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

[FrogReaver]

I find you to often be logically inconsistent, but don't seem to just dismiss you as insulting. Maybe that's not actually what I find to be insulting? Maybe I find cling entire approaches to play "unpleasant" and telling people it's their fault the poster holds that opinion a bit insulting. Or saying a game, and therefor people playing it, not serious? The bad argumentation is another reason for pushback, yes, but these are separate things.

I'm happy to see the root issue is finally getting addressed.

So, let's drop the distraction of logically inconsistent since as you claim above, it's not what you find insulting.

The first reason - 'Citing approaches of play as unpleasant'. I think everything I dislike I would describe as unpleasant for me (at least on some level). Thus, it's hard for me to see how that of itself should be insulting - it's simply how we all are going to describe our dislikes. Do you think it's possible that it's more you taking offense to that than that it's actually an offense?

The 2nd reason - 'telling people it's their fault they hold that opinion'. This was in direct response to you attempting to dismiss that poster's point (or explain it away) because you claimed their information was based on those opposing you. But when the poster attempted to correct the factual record by saying the information they were paying attention to was from the advocates of that style and not the opponents of it, and thus if something was misconstrued it was done so based on the advocates information. That's the moment you took offense. But, do you think you said anything offensive in that exchange? IMO, your dismissal of their point as being based solely on the opposing views was the most offensive part of that exchange. It's also a dismissal I've found gets reoccurringly get's brought up against virtually any criticism of such styles. IMO at some point it's the advocates that do a poor job of explaining those games in terms that others can understand them.

The 3rd reason - 'saying a game, and the people playing it are not serious'. The Looney Tunes examples. This one I agree is offensive, but it also shows the poster isn't flat out rejecting such mechanics which is an excellent starting point. The next place I would have taken that would have been heist films as they are notorious for flashbacks showing their prep at the moment it matters. To me such mechanics also work great for heist games which would be a fairly serious genre and would be a logical place to push back against the only non-serious games opinion.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Okay. You're telling me that saying a loadout system is only good for a "cartoon" "Looney Toons" game isn't making any objective claims. I should just not believe my eyes.

They're saying that, for them, that kind of system works best for a genre with a built-in level of un-reality. That doesn't attack your opinion of it unless you decide it does.

 

[FrogReaver]

Heh, strawman. That's not what I said. There's a host of unstated things that you've attached to declaring actions that aren't universal and are the special pleading you're engaged with. "I spend 1 load to pull out a knife and stab this turkey," is a perfectly cromulent action declaration. But it's also exactly what you're arguing against. So, yeah, no, the hidden caveats that you're using are the exact form of special pleading I'm talking about -- you mean "action declaration" to only mean "action declarations I'm familiar with and like."

The principle I stated that you accused of special pleading was, "fictional situations shouldn't be resolved via player authorship" - with the acknowledgment that for RPG play there are certain player authorships that are necessary for playing the game and that this isn't intended to eliminate those. Being able to pull out a knife that wasn't already established in the fiction isn't a necessary player authorship for playing an RPG. Thus, it's not special pleading.

Perhaps the better question to get through this is - tell me the requirements to you that would indicate something is not special pleading?

 

[Ovinomancer]

I'm happy to see the root issue is finally getting addressed.

I haven't hidden it; I've addressed it all along.

So, let's drop the distraction of logically inconsistent since as you claim above, it's not what you find insulting.

I appreciate the attempt to look like you're being magnanimous in taking what I say as what I mean and for dropping the argument you put forwards. It's a really favor you've done me?

The first reason - 'Citing approaches of play as unpleasant'. I think everything I dislike I would describe as unpleasant for me (at least on some level). Thus, it's hard for me to see how that of itself should be insulting - it's simply how we all are going to describe our dislikes. Do you think it's possible that it's more you taking offense to that than that it's actually an offense?

The 2nd reason - 'telling people it's their fault they hold that opinion'. This was in direct response to you attempting to dismiss that poster's point (or explain it away) because you claimed their information was based on those opposing you. But when the poster attempted to correct the factual record by saying the information they were paying attention to was from the advocates of that style and not the opponents of it, and thus if something was misconstrued it was done so based on the advocates information. That's the moment you took offense. But, do you think you said anything offensive in that exchange? IMO, your dismissal of their point as being based solely on the opposing views was the most offensive part of that exchange. It's also a dismissal I've found gets reoccurringly get's brought up against virtually any criticism of such styles. IMO at some point it's the advocates that do a poor job of explaining those games in terms that others can understand them.

