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

[AbdulAlhazred]

There's nothing arbitrary about the divide: one is about one's learned abilities and the other is about one's state of mind--emotions and thoughts. The things that make a person a person. I don't want a game that removes my personhood.

Since we've been talking about Burning Wheel, my question is: does it require a roll upon first seeing someone to see if you fall in love (or lust) with that person? If not, why not? Surely that's just as important for a character?

I think you probably know the answer to that. A game in which we endlessly diced for every low-probability event would obviously be unplayable. We'd be rolling d1000000 all day to see if you suddenly died of a blood clot too. Narrativist systems focus on the questions which are important to them. This is neither more nor less realistic overall, it simply provides me with a more authentic seeming experience. It also helps insure that the gist of play is not wandering off in some uninteresting direction.

 

[hawkeyefan]

It adds to the feeling of verisimilitude the players get.

Well, that’s subjective. I imagine that an expert climber and someone like me who can barely climb out of bed would have different levels of verisimilitude in this regard.

Also, telling someone “you can see that the rock looks stable and there are many handholds, this won’t be a difficult climb for you” likewise may add to a player’s verisimilitude.

That’s been my point. The GM can justify either approach within the fiction, and both can be perfectly plausible. So when that’s the case, I don’t see what the argument is for keeping information from them.

I don't set aside the fictional reason. That's the most important part to me. I get that you don't agree, and that's fine.

I’m not saying it doesn’t matter. I’m saying that what’s happening at the table is the thing that you claim to not like… some loss of control over your character. That’s what’s happening to the player. That the reason this is happening is some kind of magic is a lampshade. Meaning it takes the “glare” away, making it easier for you to deal with.

For others… and we don’t need to look far to see an example… that lampshade would make no difference at all and they would hate it whether it was “magic” or not.

 

[AlViking]

Not so much of a comment on you, because I have not really had much discussion with you. But, many many posters then go on to assert that such a setup is part of a more realistic sort of play. I personally just find that it feels inauthentic and very artificial, gamist really. Also, games like 1000 Arrows, which really stresses finding out what sort of stuff you got, leads to a lot less stereotyped kind of rote play. I think trad sorts of play need not be uninteresting, but it is more work and often not all the participants are able/willing to pull it off. Something like DW just makes it a lot easier for me.

If you think anyone is saying that a more realistic game style is objectively better for everyone you've read posts that I have not. It's important to me when I play that it feels realistic. I don't like game mechanics dictating how I react or what I feel. I do not believe nor have I (or anyone else as far as I know) stated that it's better for everyone.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Well, that’s subjective. I imagine that an expert climber and someone like me who can barely climb out of bed would have different levels of verisimilitude in this regard.

Also, telling someone “you can see that the rock looks stable and there are many handholds, this won’t be a difficult climb for you” likewise may add to a player’s verisimilitude.

That’s been my point. The GM can justify either approach within the fiction, and both can be perfectly plausible. So when that’s the case, I don’t see what the argument is for keeping information from them.

The thing is I have literally never seen this arise as a problem at the table and have been doing this for years. There just hasn't been much disagreement over what a character would be able to see when they are climbing up a mountain, and if there is any doubt, Q&A can help address that. A GM is also going to be responsive if then group is climbing a mountain and one of the players is an expert climber (I know I was once running a mountain scenario with a guy who liked to hike trials and so I often asked questions about things even though I was the GM just so I had info). But a player not getting full vantage, has never really been something I have seen in these kinds of games become a problem. Not saying it can't be, but I do think we are lingering on a point that for most people playing this style of game is not an issue at all because typically the group is on the same page.

Where I have seen information become an issue more frequently is monster hunt scenarios. But that is usually not related to information they are trying to obtain through play, but establishing what information they would have as a character to start

 

[FrozenNorth]

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.

There’s a big difference between Jim (or Jane) puts themself into danger every day and Jim (or Jane) has never had an involuntary reaction to fear.

IF you are making an appeal to realism, the more realistic stance is that there are times when the character will have an involuntary reaction to fear even when magic is not involved.

 

[The Firebird]

Well, that’s subjective. I imagine that an expert climber and someone like me who can barely climb out of bed would have different levels of verisimilitude in this regard.

