D&D General Supposing D&D is gamist, what does that mean?

[Thomas Shey]

I'm talking about D&D, which I believe is the comparison point to BitD being used here (as in, how each game handles the same concept). If I'm wrong about that, I apologize.

As for the rest, to my understanding, the PC in BitD made no indication that they had acquired the rope until active play during the heist, when they needed it. At which point, it is retconed as having been in their kit all along. That is in stark contrast to a game like D&D, and I can easily understand someone having a problem with it.

Yeah. It very much serves a purpose there--because its emulating the ability for heist characters to foresee what they'll need later in a way that's going to be, at best, hit or miss with a player planning it (and probably require a lot of back-and-forth with the GM about what they know that is often as interesting as watching paint dry), but to act like there's no meaningful difference is to either not understand other people's concerns here are not your own, and that the more positive take on it.

 

[FrogReaver]

If I could codify this into an rpg design principle it would be something like:

'Fictional problems should not be solvable via player authorship (outside of declarations about what their characters attempt to do or have the fictional ability to do at the moment)'

 

[RhaezDaevan]

Eh. Levelling is as much about the fact the way D&D-derivatives handle advancement is much more big and chunky than picking up new skills and advancing them than it is in real life (or frankly, a lot of other styles of games). Its easy enough to see any particular point when it occurs being just a recognition that stuff has now occurred; there's nothing intrinsic about downtime that makes it better.

Yeah, I know that. I just like the feel of advancement happening between adventures versus in the middle of one. Other people want their cool new stuff right away, but I like that some training/study took place to get it.

 

[RhaezDaevan]

If I could codify this into an rpg design principle it would be something like:

'Fictional problems should not be solvable via player authorship (outside of declarations about what their characters attempt to do or have the fictional ability to do at the moment)'

You have a better way with words than I ever could.

 

[Micah Sweet]

If I could codify this into an rpg design principle it would be something like:

'Fictional problems should not be solvable via player authorship (outside of declarations about what their characters attempt to do or have the fictional ability to do at the moment)'

That's always been my philosophy, but there's other schools of thought.

 

[FrogReaver]

That's always been my philosophy, but there's other schools of thought.

Exactly. I'm not saying it should be universal for all RPG's. I'm saying that there's a number of rpg's where that principle exists in their design albeit it's never been put into words. There's also a certain set of rpg players that place high value on games mostly adhering to that principle and dislike games that diverge too much from it.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Yeah, I know that. I just like the feel of advancement happening between adventures versus in the middle of one. Other people want their cool new stuff right away, but I like that some training/study took place to get it.

The problem with that is that it assumes training is the only way to advance. Admittedly, most games assume learning-by-doing is the only way to advance (but not all), but I think doing it as a mandate isn't an improvement; there's a reason that wasn't built into the mechanics of advancement for most of the life of the system.

 

[Micah Sweet]

The problem with that is that it assumes training is the only way to advance. Admittedly, most games assume learning-by-doing is the only way to advance (but not all), but I think doing it as a mandate isn't an improvement; there's a reason that wasn't built into the mechanics of advancement for most of the life of the system.

I always assumed they removed the requirement for training just because some people found it boring. Personally I like it, but admittedly it's a hard road to hoe with impatient players.

 

[Ovinomancer]

That's fine. You don't have to do anything. From my perspective I've seen no obviously insulting statements. Instead, I've seen benign statements that are taken as insults.

Heh, sure, man. Sure. Tell you what, you start a thread saying Trad 5e play sounds unpleasant, that the ability for wizards to just pick spells when they level is only good for a non-serious looney tools game, and see how far that carries.

 

[Ovinomancer]

You don't think its rude if, in response to someone talking about a game element that bothers them, you tell them they shouldn't be bothered by it? Telling someone their opinions are invalid isn't exactly best discourse.

Oh, did I say they should be bothered by it? Let me look.... nope, didn't say that at all. Confirmed that disliking is fine, in fact. Listed exact reasons for pushback. Was there a non-strawman point you wished to make?