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

[Micah Sweet]

And this probably shouldn't surprise people. Few folks who were 3E fans, became 3E haters back in the day because of someone making a logical argument on a thread. We like what we like. Even attempts to examine that are probably going to fall short because people express a preference, then people question that preference and they defend, and eventually an inconsistency is detected. But that simply emerges because they defending what they like in the way they can with each point raised. Part of the issue I think in these conversations is we put way too much stock in logical argumentation, when everything we are talking about is largely about subjective preferences.

A point I have tried to make many times.

 

[hawkeyefan]

If you want a very unsatisfying and boring combat, sure, you can flip a coin. If you want enjoyable combat, you need quite a bit more for rules.

Well, what’s satisfying or not will vary from person to person. And the level of complexity for rules will likewise vary based on the game and what it’s trying to do.

A game that is as combat heavy as D&D is likely going to increase the number of rules and therefore the complexity because combat is a big part of the game and for such a game, that’s likely a better fit.

If the setting/genre/goal of play is something else entirely… then it absolutely make sense to resolve combat with a coin flip because it’s best to resolve it and move on to what play is meant to be about.

Yes. That does make more sense with regard to the uncertainty. So yes, the rules would be to resolve that uncertainty.

So some people want non-combat encounters to be as uncertain.

More proof that no one's changing any hearts and minds here (most definitely including their own).

Actually, Ovinomancer changed his views after that thread. I did as well… if you find my posts in that thread, you’ll see that I’m still very trad-focused… though I show lots of curiosity of different games in the thread.

I think 2018 and 2019 were where I made a strong effort to learn about these things and to actively try these games. I did so largely based on many posters who are (or were ) on this site.

So yeah… sometimes it is possible for people’s views to evolve. My own have. That’s probably why I stubbornly hang in some of these threads… maybe someone else will feel similarly.

 

[TwoSix]

Actually, Ovinomancer changed his views after that thread. I did as well… if you find my posts in that thread, you’ll see that I’m still very trad-focused… though I show lots of curiosity of different games in the thread.

I think 2018 and 2019 were where I made a strong effort to learn about these things and to actively try these games. I did so largely based on many posters who are (or were ) on this site.

So yeah… sometimes it is possible for people’s views to evolve. My own have. That’s probably why I stubbornly hang in some of these threads… maybe someone else will feel similarly.

Agreed. As I've mentioned before, my own views on RPGs shifted fairly dramatically based on conversations I've had on this site about the very topics we're still discussing now.

Plus, I think there's an "iron sharpens iron" element to these discussions; the reasons behind my own views become more clear to me, and less "vibey", from the act of defending them through these discussions.

 

[Faolyn]

Content authority in Burning Wheel is distributed. For players, it is mediated via tests - typically Circles tests (to have one's PC meet a helpful NPC), Wises tests (to recall some useful bit of information about a place, thing, person, etc), or other knowledge/perception type tests. Here's an example of the latter (I've posted two accounts of it, because each highlights some slightly different features of the context and play:

Apparently I can't quote quoted text, so copypaste will do.

"I look around the room for a vessel to catch the blood was enough to establish adjudicable fiction."

Same as in any other game. In some games, the GM may call for a check to search the room to find a vessel. Did you roll high? You found something. Did you roll low? You didn't. In other games, the GM may simply say they find something, because finding a vessel is not, in itself, all that interesting because there doesn't seem to be much of a time crunch or any other threat involved that would make finding or not finding a vessel to be interesting; the actually interesting part of that scene--beating the assassin to the room--was already past and the guy was dead. And chances are at least average that one of the players has a waterskin on them that could be dumped out and used as a vessel.

"This is an example of what I mean by letting the action declaration be resolved without having recourse to the GM's pre-authored notes/setting."

Few, if any, GMs are so trapped by their pre-authored notes that they would look what they previously wrote and say "sorry, my notes don't say there's a cup or jug or anything like that in the room, so y'all are SoL." Unless the room had been previously established to be completely empty, of course. In which case a roll wouldn't do anything.

In a roundabout way, this does answer my question, which was: who gets to decide if a thing exists? The answer is "nobody." You apparently have to have the dice tell you if it exists. You can't just make it up. Even though Joachim was recuperating in a room in a wizard's tower, which strongly suggests the presence of cups, bowls, vials, and the like, so basic sense tells you should have at least one vessel in it.

