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

[Micah Sweet]

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.

Well that's certainly how I feel. That's setting logic.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Shouldn't a person's agency in life be our standard of agency ? In Hillfolk I can go well beyond what I can do in life simply by saying things. And I like that. But I would not call that agency (or at the very least I wouldnt' say that gives me more agency than someone in an open sandbox)

I know I definitely don't want my players (whether I'm one or not) to have more agency then their PC would have in the setting, once play begins. It actively damages my enjoyment.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I know I definitely don't want my players (whether I'm one or not) to have more agency then their PC would have in the setting, once play begins. It actively damages my enjoyment.

Yeah. My point is this is what most people mean by agency in an RPG I think. That is why I brought up Hillfolk. I like that system. It lets me do things beyond my character, but I don't feel it is adding agency to the game. I do think it adds a lot of immersion and drama, and ends up creating a very rich and atmospheric world.

 

[Umbran]

I don't think I need to spend years playing other games to know I don't enjoy them.

Nobody said anything about years, other than you.

But if someone rejects a game just because it doesn't sound appealing? So what?

So... nothing? How many times do I have to say that people get to like what they like before that point sinks in? I fundamentally do not care what kinds of games you like. I play all sorts of games, myself, both traditional and narrative, and have fun. They're all good styles.

It seems, from my perspective, that you are arguing against a position you assume I am taking, rather than what I'm actually talking about.

I'm talking about how humans typically come to their positions and reactions, because it is relevant to the original thread topic. Some folks may be interested in it. If you aren't, you don't need to engage here.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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?

My feelings about PCs being subject to rules that can control their behavior is complicated. It's not the way I grew up playing and feel good about, but you're right in that there are times it is more realistic. I suppose I'm open to different ways to handle the situation, but it would need to be reviewed on a case by case basis.

 

[Bedrockgames]

My feelings about PCs being subject to rules that can control their behavior is complicated. It's not the way I grew up playing and feel good about, but you're right in that there are times it is more realistic. I suppose I'm open to different ways to handle the situation, but it would need to be reviewed on a case by case basis.

For me this really boils down to the game and the style. For horror? Sure I am fine with horror effects or madness effects. In a fantasy game something that controls a PC's behavior seems within bounds. Generally though I find players like being in control of their characters in most of the campaigns I am in. I think there is difference with some games. In some games you can spend a resource to influence an NPC or even a PC's behavior. And if that is what you are sitting down for, because you want to emulate dramatic conflict or something, that makes total sense and it is a fine design choice. In a sandbox I would generally try to limit any PC controlling to things that come from the setting itself (i.e. Magic, etc)

 

[Pedantic]

That's generally how I would do it as well. Whether I use approximate odds (easy, moderate, etc.) or exact odds ("You need a 12 or better) really just comes down to what the players prefer for me.

I don't get it because of 5e's omnipresence, but I'd much prefer players report the difficulty to me, or report the levels of effect they can achieve with a given action by reference to whatever the resolution process is. If I've said it's a rough rock wall, it should be within a players ability to say "that's a DC 15 climb check" pending any new information from me.

I'd much prefer resolution be a player side concern, generally. I expect questions about the world, like "how far across is the river and how fast does it seem to be flowing?" but I don't want or need any special authority for translating that into task resolution. Ideally that's all system specified, and the player will decide to deploy a swim check or not.

 

[AlViking]

Nobody said anything about years, other than you.



So... nothing? How many times do I have to say that people get to like what they like before that point sinks in? I fundamentally do not care what kinds of games you like. I play all sorts of games, myself, both traditional and narrative, and have fun. They're all good styles.

It seems, from my perspective, that you are arguing against a position you assume I am taking, rather than what I'm actually talking about.

I'm talking about how humans typically come to their positions and reactions, because it is relevant to the original thread topic. Some folks may be interested in it. If you aren't, you don't need to engage here.

I just disagree with "typically come to their positions and reactions". Sometimes? Obviously. Typically? When it comes to something that is low stakes like gaming I'm not so certain. On the other hand I doubt either one of us has run a clinical trial in order to establish what typical is.

There are a lot of people stick with what they know. It's not worth time or money to investigate other options or they don't have other options easily available. Maybe they like what they currently and aren't driven by a sense of novelty or discovery when it comes to what they enjoy with their leisure time.

So to tie that back to my original complaint it was the phrase "actively reject" because that has connotations, implications that right or wrong I tie into what a lot of other people state. Maybe it's not what you meant but a lot of people have said that the only reason we don't like something is because we don't really understand it or just haven't tried it.

 

[FrozenNorth]

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.

It is a good point about freely sharing information. I’m running « Beyond the Crystal Cave » - a fun module that I’ve run several times in the past. The inciting incident is a tribe of elves on the brink of war with a town of human. The elves believe that the humans kidnapped an elf and the humans believe the contrary.

The truth is that the pair eloped but in finding this information out, the party gets involved in Feywild shenanigans. In game, three days have passed. Out of game, it’s been two months, and the players all have jobs and lives and families.

Once the Feywild matters have been resolved, and prior to the party leaving the Feywild, I will remind the party that the elves and the humans are on the brink of war.

A more « living world » stance may be not to remind them and let the chips fall where they may, but such a stance would not be realistic: from the perspective of the characters, it doesn’t make sense that they would forget what they were doing in the Feywild after 3 days.

 

[Faolyn]

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.

No, I don't think I did miss the point.

Players, IME, don't want to lose their autonomy to arbitrary die rolls. I am not talking about negative outcomes--lots of players are fine with them or actively love them (particularly angst-monkey gamers). At the very least, they accept it as part of the game.

I'm talking about autonomy. Having a PC be mind controlled is one of those things that remove player agency, and while most players are OK with it when it comes to control that stems from supernatural/supertech, having something completely mundane do it? No--I'd wager that most players aren't fine with it.

In D&D (and most other games), it would be considered bad GMing if you forced a player to be Intimidated by a glowering guard, or if one PC used Persuasion against another PC and the second PC was forced to acquiesce. It's OK to say "the guard is very intimidating" or "you find my argument very persuasive", and it's OK for the player to choose to follow along (consent is key!), but to force them?

Maybe some people are fine with that, but I for one consider that to be a very bad rule.