The 3rd reason - 'saying a game, and the people playing it are not serious'. The Looney Tunes examples. This one I agree is offensive, but it also shows the poster isn't flat out rejecting such mechanics which is an excellent starting point. The next place I would have taken that would have been heist films as they are notorious for flashbacks showing their prep at the moment it matters. To me such mechanics also work great for heist games which would be a fairly serious genre and would be a logical place to push back against the only non-serious games opinion.

Oh, man, this is ironic. I mean, I could actually go through and point out where you're taking things out of the full context, attempted to recontextualize them, and then build a different narrative, but I think I'll stick to the much easier point -- if you afforded this thinking to my posts as well, then your complaints are as groundless as you say mine are. That's a nice heaping of special pleading.

 

[Ovinomancer]

They're saying that, for them, that kind of system works best for a genre with a built-in level of un-reality. That doesn't attack your opinion of it unless you decide it does.

And that's incorrect. And untrue. That you hold that opinion doesn't mean it's the truth, and that it 100% excuses the statement that it is.

 

[Micah Sweet]

And that's incorrect. And untrue. That you hold that opinion doesn't mean it's the truth, and that it 100% excuses the statement that it is.

Who said it was the Truth? Their truth, perhaps, but it certainly doesn't have to be yours and no one is saying it is. Do people really have to append "in my opinion" to every statement they make? Would that even be enough?

 

[Ovinomancer]

The principle I stated that you accused of special pleading was, "fictional situations shouldn't be resolved via player authorship" - with the acknowledgment that for RPG play there are certain player authorships that are necessary for playing the game and that this isn't intended to eliminate those. Being able to pull out a knife that wasn't already established in the fiction isn't a necessary player authorship for playing an RPG. Thus, it's not special pleading.

Perhaps the better question to get through this is - tell me the requirements to you that would indicate something is not special pleading?

I don't think you can tell me which statement I intended to be included within the special pleading. Let's not do that, okay, especially since it's not true, and my response certainly doesn't rest on that claim alone. It has a broader base.

Here, you've engaged in even more special pleading in asserting that there is only a specific set of required player authorships and that anything past that is the problem. You haven't established anything except an arbitrary metric for determining what falls into what category. And the one that appears to be being used is the set of things that you are familiar and comfortable with.

Here's a solid example: knowledge checks. A PC asks if their character knows anything about a setting detail, monster, or situation. The GM asks for a knowledge check. The PC succeeds, and knows a thing. This is pretty standard, and, I believe, covered in the 5e basic rules, even ( a quick check confirms this). So, when did the PC learn that? We don't know if the PC knows this thing or not, hence the ask for a check, which then determines if the PC never learned this information or that they've learned it as some time in the past (which is often left undetermined).

What's the difference between finding out if a PC already knew a thing and finding out if the PC already had a knife? We're well into standard 5e play here with the INT checks, so you're going to need to apply your metric and show how it allows for one and not the other via a non-arbitrary means.

 

[FrogReaver]

Let's unpack this.

You're saying that there's an unstated D&D principle by which it would be bad play for a player to suddenly remember, after leaving town, that they had wanted to buy something, ask the GM if it's okay, and the GM to say sure, go ahead and mark it. I don't think this is true, and I'm pretty sure you're not going to blanket claim that this cannot happen or is not supposed to happen ever in D&D. So let's look at what might be the reasons:

I would say that's not intended play in D&D though it's still a fairly common occurrence. There's 2 situations it tends to come up.

PC has already left town - before anything important happens the player says hey I meant to get X from the shop. Because there's no stakes the DM retcons the situations such that the player bought X item and no one bats an eye due to their being no real stakes yet.

PC has came to a moment he would really benefit from having an item. The players haven't been meticulously keeping track of items. The player says my character is an adventurer and would have brought basic adventuring gear like a rope. The DM agrees. This one is nearly identical to the BitD occurrence except it relies on DM decides instead of an actual game mechanic. I'd posit that having a codified mechanic vs having the DM decide here creates a very different experience. One feels like a codified part of the game, the other feels like a special exception made by the DM for ease of play.

1) timing. If the player is making the above request when said item is useful, this feels bad. So timing is a problem.
2) permission. The above is okay because the GM is permitting it.

