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

[AbdulAlhazred]

I've had similar experiences, I really liked climbing when I was a kid and back and between family vacations and Scouts and we were our own devices far too often. So climbing up and things getting steeper than expected, rock strata changing from solid to what looked like easy climbing but rocks were breaking off left and right to one of my buddies almost touching a rattlesnake when reaching for a handhold. Unless it's a cliff face that others have done you just don't know what you're going to hit. Even serious rock climbers can and do get into trouble. I'm sometimes amazed we survived.

In any case, I think uncertainty and a variety of challenges can be an important part of the game.

Modeled perfectly with a test against your Nature: young and foolish. Luckily you had an extra fate die in the pool, so it was just a near thing!

 

[Maxperson]

Yeah, we got tired of King George and fired him. We're doing fine thx

Bet you wouldn't have done that if it was King George Carlin.

 

[thefutilist]

I think a communication issue is here around “realistic”.

We’re (we being this loose confederation of narrative game enjoyers) generally using it to means “within the boundaries of plausibility and causality”. The living world proponents are generally using it more strictly to mean “purely derived from sim-style heuristics, with no consideration for narrative concerns.” Using narrative considerations to drive play is generally frowned on in living world play,

The last time I had to make something up where positioning details mattered in a way that was system relevant was a month or two ago. It was post-apocalyptic sorcerer and there was a church of fanatics who were keeping a demon in a vault. I remember my thought process was something like:

I want there to be moving parts where the environment matters. The big vault was easy because it just stood to reason they were keeping it in a vault. Well stood to reason really means I extrapolated from the facts. They wanted it guarded and out the way. It struck me that this they kept it near the very top of the building because it was an oracle and it made sense that oracles are high up to 'see all'. I put in a huge stained glass window because it seemed like that provided a dangerous exit.

I could have extrapolated almost the opposite to everything I just said. A windowless room underground. The demon had to be kept out the way but maybe elite guards in front of a plain looking door. Or a secret door.

One more:

It was in Apocalypse world and the NPC Hardholder had sent some men to grab the skinner from the bar. I reasoned 6 gang members would go because that's about what the Hardholder thought they would need. I reasoned that there was a back door but 2 of the gang members would be going to the back because they knew the bar would have a backdoor.

The skinner makes a read the sitch roll and hits. What's the best way out? I think a moment and my reasoning is: Well the back door maybe despite it still being guarded but it occurred to me that the bar owner is suspicious and so he has a trap door in the back. Does the skinner know about it? The relationship between the bar owner and the skinner was a bit underdetermined so I asked 'There's a trap door in the back. would your character know about it?'


So that's a mix of:

1) Character values, what resources the npc's would have

2) stuff that adds moving parts and danger

3) Just extrapolating based on 'what's there'


My suspicion is that the ultra sim people wouldn't much like heuristic 2 but despite it being contrived it's pretty much necessary for me. It's just that I make the danger as agnostic as I can based on heuristic 1 and 3. They bind heuristic 2.

When people say 'realistic' I imagine they're talking about a similar process, although maybe I'm wrong.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yeah, we got tired of King George and fired him. We're doing fine thx

So asking questions and believing answers are being given in good faith is analogous to serving a king?

Hilarious.

 

[AlViking]

I don't think this has anything to do with what I said. Someone can cheat, yes. I'm uninterested in discussing bad faith activity.

What are the combat rules for? Clearly you don't think they're to prevent someone from cheating. So... what are they for?

I know how to run social encounters because I've had a few in my life. In D&D if I'm uncertain about a reaction from an NPC or whether the characters can glean something other than what is being said, I have checks I can use if I want. I don't know how to run a knife fight without rules.

 

[AlViking]

I think a communication issue is here around “realistic”.

