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

[Micah Sweet]

You cannot give consent to something you literally don't know and aren't allowed to know.

Of course you can! Otherwise, consent wouldn't count unless you had perfect information beforehand, and when does anyone have that?

 

[Micah Sweet]

This is a troll, right? Please tell me you’re trolling.

You think Vincent Baker is so famous it doesn't make sense for someone not to have heard of him?

 

[Micah Sweet]

the guy who came up with Apocalypse World and probably the mind that influenced TTRPG design the most in the last 10 years, whether your like the direction or not.

At a minimum from an intellectual, game theory perspective I am interested in his analysis and ideas.

I strongly disagree with most of his ideas, and would rather read him myself than have him quoted at me and used as ammunition, but he definitely is an influence.

 

[Faolyn]

Perhaps. I think I missed the example. I don't know what the scene was about or what was being discussed.

I can say that just based on your description, that's likely not something I'd want in my game. I want conflict. I want decisions to be made and action to be taken.

That doesn't mean that there is anything at all wrong with it... I expect there are plenty of people who would enjoy such a session of play. I just imagine I'm not one of them.

Basically, the party and an NPC had tea. What made it special is that several of the party were playing societal outcasts who had rarely had tea or, more importantly, been treated with the type of kindness found in a tea party or afternoon tea. It was a nice, pleasant time that allowed the party to roleplay amongst themselves.

And then later on, ghouls attacked.

 

[Faolyn]

Who is this Baker person, and what is their claim to speak with authority?

I'm always extremely dubious about people citing internet randos as an authority on anything.

He's the dude who created Apocalypse World and, effectively, the entire PbtA style of games.

(You don't have to like PbtA, of course, but he's not a rando.)

 

[TwoSix]

Well, it's a relief that it doesn't actively change how the PC thinks. But I'd still say that having someone other than the PC say that the PC hesitates or that something new has been revealed is still a loss of player autonomy, which isn't something I want to have. IMO, it should be up to Aedhros' player, and only that player, to decide if Aedhros is capable of murder.

(And yes, there are players at my table who would RP this of their own volition.)

It's like, in D&D you have alignments. If the DM or another player said "you're lawful good so you're not allowed to murder that person." That wouldn't be cool. Saying "you're lawful good and murder isn't an LG act. If you murder her, your alignment is going to change"is acceptable, because it's still up to the player. (Yes I know alignment isn't a big deal in 5e; this example uses a different edition.)

Believing that the player should have 100% authority to determine a character’s mental state is an aesthetic choice that not everyone agrees with.

I know this because we had a fairly intense thread about it a few years back.

 

[Old Fezziwig]

Well, it's a relief that it doesn't actively change how the PC thinks. But I'd still say that having someone other than the PC say that the PC hesitates or that something new has been revealed is still a loss of player autonomy, which isn't something I want to have. IMO, it should be up to Aedhros' player, and only that player, to decide if Aedhros is capable of murder.

If these mechanics affect your ability to take actions for your PC during play, such that "the rules say you can't do that", I don't see how that doesn't take some measure of control of your character away from you.

Quoting these together because (I think) my response to each is kind of related, and I'm particularly responding to the parts I've bolded.

@Faolyn -- yeah, we're clearly diverging in preferences here. For me, the crux of RPGing is the point where I no longer get to say what's happening with character. Can my little dude do what I want him to do? Will he be successful? My personal interest in being both the arbiter of my little dude's intentions and the opposition to them (internal or external) is approaching nil -- for me, that sort of play often falls flat, and it's been a big part of why I find solo games excruciatingly boring. So I don't see the hesitation as a loss of autonomy, but a reframing of it. I see it as akin to being dealt a new hand of cards to play. I've played my current hand as best as I can, and now I'm going to play a new hand that I've just been dealt.

@Micah Sweet -- rules in RPGs frequently decide "your character can't do that" or "your character fails to do this." I'm not sure why steeling oneself to attempt murder should necessarily be different than preparing oneself to climb a wall. Maybe put another way, if a game is designed to support it, I don't see a meaningful difference between my little dude's physical engagement with his external world and his emotional or intellectual engagement with his internal world. I think the adjudication and structure of the game need to be principled (e.g., the Steel rules in BW work the same way as everything else -- for the dice to come into play, something has to be at stake), but I'm open to a lot of things if that's established.

 

[Faolyn]

That does sound really not fun at all!

Even if, it's as @Old Fezziwig claims, it's just that you "lost the argument" and didn't actually have your thoughts changed, I find it super disturbing that this is a thing that happens in PC vs. PC conflict.

 

[Micah Sweet]

That's fine if that's your preference. Nothing wrong with it. My preference is simply different.



Yes, most likely. Again, it depends on what the purpose of the scene is and what it's contributing to the game. If it involves conflict of some sort, I'd be more inclined to let it continue. If it's literally a couple of characters chatting over tea with nothing of consequence, then yes, I'd call for an end to the scene and move on to the next one.



I don't find such compartmentalization particularly difficult... I mean, aren't you the one who talks about GM impartiality? How do you accomplish that? If GMs can do it, players can do it.

But also, I don't find it all that necessary.



That may be possible, yes, but I think it requires certain elements that many here are eschewing... so I'm not sure how common that may be.



Well, you're kind of starting in media res, no? That the setting is already constructed and a hook is already presented to the players. What about prior to that?

If we look at the game differently than many typically do.... like if we forget the geography and factions and NPCs and all that for a minute. Just think of all of that as information. Much of the game revolves around how this information is determined. I'm thinking of three methods.

I see no good reason to cut out all the fun parts of the game in order to discuss the game to your satisfaction.

 

[TwoSix]

That's always been my issue with Baker-quotes too. He very clearly has a point of view and an agenda.

Yea, but that’s every designer (and pretty much everyone in the world!).

Much like running a campaign setting, impartiality is an illusion.