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

I think @TwoSix was alluding to something like this:

I say, "my character, this guy in Thatcher's london, who has everything to lose, he goes to his lover's flat and convinces him to keep their affair private." You say, "y'know, I don't think that his lover is inclined to keep their affair private, do you?" And I say, "no, I suppose not, but my character is desperate to convince him anyway. In fact, he brings an antique revolver with him in his jacket pocket, in case he can't."​
(Look, just look: the character has no "character sheet," but he's a whole character, fully realized. I can play him effortlessly.)​
How do we decide what comes true?​
We can simply agree. That works great, as long as we really do just simply agree.​
We could flip a coin for it. Let's do that: heads my character convinces yours to keep their secret, tails he murders him instead.​
Or y'know, that's a lot to deal with. Let's have a rule: whenever a character's life is at stake, that character's player gets to call for one re-flip of the coin.​
On the other hand, isn't my character's life at stake too? His wife, his kids, his position, his money, his everything? Which should have more weight between us, your character's life or my character's "life"? Shall we go best two of three, or is that setting life and "life" too equal?​
How about this: we'll roll a die. If it comes up 1 or 2, your character will refuse and mine will kill him; if it comes up 3-6, your character will agree to keep the secret and (unknowingly) thereby save his life. It's unequal because my character killing yours is less to your liking than your character ruining mine's life is to mine. It's unequal to be fair to us, the players.​
Notice that we haven't considered which is more likely at all. We probably agree that it's more likely, in fact, that your character will refuse, so my character will shoot him. But that doesn't matter - either could happen, so we roll according to what's at stake.​
Also, notice that we aren't rolling to see whether your character values his life in the face of my character's gun in any way. We're rolling to see if your character agrees to keep the secret without ever knowing about the gun, or if he refuses without knowing about the gun and my character shoots and kills him.​

In other words, (i) the participants clarify what is at stake in the situation, and then (ii) identify if they disagree on how it should unfold ("what comes true"), and if they do (iii) toss the coin, roll the die or whatever.
But the rules don't say any of that. No idea how to make a character. No idea what kinds of characters you can make. The player can't initiate any sort of declaration, because the rules don't allow it. Nor can the DM. Nor who rolls when. Heck, you can't even say it's in London, because there where and how of the setting isn't covered.

You are assuming a great deal that those rules don't cover. Perhaps that game needs more rules so people can know how to actually play it.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


I quoted from Vincent Baker not far upthread. That same post includes the following, which seems relevant to some of the discussion in this thread:

Collin:​
Things on character sheets, in particular characteristic, skills, and whatnot. What is their purpose, and are we going about the right way of fulfilling their purpose?​

The latter: no, mostly we aren't going about the right way of fulfilling their purpose. We're held back by our loyalty to the broken old historical approach, it blinds us to what's really going on. We collectively need to do character sheets and what they're for a whole lot better, if we want to accomplish anything.​
Accordingly, the former: ready? This is intense.​
Imagine Thatcher's London. Imagine a person in Thatcher's London who has everything to lose.​
That's a character. That's a whole, playable, complete character. If I ask you to speak in that character's voice, you can; if I present some threat or challenge, you can tell me easily how that character will react; if I describe a morning and ask you what that character will do in it, you'll know. Take ten minutes to think and that character's as real as can be.​
Character sheets are useless when it comes to creating, describing, defining, realizing characters. Totally pointless, valueless, toss 'em in the recycling. A notebook is helpful for remembering things, or 3x5 cards or post-it notes, let's use those instead. Or let's use nothing at all, if we can remember what we need to remember! Probably we can.​
This isn't (just) to Collin but to everybody: I can't teach you anything useful about RPG design if you persist in thinking that mechanical character creation or the character sheet have anything to do with the character at all. It's a misleading historical mistake to call the process and the paper "character-" anything. If you want to get anywhere, if you want to understand, if you want to create anything at all, you have to let that old error go.​
So we start right here at this point: the character exists only in our minds. If we write something down about the character, it's only to remind us, to help us keep the character in our minds. The character cannot be touched by rules or game mechanics at all, under any circumstances, no exceptions. The character is pure inviolate fiction. This is fundamental and inescapable.​
And from there we build.​
<snip what I already quoted>​

What we have here is a resolution mechanism with no character sheet. It treats all outcomes as equal, except in cases where it's "a character dies" vs. "a character's life is radically and permanently changed." In those cases, it biases toward the latter.

See?

Let's add a wrinkle. Let's say that over the course of the whole game, each of us is allowed 10 rerolls, no questions asked. Just in case we want another shot at our preferred outcome. Now we need a "character sheet," except that of course it's really a player sheet. We need to keep track of how many of our rerolls we've spent.

Let's add another wrinkle. Let's say that at the beginning of the game, we each choose a sure thing, a limited circumstance where we don't roll, but instead one or the other of us just chooses what happens. I choose "my character's children are in the scene." You choose "once per session, at my whim."

Here, this late, I've finally made a mechanical reference to the fiction of the game. I still haven't considered probabilities at all, and do you see how "my character's children are in the scene" and "once per session" are the same? They're resources for us to use, us the players, to have more control over what becomes true.

Maybe we should write them down on our player sheets too, so that if we forget or get sloppy we can call one another on it.

