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

[pemerton]

I personally thought it was a fun module though when I played through it. I found the dungeon aspect to be very engaging.

Castle Amber is fun too. So is White Plume Mountain. This doesn't affect whether or no they're realistic, though. Obviously they're both absurd! And so is B2.

I feel like we have come very far afield of what @Lanefan was originally saying. He wasn’t saying it is realistic, he just seemed to be saying you could run it more with realism in mind, and seemed to be focusing on things like how the monsters behave. With questions of realism you often have to drill down to find out what someone means and what they are focused on.

<snip>

I generally don’t think Gygax was aiming for hyper realism though

But this isn't about realism then, is it? Let alone "hyper-realism".

I mean, if we actually focused on how the "monsters" behave, then as @Hussar says the whole situation would be so ridiculously unstable it would collapse within weeks. Or if, as @Lanefan says, these people are hunter-gatherers, then most of them would move on after a short while.

So "how the monsters behave" seems like it also has some specialised meaning, which begins from some game-derived premises about how dungeons are set up, how monsters hang out in dungeons, and all these other absurd things - but then, bracketing for all of that, the Orcs are meant to act like XYZ rather than ABC. Like, it would be "unrealistic" for the Orc leader to give up his "crown" just because a charismatic PC talks him into it.

But we can't actually create some serious account of the Orc leader's motivations that would explain why that is; as by bracketing everything else there's no account of the leadership possible at all! (Eg we can't think about how survival of the Orc tribe might motivate their leader, as we can't think about what "survival of the Orc tribe* even looks like, given that we've had to bracket all of that because there's actually no realistic account of how they live.)

I also think very few groups are going to know or care off hand how many orcs are plausible for a hunter we gatherer group living in caves (I had to take courses on early human settlements and I would still need to look this stuff up because I wouldn’t know off hand, and I would have no idea how well that information translates to orcs).

Almost nothing in a typical fantasy setting is actually realistic in any way, shape, or form, but they usually have enough verisimilitude that only an actual medieval scholar would be upset at them.

For me, reading these posts, it's hard not to just see special pleading.

The drum of "realism" gets beaten again and again: it's a basis for action resolution by way of GM decision-making; it's constraint on setting design; a lot of the RPGs I like have this problem that they're not "realistic" for reasons XYZ. But then it turns out that "realism" is just being used to describe conforms to my common-sense, pulp and fantasy fiction, wargame-y tropes.

I've got nothing against common-sense, pulp and fantasy fiction, wargame-y tropes: D&D continues to flourish by relying heavily, though no longer exclusively, on them. But the invocation of "realism" as a normative standard for RPGing, in the face of this sort of defence of absurd things, becomes pretty frustrating.

I realise that the points I've made in this post are probably not relevant for most people GMing or playing B2 (although they may have been relevant to @mamba; and mamba's experiences are just as real as anyone else's). I also realise that for a novice GM, who is not familiar with RPGs at all, or who has no familiarity with narrating NPC behaviour beyond one or two "if, then"-type statements found in a railroad-y module or AP, the instruction to "think of the Orc leader as a real person" can be a helpful starting point.

But no one posting in this thread is a novice GM. No one here is looking for help in how to move beyond canned "if, then" statements for how to adjudicate their NPCs. In the context of this thread, talking about realism in the context of a module like B2 just doesn't get much traction. And trying to tell me that my play of Lareth the Beautiful in Torchbearer 2e must be less "realistic" than how he would be handled in D&D, because of the resolution system being used, borders on the condescending.

Look if this stuff isn’t for you it isn’t for you. But am not sure this is accurate and even if it were based on an accurate understanding, you are just building up an argument against a given play style. I just don’t even think that is worth debating because I can see how a conversation like that would go here.

<snip>

But this thread is so hostile towards people whose only crime is liking somewhat trad gameplay, sandbox and favoring their idea of realism. And the level of ridicule being directed at them (and I am not saying you are doing this but it is present in the thread) is making the conversation extraordinarily unpleasant.

See, this is what I don't understand. When you post things like the following, you're just expressing how you feel:

it is a bigger issue than role-play being sidestepped, to me it feels like even when it is happening, it undermines it. And it is basically because I don't see the need for a mechanic here. I can say my thing in character, the GM can respond to it.

I am not really interested in getting in a side debate or conversation on this. Like I said, I don't think my experience is everyone's experience. And like I said, eve the 3E social skill rules aren't mean to replace roleplaying (if you follow them to the letter, that isn't really their function). I only mention 3E rules because I noticed it a lot with them. I am talking about the impact it has on my and my general preference for freeform RP

You don't feel that, in expressing your views and preferences, you are obliged to accept your interlocutors views about what constitutes player agency, and compelling fiction and gameplay, and the like.

But when others share with you their own thoughts and views and experiences about realism, about what makes for verisimilitude, about what constitutes sufficient player agency, and the like, they you accuse them of being "hostile", of imputing "crime", of "ridicule", etc. And you dismiss them as having purely "academic" or "analytic" concerns that you, a "normal" person, would "have to look up".