For 1, this seems artificial. The problem here is that we're assuming that since the player didn't think of it, the character cannot have thought of it. Even if the fiction had the players planning the mission, and the possibility of a use for the item was discussed, using the above timing makes it not fair because the PLAYER didn't do the right thing. We already elide huge amounts of what characters do (unrealistically so, in D&D) and do not follow every step. We allow for this in many other parts of the rules -- no training to improve abilities, no need to take actions to gain new spells, etc. So, timing is already a rather large hole in D&D. This argument is either about the need to challenge the player in their logistical abilities or it's special pleading that this isn't the usually accepted place to ignore timing.

Timing most relates to my first case above. Timing is what matters if logistical concerns are important to play. If logistical stakes haven't been raised yet then there's little to no impact on gameplay to allowing the player to get an item they otherwise could have and so most DM's and groups will say okay to this in D&D. But if the timing of the request coincides when stakes are being raised then the answer for these groups would be no. In this case timing matters and not just in a special pleading way.

For 2, this is about authorities. The idea that the player might have a certain number of 'I don't need to ask permission" slips to bring in the item is the problem.

For the record, because I know a good number of you have no idea how Blades does loadout, but the fiction is that the PCs have done thorough planning for the mission, but we elide that at the table. The players pick a level of loadout -- 3 items, 5 items, or 6 items (light, medium, heavy), that have consequences (light doesn't look like you're up to no good, medium looks like you're up to no good, heavy is call the bluecoats, this guy's loaded for bear). During the score, there is a list of commonly useful items for skullduggery that you can check loadout boxes to have brough with some requiring multiple boxes (like a heavy weapon requires 2, or armor requires 2, and heavy armor requires 3 more past that (total of 5)). If you want something special, you had to have either "acquired an asset" previously or you need to do a flashback to acquire the asset (which raises the cost of that and you don't know the quality of the asset you'll get until you roll, so more risky). That's the loadout system in Blades. Very tightly constrained, but no GM permission needed. Mimics the detailed planning that goes into a score and that fictionally has already occurred. Bazookas are not on the list (but, in hack where they could be, they'd already be accounted for in the balance of the system and would not be an "I win" button).

This most coincides with my 2nd case. I agree that the difference here and in BitD is really one of authority and constraints, etc.

Also, it needs to be said that items will rarely just win a situation (and almost always in that case it was a good acquire an asset prior). They provide a different opportunity. Like, thugs accost you, and you spend load to pull out some knives so you can more effectively fight them. Or have a rope to increase the effect of a check to climb a wall.

I agree here as well but I'm not sure the degree of impact of an item is really what matters. Whether it's I win or grants advantage to a check or whatever, i think the same principles still apply.

The crazy assumptions about how these things work are exactly what you complain about when you say, " I don't believe it's fair to talk about BitD using D&D principles." That's really only happening in one direction, here, because I run 5e, I know how it works intimately, and, even given all the times you've been involved in these discussions, you still show that you do not understand how these other games work.

That line was for those more on my side than on yours.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Who said it was the Truth? Their truth, perhaps, but it certainly doesn't have to be yours and no one is saying it is. Do people really have to append "in my opinion" to every statement they make? Would that even be enough?

Well, they don't even know what the mechanics actually was, so how did they make that determination besides just blind rejection, binning, and labelling it as not serious?

I mean, if this is defendable, then there's all kinds of things that I could say about you, your play, the games you like, etc, that require nothing more than an offhand statement you've made that I've imagined the rest of for myself and made a judgement on. Like, say, your games are nothing more than playing Mother-May-I because you have the GM having to approve PC actions. I mean, that's silly, but here we are, with about the same level of imagination. Do you feel that me just saying that what you play is just Mother-May-I would be something you'd not feel I was being demeaning or insulting about?

 

[Ovinomancer]

I would say that's not intended play in D&D though it's still a fairly common occurrence. There's 2 situations it tends to come up.

Evidence, please. Back this up and show that it's not intended play. Or that allowing it breaks the intended play. Doing this is critical to the foundation of you claims below, so let's deal with this before even addressing the arguments built upon this foundation.

That line was for those more on my side than on yours.

What, seriously? You get special treatment that others do not? And what's this crap about "sides." I can actually make a case for this issue, and I 100% enjoy and run 5e in a Trad manner (ie, not at all Story Now). And, in 5e, we're doing things all the time that break your foundational assumptions, you're just used to them and don't notice anymore. A hard, honest look at how the game plays shows exactly why your claims are bogus, and that the only real answer is "well, that's just how it is in D&D." I happen to enjoy that, and lean into it when I play/run D&D instead of pretending it's something more profound.