D&D General Playstyle vs Mechanics

[pemerton]

So while you claim to not be talking crap about others' games, here you are talking crap. And if anyone does anything remotely like this about descriptions of your games, you never let it go.

Right!

This also applies to @Micah Sweet, in the following sense: if I said that one reason I don't like GM-driven, GM-world oriented RPGing is because it produces flat characters and hollow societies, I think Micah would take that as a criticism of his OSR-ish playstyle. Now I could set about explaining why I disagree - namely, I don't think the point of OSR play is to generate vibrant characters and rich societies, so it's not a criticism that a certain sort of play doesn't achieve something it doesn't care about - but there's no denying that it's something of a criticism of a character to call them "flat".

Describing other people's fiction as "improbable nonsense" is clearly criticism!

 

[mamba]

What it you come up with something incredibly probable, yet obscure. I have no issue with so saying no, but it can also be fun and creative to say yes

if it is probable and obscure, I'd say I'd probably allow it. I do not need to say 'no' every time, I just do not need to say 'yes' every time either, no matter how poorly thought out or phrased the background is

 

[pemerton]

you can't think of any literary characters who knew people? Who had contacts when they went places who could help them out?

You mean like Aragorn . . . Gandalf . . . Conan . . . Wolverine . . . ?

 

[mamba]

Why? What does it harm to have a well-connected PC?

I tend to find such things help to facilitate play in a very verisimilitudinous manner.

I feel it does the exact opposite

 

[pemerton]

it basically invariably is however

Is this based on your scientific study of @soviet's RPGing, @hawkeyefan's RPGing, my RPGing?

Or is this your experience of your RPGing? In which case I (and I suspect they also) are happy to talk about ways of avoiding improbable nonsense when GMing.

Or are you just making this up?

 

[mamba]

So while you claim to not be talking crap about others' games, here you are talking crap.

no, he just said it isn't for him

 

[Mort]

So while you claim to not be talking crap about others' games, here you are talking crap. And if anyone does anything remotely like this about descriptions of your games, you never let it go.

So, here's the thing. I don't say what you prefer can't be taken seriously or that it's groan inducing. I try not to pass judgment on it in any way. I may say that it's about control or something you disagree with, but I am saying that only as an assessment of its description. But I really try not to pass judgment or describe how little I'd enjoy such a game or anything like that.

That aside... you can't think of any literary characters who knew people? Who had contacts when they went places who could help them out? Is it really that hard to imagine such a person to exist? Is such an advantage really that game altering?

Extremely easy example: Silk from David Eddings Belgariad. Having contacts EVERYWHERE was one of his main schticks. And there was nothing implausible about it.

 

[mamba]

Is this based on your scientific study of @soviet's RPGing, @hawkeyefan's RPGing, my RPGing?

neither one has provided an example of their creative solutions for this challenge, so no, not theirs (or yours) specifically, more a general statement

Or is this your experience of your RPGing? In which case I (and I suspect they also) are happy to talk about ways of avoiding improbable nonsense when GMing.

they are more than welcome to, as are you. All I hear is you being offended when this clearly was not directed at you or your table at all

 

[Xetheral]

I think you know what I mean by "trappings" - eg with reference to Earthsea, fictional elements (or if you prefer, "story elements") like dragons, wizards, magic schools, gebbeths, etc.

I think we agree that D&D play - at least as per the "classic" mode - won't produce a sequence of events that orders these elements ("trappings") in something like the way they are ordered in the Earthsea books.

I think we also agree that it's even more true that D&D play probably won't produce a sequence of events in which the occurrence and ordering of these elements produces a story with the rise, fall, climax, theme, resolution etc of the Earthsea books (or something like them).

I'm not sure what you mean by "core essence of fiction", though.

Actually, it looks like I misunderstood what you meant by "trappings". Coming after your discussion of RPGs narratively tying character advancement to story, I thought you were saying that RPGs took from fiction the idea of fictional characters advancing/evolving in a fictional world, and then calling that "trappings". My surprise and fascination came from certainly not thinking of that as the trappings of fiction! But since you didn't mean that, I simply misunderstood. Your pardon!

(And yes I agree with your second paragraph, and agree with you third paragraph insofar as D&D play isn't likely to produce a story with the structure of a fantasy novel--but I do think it will produce a story with some other structure.)

 

[hawkeyefan]

First of all, you're absolutely right about being non-judgemental, and I apologize for anything I've posted that said otherwise.

No need for you or anyone else to apologize! I don’t mind judgmental comments… I’m down for some criticism. No one’s gonna be more harsh about my gaming than me, to be honest.

My point was more to point out how casually @Oofta says the kinds of things about others’ games that, when said about his, are cited as unacceptable.

Secondly, I think your description of the PC for whom this sort of ability would work well for as a "literary character" is a key point. If you don't see the game as telling a story (as I do not), you probably don't see your PC as a literary character, either, even if you used literature as inspiration to help create them.

Yeah, I mean purely in the latter sense… as inspirational figures that serve as the archetypes for play.