I mean, to put it more plainly, why do you expect others to treat your sense of what counts as realistic, what counts as sufficient agency, and the like as normative? Why are your views and experiences the default from which all conversation should proceed?

 

[billd91]

As opposed to, "I admit it isn't okay, but I'll do it anyway! Ha!"? Like, of course you feel it is legitimate, or you wouldn't have said it.

What you seem to miss is that, in communicating with others, your own feelings of legitimate use are typically less important than those of your audience.

If you feel this is legitimate, then by all means, before every session you ever play, announce to the GM, "If you make any error to lessen my game experience and do not fix it to my personal satisfaction, I will report to others (say, the people running the FLGS or con in which the game is taking place), that you harmed me in this game."

Let's see how that flies. If it is perfectly legitimate, you should use it to the face of every GM you work with, and organizers of any venue in which you play.

In using that word, you are having a mediocre play experience occupy the same rhetorical space as, say.. being sexually harassed at the table. No, I don't find that "legitimate". I find it a poorly justified overstatement of the issue.

I don't think it's a good idea to belittle someone else's idea of "harm" and whether or not it truly puts it in the same rhetorical space as being sexually harassed at the table. That's just opening a HUGE can of worms that risks putting you in the same rhetorical space as people who deny the harm of racially charged language being used for orcs and microaggressions. YOU don't define someone else's harm or what harm even means in this situation.

 

[pemerton]

I don't need explicit rules telling me what I can and cannot do to run an interesting and challenging game that my player enjoy. Are you so oblivious to your player's reactions that you do?

I'm not oblivious to my players' reactions.

But I'm not setting out to run a GM-driven game where I tell the players a story that is interesting to them. I'm looking to play a game in which actions and outcomes are driven by the players more than the GM. And so I follow the rules of the game.

I don't think, in this thread, you've posted about how you adjudicate combat when you GM. But I'm assuming that you do it by applying some version of the D&D rules, rather than just telling your players things that you think they will find interesting and challenging.

 

[pemerton]

Why does @pemerton's post mischaracterize my points? Using your question above as one example, he doesn't address why Consistency, Setting Logic, transparent communication, and how I implement being impartial fail to prevent railroads.

Huh? I feel that I've been crystal[-clear about thi

Everything that you refer to there - consistency, setting logic, impartiality - centres the GM's decision-making. And your transparent communication refers to transparent communication in respect of that GM decision-making.

That's it.

 

[AlViking]

I'm not oblivious to my players' reactions.

But I'm not setting out to run a GM-driven game where I tell the players a story that is interesting to them. I'm looking to play a game in which actions and outcomes are driven by the players more than the GM. And so I follow the rules of the game.

I don't think, in this thread, you've posted about how you adjudicate combat when you GM. But I'm assuming that you do it by applying some version of the D&D rules, rather than just telling your players things that you think they will find interesting and challenging.

I don't see the need for guardrails being specified in the rules of the game or for it making the game necessarily any better. The few examples of what I think you are talking about would make it less enjoyable for me.

We all have different preferences, you apparently want something out of the game I see no need for.

 

[Bedrockgames]

See, this is what I don't understand. When you post things like the following, you're just expressing how you feel:

​

You don't feel that, in expressing your views and preferences, you are obliged to accept your interlocutors views about what constitutes player agency, and compelling fiction and gameplay, and the like.

But when others share with you their own thoughts and views and experiences about realism, about what makes for verisimilitude, about what constitutes sufficient player agency, and the like, they you accuse them of being "hostile", of imputing "crime", of "ridicule", etc. And you dismiss them as having purely "academic" or "analytic" concerns that you, a "normal" person, would "have to look up".

I mean, to put it more plainly, why do you expect others to treat your sense of what counts as realistic, what counts as sufficient agency, and the like as normative? Why are your views and experiences the default from which all conversation should proceed?

I don't really have time now, but I have been very accommodating to other points of view here, and I haven't been hostile in my opinion. I think a lot of posters have gone well beyond just expressing their point of view and veered into bullying and ridicule. Maybe that isn't intention. But that is how a lot of it is coming across

 

[pemerton]

If you cannot agree on the definition of a term, you cannot discuss anything about that term. All you can do is argue about what the term means.

I think this isn't true.

Oxygen theorists and phlogiston theorists don't agree on the definition of "combustion" - the former characterise it as a process of oxidation (ie adding oxygen to the burning material) whereas the latter characterise it as the driving off of phlogiston. Yet they can discuss things, and as it turns out the oxygen theorists can show that the phlogiston theorists' position is wrong.

To turn to the post of mine that you quoted: what it seems to me that you are trying to do is to rob me of the vocabulary to explain why I would find a particular approach to RPGing unsatisfying, because overly GM-driven. But I can tell you, the reason I would have that reaction has nothing to do with the meaning of words. It is to do with the nature of the experience - the actual way, in the actual world, gameplay decisions are being made.

If you want to forbid me from explaining why I have the response I do to that experience, well I guess you can try and do that. It's still not going to make me enjoy it, though!

