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

[hawkeyefan]

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'm not holding anyone to any standard. You're focuing on the wrong thing. I really don't care if people don't want to ever risk losing control of their character during play. I absolutely understand that preference and there's nothing wrong with it.

It is just odd when coupled with all these appeals to realism in other ways. That a climber can't know how difficult a climb will be, for example. That we can't always know if someone can be bribed. Sure, those may be true things, but they can get in the way of play, no?

The call for realism in one area and then the absolute abandonment of it in another area is just jarring.

Personally, I'd rather we just ditch "realism" as a reason for anything we do. Pretty much every game and every approach to play is seeking plausibility and consistency... so it doesn't really shed any light on anything.

Plus, once we do that... then we can discuss the actual reasons for the choices GMs and players make.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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

Since your interests seem to fall more on the Narrativist side of things (based on posts of yours I've seen), this does not surprise me. I'm glad you have compatible players.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I'm not holding anyone to any standard. You're focuing on the wrong thing. I really don't care if people don't want to ever risk losing control of their character during play. I absolutely understand that preference and there's nothing wrong with it.

It is just odd when coupled with all these appeals to realism in other ways. That a climber can't know how difficult a climb will be, for example. That we can't always know if someone can be bribed. Sure, those may be true things, but they can get in the way of play, no?

The call for realism in one area and then the absolute abandonment of it in another area is just jarring.

Personally, I'd rather we just ditch "realism" as a reason for anything we do. Pretty much every game and every approach to play is seeking plausibility and consistency... so it doesn't really shed any light on anything.

Plus, once we do that... then we can discuss the actual reasons for the choices GMs and players make.

I'm sure you would rather ditch it, because it seems to be at best a lower priority for you than for others around here. We all seem to understand each other when we talk about it though, soI can't say I accept your claim that it doesn't shed light on anything.

 

[hawkeyefan]

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.

Yes, absolutely! That's my point.

Realism isn't really the cause... because as the author of the situation, a GM can select whatever realistic conditions they want.

So, when the character is facing the cliff face that he's going to climb... the GM can tell the player the relevant information under the very plausible idea that the character can discern this information. They can also withhold the information under the very plausible idea that the character cannot discern the information. The GM determines what's plausible or realistic in this case, and it could be either one.

So, setting that aside, what are the other factors that factor into his decision? That's what I think is relevant and interesting, and has something to say about GMing technique.

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

As I just said to @Bedrockgames I'd rather people stop bringing realism up at all as a reason for their decisions in RPGs. I don't expect anyone to actually be looking for 100% realism because that's just a myth.

But if people want to keep bringing it up, then I'll point out the very obvious cherry-picking.

 

[AlViking]

I'm not holding anyone to any standard. You're focuing on the wrong thing. I really don't care if people don't want to ever risk losing control of their character during play. I absolutely understand that preference and there's nothing wrong with it.

It is just odd when coupled with all these appeals to realism in other ways. That a climber can't know how difficult a climb will be, for example. That we can't always know if someone can be bribed. Sure, those may be true things, but they can get in the way of play, no?

The call for realism in one area and then the absolute abandonment of it in another area is just jarring.

Personally, I'd rather we just ditch "realism" as a reason for anything we do. Pretty much every game and every approach to play is seeking plausibility and consistency... so it doesn't really shed any light on anything.

Plus, once we do that... then we can discuss the actual reasons for the choices GMs and players make.

If you're going shopping in a new store, it sure would be handy if you knew where everything was. You don't though. You may have to ask someone, do a little bit of investigation, find a kiosk. Limiting knowledge in certain situations to what my character would know make the game world feel more realistic and, for other reasons I've explained, more enjoyable for me. Meanwhile I consider an adventurer the equivalent of a soldier even at low level and highly trained special forces at higher levels. They aren't going to react to danger the same way most citizens would.

My character didn't go into The Caves of Doom expecting to only have to deal with which to cuddle first, the puppies or the kittens.

It's fine if you want another approach, I will never tell you that the game is doing it wrong even if it's not for me. All I ask is that you return the favor.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I'm sure you would rather ditch it, because it seems to be at best a lower priority for you than for others around here. We all seem to understand each other when we talk about it though, soI can't say I accept your claim that it doesn't shed light on anything.

What game do you know that says to portray an inconsistent world? Or implausible events? Who in this thread has advocated for that?

If you're going shopping in a new store, it sure would be handy if you knew where everything was. You don't though. You may have to ask someone, do a little bit of investigation, find a kiosk. Limiting knowledge in certain situations to what my character would know make the game world feel more realistic and, for other reasons I've explained, more enjoyable for me. Meanwhile I consider an adventurer the equivalent of a soldier even at low level and highly trained special forces at higher levels. They aren't going to react to danger the same way most citizens would.

My character didn't go into The Caves of Doom expecting to only have to deal with which to cuddle first, the puppies or the kittens.

It's fine if you want another approach, I will never tell you that the game is doing it wrong even if it's not for me. All I ask is that you return the favor.

Sure... but looking at a cliff stumps him! Yay realism!

 

[Old Fezziwig]

My character didn't go into The Caves of Doom expecting to only have to deal with which to cuddle first, the puppies or the kittens.

Of course not. That's a fake binary. Both, please.

 

[TwoSix]

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 .

Interestingly, Dragonbane, which is much more of a classic/trad style game, also has rules for taking a mental condition as a result of taking stress or damage.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Personally, I'd rather we just ditch "realism" as a reason for anything we do. Pretty much every game and every approach to play is seeking plausibility and consistency... so it doesn't really shed any light on anything.

If it is so important in every style of play: why object to strenuously to it?

As I just said to @Bedrockgames I'd rather people stop bringing realism up at all as a reason for their decisions in RPGs. I don't expect anyone to actually be looking for 100% realism because that's just a myth.

But people keep addressing this (including me in the last post I made). But you keep responding with the same arguments. There is no point in beating this to death, but people are going to keep invoking things like plausibility, causality and realism because they matter (and no one is saying that means 100% real world simulation).

 

[TwoSix]

Of course not. That's a fake binary. Both, please.

Too difficult. Please mind control me into a choice, please.