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

[AlViking]

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!

What does "actively reject" even mean? I reject Thai food because I tried it at a few different places and didn't like it. I can even explain how to me all the spices just blend into "hot" with no additive value. Am I actively rejecting it? If I've played some more narrative style games here and there, read up on PbtA and BW style games and realize they just don't work for me am I actively rejecting them? I played D&D 4e for a couple of years and it just never really clicked so I don't want to play it or anything similar. Same question.

Seems like a lot of people are really invested in this idea that we don't like a specific <food, game system, version of D&D> it can only be because we just don't know any better. Every once in a while like with your friend and cheese it may be true. But the majority of times? People are willing to change if they find that they actually like something. But if they just plain don't like it? Telling them "Try it you'll like it" is just annoying.

 

[TwoSix]

I like both.

That's the ideal, from my perspective. I'm a strong advocate of different games are different, and you should approach them with the intent to play them as they're intended to be played.

And, of course, some games are pretty fungible (like D&D 5e), so then the question of what techniques you want to deploy to tackle it become much more relevant.

 

[AlViking]

Well, if you rolled low, then it would mean your character wasn’t as brave/loyal/hard/whatever as they thought they were.

It’s been said (I won’t mention by who, but his name rhymes with Shmincent Shmaker) that RPGs have rules to allow for the unwanted result to occur.

That’s what play is about… the wanted vs. unwanted results.

If something is at risk in play… meaning that there’s the possibility the unwanted happens… then you’re playing the game to find out what happens. The player, the GM, and the system all contribute to this.

Leaving it up to just one party? There’s no risk. For a GM, it’s a railroad. For a player, it’s power fantasy disguised as play.

Right back to the assumption of negative motivations of railroad or power fantasy. Remind me about how people don't claim DM's authority almost inevitably leads to railroads? Eh, never mind. A player having a power fantasy? Goodness gosh and golly! Heaven forbid someone with a mundane life and job pretend to be heroic now and then.

...

Well, no. I’ve not said that players can’t make informed decisions in this style of play. I’ve been pointing out how folks are defending the GM’s right to withhold or otherwise hide information from the players. Which clearly impacts players’ ability to make informed decisions.

What I have been saying is that the GM should remain aware of how his decisions about the fiction impact the game. And that they should place that as their primary concern… assuming that player agency is important.

Players need information. The GM is the source of their information. If the GM decides to not share some relevant detail, the justification of “but that makes sense in the game world” doesn’t cut it. There are always ways to share information and have it make sense in the game world.

Provide the necessary information for players to play the game. Looking at the blorb principles of play, looking at the principa apocrypha… both present ways to achieve sandbox play of the kind being talked about that still retains high player agency. And so much of it is about providing information and not keeping things unknown from the players.

The players have as much information as the characters have uncovered or should know. We don't always make 100% informed decisions in real life, why would it change in a game? Besides, that would take a lot away from the game for me. That anxiety, and then having something work when it was just a shot in the dark? Amazing. Almost as good? Realizing you guessed wrong and dealing with the consequences. Sometimes it's fun to realize you f**** up in a game.

Always every time knowing the odds? Boring. Let me make guesses now and then, even if I'm wrong I feel like I'm trying to solve a puzzle or solve a mystery. The players will typically have some information when making big decisions especially on things like what plot hooks to pursue. But sometimes until you start climbing a cliff you don't know whether or not the rock will support your weight (I speak from experience here) and that's okay.

 

[Bedrockgames]

What does "actively reject" even mean? I reject Thai food because I tried it at a few different places and didn't like it. I can even explain how to me all the spices just blend into "hot" with no additive value. Am I actively rejecting it? If I've played some more narrative style games here and there, read up on PbtA and BW style games and realize they just don't work for me am I actively rejecting them? I played D&D 4e for a couple of years and it just never really clicked so I don't want to play it or anything similar. Same question.

Seems like a lot of people are really invested in this idea that we don't like a specific <food, game system, version of D&D> it can only be because we just don't know any better. Every once in a while like with your friend and cheese it may be true. But the majority of times? People are willing to change if they find that they actually like something. But if they just plain don't like it? Telling them "Try it you'll like it" is just annoying.

