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

[Maxperson]

I think it is number 1.

 

[TwoSix]

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.

I'll be honest, if my character is climbing a cliff, I 100% expect to get enough information to know the odds. "You failed a Perception check, so you have a secret -10 penalty to successfully climb the cliff because you didn't notice the rock is crumbling" is play that can get right out of here.

 

[hawkeyefan]

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

No, I think your comments here and what you've been arguing for reveal a misunderstanding of what those things are about. It is about freely giving information. It is about sharing information with them as much as possible. If there's even a way they know it, just tell them and the like. It also says "Don't mind the fourth wall"... meaning don't worry about separating what the players know and what the characters know.

The purpose of Principia Apocrypha is about focusing on the game. Not on the setting, not on inhabiting character or immersion... it's about players playing a game, and how to focus on that while GMing.

I think some of what you've argued for in this thread goes against the principles in the PA.

 

[hawkeyefan]

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.

What about information a character might have? Who decides if something is a yes, no, or maybe as far as a character (and therefore a player) knowing it?

"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.

Do you think you as a GM tend to offer sufficient information to your players to match or at least approximate what a character would be aware of in their situation?

You mention that such information should be "sufficient"... but again, there's a range there, no?

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.

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.

That depends on which kind of play you're talking about. I think what exactly constitutes player-driven play is a bit in doubt. Or, at the very least, that there are varying degrees of it across different types of play.

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.

Are you against the GM saying to you "you can tell this climb is going to be difficult just from looking at the rock face... this will be a DC20 climb" or "the way his eyes dart back and forth, you know he's lying" or "while you're in line to enter the castle, there's a scuffle up ahead... the guards club someone and haul him away, then one of them turns to the rest of the crowd and shouts 'that's what happens if you try to bribe your way inside the walls'... you guys are gonna need to come up with another plan"?

These are all plausible and consistent and make sense in the game world. These are all examples of the GM simply offering the details needed for a player to deal with the situation. I would expect most people to be perfectly fine with them. That this approach makes sense.

Taking a different approach... not offering the information... that's a choice. And yes, it's a preference. There's nothing wrong with it as far as preferences go... but it has an impact on player agency. Hence why I've been advocating for GMs to be aware of these choices they make and the impact it has on play.

 

[Campbell]

For the record I have never stated that characters should have more information (in more conventional play) than makes logical sense given the setting and scenario at play. What I have suggested is that in the design of the setting and scenario the GM (or game designer) makes creative decisions that impact the level of information it makes sense for the players to have as well as how knowable relevant factors are. I am saying that this design impacts the level of agency / ability to effect a desired outcome through actions one's character takes and that in either selecting or designing the setting and scenario at play the GM has a massive impact on agency. That agency is not independent of the world design. That the world does not spring out of the ether.

It might be the case you do not wish to consider the impact of your setting and scenario design on agency as defined above, but it still has an impact upon it.

 

[Umbran]

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?

First off, please realize that I'm speaking of broad tendencies and trends in human cognition, not about any specific choice by any specific person.

I'd say "actively rejecting" is probably seen in several different behaviors. Including, say, repeatedly spending time on the internet telling folks you don't really know that you don't like a thing, even when they are not offering to give it to you. That would seem... pretty active (even proactive), to me.

I wouldn't presume to know what you are doing. I don't know you.

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.

I'm going to have to set the 4e comment aside, because I'm not on board with it being "narrativist leaning" in the same senses as PbtA or BitD are.

If I'd have to classify behaviors as being indicative of a pattern? Well...

• If you are skimming a list of games that will be played at your FLGS, and there's loads of choices, and you just don't bother to look at the "narrativist" games, I'd call that pretty passive rejection.
• If someone you know has a table of people you'd like to play with, and offers you a seat, and you reject it over the "narrativist" forms of the game, that would seem pretty active rejection.
• If, say, pemerton and I were talking about some bit of narrative-related game design, and you stepped in to tell us how you wouldn't like it, because it is narrativist, I'd call that pretty active as well.

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.

I have repeatedly, and sincerely, said that folks get to like what they like. Their reasons are their own, and I don't really care what they are.

