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

[TwoSix]

Telling people that their method of play is predicated on avoiding interesting things and mostly being "dull as dishwater" is going to advance a civil discussion how, exactly?

Yes, because we were on such a roll before! It would be a terrible if a 5000 post thread wasn’t allowed to continue.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

IMO in-character roleplay is never wasted time even if nothing comes of it. If they want to argue, let 'em argue; I'm happy to put my feet up and wait (or if I've an NPC in the mix, chuck in my two bits worth now and then as that character).

I think such a hard stance is hard to justify, for a variety of reasons. Someone can be doing roleplay, and "staying entirely in-character", despite acting on out-of-character motivations. (Essentially, this is the PC mirror image of the "the DM can build justification to make nearly anything 'realistic' so the standard fails to guide decision-making"; a player can craft an in-character response because of out-of-character motivations.)

But entirely separately, I present you one of the greatest threats to such a stance: Me.

Not because I would be intentionally acting against the interests of the campaign. Far from it! I try very hard to be a constructive player. (I assume Hussar's group has tolerated me for that exact reason.)

And this is also why I allow CvC action: if it makes sense that an in-character argument escalates into something more there isn't - and IMO shouldn't be - an arbitrary meta-rule preventing it.

I mean, it's not an arbitrary meta-rule. Folks adopt it specifically because internal group strife:

• Very often--as in, not quite always, but damned close--does in fact escalate the way you describe. Given such a risk is sky-high and has extreme deleterious consequences if it actually manifests, up to and including total group dissolution, it's no surprise folks have rules against it. It's like fire safety laws forbidding various fireworks. Even if only 10% of Californians use fireworks, and only 0.1% of those do so unsafely, that's still ~40Mx0.1x0.001 = ~4000 people each individually taking extreme risks, each and every one of which could start a devastating wildfire with permanent costs to everyone.
• Is rarely, if ever, actually productive to the ongoing process of play. That is, in the end, you still have to talk out whatever the problem was, it just might be talking it out where one person no longer has any leverage and thus is forced to accept a situation they really don't like. Even for a group that is infinitely chill and never gets worked up about such disagreements, nothing really happens from them except...coming to a decision. If the one and only result is "we come to a decision and move on", anything beyond a more-or-less respectful conversation doesn't really do anything the players weren't already doing anyway.
• Brings down the mood. Even if we assume all the people at the table are infinitely chill and thus cannot even in principle get upset over in-character strife, it's quite likely that instead of being uproarious happy funtimes, it's just going to make things tense, and in the process distract from the experience the players are trying to have. Even if that isn't a concrete, visible thing-you-can-point-at as a problem, it still is a problem to disrupt the experience so. Same reason why many DMs have strong rules about not using smartphones at the table, or being...exacting...about out-of-character chatter (IMO, it's more like "ridiculously punitive of even the tiniest problems" but that's my decidedly not-old-school perspective talking, apparently.)

"Arbitrary" means it's done capriciously, without regard for cost or impact. Nothing could be further from the truth. The vast majority of groups which have such a rule have it because internal strife is so disruptive of the experience, whether in theory or in practice, that it is less of a sacrifice to at least reduce it than it would be to permit it.

 

[hawkeyefan]

More seriously @SableWyvern , I don't think what I said is a criticism of the entire playstyle. And it's a criticism that can apply to just about any game. Calling for too many rolls and gating more information behind rolls is simply going to slow the game down.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Does the difference between Soup A and Soup B matter?

Given that's what folks have been asking, over and over and over again, I should think the answer is obviously "yes".

It may not be relevant to you. But at the very least @pemerton has repeatedly asked questions along these lines and gotten pretty much nothing in response (other than, as stated, merely reiterating the non-answer of "I picked soup A instead of soup B because soup A is soup.")

If no, then pick one for whichever arbitrary reason you wish. The choice doesn't matter, the reason for the choice doesn't matter, because it will never impact play.