We’re (we being this loose confederation of narrative game enjoyers) generally using it to means “within the boundaries of plausibility and causality”. The living world proponents are generally using it more strictly to mean “purely derived from sim-style heuristics, with no consideration for narrative concerns.” Using narrative considerations to drive play is generally frowned on in living world play,

Seems like you're taking the philosophy to an extreme that rarely, if ever, exists. You can have what feels like realistic environments and encounters while still being driven by narrative. Sometimes that narrative won't match the GM's original ideas of where it might lead but the GM is still trying to run an engaging and fun game. This idea that you "can't" let the narrative influence details of a fictional world that haven't been established is just something I've never seen.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I think a communication issue is here around “realistic”.

We’re (we being this loose confederation of narrative game enjoyers) generally using it to means “within the boundaries of plausibility and causality”. The living world proponents are generally using it more strictly to mean “purely derived from sim-style heuristics, with no consideration for narrative concerns.” Using narrative considerations to drive play is generally frowned on in living world play,

There is a pretty wide range of views. I think most living world people wouldn't use the word sim though. I have met some people who invoke the language of sim and usually those are people who are after crunchier systems. Most living world people mean realism as in within the boundaries of plausibility and causality. And this point has been made several times in the thread. And some people, like me, consider things like drama as part of the overall world too. The point really is things are grounded to some kind of causality. Like I said earlier, it means that Iron God Meng doesn't just show up to thwart the party as they are entering Zikang Grottoes in search of the manual, because it is convenient or dramatic. If he was in Tung yesterday, he has to walk to get to the PCs. He also has to have knowledge of where they are going to be. And if he has that knowledge, it is very likely the players have a chance to learn about it (for example if he has someone following them, I am going to give them a chance to detect that). I still do factor in dramatic considerations. I do think though that the way I handle that stuff is going to be very different from how someone who prefers a narrative system or approach is going to handle it

 

[Faolyn]

But every single time, that's literally the only two options you folks give me. Those are the only answers. Either I do nothing, or the game is completely over. I want other options! I want to know that I can work things out with people! I want to build and maintain trust, and doing that REQUIRES give and take! But as it's been presented, literally every single time, there is no give and take--or, at least, the give is all on one side and the take is all on the other, unless you blow up your participation in that game completely. Either you accept literally everything, regardless of how concerning it is, because the only possible answer you'll ever get is "just trust me bro", or you leave, destroying your participation in that game and probably hurting some relationships in the doing.

Is "have a discussion like adults" off the table?

OK, so I don't know what hypothetical thing the hypothetical GM/other player did to damage your trust. But unless that person did something that is an instant deal-breaker, talk to them. Of course, if you have to repeatedly talk to them about the hypothetical thing and they don't change, that may also be a deal-breaker for you.

But if they're not actually terrible jerks and they don't mean to be doing jerkish things but just made some mistakes, then, y'know, actually saying "hey, you're doing this thing and I don't like it" tends to work.

 

[hawkeyefan]

If there's one thing I'm good at, it's coming up with far too many explanations for something.


I'd try to telegraph the treacherousness of the cliff at the least, say by having piles of rubble at the base, have them see dirt fall while they're looking at the cliff, things like that. Illusions are definitely something that would come up somehow, but the cause may (or may not) come up until after they've made the climb (and realized that there were illusions in place). By which I mean (since that was a clumsy sentence), the PCs may go into the area knowing there are fae or an illusionist in the area. Or they may not, and the cliff might be their introduction. It depends on a bunch of things.

Right! This is the kind of stuff I was getting at... that there is information that the GM can share or not... create or not... and that plays a large part in how a situation will play out, and the players' chances to navigate it effectively.

The presence of fallen rocks to indicate a dangerous climb, the presence of tracks or leavings to indicate predators in the area, some evidence of fey to set up trickery or illusion... these are choices the GM makes that affect gameplay.

So much focus is spent solely on the content of the game world from the fictional standpoint... I think we also need to be thinking about gameplay during these moments.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Bet you wouldn't have done that if it was King George Carlin.

Eh, George is funny. I like @Old Fezziwig 's brand of humor though. It is 1KA night! Yay!