A Question Of Agency?

[Neonchameleon]

Okay. Yes, I don't actually mind having a back and forth with the GM if we are hashing out things. I do mind time in terms of how long a rule takes to deploy (so anything that becomes a mini-game, I tend to get bored with quickly). But any amount of back and forth usually feels pretty seamless to me

[Immersion] is an issue where I have seriously relaxed my thinking the more I have focused on what works at the table for me (versus positions I staked out in online conversations). Sometimes while defending a concept like sandbox or immersion, I've staked out principles, and even if these principles seemed to be about right in a lot of cases, often times they weren't, because they were a crude explanation for what was actually making me tick (I know I have made numerous points like this throughout the thread, but repeating them here since, given the size of the thread, you likely didn't see them unless you were combing finely over every post).

To me, from my experience, immersion is pretty simple. It's when you've mastered the rules and the setting to the point it doesn't get in the way and instead helps you see things. Different rules click with different people at different rates (I know I have a strong head for math and systems and interactions - which means that AD&D is almost impossible for me as everything is a damn different subsystem but lots of simpler games and even some seemingly more complex ones just flow; I know that others find AD&D immersive because their brains are wired differently).

The worst thing for immersion is IME having to look things up in the rulebook. Having to ask the GM is nowhere near as bad because it's not almost purely abstract but it's far, far worse than knowing because I understand the world and rules. For you it might be less of a barrier; this is largely personal about what clicks with you

Another place I saw this, and again something I've mentioned countless times on this thread, Is with Hillfolk. Where in principle I didn't think I would like it on immersive grounds (because players could narrate things into existence, and because it had a lot of meta mechanics for the drama). But in practice it felt like that same moment when I first played D&D and a spark went off in my brain because I was so immersed in the world (except in this case I was immersed in a world that felt like one of those old made for TV miniseries in the 70s and 80s).

Glad you enjoyed I don't honestly think specifically immersive mechanics exist. There are anti-immersive ones and in general too many rules and things that take too long to resolve are anti-immersive for anyone. But a lot is down to both what clicks with you and what you have learned until you can use it without thinking. It's always hard jumping to a new perspective and I'm glad you could.

 

[hawkeyefan]

@hawkeyefan

This is an example of two posters that are more familiar with Blades than me having a bit of a disagreement in how it's described to be played. Now imagine if I had taken one of those descriptions to heart, then anyone discussing with me that had played and disagreed with that posters description would also disagree with most analysis I'm doing on that basis.

I don't think it's a disagreement so much as them saying slightly different things. @Neonchameleon is describing something that a GM in Blades can do simply by following the rules alone, and ignoring the principles that should guide a GM when they're running the game.

If you abide by the principles, then this kind of thing wouldn't happen in play.

EDITED TO ADD: I see that almost immediately after I read the quoted post, @Neonchameleon and @Manbearcat pretty much stated the exact same thing. That'll teach me for posting without catching all the way up!

Which is to say, there's no wonder I look like I'm misconstruing how games play. I mean how could I not when the very players of those games tell me they play differently.

Well you could read the book and find out for yourself.

They make that appeal to firsthand experience so that so they can gain authority over the topic. Do you really think this would go over any better if I went out and played those games and came back with my same exact opinions?

I think the idea that you would remain unchanged after actually reading these games or taking part in playing them speaks volumes, no? Your mind is made up to the point where nothing will change it.

It's like if I claimed that if I was addicted to something, I'd simply stop using it. I mean, I've never been addicted, but I know what it means and I understand it in many ways, and I've had people describe it to me. But if I ever found myself addicted, I'd just quit cold turkey.

Perhaps this is not what you mean, but I want to just point it out so that maybe you can consider it. This is where it kind of seems like you're claiming clearer understanding of the games in question despite not actually being directly familiar with them. You already know and nothing will change your mind!

Again, maybe it's not your intent, I just wanted to point out how it comes across.

 

[Neonchameleon]

So me asking a question about a playstyle suddenly becomes - inventing a strawman? You realize that's how this whole tangent of a discussion began right?

But you don't ask questions about playstyles so far as I can tell. If you'd done so you'd have asked something like "How do games with character disadvantages cope with some being more debilitating than others?" Instead you make statements about playstyles like that and like "a player authoring the removal of a problem".

And when I asked a question of your example to clarify that it wasn't something that actually happens in practice you, I think, use this to claim "You've demonstrated you don't even know what I mean by authoring out a problem" (and when people don't understand terms that you introduced in general that's on your failure to communicate)

And you also say "They make that appeal to firsthand experience so that so they can gain authority over the topic." Where you openly accept that you don't have experience in the topic but think that that shouldn't stop your pontifications being equal to everyone else's.

Anyways, I question the value of continuing with you on this topic. So don't expect much more interaction from me.

I however have never questioned the value of correcting misinformation for bystanders.

