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

[EzekielRaiden]

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

Because it's being used as an explanation when it doesn't actually have any explanatory power.

"Why did you buy Bellcamp's soup instead of Regresso's?"

"Because I was buying soup."

That doesn't answer the question, of course you were buying soup, that's already understood and doesn't actually say one damned thing about why you bought THAT soup and not THIS soup.

But people keep addressing this (including me in the last post I made). But you keep responding with the same arguments.

Alternatively: what if you aren't addressing it, and the reason you keep hearing the same argument is because the questions remain unanswered? It would be quite reasonable to keep asking a question if it hasn't actually gotten an answer yet.

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).

Of course they matter. But they aren't causing the decision. When BOTH yes AND no have realism, what makes you choose? When paths A-M are all realistic already, and you can make paths N-Z realistic with a little effort, what makes you choose?

Answering "realism" to this question is straight up dodging. It's saying that realism is the deciding factor for something where that cannot possibly be the deciding factor because there is, or can quite easily be, realism in almost anything the DM might choose. And that's entirely before we get into the problems of DMs either being stubborn (which even a very good DM can stubbornly cling to something they initially thought was realistic) or grossly uninformed/mistaken about what actually is realistic.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Because it's being used as an explanation when it doesn't actually have any explanatory power.

"Why did you buy Bellcamp's soup instead of Regresso's?"

"Because I was buying soup."

That doesn't answer the question, of course you were buying soup, that's already understood and doesn't actually say one damned thing about why you bought THAT soup and not THIS soup.

You don't think so. Those on the other side of this discussion seem to understand what we mean by it. Again, if this doesn't help you in adjudicating a game. That is reasonable. But plenty of people find it a helpful principle

Alternatively: what if you aren't addressing it, and the reason you keep hearing the same argument is because the questions remain unanswered? It would be quite reasonable to keep asking a question if it hasn't actually gotten an answer yet.

Except we have. Rather endlessly. We have clarified exactly what we mean. We have responded with arguments (many of which go unanswered) and we keep getting the same points brought up. At a certain point, if our arguments don't convince you, that is totally fair. But hammering away like this and simply not agreeing to disagree is not getting us anywhere. Our play styles are not on trial.

Of course they matter. But they aren't causing the decision. When BOTH yes AND no have realism, what makes you choose? When paths A-M are all realistic already, and you can make paths N-Z realistic with a little effort, what makes you choose?

The one that is the most plausible of the two. One is going to seem more plausible and realistic than the other. And you can have other considerations if you want (for example (for example you could go with "What is most plausible and most interesting"). That is up to you. But I think in a game where you are effectively challenging the player skill, you want to go with what you think is most plausible.

Answering "realism" to this question is straight up dodging. It's saying that realism is the deciding factor for something where that cannot possibly be the deciding factor because there is, or can quite easily be, realism in almost anything the DM might choose. And that's entirely before we get into the problems of DMs either being stubborn (which even a very good DM can stubbornly cling to something they initially thought was realistic) or grossly uninformed/mistaken about what actually is realistic.

Again you are using a straw man here. People have explained what they mean by realism. They have even shown how they can make decisions based on it. You don't accept it. You have every right not to accept it. But don't tell people they are dodging when they have answered your questions honestly and they are doing something they know works at their table. Again, our play style is not on trial. This is not an interrogation.

 

[Lanefan]

It isn't a strange attitude; I simply find it a regrettable one.

One of my groups, as an example, has tried two very different versions of 5e, Troika!, Mork Borg, Dolmenwood, Honey Heist, Uncharted Worlds (a sci-fi PBTA), Monster of the Week, and one or two other games I can't remember, all in the last 3 years. It's a ton of fun, and I wish more tables were like that.

Which, while fine, represents a bunch of sessions I could have used on what is to me a far preferable activity: running (or playing in) a persistent campaign using a single system.

 

[TwoSix]

Or put another way, why can't your character screw up due to something it didn't notice or know about?

