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

[Bedrockgames]

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”.

But you are holding them to a standard of realism they have told you they aren't interested in. And even if they were, there is nothing contradictory. People do overcome fears. Some people aren't as responsive to adrenaline rushes. So the idea that they want to play a character who happens to be that way, is totally fine even if the measure is true world realism (which it isn't: but we have already discussed realism at length). A lot of these campaigns are even still operating inside of a genre for example (certainly not all of them, but you can have that). You can have a more action hero sandbox where the world is meant to feel real and plausible, even if characters are larger than life and do incredible things. It is about respecting things like internal consistency, characters acting on their real motives and goals, and not just having the NPCs show up from halfway across town in two seconds because it is a convenient encounter. Genre driven worlds can still be run with cause and effect as a primary concern.

Also people arent' drilling down into your style like this examining them for any hint of contradiction. Odds are if you are finding any conrtadiction, it is likely a lack of clarity on someone's part around what they are looking for, or it is a contradiction and they simply don't care because that contradiction brings more positive to the game than it takes away. Either way, I think there is big danger in people getting overly defensive and striving towards consistency of position here, because they may have a functioning game, but if they adjust their game in response to these critiques, it could undermine them (I have seen that happen in sandbox debates and it is one of the reasons I strive to take a non-ideological position on things: I realized adhering too strongly to a gaming philosophy can kill a campaign). So if there is a contradiction and it adds someone; who cares?

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.



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.



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

Does the reason why the GM makes the decisions they do matter in this to you at all? Because it's pretty important to me.

 

[zakael19]

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.

Yeah and honestly what I do the most in my games is ask a provocative question like "hey so, how do you feel after killing that guy? ohhh man, that argument went terribly - how's your lingering mental state now? Wow, you were like, barely holding your own there as everybody else handled that, how much do you hate yourself now?" Pretty much always poking at an Instinct or Belief when I can if the game highlights those. So leading question that lets the player/character do some introspection, not "thou art now self-hating." But without the written down bit of belief/background/instinct it seems to have less of a charge.

A really unsatisfying moment that's stuck me with me was when I was running Tales of the Valiant for a group last year, and the Paladin of Justice had shrugged and was about to cut the heads off a handful of bandits. Another player started to argue with her about how like, they shouldn't do that and clearly they should take them back to the appropriate authorities, and the paladin was like "nope, no need would take too long, lets kill em!" And the monk pressed for a bit more, but when I was like "hey, do you want to use the Persuade vs PC house rule I added in?" he said "naw, I've said my piece, we're good."

And like. We spent a bunch of time going around in a circle for no outcome, no testing of belief, no reflection, no stakes. I think that was the crystalizing moment where I was like "yeah, I need more."

 

[Micah Sweet]

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”.

This sounds like the dreaded 100% realism straw man once again. It's all or nothing for that guy.

 

[zakael19]

This sounds like the dreaded 100% realism straw man once again. It's all or nothing for that guy.

It's definitely not, especially since I clarified that by "realism" I meant "table accepted genre appropriate feeling" instead of "absolute 100% perfection." And just a few pages ago I was noting that heroic (and non-heroic) fantasy is littered with characters losing control of their emotions, or having things imposed on them.

 

[Old Fezziwig]

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.

That's interesting re Blades, even if the framing is typical. I agree that this is a gap in design, though there is Emily Care Boss's Breaking the Ice and its follow ups. I still need to play Under Hollow Hills, too.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yeah and honestly what I do the most in my games is ask a provocative question like "hey so, how do you feel after killing that guy? ohhh man, that argument went terribly - how's your lingering mental state now? Wow, you were like, barely holding your own there as everybody else handled that, how much do you hate yourself now?" Pretty much always poking at an Instinct or Belief when I can if the game highlights those. So leading question that lets the player/character do some introspection, not "thou art now self-hating." But without the written down bit of belief/background/instinct it seems to have less of a charge.

A really unsatisfying moment that's stuck me with me was when I was running Tales of the Valiant for a group last year, and the Paladin of Justice had shrugged and was about to cut the heads off a handful of bandits. Another player started to argue with her about how like, they shouldn't do that and clearly they should take them back to the appropriate authorities, and the paladin was like "nope, no need would take too long, lets kill em!" And the monk pressed for a bit more, but when I was like "hey, do you want to use the Persuade vs PC house rule I added in?" he said "naw, I've said my piece, we're good."

And like. We spent a bunch of time going around in a circle for no outcome, no testing of belief, no reflection, no stakes. I think that was the crystalizing moment where I was like "yeah, I need more."

Hopefully you can find players who want what you want. You can't make people be ok with losing control over their characters due to emotional turmoil.

 

[CreamCloud0]

i think that if you agree to sit down to play a game, roleplaying, simulationist or narrative, if part of the core character builder is a stat that is designed to directly model some attribute then you should be using that stat and it's mechanics to determine how your character acts when called upon for relevant checks, and this includes things like willpower or charm.

 

[zakael19]

Hopefully you can find players who want what you want. You can't make people be ok with losing control over their characters due to emotional turmoil.

I have 4 tables full of the players I want .

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I didn't ask about "every" low-probability event. I asked about one event--falling in love or lust--that can cause just as much action and tension and interest and authenticity as being afraid does.

Does BW want to go in that direction?

This is silly. I mean, by all means play a game which focuses on what you want it to. I'm pretty sure something along these lines might happen in Monster Hearts. I don't think it would be typical of BW, unless we're dealing with a PC with some unusual beliefs. My response was to question why you bring up some specific thing like this, it doesn't seem like there's a point here.