Uh...what?

We're literally talking about whether you know how difficult a climb is. How could that possibly NOT affect play? It's literally right there (on the soup label? ), specifically about whether and how players can make decisions.

If the difference between the soups does matter, then the reason it matters is likely to influence the process by which a decision is made. For example, if the character wants a spicy soup, they are likely to buy the one they believe to be spicier. Context matters, and there is no point asking "How do you decide" if you haven't specified in your example why the decision matters.

Edit: People advocating for this style of play are pretty universally advocating for GMs to be participants who are able to make context-dependent judgement calls as required. This being the case, trying to lock us into fixed, hard, universally applicable rules absent any specific context, is missing the point.

Whether there are "fixed, hard, universally applicable rules" is irrelevant.

There must be some kind of decision procedure, because you have insisted that the GM is not being arbitrary, they aren't just doing whatever they feel like. "Realism" was given as the decision-procedure, but regardless of whether that is a useful standard (I still don't think it is, but I am leaving that aside), if realism is the decision-procedure, it cannot help the GM distinguish between doing the work to make option A realistic vs doing the work to make option B realistic. Hence, there must be something more to this decision procedure. It doesn't need to be "fixed, hard, universally applicable" anything. It just needs...something else beyond "realism", as almost anything can be made "realistic" by GM effort, doubly so when vast swathes of the world remain forever behind the black box.

 

[SableWyvern]

More seriously @SableWyvern , I don't think what I said is a criticism of the entire playstyle. And it's a criticism that can apply to just about any game. Calling for too many rolls and gating more information behind rolls is simply going to slow the game down.

I absolutely understand how that can apply to certain playstyles and that some people will indeed feel it's dull as dishwater. I have no doubt there are some styles of play that would make me feel that way, and I'm absolutely certain some of the games I run would feel that way to some players. Those are just facts.

It was the way it was phrased, as if it was an attempt to ridicule a particular type of game (and those who enjoy it), rather than a statement of preference, that I felt was only likely to inflame tempers and not really help anything.

 

[The Firebird]

Given that's what folks have been asking, over and over and over again, I should think the answer is obviously "yes".

It may not be relevant to you. But at the very least @pemerton has repeatedly asked questions along these lines and gotten pretty much nothing in response (other than, as stated, merely reiterating the non-answer of "I picked soup A instead of soup B because soup A is soup.")


Uh...what?

We're literally talking about whether you know how difficult a climb is. How could that possibly NOT affect play? It's literally right there (on the soup label? ), specifically about whether and how players can make decisions.


Whether there are "fixed, hard, universally applicable rules" is irrelevant.

There must be some kind of decision procedure, because you have insisted that the GM is not being arbitrary, they aren't just doing whatever they feel like. "Realism" was given as the decision-procedure, but regardless of whether that is a useful standard (I still don't think it is, but I am leaving that aside), if realism is the decision-procedure, it cannot help the GM distinguish between doing the work to make option A realistic vs doing the work to make option B realistic. Hence, there must be something more to this decision procedure. It doesn't need to be "fixed, hard, universally applicable" anything. It just needs...something else beyond "realism", as almost anything can be made "realistic" by GM effort, doubly so when vast swathes of the world remain forever behind the black box.

Pretty much any procedure is fair game as long as the realism criteria is met. Imo. I like sharing DCs because I find they are a good way to make sure my description comes across to the players. I.e., I don't make it sound much easier than it is. But I play in games like @Micah Sweet where they are not given. Both are fine and both fit the fixed world sandbox idea.

Likewise, I'll give the GM a lot of leeway in how the decide. Some specific considerations have been mentioned. But it will ultimately depend a lot on style and judgment.

In any case the resulting play style is very different from a narrative one and does what I want.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

More seriously @SableWyvern , I don't think what I said is a criticism of the entire playstyle. And it's a criticism that can apply to just about any game. Calling for too many rolls and gating more information behind rolls is simply going to slow the game down.