So, returning to the secret Kobold fighting ring - does it speak to player-determined priorities? In which case, GM, knock yourself out. If not, then why are you talking about it?

That's far too self-centered for my tastes. How do the players know that the kobold fighting ring won't be something that interests or angers them? How do they know that it won't tie into their interests further down the line?

The argument between Thurgon and Aramina, as I have said, was about whether or not she would mend his armour. Thurgon's armour was damaged (I would guess down a die of protection, though I don't recall the details); Aramina has Mending skill (and Thurgon does not). I've told you the context, and the Beliefs that were in play. As per the notes I found in an earlier post, quoted just above, Thurgon also persuaded Aramina to get some information first.

But it was not an attempt to control movements, nor was it about "personal autonomy". And the discussion was about the mending of the armour. That, more than the other aspect, is what has stuck in my mind for the years since the actual play of the episode.

If you can't recognise how the Belief Aramina will need my protection might prompt Thurgon to request that, before they go to a dangerous place, she should at least mend his armour, that's slightly odd to me, but whatever - it doesn't mean that my recollection and account of what actually happened is wrong. Likewise, if you can't see how the Belief I don't need Thurgon's pity might make Aramina bristle at Thugon's request, given the context that is motivating it, ditto.

Oh, well, in that case you took what could have been an interesting argument about one person wanting to strike off on her own without someone else to protect her and made it into a dull and pointless request to mend armor (pointless because I'm sure there were other smiths he could go to). Awesome.

You're admitting here that it's actually what I was saying it was about. She wanted to go somewhere. She didn't want his pity. He tried to stop her from doing what she wanted to do without (what he felt was) the proper equipment. This is literally about trying to control where she went. Presumably, since she didn't want his pity, he was also being condescending to her in some way.

The argument about equipment happens in every game where equipment is a thing.

The argument about trying to prevent someone from going where she wants to go until she satisfies his conditions is about one person controlling another person.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I'm not sure I disagree with any of that.

Lack of trust in the context I've been talking about is something like a hyper-vigilance for any possible slip, or an active worry that something might be a problem not because there are signs of a problem but simply because there is no overt proof there is no problem.

I try not to be an amateur telepath. Only time I start watching behavior is if I see what seems like a possible pattern, and even then I'm cautious to not read things into behavior when there could be other causes.

One of the things about searching for error, not malignance is that if there's a pattern, chances are the person won't try and cover it up. One-off problems are a different thing, but that's why I just think if they're of any account you should talk about them then.

Trust in the context I've been talking about doesn't mean you don't speak up if something seems off, but it does mean you're generally inclined to believe the responses you receive unless there is really good reason not to, and there's an expectation that everyone is going to be dealing with everyone else in good faith.

Yeah, I don't think that applies to what I'm focused on. Though there can be muddy cases; people who make mistakes but don't like to even potentially acknowledge they might have are dancing the line between error and problematic behavior. Sometimes you have to make on the fly decisions (though I've been on record as saying a system that makes you do too broad a version of that often is overly lightweight), sometimes its going to be controversial, but you ought to at least be willing to explain your reasoning, and especially if more than one player seems dubious, consider whether its sound.

 

[Faolyn]

Okay.

Why is combat "unsatisfying and boring" with no mechanics, but other things become "unsatisfying and boring" with mechanics? You've claimed there is not just a divide but a hard divide, where one thing absolutely, desperately needs mechanics in order to not be pretty much awful, while the other needs to have no mechanics at all or it will become awful.

That level of stark difference requires defense. It can't just be asserted, or at least not if you expect people to take you remotely seriously.

The reason why combat can become unsatisfying and boring without mechanics is because it can very easily devolve into how kids play: "I shot you!" "No you didn't!" "Yes I did!" "Nuh-uh!" "Uh-huh!" And so on.

 

[Desdichado]

And Strawmen. Let's not forget the Strawmen that have me talking about wargame several hour combats.

I didn't say that you said that. I do say, however, that that's my 3e, 4e and 5e experience.

 

[Maxperson]

Well, what’s satisfying or not will vary from person to person. And the level of complexity for rules will likewise vary based on the game and what it’s trying to do.

A game that is as combat heavy as D&D is likely going to increase the number of rules and therefore the complexity because combat is a big part of the game and for such a game, that’s likely a better fit.

If the setting/genre/goal of play is something else entirely… then it absolutely make sense to resolve combat with a coin flip because it’s best to resolve it and move on to what play is meant to be about.



