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

Every time I try to engage with people by taking their things seriously, they do exactly this to me, AND jump to extreme positions. It's been going on for years on here now. Consider asking @Maxperson about whether the DM has "absolute authority" or not. I did literally everything I could to get him to shy away from that terminology. He adamantly refused--and adamantly insisted that it was, in fact, "absolute authority" as both of us understood that phrase.

When time after time the extreme position has in fact been what people are advocating, what am I to do?
A few posts ago, I said a particular decision could be made by mutual consent.

You responded by asking me to defend my claim that the only thing a sandbox needs is mutual consent -- but I had made no such claim at all.

I didn't jump to the extreme position that a sandbox needs nothing but mutual consent -- you just attributed that position to me out of nowhere, taking what I feel was a pretty uncontroversial statement and recasting it as a much more extreme one.

You tell me that you feel people are jumping to extreme positions but it feels to me that you are seeing extreme positions where they don't exist.

If someone says, "This means x" and you think, "Oh, wait a minute, if it means X in every possible situation, that is impossible, no one could believe that!" then I'm suggesting that instead of reaching the conclusion, "This person must believe an obviously wrong thing," you consider that maybe, "This person thinks this usually means X, but they probably don't think it means that in situation Y or Z, where it would make no sense. And the reason they didn't mention it is probably because they just weren't thinking about situations Y or Z at all."

When time after time the extreme position has in fact been what people are advocating, what am I to do?
I have repeatedly seen people saying they're not actually defending and don't believe in the extreme positions you've attributed to them (and I've had to do that myself). I would recommend that you believe them, and then reassess what they actually believe, in light of that.

Edit to add: If you recast an opinion into more extreme one, some people will probably continue to defend it, not necessarily because they believe it but either because they don't actually notice the ground has shifted, or they have their backs up and worry that if they try to reframe things back to the actual position they hold, it will look like they are backing down.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

I mean, literally the dozens and dozens of times people spoke of the DM pre-writing the setting so that it must necessarily be independent of the PCs and the players?

Like I figured that was literally the intent was that there wasn't and couldn't be "consent" from the players about that. To have it involve player consent in any way would be making it not independent.
The players, one would think, give that consent when they sign up for the game as presented, where the presentation would ideally include some basic details about the pre-written setting. For example, for my current campaign it was something like "Typical-ish D&D setting, completely new and homebrew, various faux-cultures from different periods represented in Xena-like pop-culture ways without much if any regard for historical accuracy, Tolkein-like species, you'll be starting in the faux-Greek region".

Sign up for that and you've just agreed to run in the setting I've independently designed and built. Seems straightforward enough.

Now in fairness, if you sign up based on that presentation and I then turn around and run the campaign in steampunk Eberron you'd have a legitimate beef with me about the bait-and-switch; but that's not how I roll. :)
 

The players, one would think, give that consent when they sign up for the game as presented, where the presentation would ideally include some basic details about the pre-written setting. For example, for my current campaign it was something like "Typical-ish D&D setting, completely new and homebrew, various faux-cultures from different periods represented in Xena-like pop-culture ways without much if any regard for historical accuracy, Tolkein-like species, you'll be starting in the faux-Greek region".

Sign up for that and you've just agreed to run in the setting I've independently designed and built. Seems straightforward enough.

Now in fairness, if you sign up based on that presentation and I then turn around and run the campaign in steampunk Eberron you'd have a legitimate beef with me about the bait-and-switch; but that's not how I roll. :)
You cannot give consent to something you literally don't know and aren't allowed to know.
 

You cannot give consent to something you literally don't know and aren't allowed to know.
Yet you have the ongoing power to withdraw consent at any time.

And note that this isn't a simple black and white, "Stay or walk out".

Any player should be perfectly capable of saying, "Hey, this doesn't seem to make logical sense, what's going on?" In fact, I would say that doing so (if you feel something doesn't make sense) is critical to ensuring a foundation of trust, consistency and mutual understanding when a lot of power has (by mutual consent) been ceded to the GM.

Every time the GM makes a decision or utters a statement of fact about the world, if the players roll with it and carry on, they are implicitly indicating support for and trust in the GM.
 
Last edited:

Every time I try to engage with people by taking their things seriously, they do exactly this to me, AND jump to extreme positions. It's been going on for years on here now. Consider asking @Maxperson about whether the DM has "absolute authority" or not. I did literally everything I could to get him to shy away from that terminology. He adamantly refused--and adamantly insisted that it was, in fact, "absolute authority" as both of us understood that phrase.

When time after time the extreme position has in fact been what people are advocating, what am I to do?
This is a good example of you reinterpreting someone's position into something that makes no sense. @Maxperson is saying the DM has absolute authority over the game world. They do not have authority over your character, or what they do. Moreover, they only have that authority because the players have chosen to give it to them.

Bottom line: D&D is a game in which a group of players inhabit a shared fictional world. They select one of their number to be imaginer-in-chief of the world, and the others become people who live within that world.

Clearly, this requires the players to appoint someone they trust to be imaginer-in-chief. If you cannot trust anyone you cannot play D&D.
 

You cannot give consent to something you literally don't know and aren't allowed to know.
I'm not going to get into a discussion of the definition of consent as that'll get red-texted in a heartbeat.

That said, it seems we've circled right back to trust. You-as-player simply have to accept that there's going to be elements of the setting that you don't know about and maybe never will, on both the small scale and the large, if you're going to play in a game where the setting was designed independently.

Which means in effect that you're also consenting to not being told everything right up front, that there's by default going to be secrets that may or may not be revealed as play goes on.
 



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.
This is the exact passage I was thinking of when I made my post.
 


Remove ads

Top