Exactly. Dungeon World grew out of a context where a maxim specifically addresses this (even though, IIRC, it isn't actually written explicitly into the rules, which is kind of a shame): "Let it ride." That shorthand phrase, expanded into sterile but explicit terms, means: As long as the situation has not meaningfully changed, don't repeatedly ask for rolls. If Ronnie the Rogue has silently kept to the shadows, hiding in alcoves and broom closets to avoid being detected in the castle halls (=full success on Defy Danger with DEX), don't make the player repeatedly roll the exact same check over and over again, they've proven they can sneak past this obstacle. Now, at least in my game, if they were to fail a Discern Realities (="Perception") check, I would have them ask one question (from the list of questions on that move), but Ronnie won't like the answer; they're feeling adventurous and choose "What is about to happen?", so I answer, "You overhear a flustered guard barking orders--the usurper's right-hand woman is coming for a surprise inspection in mere minutes, and she's going to scour every nook and cranny, and you know how thorough and unrelenting she is, so you know you don't have a lot of time. What will you do?"

That's an example of a failed roll changing the situation, so that you can no longer "let it ride"--new action is clearly required. Player action could also do it. As examples, consider if Ronnie tries to sneak specifically into the dungeon to free the captured queen, or tries to break into the treasury to steal an artifact. Either of those things is going to be under much more intense guard than just any old hallway of the castle. It's pretty clear that just sticking to the shadows isn't going to be enough to get past that sort of security, so the player's choice to leave the situation they were in for a more dangerous situation is what causes a new action (which may or may not require a new move) to occur.

 

[SableWyvern]

There must be some kind of decision procedure, because you have insisted that the GM is not being arbitrary, they aren't just doing whatever they feel like. "Realism" was given as the decision-procedure, but regardless of whether that is a useful standard (I still don't think it is, but I am leaving that aside), if realism is the decision-procedure, it cannot help the GM distinguish between doing the work to make option A realistic vs doing the work to make option B realistic. Hence, there must be something more to this decision procedure. It doesn't need to be "fixed, hard, universally applicable" anything. It just needs...something else beyond "realism", as almost anything can be made "realistic" by GM effort, doubly so when vast swathes of the world remain forever behind the black box.

First, lets be clear:

Commonly, "arbitrary" means without any reason, driven by sudden impulse and whim. I would hope that's more-or-less the way it's being used throughout the conversation. Under this definition, if the decisions being made were arbitrary, it might not be clear immediately, but it would soon become apparent that there is no real rhyme or reason to what's going on.

"Arbitrary" can also be used to refer to the power of an individual person to make decisions with limited or no oversight, essentially a synonym for fiat power. Clearly, some of us are advocating something that does fairly closely match that description (albeit, I should clarify to avoid semantic quibbling, with the understanding that the GM only has this power for as long as the players allow it). I would assume no use of the arbitrary in this thread is referring to this definition, but in the past I have seen some confusion arise because of this possible use.


With that out of the way, the first "something more" you need in order to make decisions under this system is, as I just explained in my last post, context.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I absolutely understand how that can apply to certain playstyles and that some people will indeed feel it's dull as dishwater. I have no doubt there are some styles of play that would make me feel that way, and I'm absolutely certain some of the games I run would feel that way to some players. Those are just facts.

It was the way it was phrased, as if it was an attempt to ridicule a particular type of game (and those who enjoy it), rather than a statement of preference, that I felt was only likely to inflame tempers and not really help anything.

It was mostly a joke. But it was also a bit of a call back to the sentiment expressed earlier in the thread that we can only recognize and appreciate the exciting moments of play because of the less exciting ones.

 

[SableWyvern]

It was mostly a joke. But it was also a bit of a call back to the sentiment expressed earlier in the thread that we can only recognize and appreciate the exciting moments of play because of the less exciting ones.

All good. I've stated my opinion on the phrasing, you've clarified your position, I'm happy to move on.