EDIT:

As a general note I think it is important when referring to player agency to indicate what kind of agency is being discussed.

There is the agency that the players has while roleplaying as a character in the campaign.
Then there is the agency the player has while using the system.

The two are not synonymous, and it is important to keep them straight, as two people can argue past each other if one is talking about a campaign featuring rules where the worldbuilding of the setting is shared among everyone in the group. And the other is talking about what players can do as their character.

To the individual who enjoys shared worldbuilding, a campaign that only focuses on the player can do as their character has more limited player agency. For the individual who focuses on what characters can do, a campaign using a system that limits what characters can do (but not players), as part of a focus on creating a specific types of narrative, will appear to have more limited player agency.

Context is crucial.

My response to this is the same as my response to @Micah Sweet.

I'm not really that interested in debating the meaning of words. I am talking about gameplay.

If you wish, you can legislate away all the vocabulary someone might use to explain why they do not enjoy a particular approach to RPGing. That is not going to make them enjoy it.

And the idea that there is some semantic confusion around the reasons I've given for why I find certain approaches overly GM-driven is hard for me to believe. If the GM establishes the setting; and the situation; and determines all the outcomes (by application of heuristic pertaining to setting consistency and the logic of tropes), then that is a game that for me lacks sufficient player agency. Because of the way it centres the GM's decision-making.

How is the previous paragraph unclear?

 

[Thomas Shey]

As opposed to, "I admit it isn't okay, but I'll do it anyway! Ha!"? Like, of course you feel it is legitimate, or you wouldn't have said it.

Edit: On rethought, I'll just note that if you're unwilling or unable to accept that a term can be used for a range of degree, and directed at both a person and an experience, its not my job to convince you, and leave it at that.

 

[Bedrockgames]

bracket all of that because there's actually no realistic account of how they live.)


For me, reading these posts, it's hard not to just see special pleading.

The drum of "realism" gets beaten again and again: it's a basis for action resolution by way of GM decision-making; it's constraint on setting design; a lot of the RPGs I like have this problem that they're not "realistic" for reasons XYZ. But then it turns out that "realism" is just being used to describe conforms to my common-sense, pulp and fantasy fiction, wargame-y tropes.

I've got nothing against common-sense, pulp and fantasy fiction, wargame-y tropes: D&D continues to flourish by relying heavily, though no longer exclusively, on them. But the invocation of "realism" as a normative standard for RPGing, in the face of this sort of defence of absurd things, becomes pretty frustrating.

Again, I think realism is something you have to drill down on. But that doesn't mean it is special pleading or that it has no meaning. It is pointing towards things people will agree are believable and many GMs are trying to emphasize their idea of realism. That doesn't mean they are going to reach some computer simulation level of physics or anything. This is why I said establish what franchise you are in. How realistic the GM is shooting for is something the players probably want to understand. And when they do aim for greater realism, I don't think most players are taking the kind of fine tooth comb to it you are, but I also think the GM is answerable to the players in his or her group. @robertsconley mentioned this earlier. You are providing judgments that fit established expectations of realism in a setting. Now this isn't really my argument, because I don't shoot for hyper realism or historical naturalism. Some people do and I think that is totally fine (and I think those things are more achievable than you are allowing for: like I said before, I don't think most tables expect the GM to be a PhD or something, expectations there are generally pretty reasonable). When I run my campaigns and when I make my settings, my focus is more on creating a world where it feels like a real place, but it is still operating with anachronisms and genre conventions. But it should feel like you have stepped into a world where a shaw brothers movie would have been shot.

 

[Bedrockgames]

​

You don't feel that, in expressing your views and preferences, you are obliged to accept your interlocutors views about what constitutes player agency, and compelling fiction and gameplay, and the like.

I have. I have recognized there is more than one kind of agency. I've also recognized that what Hussar is talking about and what @hawkeyefan is talking about can also be considered samdbox. I've been trying to build bridges between these disagreements, because I don't think anything is being gained by them. And I think it is important for sandbox style, if it is going to thrive, to allow for experimentation with different approaches. So I haven't rejected their views on player agency. I get that @hawkeyefan has a set of expectations around agency and I think those are valid. But that also isn't the only way to view agency. @robertsconley has also expressed a first person view of agency that I think is valid and is probably closer to my own preference on the matter.

Also I am not interrogating their style or approach the way they are interrogating mine. I could do that. It is very easy to pick apart style or a principle. I think we are way better off, trying to understand what makes different people in the hobby tick, rather than taking a posture of extreme skepticism that they are even doing or having the experience they say they are having.

But when others share with you their own thoughts and views and experiences about realism, about what makes for verisimilitude, about what constitutes sufficient player agency, and the like, they you accuse them of being "hostile", of imputing "crime", of "ridicule", etc. And you dismiss them as having purely "academic" or "analytic" concerns that you, a "normal" person, would "have to look up".

No. I've been fair. When people attacked Hussar, I pointed out they were being unfair. And plenty of people have engaged me in these threads and not done things I have said. But there have been a number of very aggressive posts that frankly just look mean spirited. I think these posts are obvious to everyone who has seen them