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

[pemerton]

DMs could be bound by strict task rules they didn't create and that are known to the players.

This is how Torchbearer 2e and Burning Wheel work. The rulebooks are replete with task obstacles, under various skill and situation-type headings.

It's not the only way to do it, of course. And these systems have rules for resolution that don't have regard only to the task. Intent/goal is also very important.

 

[pemerton]

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

Well, in my experience the goal of referees who describe their goal as "realism* is actually to fit certain received tropes combined with some wargame-y expectations.

To make this concrete although still rather general: there is almost no doubt that life in mediaeval European settlements more closely resembled life in contemporary Kenya than life in the contemporary United States. In saying this, I have in mind everything from productivity of labour to preponderance of subsistence farming and pastoralism to scale of commercial enterprises to strength of non-state-law-derived social norms as guides to behaviour. And a multitude of other considerations too.

But most setting material I read, for FRPGing, presents settings that more closely resemble the contemporary, or perhaps the late 19th century, US than they do contemporary Kenya.

 

[pemerton]

Because the real world Logic is arising after the creation of the character. Making the NPC is a creative act but also constrained by what is reasonable in the setting, like whether there is an anti-drinking God. And the. That belief is what comes into play when the PC tries to ply him with alcohol.

Isn't @EzekielRaiden's point that the anti-drinking God is also a NPC that the GM has created. How did realism operate in relation to that prior act of authorship?

 

[pemerton]

Considering the fact that the topic of the thread is the essential conservatism of broad swathes of D&D players.

The essential continuing conservatism of the D&D player base is the idea that the point of play is map-and-key exploration of a predetermined space/setting in order to "solve" a challenge.

You don't have to play to discover information that the GM has already determined.

I agree, but would add an additional point:

In the classic dungeon-crawling style that Gygax describes in his PHB, discovering the information is still a player-driven process: the players listen at doors, hope for good reaction rolls from wandering monsters whom they can then speak with, use their detection spells/abilities, etc.

Whereas - and as I think is evident in some posts in this thread - the contemporary version of discovering the information often takes the form of playing through a whole GM-authored scenario (as we can see in some of the discussion around finding out whether or not a guard will take a bribe). So it's map-and-key combined with GM-breadcrumbs.

Dungeons are kind of a terrible example.

Yet, as @hawkeyefan posted, resolution techniques and associated procedures (for framing, consequences etc) that really only make sense for dungeon crawl play still seem to be very predominant in D&D play.

 

[Hussar]

My desire is explicitly for a world that feels realistic. If "player driven play" requires the players to have more information than their characters would reasonably have access to, then I'm opposed to it.

I don't think that is a good definition of player driven play though.

Sorry for swimming way upthread. Holy moley you guys are fast.

But, I'd point out that this is a fundamental misunderstanding of how player driven play works.

Take the cliche of bribing the gate guard. In traditional play, the DM/GM knows if this guard is bribable or not. Thus, the advice to investigate further, check other sources, etc. All of those things are meant to exist in the game world and the DM is meant to have answers to those actions.

In a player driven game, the question of "can I bribe this guard" isn't asked that way. It's stated as, "I'm going to bribe this guard." At that point, no one at the table has any idea if this guard is bribable or not. That's what the mechanics are for. Depending on the system, you will roll some sort of test. The results of that test will tell the table whether or not the guard is bribable, or, maybe it will introduce a new complication, and the table works out what that complication is based on the context of the action.

It's not a question of the player knowing more than his or her character. It's that there isn't anyone who knows the answer until the action is taken. It's something I really struggle with when introducing players to player driven games. "Can I" questions are pretty much pointless in this context because, frankly, no one at the table knows. Maybe this guard is a shining bastion of truth and integrity. Maybe this guard will sell his own grandmother for a copper. No one knows. But, once it's established at the table, now everyone knows and everyone then works off of that new information equally.

There is no black box.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Isn't @EzekielRaiden's point that the anti-drinking God is also a NPC that the GM has created. How did realism operate in relation to that prior act of authorship?

I was talking about the flow of created content after this. I said making these things are creative acts. But some are built on existing material in the setting.

 

[Pedantic]

This is how Torchbearer 2e and Burning Wheel work. The rulebooks are replete with task obstacles, under various skill and situation-type headings.

It's not the only way to do it, of course. And these systems have rules for resolution that don't have regard only to the task. Intent/goal is also very important.

.... So they don't do it that way, but another, different way?

I'm making a case for impartial task resolution. Intent is expressed by picking the right tasks and stringing them together to achieve your goals. You get whatever the action says you get and it's on you to make that useful.

 

[AlViking]

To me, taken literally, this is a doorway to utterly pointless and frustrating play.

I mean, I can't think of a much worse RPGing experience than to spend (say) hours or even sessions of play having my PC trying to achieve something, only for it to ultimately turn out to be impossible because of a secret decision that the GM made about one or more setting elements.

What a way to waste my time!

That's quite the strawman and something I've never seen in a game I've run or played.

Don't conflate occasionally not able to succeed with letting people waste a significant amount of time.

 

[pemerton]

I think that the permissive attitude about this stuff is just kind of surprising to me in that I tend to think of sandbox play as being focused on player-driven play... and so this would be a concern for any GM to consider when they make decisions. To have GMs who are proponents of sandbox type play defending the GM's ability to place realism above player-driven play... it's surprising.

RIght, this!

I mean, ten billion posts upthread this all started because one poster (whom I won't drag back in, but I think we all know the context) queried the sandbox/railroad contrast.

And now we are in a position where techniques are being vociferously affirmed as sandbox-consistent, even when they result in players making blind decisions whose outcomes are not knowable to them. But it's not railroading because the GM didn't mean it!

 

[Bedrockgames]

Well, in my experience the goal of referees who describe their goal as "realism* is actually to fit certain received tropes combined with some wargame-y expectations.

To make this concrete although still rather general: there is almost no doubt that life in mediaeval European settlements more closely resembled life in contemporary Kenya than life in the contemporary United States. In saying this, I have in mind everything from productivity of labour to preponderance of subsistence farming and pastoralism to scale of commercial enterprises to strength of non-state-law-derived social norms as guides to behaviour. And a multitude of other considerations too.

But most setting material I read, for FRPGing, presents settings that more closely resemble the contemporary, or perhaps the late 19th century, US than they do contemporary Kenya.

I think when most people talk about realism, they aren't talking about historical authentic realism (and even if they were, what counts for being historically authentic is probably going to be debated if you have a group of gamers who are all interested in a given period). I think most campaigns are a blend of the groups common understanding of things like genre, how historical periods have been brought to life in modern media, history, etc. And that is fine. I am not a stickler for historical realism. But that doesn't mean they can't want a setting that feels plausible to them. And some people will try to do their best to make a historically believable setting or a poetically believable setting. And I get you think people might not have sophisticated enough understanding of politics or history to try to bring those things to life. But I don't think we need to require people be expert in those things to enjoy them at the table. And if there is a shared common sense in the group of what fits believable politics or history, that is great.