seem to have a particular take on what a casual game means which I don't think is entirely accurate or clear.
There sure is no One Way to play.I don't know why other is in quotes. But even D&D can be played differently than you describe.
I agree. For any type of long term game I will not allow anyone who disagrees to join. My house rules are made to do this....many player take a glance at them and say "I'm out" and leave.Sure, any kind of clash in this way is due to misaligned expectations between participants.
So you've said in the past that you have some players who seem to want something different from the game. That's because you have different ideas about the game than they do. Obviously, when this happens, the different expectations should be discussed and worked out in some way, or else the participants should go their separate ways.
Note, I'm not opposed to never playing with 'disagreeable people'. Just last year a group of 'other' games came to me and asked if I would run a 5E Spelljammer game for them. They could not find a DM and knew I'm an Old School Spelljamming expert. I had them agree to my hard fun, harsh, unbalanced, unfair, old school game...and they did. We are close to a year later and this game is still going on....they have learns to love my game....they have amazingly found my 'hard game to be fun'. And they have not only found an Ultimate Helm, but have even found themselves a Smalljammer...and are well on their way to finding The Spelljammer.
Then, over the summer, there are a lot of players without games. Most of the regular games take 'summer breaks'. So the players ask me to run some games....though we all hate each other. So, I do, three dragon slaying games and another Spelljammer game.
I don't appear to be doing anything of the sort. Most RPGs can be played in any kind of style.You appear to be labeling them as "casual games" by default, though. And you're definitely describing them using poorly conceived and absurd examples.
I think you missed the point that D&D, like most RPGs has the DM free to do anything and there are no "rules" for it. In most RPGs a DM can "just say" what the weather is...there are no rules about Weather. So it's not like DM is "following any rules".What you've described applies to everything in D&D, except I'd say the DM does what the rules say, which is also true of the games you're trying to talk about.
Well, note this is a direct binary action....not the player "adding to the fiction". It's also a reaction to something the DM created.Player wants to hit the orc and says so. Player makes an attack roll. DM does what rules say.
See the huge difference the character walks into orc lands and says "I keep my eye out for an orc and if I see one I hit it". Player makes a roll. GM says "there is an orc right next to you and you hit it"
And
Character walks into orc lands....asks the DM what is around. Dm says "you see a lone orc rushing down the road towards you". Player then says "I will attack" and combat is roll played out.
But, also, the big, big, big one here is in games like D&D there are so many complex rules and more combat rules that the "simple rules" might not cover everything...and even more so to the players limited view point. For example: The player rolls high and hits the orc....but the DM says the hit does no damage. The player can whine and complain that the "rules on page 11" say "when you hit to do damage" but it does not matter....because there are also lots of ways in the rules for a creature to not take damage or be immune to damage and many other things.....but the player might very well not know why no damage was taken. So it's layers of rules that often leave the poor player lost like a leaf in a tornado.
Right....but now your switching to the rules for games like D&D, right? The DM and only the DM gets any say if there is a lock. Ad once the DM says 'there is a lock', then the player can roll a check, and the DM will adjudicate the action.Player wants to pick a lock. Player makes an ability check. DM does what rules say.
But again...this is not the example. The example is character walks to the back of the building where there is no secret entrance as the GM has not put one there or has not "made up anything about the back of the building". The player rolls a check. The GM then makes a secret door that the player wants and says "there it is".
Well, I'm guessing skill checks in both games are similar, so it really does not apply. After all we are talking about checks that give player agency.How is this different than a player in D&D wanting their character to climb a wall?
Most other game examples have a "failing upwards" rule, right. So they "fail"....but still do the thing that was requested, just the GM adds a bit of hardship. Like the secret door is stuck so you need to take a minute to push it open.But you're not even considering what happens if the roll fails.
Right.In D&D, if such a roll failed (or if your notes said no secret door was present) you'd just say, "You don't find a secret entrance" and they'd all be back to the front gate. And what will they do there? Make a roll (or several, perhaps) and try to get what they want.
Again the example was....go to the back and find a secret door. You keep adding on tons of "oh well this or this or this" could happen too....but that is not the example.But in many other games, "nothing happens" is never an option for a failed roll. Something negative has to happen. So searching for a secret door at the back of the castle has a risk involved. Maybe they find it but it's also guarded. Or it's haunted by a dark spirit that's likely more dangerous than armed guards. Maybe they don't find it, and by the time they return to the front gate, there are additional guards there. Maybe they're spotted from the battlements as they make their way around the castle. Many games will have options for the GM to use based no what makes sense in the game world.
Well, no, there would be a least a couple other ways in by default like any place in a simulated reality world. I do oppose the Easy Button game play: where the players encounter anything, and then just 'roll' around it.Ultimately, what you're doing is forcing the conflict to go to the one you've had in mind... the front gate.
And I'm all for it.....except the Easy Button type where the player alters game reality.Other types of games are more open to there being more than one way to face or avoid an obstacle.
It's a huge difference between:In D&D, the player says they look for a secret door, and make a roll, and then the DM says "the secret door is right in front of you".
The differences are that in one, the DM decided that it was there prior to play, and in the other, if the roll is a failure, something bad is going to happen.
The DM creates something to be found as part of the game play
And
The Players can create things to avoid game play
It's just too different.Okay. I was trying to get a sense of how your players contribute to play, and this seemed like a good example, but now you're saying it wasn't really all that meaningful.
Your way of agency is only the player using the rules.....my way has no rules.
The classic traditional "as GM I make the world/game reality and the players by the very limited use of their characters play though it "Then how do you play?
This goes into lots of other topics. Lots of players hate it when GM change things they have written down. I change everything on my whim.That depends on the game and the GM. Even with D&D, I don't write everything down, and even what I do write down may not be "written in stone". I generally only treat what has been established in play as being certain.
I'm sure the rule works just fine in a game of all agreed friends.No, not exactly. You're taking a game process that works for another game and trying to say how it works in D&D. But it wasn't designed for D&D, so it's a poor fit. But you seem to only be able to conceive of games working like D&D, so you're not at all understanding how such a rule could actually work well in another game.