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

[zakael19]

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.

(Oh yeah, I think as part of the like Growing Up Moves you're allowed to finally have a healthy relationship? lol)

 

[AlViking]

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?

I am not playing me in my D&D game. I'm not even expecting real world realism, I'm perfectly fine with fantasy adventure movie realism. Indiana Jones was afraid of snakes but when it was really serious? He did what had to be done anyway. So that's who I'm playing, someone perhaps a bit larger than life someone who can deal with things that would terrify me.

Like the saying goes about the difference between courage and bravery. Courage is being frightened and still doing what needs to be done, bravery is being too stupid to know enough to be frightened. I've played both kinds of characters.

 

[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.

Further thought: it's interesting that actually lots of newer narrativist games are going in this direction. you see it in Monsterhearts and Masks (the latter very popular), and Dungeon World 2 is also going in this direction of "you take conditions instead of HP when damaged" where all teh conditions are things like "embarrassed/enraged/despairing/etc."An interesting tie back to teh OP/title of this thread here, one of the co-designers of DW2 was bemoaning how it seems like lots of conservative D&D players had come over to Dungeon World and hated a bunch of the changes they were previewing as a result .

 

[zakael19]

I am not playing me in my D&D game. I'm not even expecting real world realism, I'm perfectly fine with fantasy adventure movie realism. Indiana Jones was afraid of snakes but when it was really serious? He did what had to be done anyway. So that's who I'm playing, someone perhaps a bit larger than life someone who can deal with things that would terrify me.

Like the saying goes about the difference between courage and bravery. Courage is being frightened and still doing what needs to be done, bravery is being too stupid to know enough to be frightened. I've played both kinds of characters.

But usually courage is something that needs to be tested, and you overcome your fear, yeah? Like that's classic heroe's journey stuff. Indiana Jones is pulp adventure - it's like 1970s D&D funhouse dungeon levels of characterization.

Anyway, I guess we have our perspectives on this and we're just beating a horse here.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Further thought: it's interesting that actually lots of newer narrativist games are going in this direction. you see it in Monsterhearts and Masks (the latter very popular), and Dungeon World 2 is also going in this direction of "you take conditions instead of HP when damaged" where all teh conditions are things like "embarrassed/enraged/despairing/etc."An interesting tie back to teh OP/title of this thread here, one of the co-designers of DW2 was bemoaning how it seems like lots of conservative D&D players had come over to Dungeon World and hated a bunch of the changes they were previewing as a result .

Sometimes a game's design just moves in a direction you don't want to follow. See D&D 5.5.

 

[The Firebird]

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

I don't follow. The points are 1) If the DM is running a fixed world you get access to new possibilities in gameplay; 2) you can't know with certainty that the DM is ruling consistently. How is that circular?

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.

This is bad GMing. Imo. The characters should be heroic and effective, not oafish and stupid. If the character fails a check, it should be because their opponent was obstinate or the situation was challenging, not because they fouled it up.

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.

Is this commonly used against players in this game? I don't mind the occasional mind affecting ability. If every check starts dictating how I'm allowed to react, no thank you.

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

They elected for it to happen to enhance the feeling of verisimilitude. Again, I get you don't like it, but you don't get to dictate why the GM is making the decisions in the game someone else is playing. I've run that game. That's why I made that decision.

 

[zakael19]

Sometimes a game's design just moves in a direction you don't want to follow. See D&D 5.5.

Oh absolutely, a running joke in that community right now is that you know it's a real spin off D&D once there's an edition war.

 

[FrozenNorth]

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.

Pasion de las pasiones has a couple of mechanics like this, but its inspiration is telemovelas, so romance is part of the package.

 

[FrozenNorth]

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.

My players would probably accept it, depends on the game.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Further thought: it's interesting that actually lots of newer narrativist games are going in this direction. you see it in Monsterhearts and Masks (the latter very popular), and Dungeon World 2 is also going in this direction of "you take conditions instead of HP when damaged" where all teh conditions are things like "embarrassed/enraged/despairing/etc."An interesting tie back to teh OP/title of this thread here, one of the co-designers of DW2 was bemoaning how it seems like lots of conservative D&D players had come over to Dungeon World and hated a bunch of the changes they were previewing as a result .

Well, I'm not super fond of a lot of what I read about the DW2 design either. Honestly I don't think it addresses the issues I had with the original, but goes far in some other direction entirely. Conditions might be OK, but what I really want is for the game to act as a crucible for shaping characters and exposing them to cool situations. I guess I will give it a chance, but I don't see a lot of issues with the original game TBH, and many of the changes seem to water it down.