Also, telling someone “you can see that the rock looks stable and there are many handholds, this won’t be a difficult climb for you” likewise may add to a player’s verisimilitude.

That’s been my point. The GM can justify either approach within the fiction, and both can be perfectly plausible. So when that’s the case, I don’t see what the argument is for keeping information from them.

Yes, it is subjective. You said it is not happening "because realism". But it is. The fact that it doesn't add to your feeling of verisimilitude doesn't mean it is not happening for that reason.

 

[payn]

I think you probably know the answer to that. A game in which we endlessly diced for every low-probability event would obviously be unplayable. We'd be rolling d1000000 all day to see if you suddenly died of a blood clot too. Narrativist systems focus on the questions which are important to them. This is neither more nor less realistic overall, it simply provides me with a more authentic seeming experience. It also helps insure that the gist of play is not wandering off in some uninteresting direction.

As a recovering simulationist, this.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

If you raise a concern with the GM and they are dismissive about it that is a cause for concern.

...

And literally everyone on this particular side has consistently dismissed any criticisms I have ever brought up, no matter how serious, only to then flip to the exact opposite extreme as soon as some invisible and possibly mobile line is crossed and "well obviously don't play with JERKS".

And people wonder why I don't respond well to this!

I wasn't saying there are no systems that do this. I'm saying that you can't do it when the GM is responsible for running a fixed world like I've described. And I've argued that the fixed world approach has benefits that you can't get in other ways.

Then your point was 100% circular and I don't understand why you made it.

There seems a pretty clear distinction. Go back to the play loop: "the players describe how their characters act, the GM describes how the world responds". All your examples are breaking that line and saying "the system describes how the character acts, the GM describes how the world responds".

But it doesn't. Some of those things are "you are deceived". Or "you fell for the enemy's trick". I don't even see the persuasion thing as "how the world responds"--a persuasive argument is a persuasive argument, and every single time I've ever seen a DM describe a failed check to persuade someone, it's described as the character being oafish or stupid, meaning, giving the DM control over what the character did.

Likewise, death or a charm spell is something external that happens to your character. A lack of courage is something internal.

But it WASN'T a spell. It was a Battle Master maneuver that causes you to be frightened (to have the Frightened condition). Nothing magical--and yet it induces a save and if a character fails it, they ARE frightened, period. Courage failure as the result of a failed roll. Nobody got upset about this in 5.0, and nobody's been upset about it in 5.5.

 

[AlViking]

i don't mean this at all as a personal jab but i think lots of people would like to believe they could control their emotions, however i think it's far too common that they just don't end up being able to do that, heated tempers can prevail far too often in arguments and we end up saying and doing things we later regret, and it's not just anger, our emotions can impair our judgement in a vast number of ways and situations.

add in the fact adventurers tend to live lives and encounter a great number of situations far outside the normal scope of typical experiences of the people who play TTRPGs which makes it even harder to judge their emotional responses to these things accurately.

edit: in general i am in favour of implementing social encounter rules and normalizing effects from nonmagical influences.

I think it is healthier to believe that you can control your own emotions and reactions than to believe your emotions control you. I prefer a game that reinforces being in control. I've learned better control of my emotions and reactions through playing D&D.

I can't control an instantaneous reaction, but once I realize and acknowledge it? For the most part I can. I was hiking once and came across a grizzly that was far, far too close. First reaction was run like hell (which would have been dumb). Instead I gave the bear a friendly greeting and we parted ways amicably.

With proper direction and training I do think you can control your responses to stressful situations. Soldiers do it all the time. I did it when coming face-to-face with a bear and in other terrifying situations like an important interview.

So I want to control my character's reactions in game as well.

 

[zakael19]

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.

Wait. Have you like, never read a fantasy book that uses phrases like "his bowels turned to water / he was paralyzed with fear / she cringed away from ... / his blood boiled / she was filled with incredible melancholy from the... / his sword seemed to fly into his hand as he struck out in rage?"

Like, we way under use tests against Willpower or whatever you want to call it to avoid this stuff in the TTRPG space writ large; it's all over heroic and less so fiction.

I had to say goodbye to my cat last night, my eyes have been filling up with tears throughout the day today without me wanting that and I have to fight for control. The other day a piece of technology just wouldn't work and I got really frustrated at it. Yet we seem to never want our games to reflect stuff like this, except via emoting.