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

I mean, stuff like:

"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."

"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."

He's not writing as someone making an argument, but as someone lecturing his followers on the errors The Other People are making. It doesn't come off well. Imo.
ah, yes, he definitely has an opinion ;)

That does not mean the points he brings up are not valid, I might disagree with his proposed solution however.

I do think we are held back by clinging to old ideas too tightly, and I agree that ‘Fighter, Str 17’ is a chess piece, not a character. That does not mean I would solve it the same way he does
 

log in or register to remove this ad

You think Vincent Baker is so famous it doesn't make sense for someone not to have heard of him?
For someone who’s been posting regularly on these forums for years? That’s absolutely demonstrating a lack of curiosity about the broader structure of the TTRPG hobby.

Which is fine in the broader population, but is going to make me views any statements you make with some suspicion.

Heck, Micah, I know you hate that style of play and don’t want to engage with it, but you still at least know who he is and his position in the industry.
 

Much like running a campaign setting, impartiality is an illusion.
It really isn't. There is definitely a difference between a more impartial GM and a less impartial GM. No one is saying you will achieve 100% full impartiality all the time. The goal is to be as impartial as you can be. And that is very much achievable and worthwhile.
 

An example I gave earlier in Blades had the player trying to get past two guards. They are choosing whether to sneak (Prowl, mechanically) or to shoot the guards (Hunt). Suppose they have the same score for each.

They choose to Hunt. They roll one die and get a 4--success with complication. They take down the guards, but the referee decides the shift is about to change, and they only have 5 minutes before the attack is discovered.

The player thinks, hmm, I wonder if sneaking would have been better. But in that case they'd still get a 4--success with a complication. In this case, maybe they sneak past, but it turns out a surprise inspection is happening tonight, and the whole place will be crawling with guards.

Now compare the same in a fixed world approach. No surprise inspection is scheduled. The shift will change in 5 minutes because that's what the DM wrote in their notes.

In this case, shooting the guards is worse than sneaking past them. If I shot them, and then the shift changed and the alarm was raised, I'd think "hmm, maybe I should have approached this by sneaking". Because the world is fixed, that would be a better outcome even on the same roll. Hence, my choice to sneak or hunt matters more.

But wait! You say. You as the player had no way of knowing when the shift would change or if a surprise inspection was coming. So really you are just choosing blindly, and there is no weight to your choice--it is all DM fiat.

Not really. Because the world is fixed, I could have scoped the place out to determine the shift changes or acquired a copy of the guard schedule. Depending on the system, Divination magic may have helped. I also could have waited until just after a shift change.

As a player, I feel more agency in these scenarios. I feel that I, and not the rules, am driving play.
Couldn't the PCs get a hold of the guard schedule somehow, and learn when the shift change occurs? I've seen this done in various media all the time.
 

It really isn't. There is definitely a difference between a more impartial GM and a less impartial GM. No one is saying you will achieve 100% full impartiality all the time. The goal is to be as impartial as you can be. And that is very much achievable and worthwhile.
I’m not saying anything about 100% impartiality.

I’m saying you think you’re being impartial, but you’re not.
 

Background for Edward Albion

You were first apprenticed to Halfred of Goodnap. He took you in at the age of seven and gave you your first training in Thothian magic. After five years, at the age of twelve, Halfred took you to a secluded part of the woods.

Edward, you have been coming quite well in your studies of magic. I would like to complete your training but unfortunately I can't. Now you are a big lad, so we don't need any tears or such nonsense. I will place with you with Marfran, a friend of mine. He will complete your training and initiate you into the order.

But there is a more important matter I wish to speak of you. I am not a just a Thothian mage, but also a member of a band known as the Regulators. This is an important secret of mine that nobody must know of me or... you. I cannot stress this enough, if the Order of Thoth ever finds out that I was a member of the Regulators, they will hunt me down and all those I trained including you.

This is because since the days of Lucius the Great, the Regulators have supported the Overlords. We often go out and adventure, our interests and duties take us to many corners of the Wilderlands, but first and foremost we owe our loyalty to the Overlord of the City-State.

The Regulators started under Atrabilorin. He was a dwarf who ruled City-State over 300 years ago brought the city safely out of the fall of the Dragon Empire. For the next 100 years we served the City-State, protecting it from many danger. Finally over 200 years ago Salm-Lorin, a mage of our Order, rose and made himself tyrant. Seizing control of the Guild of Arcane-Lore, he used its mages to take control of the City-State and the lands around it. Outcast we dedicated ourselves to his overthrow.