They can. But that's a way to narrate a failed check to climb, not a separate secret roll.

Noticing stuff, as a separate mechanic, shouldn't be in any game. Gating info behind skill checks negates both player exploration of environment (in a classic dungeoncrawl) and simple clarification of setting via dialogue (in a more expansive trad, neotrad, or narrative game) to do what, reward people who invest character resources in Wisdom/Perception? Get the heck out of here with that.

 

[TwoSix]

Which, while fine, represents a bunch of sessions I could have used on what is to me a far preferable activity: running (or playing in) a persistent campaign using a single system.

No worries. When you talk about games going on for 1100+ sessions, I can only think about the literally 50 different games I could have run/played in during that timespan.

Some people like 30 year soap operas, other people like 8 episode Netflix dramas. That's why they make both.

 

[Bedrockgames]

No worries. When you talk about games going on for 1100+ sessions, I can only think about the literally 50 different games I could have run/played in during that timespan.

Some people like 30 year soap operas, other people like 8 episode Netflix dramas. That's why they make both.

I don't usually aim for 1000 plus sessions. But I do often aim for years long campaigns. The thing I like about years long approaches is you really can build on things. It almost becomes self sustaining after a certain point. But I do like one shots and shorter campaigns too. Usually I play those between long campaigns (or alongside them)

 

[thefutilist]

It’s a matter of play focus.

Some games want the character’s determination or courage or loyalty or whatever other trait to be tested. Depending on the game, these traits may be highlighted in some way by the player as what they want to learn about in play.

If you want to learn if your character is hard enough to kill, then that’s something you want to learn about in play… you want there to be doubt about it. Allowing it to simply be player choice takes away the doubt.

Just like combat is uncertain… because there are dice rolls and we don’t just choose who wins.

Chiming in again to say I think the exact opposite is true but I'm not sure I can explain why better than I have done previously.

To recap:

If I have a choice, then as a person I'm making an artistic statement about the situation as it strikes me.

Where that choice is, within the structure of the game, can vary wildly. So it's not as if strong personality mechanics necessarily preclude such choices from happening.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

And if falling in love in-character is important to that player, either as a direct goal or as a non-goal acpect of the character, then what?

It also helps insure that the gist of play is not wandering off in some uninteresting direction.

If the players are taking the gist of play elsewhere on their own accord, that would seem to indicate a certain degree of "interesting" is involved; and IMO as DM you have to let it run.

 

[TwoSix]

I don't usually aim for 1000 plus sessions. But I do often aim for years long campaigns. The thing I like about years long approaches is you really can build on things. It almost becomes self sustaining after a certain point. But I do like one shots and shorter campaigns too. Usually I play those between long campaigns (or alongside them)

Sure, lots of different approaches.

Definitely not a “narrative camp” thing, purely a me thing. I get pretty bored after about two dozen sessions and am generally looking for things to wrap up.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

So how would - or could - BW handle this hypothetical but not-at-all-unheard-of situation:

My character is Jocasta. For these purposes let's say her stated goal-belief-etc. is to (1) do a bunch of honourable deeds and then (2) make sure the world knows about them, in order to restore some dignity to her disgraced family name. But, she's also a little flighty...

In course of doing one of these honourable deeds she rescues an otherwise-irrelevant NPC and - maybe due to me-as-player whim, maybe due to me-as-player quietly rolling 100 on d% to see what I think of this guy, or whatever - Jocasta falls head over heels in love with him and, due to this, decides that while her initial goals etc. haven't changed they can bloody well wait while (on returning to town) she chases this guy to see where things might go.

In other words, both in and out of character I've completely distracted myself from what I was previously doing and sent play (maybe dragging the party with me, maybe not, depending on how they react) in a whole new direction that (one hopes!) involves much less or even zero conflict. And while I-as-player maybe don't need or want to play out every word she says to her new crush, I'd like things resolved in somewhat more detail than a single "does he fall for you or not" die roll.

Over to you, GM - what happens next?