D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

[Micah Sweet]

Then you clearly didn't see the multiple people saying that PbtA games (amongst various others) are inherently opposed to realistic, self-consistent worlds.

Others on both sides then, if you feel I need to clarify. I will say I don't like the methods PbtA games (amongst various others) use to generate those worlds, but I agree they can.

 

[FrozenNorth]

Just looking at history, people dying for their beliefs is not exactly rare.

That is wrong. People dying for their beliefs is extremely rare. That is why it is notable when it happens.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Again you resort to the "just trust me bro" defense. It doesn't work. I'm sorry, it just doesn't.

Just because I trust someone doesn't mean I think everything they do is perfect. Just because I'm willing to work with someone doesn't mean I cannot then subsequently find an issue.

And, in my extensive experience, social groups which rely overmuch on implication and "social contract" are some of the worst things to navigate. Because you never actually know what's okay. You can't actually communicate, because oh no, that's making rules, we don't need any rules, we can just talk to each other like people!

Rules are useful, and I'm sick and tired of people treating that like it means I'm some kind of paranoid crazy person who cannot socialize or interact or game. Rules are tools. Stop acting like the use of tools is somehow "distrustful".

Especially if you're ever going to then make an argument about DMs trusting player motivations. Because that's rank hypocrisy, if you do do that. And I'm fairly sure you have, at some point.

Clearly it doesn't work for you (and with your terribly unlucky gaming history I understand why), but you can't legitimately say it doesn't work at all, or that people shouldn't go into a game trusting their GM not to be a controlling jerk.

 

[Campbell]

Clearly it doesn't work for you (and with your terribly unlucky gaming history I understand why), but you can't legitimately say it doesn't work at all, or that people shouldn't go into a game trusting their GM not to be a controlling jerk.

I would trust needs to be about particular expectations. Like no amount of trusting a GM will help if they are trying to tell a story and I just want a compelling challenge. I do think the baseline expectations of how play should function work for a significant amount of people. But that's about alignment of expectations a lot more than trust.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I mean Dollhouse Play specifically refers to significant stretches of play without either resolving or establishing meaningful stakes. If you see a description of dollhouse play and see it as reflective of your game, I'm not sure what to tell you. Do you feel like that's descriptive of your game or that it's not a phenomenon that happens out in the wild (in some people's play)?

I can't seem to find a defintion of it online. But I know I have been in these kinds of conversations and had people use it to describe something that happened in a campaign I was talking about (often a part of play where there was a lot of RP).

 

[EzekielRaiden]

It's worked for tens of millions of people for half a century.

No. You are interpreting this as something I did not say.

I am not saying that NOBODY EVER can just coast on trust.

I am saying that it is a crappy ad hominem argument to say "oh, well I feel bad for you, you can't trust people and that must suck."

That's a crappy argument which does not actually achieve the rhetorical goal @Micah Sweet aims for.

 

[Thomas Shey]

It's worked for tens of millions of people for half a century.

The question is, "How well?" Observation in the field suggests for a fair number of people "worked" translates into "is tolerable, especially when you can either deal with it or not game."

 

[Micah Sweet]

I would trust needs to be about particular expectations. Like no amount of trusting a GM will help if they are trying to tell a story and I just want a compelling challenge. I do think the baseline expectations of how play should function work for a significant amount of people. But that's about alignment of expectations a lot more than trust.

All great topics of discussion in session 0.

 

[The Firebird]

Seriously?

Like for real, seriously?

A band of five guys ain't gonna mount a defense of the walls. If people COULD sneak out, it wouldn't be a siege! If it were open to negotiations, it wouldn't be a siege! And if they "sail to find allies", job done, the DM got what they wanted.

Was the DM's goal to get them to sail to find allies or to run away from the unwinnable scenario? I think the players have many options available to them, even in this case.

That is wrong. People dying for their beliefs is extremely rare. That is why it is notable when it happens.

By rare I don't mean "this is how the majority of people died" but "there are a lot of examples of it".

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Really? When? Where? I've stated that it's not my preference. That for me it would feel less immersive. I've never made any comments on being realistic or self-consistent and I don't remember anyone else stating that. I've just never really enjoyed the collaborative world building games I've tried.

It literally just happened again:

I am not saying they cannot, to me that ability in and of itself is not a problem however, abuse is the problem. If the game tries to prevent that possibility by basically making anything possible if the character just rolls well enough, then I consider that at least as much of a problem however, and not a fix.

I'm not going to trawl through the thread. It happened. Multiple times. People characterized their approach as being the only one they could stomach because it was verisimilitudinous/realistic/"based on real-world logic" etc. They also repeatedly portrayed PbtA and various other things as inherently unrealistic, indeed antagonistic to the very possibility of realism.