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

[hawkeyefan]

Well I do think we are interpreting things differently, but I don't think I misunderstand the Old School primer. I can't speak as well to PA (though when I looked through it the other night it looked mostly in line with what I am talking about. But old school primer is definitely about giving players information that they would have from their character's vantage point. It disregards fourth wall in terms of stuff like challenging the player versus their character, because the goal is skilled play and immersion in a setting. OS Primer is about forcing players to think AND interact with the environment by not relying on things like Spot checks or information gathering rolls.

OS Primer is about: rulings, not rules. Engaging player skill rather than character skills. Forgetting about game balance. Etc. This is an example out of Old School primer explaining the difference between the 'modern' approach of using search skills and the old school approach it is advocating for:
View attachment 404918


I am not as familiar with PA. But when I read it, which I did quickly the other night, a lot of it looked like stuff Rob and I were talking about. Please feel free to point to other sections I may have missed or sentences I may have missed. I am not invested in PA. I am talking about OS Primer, which is a much better reflection of OSR play. But my point was even PA seems to be saying something similar about POV here and information.

The OS Primer even raises the example of bluffing guards:

View attachment 404919

Now perhaps PA is more generous with information. But I wouldn't personally describe OSR play as being built around giving players information their characters don't have. Much of the point is challenging the player by putting them in the POV of their character. This is why things like interacting with a dungeon environment are so important.

I think there is plenty in there that aligns with your thinking, absolutely. Where I think the major conflict is seems to be your concern about setting versus the PA's concern about game. It is very much about game and playability.

There are bits in most sections that I think have at least a little tension with what you've been saying, but the main section would likely be "Reveal the Situation". This is central to what I've been talking about.

While I was making the point about strong characterization as I think it pertains to agency, I do want to say I don't disagree with what you are saying here. I think this purely preference. And some games are better for including these kinds of things. Especially around something like courage. Because there is a big difference between "this is what I would do if facing a horde of zombies" and how somehow would really behave when their body is flooded with adrenaline and they realize one wrong move means a fate worse than death. I think both approaches can handle this: players just deciding their character is heroic is fine, but I also think there is value in mechanics, even in old school or open sandbox systems, where fear could have an impact on behavior. It boils down to whether you want to explore the reality and/or drama of being courageous or not

I agree it's purely preference. I don't think that such rules have a place in every game. Horror is an excellent example, since horror typically examines a loss of control as a major theme, so such mechanics are very relevant.

But I mentioned the realistic nature of not always being able to control our emotions or how we react to situations only to point out that the "the real world works this way" is not a valid justification for these things... it's a preference, as you say, so we should just acknowledge that and not appeal to realism since we all cherry pick that stuff.

The stimulus is external. But the mental state is internal. You're letting the system, rather than the player, dictate how the character responds.

In this case it's not about realism. It's about the core gameplay loop; the players describe their characters actions, the GM describes how the world responds.

But the GM may describe circumstances that remove a character's control. This happens all the time. Characters are limited by what the Gm narrates.

But anyway, this is beside the point. You are correct... the decision to not like this or to not consider it for play is a preference. As are most of the things where people justify it with some appeal to the real world.

 

[TwoSix]

Not if that means you treat every trad gamer as someone who hasn't realized they actually like narrative games.

Nah. I definitely am going to assume a trad gamer is open to other gaming styles until proven otherwise.

 

[AlViking]

It's nothing to do with my preferences. It's the fact that classic play and trad play are far older and have more adherents and people who learned to play in those paradigms than narrative play. There's just a fundamental asymmetry there.

I think classic and trad play have stood the test of time in part because it just works for a lot of people. We have more opportunities to learn about other games, see how they work, join alternative games than we've ever had. Yet we still don't see a massive shift in the type of games people play. I'm glad the game I happen to like is popular enough to be able to recruit players but other than that I don't really care much about market dominance. I just don't think you can attribute the asymmetry to momentum.

Tradition is part of it but there are a lot of reasons why people just getting into games choose the ones they do and I think general approach and themes are most of it even if there is no way to know for certain.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Nah. I definitely am going to assume a trad gamer is open to other gaming styles until proven otherwise.

Does that have anything to do with your position as a Narrativist enthusiast?

 

[TwoSix]

I think classic and trad play have stood the test of time in part because it just works for a lot of people. We have more opportunities to learn about other games, see how they work, join alternative games than we've ever had. Yet we still don't see a massive shift in the type of games people play. I'm glad the game I happen to like is popular enough to be able to recruit players but other than that I don't really care much about market dominance. I just don't think you can attribute the asymmetry to momentum.

Tradition is part of it but there are a lot of reasons why people just getting into games choose the ones they do and I think general approach and themes are most of it even if there is no way to know for certain.

That's a broader, much-discussed topic that is probably outside of all the already overstuffed bounds of this thread.

 

[The Firebird]

But the GM may describe circumstances that remove a character's control. This happens all the time. Characters are limited by what the Gm narrates.

They are limited by external circumstances that the GM narrates. They are not limited internally by what the GM narrates. This is a major difference.

 

[TwoSix]

Does that have anything to do with your position as a Narrativist enthusiast?

Nope, purely my position as an objective realist.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Nah. I definitely am going to assume a trad gamer is open to other gaming styles until proven otherwise.

For most folks, I wouldn't expect the tribal aspect to matter at all.

 

[hawkeyefan]

They are limited by external circumstances that the GM narrates. They are not limited internally by what the GM narrates. This is a major difference.

I think things like dragon fear and the charmed condition are examples that prove otherwise. Yes, they mostly have the lampshade of "magic" but they are still dictating the character's internal feeling.

 

[TwoSix]

For most folks, I wouldn't expect the tribal aspect to matter at all.

Exactly. If I invite people over for board game night, I expect them to be open to most board games, although I expect a veto to pop up occasionally. I think TTRPGs should have the same latitude.