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

[thefutilist]

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.

I have a few questions:


To what degree is the group aware of this happening? They had an impact on you but was this also a big deal, source of fun, for the group as a whole or was it more stuff that was meaningful to you.

How often does this stuff occur? Is it several times a session, once every few sessions, once in a blue moon?

How important is it to play? Good when it happens but not something you seek out or a fundamental part of play or something else.

Related to the above, do you want more of it or is ok for it to just happen when it happens?

 

[AlViking]

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.

Meanwhile I was positive about 4e at first and just soured on it as we went along. I mean, I get your point about people not trying something new because it's unusual or different. I happily noshed down on cricket bars when someone brought in sample. To me they tasted just like regular energy bars, but some people in our office wouldn't even try them. But there are some people (not saying you) who seem to insist that the only reason we don't agree is because we don't know any better.

It's a difference of how you approach things. Maybe. If I want to get someone to try a game I'll ask them what they like about games and related activities. If I can then show how those likes and dislikes fit right into a specific game then maybe I can convince them to have an open mind. I'd also include negatives of the games I play because nothing is perfect and try to explain why some people may not like my favorite game. If I can get them to tell me the negatives aren't really negative then we're halfway there. What I'm not going to do is answer the same questions the same way every time, use jargon without explaining it, berate their opinions, tell them why what they like is bad or inferior.

 

[AlViking]

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

I grew up with Midwestern Norwegian bland where almost all food was white, pepper was an exotic spice and I didn't have pizza until my late teens. I'm just happy now that I like exotic foods like chili.

 

[thefutilist]

Agreed. And I think if you're playing a game derived from a wargame/dungeon-solving background, where the goal of play is solve the dungeon and level up, then rules that limit your character's agency to complete that solve with expediency would be problematic for the play experience. Like, I wouldn't want to do an escape room where I also have to check every 10 minutes if I get too bored to continue!

I think communication breaks down a little bit because some players simply haven't experienced a game where the gameplay isn't oriented around either solving, and others are familiar but simply find the concept to be no good. Their orientation of not just play, but their experience of fantasy fiction as a whole, is oriented around protagonist suffers but eventually triumphs as opposed to "protagonist only has a partial victory or fails entirely*.

There are lots of players whose fun seems to come from solving. What I find interesting is when it doesn't and how impactful that is.

There's this guy called 'The angry GM' and he bashes Narrativist games a lot and dispenses a lot of a certain strain of trad advice. There was one interesting essay I read by him where he describes a moment of play. I can't remember the exact details but one of his players characters had to make a huge thematic decision and the group was there for it. He describes this as one of the best moments of play. One that's stuck in his memory.

So is this guy actually longing after Narrativist play but unable to comprehend what he's doing. If he did find a way to make thos moments come more reliably, without feeling contrived, would he find his play a lot better? Is it so significant 'because' it's a once in a blue moon kind of thing. Like if his play was more orientated around it he'd be like, ah screw this, I want more solving. It's hard to say.

 

[TwoSix]

Meanwhile I was positive about 4e at first and just soured on it as we went along. I mean, I get your point about people not trying something new because it's unusual or different. I happily noshed down on cricket bars when someone brought in sample. To me they tasted just like regular energy bars, but some people in our office wouldn't even try them. But there are some people (not saying you) who seem to insist that the only reason we don't agree is because we don't know any better.

It's a difference of how you approach things. Maybe. If I want to get someone to try a game I'll ask them what they like about games and related activities. If I can then show how those likes and dislikes fit right into a specific game then maybe I can convince them to have an open mind. I'd also include negatives of the games I play because nothing is perfect and try to explain why some people may not like my favorite game. If I can get them to tell me the negatives aren't really negative then we're halfway there. What I'm not going to do is answer the same questions the same way every time, use jargon without explaining it, berate their opinions, tell them why what they like is bad or inferior.

It can difficult to disentangle the difference between "don't know" and "I know, but don't like it". Especially because, let's face it, if you don't like it, you're not going to be as familiar with the terms and concepts associated with the thing as someone who likes it!

Which will nearly inevitably devolve into a conversation of "Do you actually not like it, or did you simply not get it?" because the "unliker" may not have the language available to explain their dislike, because it simply isn't a priority for them.

(This is also a summary of about 90% of the contentious threads here, BTW.)

 

[AlViking]

I have a few questions:


To what degree is the group aware of this happening? They had an impact on you but was this also a big deal, source of fun, for the group as a whole or was it more stuff that was meaningful to you.

Oh, trust me. When my wizard got into a duel with the bad guy who had the last piece of the rod of 7 parts and, on the verge of defeat, offered to share power? When my response was "I don't share"? They knew and yes it was a fun climactic moment.

How often does this stuff occur? Is it several times a session, once every few sessions, once in a blue moon?

How important is it to play? Good when it happens but not something you seek out or a fundamental part of play or something else.

Related to the above, do you want more of it or is ok for it to just happen when it happens?

Whether it happens on a regular basis, whether I want more of it just depends on the character, the game, the tone of the group. But I also dislike this idea that a person's motivations and personality can be summed up into a handful of attributes. People are far more complex than that. Letting these decisions and outlook on life just kind of happen without external restrictions is part of why I play the game. Whether it has huge impact on the game or others is secondary.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I mean that the players are able to make decisions from the perspective of their characters with what feels like the same degree of reliability as those characters would have were those characters and the world they existed in real; and that the outcomes of those decisions feel consistent with the outcomes one would expect were the characters and world real rather than imaginary.

