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

[Bedrockgames]

Sure, ok. It's just seems to be such a contradiction to want the GM to be in total control of a living "realistic" (genre conforming in the conversation) world, but never stop to question that being in total control of your character with the ever present exception of spells/combat abilities doesn't fit that model.

It isn't a contradiction. They want an external world that their character inhabits. It makes total sense the GM handles the world, but they handle the personality and efforts of their characters. Not saying you have to like it. But I see no contradiction here

And again, I am fine with things like fear effects. But I get what he is saying completely

I would understand it more in a neotrad narrative play space, where you're out to tell a grand heroic story that circles around the characters-as-protagonists in a world centered around them.

It is about being in control of the character. Again this came up on the GM side too. Where people on this side of the discussion largely felt a GM should be able to make a character who wouldn't take a bribe for example. It doesn't have to be neotrad at all (not that I think neotrad is a very useful label)

 

[AlViking]

So you distain all effects that say you're stunned/frightened/etc? You treat your character like a rational Econ, never asking yourself "huh, let's see how they'll react here?" Very neotrad/OC I guess.

If there's nothing supernatural I don't want to be told what I think or feel. If I think my character would have an emotional response they do.

And your tone is disrespectful of other people's preferences I guess.

 

[hawkeyefan]

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.

Sure. I’m only explaining my concerns about it. I don’t ask anyone to share those concerns, although I think it’s good for people to at least consider them.

And yes, if things are working for you and your group, then keep doing what you’re doing. If everyone is on the same page, then everything’s good.

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

Sure, what info is common knowledge or what dies my character already know at the start of play are good examples of this kind of thing.

Again, I think it’s best to be generous… to just share most information with the players, saving only what actually needs to be secret.

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.

No. It’s happening because the GM chose it to happen.

 

[Old Fezziwig]

Is it a conflict? If they have a Belief that can be tested, sounds good! I spoke at length in a couple other threads here recently about struggling with uncertainty around romance within games, because I don't want to envision that inside Conflict Resolution; but generally mechanics to resolve uncertainty are in that space. I Can see a belief of a knightly sort being like "I must win Adelia's true love!" as a belief and that generating a ton of play.

This one is a little tricky. I think your posited belief would work well. I could also see something like "My mission is far too important -- I won't let myself be distracted by romance, even though I'm lonely" with the game having the tone of a screwball comedy as potential love interests throw themselves at the character.

But the mechanics wouldn't be invoked to determine whether the character is in love with anyone. That's not how they work. Player action declarations need to have an intent and a task. BW doesn't randomly call for rolls to determine character mental state.

Edit: added one word to last sentence.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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’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.

Like I said, you're welcome to disagree. You and others certainly do. For me, the in-fiction reasons why things happen inform the mechanics of how they happen in game, and are the most important part of the experience IMO.

 

[hawkeyefan]

It isn't a contradiction. They want an external world that their character inhabits. It makes total sense the GM handles the world, but they handle the personality and efforts of their characters. Not saying you have to like it. But I see no contradiction here

And again, I am fine with things like fear effects. But I get what he is saying completely


It is about being in control of the character. Again this came up on the GM side too. Where people on this side of the discussion largely felt a GM should be able to make a character who wouldn't take a bribe for example. It doesn't have to be neotrad at all (not that I think neotrad is a very useful label)

What makes it contradictory is all the appeals to realism in many other ways, but then saying “I don’t care about realism, this is a game and I’m going to control my character at all times no matter what”.

Again… there’s nothing wrong with the preference. I don’t blame anyone for feeling that way. It just is odd having those same people say the GM should hide info from the players because “that’s realistic”.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Like I said, you're welcome to disagree. You and others certainly do. For me, the in-fiction reasons why things happen inform the mechanics of how they happen in game, and are the most important part of the experience IMO.

We’re not disagreeing, Micah.

Good lord.

 

[zakael19]

This one is a little tricky. I think your posited belief would work well. I could also see something like "My mission is far too important -- I won't let myself be distracted by romance, even though I'm lonely" with the game having the tone of a screwball comedy as potential love interests throw themselves at the character.

But the mechanics wouldn't be invoked to determine whether the character is in love with anyone. That's not how they work. Player action declarations need to have an intent and a task. BW doesn't call for rolls to determine character mental state.

Yeah cool, I figured it might be something more like this. Then I'm not familiar with any Conflict Resolution game that handles romance as part of the design space apart from like Thirsty Sword Lesbians (I'm not familiar with the WoD etc set of games so if that stuff comes up there I wouldn't know). The only games I know of that really delve into this sort of thing aren't doing Conflict, and are more like group-storytelling games (Wanderhome maybe, Mobile Frame Zero: Firebrands) or the Relating centered Under Hollow Hills.

It really does remain one of the least satisfying bits of play as GM for me, because I don't want to be in charge of fiating an NPC's interior life - yet all the mechanics I have for that fall into transactional stuff (persuade/intimidate/etc).

I dont know if you meant to go down this route @Faolyn or were just taking swings at BW, but that side of things really does remain one of the most interesting empty design spaces from my perspective.

Edit: actually, Blades in teh Dark uses the example outcome of like "you might fall in love/lust with her" as a potential consequence. Still under conflict resolution and flagged as negative, but that popped in my head.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

Probably, but if your players won't accept it, seeing it as an unacceptable loss of PC autonomy, then you can't do it. And a lot of non-Narrativist gamers seem to feel that way.

 

[Micah Sweet]

...

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!


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


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.


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.

I think you're coming on a little strong. How many people even used that maneuver, making it relevant to their play? And how often was it used on a PC? And what would happen if it was?