Lucius and his father, the first Overlord Halius, were able to defeat Salm-Lorin and with our help bring him to justice. Unfortunately before we could imprison him, he escaped and killed himself by throwing himself off the highest tower of the Cryptic Citadel. Because of their just cause we pledged our loyalty to Halius, his son Lucius, and to Clan Bulwark.

We are a small band, numbering only several hands each generation. What we lack in number we make up in our skill and our dedication. From time to time we look for promising young folks and begin to train them. You Edward are one of those.

If you decide to pursue this path, you will be watched and tested from time to time. When you have grown enough in experience and wisdom you will be brought into the Regulators. Your first task will be to form a band of adventurers around that you know and trust. The other members will watch you from time to time to see how you are doing.

Plus after your initiation into the Order you will be given a medallion. The medallion is recognizable to any official of the Overlord and will aid you in your endeavors. Plus a enchantment will be laid on you that prevent any Mage from forcing the fact that you are a Regulator.

Remember, being a Regulator isn't about power or wealth but about doing a duty that few other can or will do. Bringing peace and justice to the Wilderlands. Use your wits and keep your eyes open you will find yourself going far.
So, the background provides an affiliation to Halfred and Marfan and this band called Regulators who have some history and who have pledged loyalty to Clan Bulwark...etc

I'm curious how any of the above ties into my post.
Did the player create these NPCs (and I'm not talking mechanics)? Did they create the history of the Regulators? The background provides a passive relationship between PC and other participants. Before the PC has even accepted, he seemingly is considered a member immediately?
There are no flaws or ideals - there are bonds of teacher/student or master/apprentice but it is very bare.
There is a code which the PC, I suspect must follow, keep our organisation a secret and be ready when we call.

I can get no sense of who the PC is and their place in the world except that they feel like an automaton who supposedly likes A & B and is part of C.

And I 100% can empathise with you that there are some players who have little or nothing to offer and you literally have to squeeze blood from a stone to get anything from them.

But my post was not about creating a background page, which may or may not see any source of play or drama in the campaign. My post offered a suggestion to let some of the PCs have a little bit of creative ownership, to make a creative investment within the setting which everyone at the table would need to accept.

I mean PCs spend their time at a local tavern, you cannot be expected to create every single encounter, friend or acquaintance they come into contact with. Portion that responsibility off to the players, see what they come up with and use their investment to build on stories and interactions.

Perhaps they meet a passing merchant (gossip/rumours), a minstrel (decides to write about them), the tavern dog (who takes a liking to one of the PCs), the gambler out on his luck (blames a PC for his losses), a lame militia man (with a story to tell), a mysterious new stranger in town (quiet and distant), a local clergymen (who enjoys their liquor too much, maybe there is more to their drinking), a group of farmers and labourers (who have mixed reactions to the adventurers and all their new found gold, who is driving this animosity), a pair of cartographers (sent by state officials to update and chart the nearby mountains for the royal maps), a widow who comes night after night (looking to find and exact vengeance on a patron who supposedly murdered her husband)....etc

Let them come up with 20 NPCs and drive the sandbox story through these NPCs. You can even guide them with lore from your world so they merge/integrate their creations with your setting's history to make it even easier.
Like I said just a suggestion.
 
Last edited:

Right on. I appreciate it.

It's not mind control. If a character is persuaded, that doesn't mean that the character changes their mind necessarily. It just means that they've agreed to go along with whatever's being proposed or their arguments against doing so have not won the day. The player can of course decide their little dude has been persuaded, but it's not mandatory. I'm wary of using examples from fiction too much, as I don't think they're as useful as they seem to be, but when the Fellowship of the Ring decides to go over the Redhorn Pass instead of through Moria, Gimli's not of a different mind than he was before they started up the mountains -- he would still prefer to go through the Mines, but he's lost the argument, so up he goes with the rest.
In many RPGs, Gimli could have chosen to break with the Fellowship and gone to the Mines himself. He chooses not to do that. In BW, he (and his player) don't get that choice.
 



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.
It's not a claim, it's actually in the rules! Not in the free rules, but in the full text: "Remember that these rules don't dictate reality or true feelings. They only dictate public performance and acknowledgement of the 'truth'" (BWGR 399) and "If a player is particularly open-minded, he can, of course, have his character change his mind when and as he chooses. Being convinced of the merit of an argument is an acceptable result of these mechanics, but it is not a hard and fast rule" (BWGR 400).

Whether this is "super disturbing," I'll leave to you and others. It solves problems I have seen at tables in play.
 

Remove ads

Top