If you aren't interested in talking about how we come to judgements, feel free to ignore this. It isn't about you, personally. It is about how human minds generally operate.

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.

But, you see, that's not what happened.

In this particular dinner, we had three different starch-dishes on the table. The rice had cheese in it, the other two dishes clearly didn't. Nobody had any religious or health restrictions, so we didn't label ingredients. We just expected that he'd avoid the one dish, in favor of the other two. There was enough for all, regardless. No effort was spent to urge him to try the cheesy rice. He self-selected it, and enjoyed it, until he figured out that cheese was probably in it, and only then did he reject it.

Which is to say, he rejected it over the idea of cheese, even after earlier accepting the reality of cheese.

 

[hawkeyefan]

This is a good point. @hawkeyefan, it occurs to me that I should add to my previous response to you that, if I'm going to err in the amount of information I'm providing, I definitely aim for it to be too much, rather than too little.

Just saw this after sending my previous post. This is a huge part of what I'm talking about.

Just being aware of how we as GMs control the flow of information, and so, doing our best to make sure the players have sufficient information to actually play. It doesn't always have to be all the information... there are a lot of factors at play here, so there will be examples we can provide where less may make sense, and others where more would make sense.

But the overall approach should be to provide an abundance of information.

 

[Micah Sweet]

The point is that players don't typically actively want any particular negative outcome. But, they exist as part of games, in general. Some are more traditional, and we accept them more easily, but in base principle, there's not a whole lot of difference between them.



Sure. I play some of them - Fate, Sentinels Comics RPG, and some others.
But, I used death merely as a common example, such that your focus on it misses the general point.

Base principle is clearly not the only factor in play regarding acceptance of certain mechanics.

 

[AlViking]

I'm not talking about negative motivations. I'm talking about what happens if we don't allow the unwanted to be possible in play. If the GM is making all decisions and the unwanted is not allowed to happen, then the GM is just telling the players a story. If the player is making all decisions and the unwanted never happens, then they're just playing out a power fantasy.

The unwanted result being possible is essential to meaningful play. Considering you go on in other posts about the possibility of failure being important, it seems odd that you're disagreeing with me here.



Sure. First, no one is saying that every decision in play needs to be 100% informed. This appeal to real life simply doesn't work because there isn't one person creating all the factors that may affect the decision a person is making. That's not how life works... but it is how RPGs work.

So, given that authority on the part of the GM, in order to facilitate functional play... meaning play of a game where players make informed decisions that can affect the outcome... the GM needs to facilitate that information.

When the players lack information to make a truly informed decision... is it their fault in some way? Perhaps they failed to scout a location or similar. Or is it the fault of the GM in some way? They chose to have hidden information impact the decision or similar.

People also don't always consciously control their reactions to things... yet you advocate for players to remain in control of the character's emotional state at all times. But you advocate for players to remain in control of their characters and how they react at all times. But that's not how it works in the real world.

So yeah... hiding behind "that's not how it works in real life" doesn't ring true. People are really cherry picking what kind of real-world cause and effect they observe and what they don't.



Sure, this is true. And sometimes you do know. So the question is, if given the option between two equally plausible options, one that allows the player to make an informed decision and one that does not allow it... why would the GM select the one that doesn't allow an informed decision?

The GM doesn't choose to withhold information. They decide what information the characters should reasonably have. In D&D if there's uncertainty on whether they know something it's time to roll the dice. But that tension of making decisions occasionally with incomplete information? That's part of the fun of the game for me.

 

[AlViking]

I'll be honest, if my character is climbing a cliff, I 100% expect to get enough information to know the odds. "You failed a Perception check, so you have a secret -10 penalty to successfully climb the cliff because you didn't notice the rock is crumbling" is play that can get right out of here.

I take it you haven't climbed a lot of rocks? Because unless you have information about a rockface there are plenty of times you don't know if it's solid granite or shale that will break off or an unpredictable aggregate. I don't see a reason it should be any different in a game. I'll let people know if they can't tell how easy the climb is and then it's up to them. No guts no glory.