But so okay, that's pretty good, but how do we come to agreement about the two possible outcomes in the first place? Here's a rule: neither outcome can overreach the present capabilities of the characters involved. That makes sense; if my character didn't bring the revolver, I shouldn't be insisting upon "shoot and kill" as a possible outcome, right? Same with my character's skills and foibles as with his belongings. Like, if I establish that my character has a weak heart, that opens up some possible outcomes for us to propose; if I establish that my character is an excellent driver, that opens and closes some others.

Come to think of it, when do I get to decide if my character has access to an antique revolver, has a weak heart, is an excellent driver? Do I get to decide on the fly or do I have to declare it up front?

Either way, I should write all this stuff down on my player sheet, as I establish it. That way I know what I'm allowed to propose as possible outcomes.

See how this goes? The "character sheet" isn't about the character. Maybe - maybe - it refers to details of the character, if that's what our resolution rules care about. But either way, even if so, the "character sheet" is really a record of the player's resources. "Character creation" similarly isn't how you create a character, but rather how you the player establish your resources to start.​

The quoted passage is about character sheets. It could also be about GM's notes: these are records of the GM's resources. If the resolution rules care about the details of fictional setting and situation, then the GM's notes will also refer to those details. But the purpose of the notes is to constrain and guide the GM, in terms of what to say when it is the GM's turn to say something.

Once we move from metaphor to this sort of literalness, we can then look at how the things that players do (drawing on the rules of the game and what is on their sheets), and the things that GMs do (drawing on the rules of the game and what is in their notes), interact.
 

But the rules don't say any of that. No idea how to make a character. No idea what kinds of characters you can make. The player can't initiate any sort of declaration, because the rules don't allow it. Nor can the DM. Nor who rolls when. Heck, you can't even say it's in London, because there where and how of the setting isn't covered.

You are assuming a great deal that those rules don't cover. Perhaps that game needs more rules so people can know how to actually play it.
Do we need rules to tell us how to imagine people doing things? Or can we just imagine people doing things?
 

Do we need rules to tell us how to imagine people doing things? Or can we just imagine people doing things?
You need rules, or else conflicts between players and DMs will happen, and without any rules for dealing with those conflicts to boot. Well, conflicts will happen with any game, but far more will happen without a lot more rules to cover things than that d6 roll.
 

Do we need rules to tell us how to imagine people doing things? Or can we just imagine people doing things?
One of the issues I've seen people mention about super light games as entry points to the hobby is they are actually built on a whole host of assumptions that you're probably not familiar with unless you are already familiar with roleplaying.

As a starting point, your rules, taken without any additional context, look like they're just a very light framework for story telling where people take turns, just with the added confusion that you're referring to DMs and players without clarifying what those terms actually mean. There is no concept of anyone controlling a single character. The list goes on -- there are a significant number of additional rules that need to be assumed before the simple process you've described starts to look like an actual RPG.

If you gave your system to non-roleplayers, I'd expect to see a rambunctious round-robin story telling session where people randomly interject and demand a roll-off to seize narrative control, but nothing really reminiscent of roleplaying.
 

The players' actions and declarations have a huge impact on the reactions, but it's not 100% the players there. The DM also has input into the reactions.

If the players say that they are climbing the mountain, the DM is very much constrained in his reaction to some sort of climbing the mountain response. He's not going to narrate that they are swimming in the ocean.

It's mostly the players. They are driving the direction and in effect dictating to the DM the field of responses the DM can give. Some fields are wider than others, and the DM is free to choose things that make sense for the world in RESPONSE to the players' declarations, but he is very much constrained by those declarations. Unless he's acting in bad faith anyway.

This process was genuinely the thing that made RPGs so amazing to me when I first experienced them. The closest I could come to that prior to sitting down and playing was what I used to get doing King's Quest and Police Quest. In those games you had graphics but also text commands (it was like Zork with Graphs and the ability to move a character around). But anything you tried had to fit into whatever was programmed already. So you never felt like you were there with endless possibilities. But a human GM, can take any action you want to try and have it makes sense in the setting and have real impact. So play just felt boundless and the level of immersion was unlike any media I had ever experienced before. I totally get if people want more constraints on this process or want more procedures or to distribute authority, and I have mentioned I have played games that do this (Hillfolk is the one I particularly liked because it really preserved that sense of immersion). But I think in these conversations a lot of people kind of dismiss how powerful this aspect of play truly is. For me it is what makes an RPG so different from say Clue or King's Quest, or even a movie that sucks you in. When I sat down to play the first time, it was like my mind was on fire
 

Standard D&D seems to be more Renaissance than medieval, with books and printing presses standard, and therefore maps more widely spread
I used “pre-industrial” for a reason. Maps were not commonly available to the general public.
The real world didn't have access to any number of things like flying, turning into an eagle or just asking a god for specific details
You can justify the existence of maps in D&D - if you want to. But you can justify the absence of maps as well. You do not HAVE to have them, and if players are following them blindly rather than exploring a sandbox, then the DM shouldn’t provide one.
 


As long as we're talking about maps and sandboxes, I have discovered that maps based mostly on landmarks, combined with the Alexandrian's hexcrawling rules make for some of the most evocative wildnerness exploration I've been involved in.

7lxsmze1deto.jpg
Winterburg Intel.jpg
 

Remove ads

Top