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

[EzekielRaiden]

Not in terms of an algorithm. If someone says "I try to make my world realistic" then I don't know exactly what they find realistic.

But I get what they are trying to do. They value realism more than balanced combat, for example. That's useful to me.

And I don't. That's the whole point! I have no idea what "I try to make my world realistic" means.

Because, to reference TVTropes, Reality Is Unrealistic. There are huge, vast, megalithic swathes of reality which people outright reject. Remember that the sounds of horses on cobblestones are almost never actual shoed horses on cobblestones, because people are so used to the clacking coconut-shells sound, and don't have any context for what actual horses sound like trotting around. It is, quite literally, a situation where what is actual reality would be rejected for being "unrealistic"!

So no, this statement says nothing. It might as well say "I try to make my world fnord". I don't know what "realistic" means--and that is what makes it a platitude, not a procedure nor a description. A "procedure" really does mean something closer to an algorithm. They aren't 100% identical, but they're pretty close siblings.

 

[Maxperson]

It’s been 50 years. Of course the game is going to change. Of course new players are going to have a different playstyle. To deny that and insist that everyone must play the old, correct way is gatekeeping.

If everyone can play the old way, it literally cannot be gatekeeping. Gatekeeping is putting an impediment in the way to keep some folks out of whatever it is you are doing. Unless of course this is a new definition of gatekeeping, because if this thread has proved anything, it's that new = better.

 

[Maxperson]

I'm a D&D progressive.

My table has Demon Slayers, Kryptonians, 6 types of vampire, a CON base class and Goku.

Every year I add new crap to my game, I can't remember it all.

Reminds me of one of my 1e DMs back in the mid 80's. He had Krull's glaive, Kzinti, Jedi and lightsabers, and more in his 1e game.

Hmm. Games have been that way since 1e. Does that mean you aren't really progressive?

 

[The Firebird]

And I don't. That's the whole point! I have no idea what "I try to make my world realistic" means.

In this case a game where that is the referee's goal is probably not the right fit for you.

If the table does have a clear enough idea what it means then it is useful. That's been the case for me in sandbox campaigns.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Not only that. It is openly insulting to people of religious belief. Which, for someone who has made such a point of decrying "insulting" terminology from others, isn't a great look.

I don't think anyone was trying to be insulting. I just think they were creating a convenient belief to fit the NPC description in the example

Sure. The problem comes in with, as I and @pemerton have said repeatedly, HOW do you "establish a strong character trait". Because in that how--in that procedure--there are many points of...let's say discursive interest, putting it mildly.

I don't think you can break that down to a set of procedures. Or at least, I don't think it is a requirement. I mean you could. You could have tables or a process. But this is a creative area of the game. The point is just you are going to want some characters with strong traits. And it is okay to have that. I think what isn't okay, at least for me, would be to create character traits for the sole purpose of railroading or thwarting. But when I make characters it is like I know them instantly. And so whatever that is, I will play it as believably as I can. And like I said, if I were making a guard on the fly, I would be very cautious about introducing that particular character trait because of the issues that could potentially arise (as I said earlier if they are going to bribe a guard, and I already know that before I make him, I am more likely to roll a d10 to see how bribable he actually is). But that doesn't mean I would be bothered if a GM made n unbridgeable guard on the fly (i mean guards who can't be bribed do exist).

And if the character already exists, that is whole different story. For example there is an outpost in one of my modules guarded by Long-Browed Demoness Feiyan. Even when things go beyond what is in her description, I have a very stark impression of her personality in my head and feel I would know how she reacts to bribe attempts. I wouldn't say she is Giles Corey of guards when it comes to that, she has one soft spot I think could be used against her. She is gentler and less cruel to her subordinate, Pei Guo because she is fond of him. And I think very socially aware characters could pick up on it (there is a skill called Empathy in the game and if a player used it to gauge her, they might notice behaviors that would). But this is a character where I think I would know how she would react to players doing different things. So I don't think a command roll is likely to get her to take a bribe. It might still impact the interaction, but she isn't someone I see being coerced that way through intimidating words. Again this isn't a scientific breakdown of a character, it is more about feel. The way a player might be with their character (they just know how their character would react to things, and there are somethings where dice rolls making them act a certain way could feel wrong: this is why in my games I don't treat things like Command or Persuade as magic buttons, even if they still can have impact)

 

[TwoSix]

and your answer to not trusting DMs is to make up rules to use and then trust those same DMs follow the rules?

Yes, because those rules are, ideally, transparent and visible to the entire table.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Occam's razor. Of answers with equal explanatory power, the simpler answer is usually correct.

'GMs are out to get me and my agency' is simpler than 'GMs want to simulate a world that functions realistically to them' to you?

 

[AlViking]

Yes, because those rules are, ideally, transparent and visible to the entire table.

Which is fine as a personal preference but you are now trusting the game author to deliver the type of game you want.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

In a world where people can sign literal contracts with a devil, why is it impossible?

It wasn't a devil contract though. It was literally just the (religious) belief that drinking any amount of alcohol would eternally damn both the drinker and their family.

It probably wasn't a great example

Given that's literally what I said in response to it--that you do yourself no favors with such an example--it's nice that we've finally reached agreement.

but I was responding in the spirit of the hyperbole in the examples that were given. There are people who would, and do, risk death for themselves and their loved ones by standing by their convictions. It happens every day, you just have to turn on the news.

Really? There was nothing hyperbolic in the thing you were responding to. The person you responded to was speaking about how you as GM decided that's what this character would believe, so appealing to "realism" isn't a defense. As was said just a bit upthread, "realism" isn't causing that character to have that belief. The GM is causing it.

I really don't understand why you think every and all GMs are ultimately motivated by being power hungry dictators. I build my campaign world the best I can, as logical as I can, think about repercussions of a world with magic and other factors. If that kind of decision making doesn't work for you, that's fine. There are other games out there. But this constant insistence that it's fundamentally terrible design that leads to abuse is what I object to. Most GMs just want to play a game with friends and it has nothing to do with lording their power over helpless subjects.

Would it help to tell you I don't think that?

Instead, I think that GMs need to EARN trust. Nobody deserves trust. It must be earned. One of the most effective and efficient means to gain trust is to be cooperative, straightforward, and forthright. Playing by rules, and making those rules clear and check-able by all participants is another highly effective means to gain trust. Conversely, being secretive, exercising power without possibility of oversight, and rejecting rules as "too confining" is...not how one gains trust. Worse, doing those things and then saying, "Well why don't you just trust me?"--because then you've made the very act of asking for accountability and openness an offense, and you've staked the requirement that the player always and infinitely trust the GM no matter what actions they might take.

Seems like your assertions about a system where the GM making the final call being tempted to run railroads is based on vague platitudes as well.

Er...how, exactly? I laid out in very specific terms why this temptation is there, what incentives motivate it, and why GMs would be likely to overlook the (extreme) deleterious consequences. That isn't in any way "vague platitudes" like "I try to run a realistic setting".

 

[EzekielRaiden]

'GMs are out to get me and my agency' is simpler than 'GMs want to simulate a world that functions realistically to them' to you?

"GM did a boneheaded thing while railroading" is simpler than "a ludicrously complicated series of events and justifications which somehow, someway, make this The Producers-level parody of religion somehow actually make sense."