Yeah I think personal taste is complicated. If someone doesn’t like something, they may just genuinely not like something. People also pretend the like things for social clout (when I was younger I remember convincing myself I liked movies I didn’t because it made me feel smarter). But some taste can also be acquired. I didn’t like sushi at first but developed a taste for it. Some taste you just can’t acquire. I am pretty adventurous with food and there have been foods I wanted to develop a taste for but simply couldn’t. So sure some people simply won’t try new things (and let’s be clear to some people old school play and sandboxes will be new things for them, so this isn’t simply about one old style peopke cling to and a new style people refuse to try). But it is kind of rude to make assumptions about that IMO. Sometimes a person simply doesn’t like or grok something. Sometimes learning a new system isn’t worth the time investment. I try new systems.

On cheese. Cheese is an interesting example because it is a fermented food and fermented foods outside one’s experience is an acquired taste (we love cheese in the US but I have met peopke from countries where dairy and cheese aren’t as common and they told me they find the idea gross).

 

[TwoSix]

Seems like a lot of people are really invested in this idea that we don't like a specific <food, game system, version of D&D> it can only be because we just don't know any better. Every once in a while like with your friend and cheese it may be true. But the majority of times? People are willing to change if they find that they actually like something. But if they just plain don't like it? Telling them "Try it you'll like it" is just annoying.

I mean, referencing back to the thread topic, I think these discussions matter because an extremely large portion of the player base aren't aware that these other approaches exist. IMX, this is super common even with people who have been playing D&D for decades.

So for every person who is in the camp of "I know what you're talking about, and I just don't like it" (and I totally accept that you fall in that camp; I do not believe your preferences are based on any sort of ignorance), there are 10 other people who are like "I have no idea what you're talking about."

And I'm saying this as someone who was initially negative about 4e, but got exposed to some of these "newfangled" narrative ideas on these very forums and 4e became my favorite edition.

 

[AlViking]

Fair comment.

What I've been trying to skate around is having to get into just how much I detest and revile the sort of introspective angsty self-reflection that some see as "character development" or "learning about one's character" and that some of these games seem to expect the players to engage in within the fiction.

I'll stop there, because if I go on I'll use lots of blue words leading to red text.

Right there with you. I may, or may not, develop my character's personality as I game. Kind of depends on what kind of concept I came up with and if I care one way or another. But this supposed introspection in games like BW? It's just die rolls. It doesn't "tell" me anything about my character, it just force dictates things about my character because someone authored rules about how this stuff works.

I've had characters come to the realization that they had to sacrifice themselves so their comrades could survive or betray the party for personal gain. Those had impact on me because I got into thinking why and how that character would think and react based on everything they had experienced up until then. Becoming the character can sometimes be a lot of fun. Rolling dice to see if I can steel myself to do something makes it the equivalent of rolling the dice to see if you fall on free parking for me.

...
As far as I know, in D&D the "social skills" such as intimidation, persuasion, etc. are intended for PC use only, against NPCs or monsters. It was certainly that way in 3.xe and I don't think it has changed since. Players retain the right to decide if such things work against their PCs.

The social skills only work against NPCs in D&D, the game never tell a players how their characters feel unless there's magic involved.

 

[Maxperson]

I guess part of my problem is I don't generally think of RPG sessions consisting of a series of "scenes". That why the concept of scene-framing has never sat right with me. I don't see play as a story I'm framing out.

I don't frame scenes, either. We can all go back to a session or part of a session and describe what happened, the dialogue, etc., just like a scene, so I have no problem calling specific parts of the game scenes after the fact.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I reject Thai food because I tried it at a few different places and didn't like it. I can even explain how to me all the spices just blend into "hot" with no additive value.

I worked in Thai places for years and my wife still works at one. Something I will say is there are a lot of dishes that are not spicy, and there are dishes that are easier for people who aren't as accustomed to the flavors. Not saying you will like them. I would also say Thai can definitely be an acquired taste. There were things I didn't like initially that took some time getting used to and then I started to like them

 

[Bedrockgames]

I don't frame scenes, either. We can all go back to a session or part of a session and describe what happened, the dialogue, etc., just like a scene, so I have no problem calling specific parts of the game scenes after the fact.

I am with Micah. For some games I do think in terms of scenes. Like if I am playing gumshoe or something, scenes work for that. But in a living world sandbox, I am actively not thinking this way. And I think it makes a huge difference to in the end result

 

[Maxperson]

I am with Micah. For some games I do think in terms of scenes. Like if I am playing gumshoe or something, scenes work for that. But in a living world sandbox, I am actively not thinking this way. And I think it makes a huge difference to in the end result

Yeah. What I said agreed with on that portion as well. I don't think about the game as scenes when we are playing, but afterwards I can go back to say the portion in the inn with the barfight, and don't have a problem calling what I can remember and describe a scene.