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

[pemerton]

IMO you either play a game with mechanical restraints on the GM and are therefore forced to abide by those restraints, or you don't play that game. My preference is option 2.

When I play chess I am not forced to follow the rules of chess. I do so, because that is what it means to play chess.

When I GM Torchbearer 2e (for instance) I am not forced to abide by the "restraints" - or to be more precise, the rules - that the rulebooks state. I choose to do so.

I have no idea where this language of "forced" is coming from.

 

[hawkeyefan]

My game is about an imaginary world, largely created by me, and how the players interact with world through their characters.

Right… so then who cares if a given NPC can resist torture? Or doesn't drink? Unless those traits come up in relation to the PCs.

All I can tell you is that I make my NPCs, like everything else in my setting, fiction-first. How they relate as game pieces to the PCs is secondary.

My point is that both layers should be considered. It seems like you agree…

 

[robertsconley]

Arthur impresses Uriens with his humility

So regarding this.

I think Adventures in Middle Earth is a good source of how to handle this in a way that plausible and feels true to the character.

This seems definite.

Thranduil listens to petitions at court or at feasts, but such requests must go through proper channels. One does not just walk up and bend the Elvenking’s ear about some petty (snip)

However the description doesn't end there.

We have these other elements to consider.

• Thranduil’s primary goal is always to protect his people and his kingdom. He fears being lured into a trap by agents of the Shadow, so he is cautious and slow to act at times, but when his path is clear he decides with great swiftness.
• For uncounted years, I have kept my realm safe. I will not let it fall.
• +1 if the Company has more than one Elf of Mirkwood – the Elvenking prefers to trust his own people;
• +2 if the heroes bring a jewel or other precious gift to honour him;
• -2 if the heroes imply that his kingdom is lesser than those of the Elder Days, or otherwise insult their host.

All of these could reasonably influence how Thranduil reacts even if proper protocol isn’t followed. They’re examples of social nuance that a human referee must weigh in context.

This illustrates why human judgment is so important in a sandbox campaign. Social interactions often involve layered motivations and plausible exceptions. That’s not something a fixed algorithm, or a deterministic audience rule, can simulate well.

 

[pemerton]

I'd appreciate it if we could avoid reframing people's points into things that weren’t said.

Yes, I'd appreciate that too!

I'd also appreciate it if posters would not present norms and approaches that characterise one way of RPGing, as if they are constitutive of what RPGing as a whole must involve if it is to be successful.

I mean, in the post that I replied to you said this, as if it is a general truth:

The solution to the issue of mediocre referees isn’t to bury everything under new systems.

But in fact I am someone who has benefitted greatly, as a GM, from learning about new systems - about ways of doing things that I wasn't familiar with. Learning those things helped me GM successfully, avoiding pitfalls that had, in the past, led to unhappy RPGing experiences.

I can give examples, if you like:

*Reading about the idea of player-driven, "protagonistic" RPGing helped me appreciate that the systems and procedures articulatd in more "traditional" RPGs (like AD&D, Rolemaster and parts of Classic Traveller) were not the only way to achieve serious, deep, rich RPG experiences;

*Reading the rules for Paul Czege's RPG Nicotine Girls helped me grasp how the endgame can be a thing in a campaign;

*Reading the rules for Maelstrom Storytelling, HeroWars/Quest, and Burning Wheel helped me grasp how scene-based resolution could work, and this helped me tremendously when GMing 4e D&D;

*Reading the rules for Apocalypse World, and in particular grasping the notion of "if you do it, you do it" and how that makes player-side moves central to focusing and driving the fiction, enabled me to come back to Classic Traveller and get a very successful campaign out of that system, which I had struggled with in the past.​

No doubt you have your views about the utility of discussing systems and procedures and principles and heuristics. But they are not self-evidently true. But in the post I replied to you present those views as if they are universal truths, and as if the approaches that others have used and benefitted from are of little or no value. And I don't agree with those implications of your post.

 

[pemerton]

I am honestly having trouble following pemerton

You present yourself as disagreeing with @hawkeyefan, when what you say actually agrees with what he posted in the post you replied to.

 

[pemerton]

I suppose when I choose to use a subsystem, especially a ubiquitous one like combat, I do try to abide by its rules (but I can still change them if I want). I am talking about the larger decisions and general play procedures in the game, and the general roles of players and the GM.

I assume that you have a reason for using the combat system, rather than deciding the outcome of fights via GM free narration.

Whatever that reason is, imagine the following two things:

(1) Whether you would regard it as an accurate description of your reasons to say that you are "forcing restraints" upon yourself because you (or your players) "don't trust you as a GM" or believe that you're a "jerk" GM;

(2) What someone who shares that reason, and think it also applies to - say - negotiations between PCs and NPCs, might then look for in a RPG.

 

[pemerton]

I am saying that kind of moment could also be prevented by a die roll. Yo seemed to be making the point that the GM deciding these character traits could deprive us of the possibility of Joan of Arc or Arthur impressing Uryens with his humility

I'm saying that, if the GM decides, that sort of thing won't happen because it can't happen, because the GM has decided that it is not plausible.

Staking outcomes on dice rolls is completely different in this respect. It can happen. but may not. That's a core feature of any game that involves random determination.

 

[pemerton]

It has been repeatedly framed that any NPC with strong motivations or immovable positions is evidence of railroading unless the players can predict in advance what will happen.

By whom?

Not by me. Not by @hawkeyefan. I think not even by @EzekielRaiden.

Likewise, the idea that a GM applying a consistent internal logic is "arbitrary" unless supported by player-facing mechanics is simply ahistorical

And who has said this?

Not me. Not @hawkeyefan. I can't recall if @EzekielRaiden has discussed it.

 

[Faolyn]

could work, but is not really the same thing, ie you did not learn about this particular guard unless he happens to be McBribe

Unless you're actively told who to look out for.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Sure. History is also replete with people whose minds were changed - by reason, by fear, by love, by chance.

Now, how do we make all these possibilities a part of our verisimilitudinous RPGing? One way is for the GM to decide it all. The idea that that is at odds with railroading, though - that it ceases to be railroading simply because the GM is convinced that they have authored a realistic character is bizarre to me.

And here's a concrete illustration from another well-known domain of play: I, as GM, can also conceive of an Orc captain so puissant that no character who is not a peer and champion could possibly defeat him. So when any PC fighter less than 7th level confronts this Orc, I just declare that the Orc wins. It's realistic, after all - that's how good this Orc captain is!

Would anyone agree that my reason for not using the game's combat resolution rules, because the possibility of the 5th level PC winning is unrealistic (given my conception of the NPC) guarantees that the game is not a railroad? I don't think I've ever met that person.

A couple of things here:

1. One can very much argue that if he's that skilled, 7th level in most F20 games is not exactly a sign of it. In fact, you could argue that style of game is a bad choice for that in the first place since its got so much swing in it. So its easy to argue that's a problem of papering over the wrong tool for the job.

2. At this late date, do you really think most of the people liable to respond to this are going to do anything but roll their eyes at drawing an analogy between physical and social actions here? If so, where have you been? If not, is there a point in doing this?