So some people want non-combat encounters to be as uncertain.

People like what people like. Personally, I don't want my agency completely removed by non-magical mind control. If it is used on my PC and I fail the roll, my agency drops to 0.

 

[Maxperson]

I didn't say that you said that. I do say, however, that that's my 3e, 4e and 5e experience.

When you respond to me saying there's a False Dichotomy happening, you are attributing the two extremes to me. So you essentially did say that.

I didn't play 4e.

In 3e big combats could be super long, but most fights were an 30-60 minutes. There were a good number of fights that started in one session and had to conclude in the next one.

In 5e most combats are also like 30-60 minutes. I've had one combat that went 2+ hours, but that was a super intricate, multi-wave fight at the end of that particular campaign.

 

[Faolyn]

Alright. I'm inventing this from whole cloth (since I don't play in games where DMs expect functionally unlimited trust), but here goes. I am, of course, making things a little fancier than is needed, in an attempt to capture the "realism" folks have spoken of.

Spoiler: STORYTIME YAY!!! :D

Kyle is playing Ranakht, a dragonborn paladin of Bahamut-Horus, a distant cousin of the Pharaoh on her throne, who takes his faith very seriously. The party goes to Hut-Waret seeking guidance on how to stop the awakening of an avatar of Tiam-Apep the Sun-Hunter, whose coming would lay waste to all of Kemet, Upper and Lower alike, and block the Great Nahal's life-giving, earth-dark waters. But the Hyksos priests who hold sway there are secretive and wary of others, as their foreign-born ancestors once took the crown of Lower Kemet, and they continue to revere Sutekh-Garyx above all others. As the god who protects the desert, however, his aid would be invaluable, so the party soldiers on.
Ranakht knows that, in the holy text, his god and the Hyksos' fought bitterly--but also that they came to a legal accord after, as they saw their infighting for what it was, despoiling the Black Land and the people alike, so he approaches a Hyksos guardsman. No priest of any ranking would welcome an envoy without proof--but how can they get proof to show, without the priesthood's aid?
Hannah, the DM, says, "The guard cannot be bribed. His loyalty is absolute."
Kyle: "But we can reason with him, right? This is the calling of his god, after all, to defend the land."
Hannah: "I'm sorry, he, like any of his Hyksos cousins, can't be convinced. They just aren't willing to listen to you."
Kyle frowns but keeps his peace, waiting for after the session. The party goes on to do other things, never actually speaking to the priesthood at all, and finds other allies in Hut-Waret who can help them understand the ritual being used by the cultists of Tiam-Apep.

Privately, he tells Hannah, "I'm really not very happy about what happened when Ranakht sought an audience with the priests. I know it's not supposed to just be a walk in the park, but it feels really weird and out of place that a devout member of a fellow priesthood couldn't even attempt to get an off-the-record audience with somebody. Like, this really feels like my choices don't matter very much, and especially that the backstory I worked really hard to write is irrelevant to you."

This isn't a player immediately treating things as OMG game over flip the table, run away from this HORRIBLE JERK of a DM (which is what everyone keeps painting as the only possible alternative to complete acceptance under all circumstances). But in this context, I think it's quite valid to be concerned by this action, completely without regard to whether it is backed up by DM notes or not.

In this (again, completely invented) example, if I were Kyle, being told "you just have to trust me" would not in ANY way assuage my concerns. It would, in fact, significantly worsen those concerns. I would feel like I have no ability whatsoever to seek redress, and that any request for understanding or accountability will be met with, frankly, stonewalling.

OK, I can see what you're saying here. I'd definitely get why Kyle would be upset. Her saying "trust me" wouldn't instill much confidence in me either, unless I know from previous games with her that she's good for it in the long run. If, as you say, you can still get the info or help you want from other sources (allies in Hut-Waret), then that (to me) points to a plot involving the priesthood--or that she hadn't thought up enough stuff for the priesthood and wanted you to not go there until she had sufficiently fleshed it out.

And then all I can say is to find out if there is, as I said to @Hussar, a pattern of behavior. Does she ignore other player's backgrounds or just yours? Does she consistently ignore your background or does this happen only sometimes? Does she do it all the time or only when you try to engage in certain activities? (These are rhetorical.) It may be that you can eventually list enough problems that leaving the game truly is the only option. It could be that it turns out that, other than this one rather annoying problem, she's generally pretty good so it doesn't matter.