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

[The Firebird]

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.

They're also more extreme circumstances. If you are charming your players every session, I suspect you'd get complaints that they lack agency.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

The magic part is a big factor for some folks. Hardly a lampshade.

 

[Bedrockgames]

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.

I will take a look. But would also encourage you to read old school primer if you haven’t. In OSR play the game part ja important. I think where I sometimes see you guys going in a different direction though (and not a bad one just a different one) is focusing almost exclusively on the game aspect. If you look at what I have said about sandbox play in the past, surprise is an important element and embracing the game is too, but in congress with setting. I am not saying ISR play is all about simulating a world. But you do find a ton of the kind of thing I am talking about in OSR circles and games.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

If I'm going to an RPG night, I'm going to want to know what game ahead of time. And I don't think that's a strange attitude.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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.

But I expect you see how entirely arbitrary the division is between what you are accepting and not accepting, right? You seem (here I'm guessing a bit based on common reactions I've seen) entirely comfortable with the idea you don't have total control over, say, making an effective sword stroke, but you do have total control over your character's lack of squeamishness about spiders.

I propose that these dividing lines are hold overs from wargame influenced pawn stance classic play, and their assumed applicability to more fiction-centered types of play was never really considered or understood until people like Edwards came along and pointed out that it could be problematic depending on what you are trying to do.

I would venture that a commonly held viewpoint in many circles is that a lot of the community holds certain attitudes precisely because it doesn't want to do that sort of examination.

 

[AlViking]

But the lack of courage is caused by something external. And it may be an involuntary response.

Now... some people don't want that in a game. That's fine. I get it. I don't think it belongs in every game. But it makes appeals to how the real world works less convincing.

A lot of people put themselves into danger every day, frequently in completely voluntary activities like mountain climbing. Or a husband giving their wife an unbiased opinion when asked how they look. Truly terrifying.

I agree. The uncertainty is present in the result of a die roll.



These two sentences seem to be contradictory, no?

What's contradictory? I give the players information I think the characters should have.

But what about when it's not so clear cut? I'm not saying that you have to give players information their characters clearly wouldn't have. I'm talking about information the characters could possibly have. How that is determined is the big factor here.

If it's uncertain we roll the dice.

If there is information the characters (and therefore the players) could potentially have, the GM can often choose to provide that information or not.

I could, and frequently do. I think things like holy symbols for the major religions is common knowledge. You need fire to kill trolls, vampires don't like sunlight, any number of things are common knowledge.

But what's uncertain is kind of up in the air in some cases, no?



Sure, and I'm not arguing against that.



So then how does the GM determine how a specific climb needs to be handled? Do you typically determine the type of rock ahead of play? As the GM, you can choose to provide the information, or you can choose to not provide it.

What is your reason for choosing it? Aside from "because that's how the real-world works" because that applies in either case.

If I'm envisioning something about things about the environment it's going to be dependent on multiple things. Am I describing something based on a place I've been and have personal experience with or have read about? What makes sense for the current scenario? A well maintained castle wall is going to be very difficult or impossible to climb by design. Other times it's just a judgement call on what's going to be the most fun for the group.

Can it be arbitrary? Sure. I don't care. It's what I think either fits what I've envisioned or will be a fun challenge. Sometimes that means they scrabble up without difficulty other times they have to work a little harder to figure out alternatives or take a chance.

But it sure seems you're trying really hard to conflate "I think it's realistic that you don't always know how easy it is to climb a cliff" with a gotcha "Aha! So it's not based on a real world cliff!"

 

[TwoSix]

If I'm going to an RPG night, I'm going to want to know what game ahead of time. And I don't think that's a strange attitude.

It isn't a strange attitude; I simply find it a regrettable one.

One of my groups, as an example, has tried two very different versions of 5e, Troika!, Mork Borg, Dolmenwood, Honey Heist, Uncharted Worlds (a sci-fi PBTA), Monster of the Week, and one or two other games I can't remember, all in the last 3 years. It's a ton of fun, and I wish more tables were like that.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It isn't a strange attitude; I simply find it a regrettable one.

One of my groups, as an example, has tried two very different versions of 5e, Troika!, Mork Borg, Dolmenwood, Honey Heist, Uncharted Worlds (a sci-fi PBTA), Monster of the Week, and one or two other games I can't remember, all in the last 3 years. It's a ton of fun, and I wish more tables were like that.

So long as your table is like that, what more do you need?

 

[TwoSix]

So long as your table is like that, what more do you need?

More tables like that!

 

[AlViking]

But I expect you see how entirely arbitrary the division is between what you are accepting and not accepting, right? You seem (here I'm guessing a bit based on common reactions I've seen) entirely comfortable with the idea you don't have total control over, say, making an effective sword stroke, but you do have total control over your character's lack of squeamishness about spiders.

I propose that these dividing lines are hold overs from wargame influenced pawn stance classic play, and their assumed applicability to more fiction-centered types of play was never really considered or understood until people like Edwards came along and pointed out that it could be problematic depending on what you are trying to do.

I would venture that a commonly held viewpoint in many circles is that a lot of the community holds certain attitudes precisely because it doesn't want to do that sort of examination.

Do you not understand the difference between a character's physical and mental states? I cannot control what happens if I fall off my roof while cleaning the gutters. I would like to believe that I can control my emotions when I get into a disagreement with my wife.

It's the difference of accepting I cannot control the world around me but I can control my reaction to it. Even in real life I think it's healthy to feel a sense of control over how I react even if I accept that the control isn't guaranteed. But when playing a fantasy game? Why not let me exercise that control so that in real life maybe I get a little better at it.

I'm reminded of the old X-Files TV show, there was an episode where some regular but nerdy guys were helping Mulder. At a certain point the nerdy guy goes "I learned a thing or two about courage playing D&D." It may have been put in there as a bit of comedy but it really resonated with me. Playing D&D, being in control of my characters emotional state? It's helped me do the same at times. But now I'm rambling and I really do have other things that need doing.