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

[SableWyvern]

To me, this seems an extremely low threshold. For many things that a player has their PC do, there is a very wide range of possible outcomes that would make sense.

What does it matter if it's a low threshold? Is there something inherently superior about setting oneself a more difficult task, when the simpler task is providing the desired outcomes?

In any case, while there are a wide range of possible outcomes, the number of likely outcomes is smaller. If wildly unlikely outcomes are the normal ones, then that wouldn't fit my definition of "consistently making sense". Although, in a group where trust has been established, the lack of consistency may itself be clue to the nature of reality in the game world. "Hmm, Sarah has shown she rules consistently, and is telling us that these strange rulings also make sense. Given that we trust her, we need to ask ourselves what's really going on here? What information are we missing?"

At the end of the day though, I go back to the part of my post you left out -- if the GM is striving to be consistent and the players all feel as if the GM is being consistent, what else could possible matter? What is achieved by saying, "But you can't prove it's consistent"?

 

[The Firebird]

Okay… then how do you determine if you’re playing the GM?

Have they done anything to break your trust?

And so I asked what that meant. But it seems you don’t know?

I know exactly what it means. You're asking me how to know--to verify with certainty--that the GM is ruling consistently. You can't. Sorry.

To me, this seems an extremely low threshold. For many things that a player has their PC do, there is a very wide range of possible outcomes that would make sense.

And a much wider range of outcomes that would not. As long as they're in the range that makes sense, I'm happy to trust them.

 

[Micah Sweet]

So, in your game, there's likely a rule that says something in the neighborhood of, "When your character runs out of hit points, they are dead." Upon agreeing to play the game, the player agrees to, and is expected to abide by, that rule, even if, at the moment it is invoked, that isn't what they really want.

There's not a whole lot of light between, "You agree that your character is dead," and "You agree that your character has been convinced." Being convinced is probably rather less final, as well.

Agreeing to be dead is more traditional, sure, so most of us are used to it, and just accept it as the way games are done. But the form is basically the same - occasionally, the rules remove some player agency for some effect. That's normal, in games - there are mechanical consequences that players cannot dodge. Go directly to Jail, do not pass Go, do not collect $200.

Now maybe this particular loss of agency may not be the sort you want, but it is not, broadly speaking, much different than any other unwanted effect that might be inflicted on a character.

I guess my focus on traditional RPGs makes the reasoning behind this particular loss of agency unsatisfying to me. I wouldn't be able to stop asking myself why the system is demanding I go along with something just because the majority disagree with me.

I guess art imitates life. That being said, I don't have to like it to accept it as a viable playstyle for other people, so I suppose I see your point.

 

[Micah Sweet]

In that case, they didn't win the argument!

That would be easier to accept if the reason they lost a discussion point wasn't because the other person rolled better.

 

[Umbran]

On the small stuff, maybe. I can't imagine deciding I like Narrativist-leaning games.

A friend of mine does not like cheese. We treat it like a food restriction for him when he comes over for dinner, so we make sure there are non-cheese options for him. One time, though, he went through three servings of a rice dish, chowing down eagerly, until he realized there was cheese in there, and he suddenly retroactively didn't like it.

If you actively reject the idea of liking them, of course you won't like them!

 

[Umbran]

That would be easier to accept if the reason they lost a discussion point wasn't because the other person rolled better.

Insert old saw about making players arm wrestle to prove which character is stronger.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yep. I think this is related to different design goals: Pendragon wants play to reinforce the characters as archetypes; Burning Wheel wants play to reinforce the characters as struggling and perhaps changing.

I find Pendragon's reasons for these kind of rules more palatable. Maybe I just like archetypes. And Arthurian legends. I've found rules I don't like a lot easier to take when the subject matter distracts me from them. That's why I'm still thinking of running Star Trek Adventures.

 

[Umbran]

I guess my focus on traditional RPGs makes the reasoning behind this particular loss of agency unsatisfying to me. I wouldn't be able to stop asking myself why the system is demanding I go along with something just because the majority disagree with me.

Yep. Exactly. That's how pre-judgement works.

I guess art imitates life. That being said, I don't have to like it to accept it as a viable playstyle for other people, so I suppose I see your point.

Well, that was the intent. You get to like what you like, of course. The point is that what the other person likes is probably not all that alien.

 

[Micah Sweet]

A friend of mine does not like cheese. We treat it like a food restriction for him when he comes over for dinner, so we make sure there are non-cheese options for him. One time, though, he went through three servings of a rice dish, chowing down eagerly, until he realized there was cheese in there, and he suddenly retroactively didn't like it.

If you actively reject the idea of liking them, of course you won't like them!

It's not like I haven't played them. I played a couple of PBtA games at least. And I've spent a lot of time on this forum on threads full of Narrativist enthusiasts. I just don't like the playstyle associated with those kinds of games.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

I like both.