You're welcome to use whatever word for that you feel fits.

The consistency of GM rulings on the things that happen in the gameworld should aspire to be as consistent as the laws of physics in our real world, to a sufficient degree of fidelity that players can feel they're making legitimate decisions from the perspectives of their players.

Disclaimer: I'm not saying all GMs should apsire to this generally, that this is the correct way to play, etc... I'm talking about they way I, personally, look to run the sorts of games being discussed.

Do you think that being "able to make decisions from the perspective of their characters with what feels like the same degree of reliability as the characters would have" is supported by the GM sharing information or hiding information?

Do you think that a GM will typically provide enough information to a player that will equal the amount of information available to a character in the situation they're in?

What about information that may not be obvious? What about what the character might intuit? What about hunches? How do you allow for that kind of thing? Do you use skill checks or similar? Do you just say something like "something about the way he looks at you, you know he's being dishonest"?

It would seem to me that you are placing a priority on persistent immersion in character. That you're perfectly happy with limitations on player agency based on this aspect of play. You don't mind the GM withholding information from you as a player if it's based on the perceived limit of the character's knowledge.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Do you think that being "able to make decisions from the perspective of their characters with what feels like the same degree of reliability as the characters would have" is supported by the GM sharing information or hiding information?

Do you think that a GM will typically provide enough information to a player that will equal the amount of information available to a character in the situation they're in?

What about information that may not be obvious? What about what the character might intuit? What about hunches? How do you allow for that kind of thing? Do you use skill checks or similar? Do you just say something like "something about the way he looks at you, you know he's being dishonest"?

It would seem to me that you are placing a priority on persistent immersion in character. That you're perfectly happy with limitations on player agency based on this aspect of play. You don't mind the GM withholding information from you as a player if it's based on the perceived limit of the character's knowledge.

That isnt; a limit on agency. Principe Apocrypha came up as did Old School Primer. If you read the old school primer, it is pretty clear the aim is to provide information that the characters would have. If you are doing that, then that is as much agency as you and I have in life. It isn't about being stingy with info. It is about basing information given on POV. Again, if players are making choices based on what their characters would know in the setting, how is that limiting agency in any way? Your definition of agency just feels way too expansive

 

[TwoSix]

That isnt; a limit on agency. Principe Apocrypha came up as did Old School Primer. If you read the old school primer, it is pretty clear the aim is to provide information that the characters would have. If you are doing that, then that is as much agency as you and I have in life. It isn't about being stingy with info. It is about basing information given on POV. Again, if players are making choices based on what their characters would know in the setting, how is that limiting agency in any way? Your definition of agency just feels way too expansive

Because the amount of agency we have as humans in RL isn't the upper limit on agency, obviously. An author has much more agency over the composition of their fictional world than I have over the composition of Earth.

Having agency comparable to what we have as humans on Earth is a choice to limit player agency to the lower to middle end of the possible amount of agency in a fictional game. No different than limiting player agency with a Duel of Wits in Burning Wheel. Compare/contrast with something like Nobilis or Chuubo's Marvelous Wish-Granting Engine for really high agency games.

 

[SableWyvern]

Do you think that being "able to make decisions from the perspective of their characters with what feels like the same degree of reliability as the characters would have" is supported by the GM sharing information or hiding information?

In the majority of cases, I think it's supported by sharing information the character would have access to and hiding information the character would not have access to.

Do you think that a GM will typically provide enough information to a player that will equal the amount of information available to a character in the situation they're in?

"A GM" is extremely vague. Which GM out of the hundreds of thousands are we talking about? I don't know the vast majority of GMs, and it would be nonsensical to try and answer the question without knowing who I'm actually talking about. I would, however, feel confident that most or all of the GMs advocating for living world sandboxes in this thread, who are advising that they are running successful campaigns with something along the lines of that method, are providing enough information.

As I would hope has been established, no one is suggesting that the information fidelity is anything resembling that which we experience in the real world. I can't describe exactly how the breeze feels, each and every scent in the air, the exact tint of every colour, the precise tone of every voice. The aim is for the information to be sufficient to allow for informed decision-making and the suspension of disbelief we need to imagine we're in a different role.

What about information that may not be obvious? What about what the character might intuit? What about hunches? How do you allow for that kind of thing? Do you use skill checks or similar? Do you just say something like "something about the way he looks at you, you know he's being dishonest"?

The specifics will depend on the game in question, the character in question and the precise context. It might involve formal rules, ad hoc randomisers, cues taken from the player and/or judgement calls.

It would seem to me that you are placing a priority on persistent immersion in character. That you're perfectly happy with limitations on player agency based on this aspect of play. You don't mind the GM withholding information from you as a player if it's based on the perceived limit of the character's knowledge.

I am definitely OK with limiting player agency to the control of their character, from the perspective of that character. I'm pretty sure that's already been established as fairly standard part of the style of play being discussed; everything you're describing here is pretty much pivotal to that kind of play, IMO.

On the odd occasion I'm a player, I'm not only OK with the GM withholding information on that basis, I will generally expect it, unless it's been explicitly established that the style of play involves a different process.