 

[Ovinomancer]

To clarify I meant something only slightly more modest than that. That a GM can ditch the goals and principles because these are not hardcoded rules. And then sticking with the actions they can get something only a little less extreme than this outcome.

However they emphatically should not do this and they should stick with the game's goals and principles. So pretty close. The GM can drop the tarrasque on a low level party in almost any game - and they should not do it.

I disagree (unsurprisingly) that the goals and principles of Blades are not the rules. There is no indication these can be ignored, or that they are optional. That, to me, says they are not free to ignore. And, as you note, ignoring them is clearly bad faith play -- the game breaks if these are not followed. That says 'required' to me.

Contrast this to the DMG advice in 5e, which does explicitly say most of it is just a recommendation.

 

[FrogReaver]

So here you provide an example of you having a preconception about how a game plays....and then after actually playing it, that preconception is gone.

I just think that this is incredibly relevant, so I wanted to highlight it.

I don't disagree that happens. But similar things can happen even if they've played the game. "your experience is clouded because you had a bad GM" or "you weren't actually playing the game by the rules" or etc.

But my question there is, why even bring that up in a discussion with someone you know hasn't played a particular game? What's the purpose? Is it to coax them into playing it? Is it to minimize their opinions? Something else?

Maybe you are focused more on the "this can happen" and I'm focused more on the "why is this being brought up?"

So this brings to mind two questions for me.

What are the principles that are stated in order to guide a DM in D&D? Pick whatever edition you like; what are the principles that a DM should keep in mind?

What are the principles that guide your GMing? Again, pick any game you like and list some of the ideas that guide your GMing in that game.

D&D seeks to remain open to many playstyles and styles of DMing and so it gives fairly limited guidance about principles and such IMO. But as was established earlier, it's not just the rules in the game but also the unwritten social rules that the group playing the game has erected. I mean, are you just arguing that such guiding principles must be in the official rules and can't come either socially or internally from the GM?

 

[Aldarc]

I don't disagree that happens. But similar things can happen even if they've played the game. "your experience is clouded because you had a bad GM" or "you weren't actually playing the game by the rules" or etc.

This is definitely true, which is why I find it helpful to read a diversity of opinions from knowledgeable people who have run the game. Typically IME a consensus forms around the game. In the case of many games nowadays, we also have the privilege that many creators will run their games on YouTube or Twitch as marketing tools to advertise or demo their game.

 

[Campbell]

I disagree (unsurprisingly) that the goals and principles of Blades are not the rules. There is no indication these can be ignored, or that they are optional. That, to me, says they are not free to ignore. And, as you note, ignoring them is clearly bad faith play -- the game breaks if these are not followed. That says 'required' to me.

Contrast this to the DMG advice in 5e, which does explicitly say most of it is just a recommendation.

So I think what matters here is if a player generally has the social capital to bring up those principles and say for insistence "When you did that thing I think you were not really being a fan of my character" with the expectation that a fruitful conversation could be had. In my experience it's pretty typical to have these sorts of conversations at Apocalypse World tables and Blades in the Dark tables. Outside of more hippy leaning OSR tables I have never been in a situation where a player would feel comfortable bringing up "This part of the DMG says to prioritize this thing in play. Could you do that more?". Maybe I have just been in the wrong D&D groups, but that level of shared expectation and ability to critique one another has never been a part of it.

 

[Campbell]

I think having enumerated principles is important. Usually if a game does not have them I will type out a list to keep in front of me while we play. First it provides a set of shared expectations that can be called on when we are providing feedback to each other. Second it helps the GM run the game in a more disciplined manner. Having that list in front of you can help you stick to your principles even when you do not want to in the moment.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

So I think what matters here is if a player generally has the social capital to bring up those principles and say for insistence "When you did that thing I think you were not really being a fan of my character" with the expectation that a fruitful conversation could be had. In my experience it's pretty typical to have these sorts of conversations at Apocalypse World tables and Blades in the Dark tables. Outside of more hippy leaning OSR tables I have never been in a situation where a player would feel comfortable bringing up "This part of the DMG says to prioritize this thing in play. Could you do that more?". Maybe I have just been in the wrong D&D groups, but that level of shared expectation and ability to critique one another has never been a part of it.

In my experience it is pretty common for GMs to ask for feedback and discuss with their players about what worked, what did not, what they would like to see more etc. Granted, this pretty much always happens after the session; someone calling out the GM in the middle of the game would be pretty unusual, unless it was some abundantly clear rule mistake or something like that.

 

[FrogReaver]

But you don't ask questions about playstyles so far as I can tell.

See below.

That's progress!

I can agree that sounds like a rather large difference. Would you say it's not typical for narrative style games to give players the ability to author their own obstacles?

What about the ability to author the removal of an obstacle?

What about the ability to author a detail about an obstacle/scene that changes the nature or difficulty of an obstacle (say by narrating some NPC or faction is also present in the scene and is willing to assist with overcoming the obstacle)?