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

[Micah Sweet]

With a Duel of Wits, you are opting in. You are staking that control over your character's autonomy to have control over the setting. It's a clear-eyed decision you are making. Want to convince the border guard to let you pass then you leave yourself vulnerable to being convinced to leave the way you came. You are staking autonomy for impact.

It's a choice that has an impact and consequences. This is the beating heart of agency from my perspective. You have an awareness of what success means, what failure means and go in clear eyed.

As a player, many people I know would object to anything taking control of their character away that isn't a clear supernatural-or-similar effect. They would also likely object to having their PCs emotional reactions dictated to them by a ruleset in an RPG. So their answer, and mine, is simply not to play that game.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

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.

Last time this happened in D&D the players got their allies to stage a diversionary attack, then, impersonating an officer, ordered the guards away from their post to aid in the defence.

 

[Micah Sweet]

You can do whatever you want, man.

But if you tell me “I’m running my setting as an objective, unbiased creation” I’m not going to believe you. I believe that YOU might thank that.

What I would tell you is that I strive to run my setting as an objective, unbiased creation, and that struggle is worth it to me and my players despite the obvious fact that perfect victory will never be achieved.

But I appreciate the redefinition of my position to suit your purposes, thanks.

 

[robertsconley]

Disingenuous? I've already described the game in question how I want to. You don't like that description because of its potential implications about how you describe your game.

Okay. I propose that sandbox be reserved for the kind of game that I am speaking of because the players are free to mold the sand how they like, with guidance from the GM.

The kind of game you're talking about can instead be called a playground, because all the attractions have already been created, and the players can move about and go on the ones they want. They have the freedom to go over to the swings, or over to the see-saws. And they can decide to run up the slide instead of sliding down it.

I had already described it as such.

Let’s be clear: I wasn’t asking you to use language I approve of. I asked what you would prefer I use to refer to your position, so I could describe it accurately in discussion. That’s a straightforward request, not a rhetorical trap. You’ve criticized how others label your approach, so if you want those criticisms taken seriously, you need to offer terminology that actually reflects your position.

Up until your last few comments, that hadn’t happened. I reviewed our entire thread to double-check this.

The phrase “player-directed as hawkeyefan describes it” works fine for reference.

The “sandbox vs. playground” metaphor you followed it with was a sarcastic framing meant to diminish what I’m doing. You didn’t offer it to clarify. You offered it to score a point. That may feel satisfying in the moment, but it doesn’t move the conversation forward or help anyone else understand the distinction.

In constant, I have not tried to reframe what your points into my terms. I offered collaborative criticism, which you didn't like, as result in the next post, I respected that and asked what you would like me to use.

I know we have a history of pointed debates, but in this thread, I thought we moved past that and were having a productive conversation about our mutual assumptions. But a backhanded metaphor is a setback, and that part’s on you.

 

[TwoSix]

As a player, many people I know would object to anything taking control of their character away that isn't a clear supernatural-or-similar effect. They would also likely object to having their PCs emotional reactions dictated to them by a ruleset in an RPG. So their answer, and mine, is simply not to play that game.

I know plenty of people like that. I respect their perspective, but stridently disagree with it.

Much like how many people have said they like to play “to explore the setting”, I like to play to explore my character. And to do that, the character must occasionally surprise me in how they grow and change and react.

 

[TwoSix]

What I would tell you is that I strive to run my setting as an objective, unbiased creation, and that struggle is worth it to me and my players despite the obvious fact that perfect victory will never be achieved.

But I appreciate the redefinition of my position to suit your purposes, thanks.

I’m always here for you.

 

[Faolyn]

With a Duel of Wits, you are opting in. You are staking that control over your character's autonomy to have control over the setting. It's a clear-eyed decision you are making. Want to convince the border guard to let you pass then you leave yourself vulnerable to being convinced to leave the way you came. You are staking autonomy for impact.

It's a choice that has an impact and consequences. This is the beating heart of agency from my perspective. You have an awareness of what success means, what failure means and go in clear eyed.

Are you allowed to have a "duel of wits" without actually having a Duel of Wits? Some of the things @pemerton has said, and some of the things I've seen online, suggest that no. You have to roll the dice.

So, are two PCs allowed to RP out a conflict without having to roll the dice? What about a PC and an NPC?

What happens if PC 1 says something that actually is convincing to PC 2 or to whoever is running the NPC, but PC 1 also lost the die roll? Can PC 2/the NPC ignore the roll and accept PC 1's argument?

Also, question: @Old Fezziwig said that losing a Duel of Wits doesn't alter your thinking. Here you're saying that you can be convinced to leave the way you come. How does that work? In D&D, the PCs would roll a Charisma skill against either a target number or as a contested check. If the PCs didn't roll high enough and the border guard stayed firm, the PCs would then have a choice: they could leave the way they came, they could wait for another guard and try again, they could try to sneak past the guard or find another way to get over the border, they could kill the guard, and so on.

So in a BW Duel of Wits, I'm assuming that my side is "let me pass" and the guard's side is "go back the way you came." If I lose the Duel of Wits, can I choose to wait for another guard and try again, try to sneak past the guard, or kill the guard?

 

[The Firebird]

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.

In D&D, definitely; I suggested it in the post. In Blades, eh? Most likely that would be abstracted into an 'engagement roll', a general roll that determines how well you've prepared. If you do well, it might turn out you got a schedule beforehand.

There is also an 'acquire an asset' downtime action that could get you it. But the focus is really not on this kind of preparation.

I’m not saying anything about 100% impartiality.

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

I think everyone on my side of the discussion has made clear that they do not think they are being completely impartial.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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

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

His method for advocating his agenda feels particularly pushy to me, and insulting to those who disagree with him.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

I spend a lot of time in threads with @pemerton , who seems to really enjoy bringing him out.