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

[hawkeyefan]

But it clearly isn’t just an aesthetic preference. If the point of play, which it is gif done people, is to retain POV for the purposes of skilled play and immersion, then giving them concrete numbers makes it less about skilled play against the environment (which is what something like OS primer was largely talking about) and instead skilled play against the DC system.

Wanting to remain as in character as possible is an aesthetic preference. Not caring to separate player knowledge from character knowledge is also an aesthetic preference.

Again you are using an expansive definition of agency. I do not agree that more information always enhances agency. This point was made in the thread on objective mysteries, where more information could actually undermine the ability to make meaningful choices

I am evaluating agency as it applies to a player playing a game. That is the relevant form of agency to use here.

And it’s not just as simple as “more info is more agency”, I agree. My comment was in response to someone giving the player a vague version of the information versus a specific form of the information. One of those options clearly enables the player to more effectively play the game because their decisions are more informed.

You have a preference and that is fine. But your assumptions are not as true as you think they are

I could say the same for you.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Wanting to remain as in character as possible is an aesthetic preference. Not caring to separate player knowledge from character knowledge is also an aesthetic preference.

It impacts actual play. As you have pointed out. We might disagree over whether it is agency, but it has a palpable impact. And whether you are gaming a system or gaming an environment also has a palpable impact beyond aesthetics. It affects tactics, strategy and how the player uses their skill against the environment.

 

[hawkeyefan]

It impacts actual play. As you have pointed out. We might disagree over whether it is agency, but it has a palpable impact. And whether you are gaming a system or gaming an environment also has a palpable impact beyond aesthetics. It affects tactics, strategy and how the player uses their skill against the environment.

No, the preferences don’t affect play. If we both play the same game, our preferences don’t matter.

Catering to one preference or the other will affect play.

Gaming the system vs. the environment… I’m not really sure what you mean here. There is no environment. So is it gaming the system vs. gaming the GM? Something else?

 

[Faolyn]

Never minding that there are a number of systems out there where combat and out of combat resolution use the same mechanics with equal levels of complexity. So, the whole argument that "we need complex combat rules" is fundamentally flawed from the word go. There is absolutely no need for combat rules to be more complex than non-combat rules. We simply accept this because... conservatism in the fandom.

Well, ish. I'm not sure you can have a tactical combat-heavy game that has simply rules for combat--and a lot of people want their combat to be tactical in nature.

 

[Hussar]

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.

"Hyper-vigilance"? Who said anything about that?

This is the point I keep trying to make. It's not hypervigilance or even just taking responses at face value. It's that the Good DM and the Bad DM do and say EXACTLY the same thing many times. Now, they're doing it for very different reasons, but, from the outside, because the players lack context, it doesn't look different.

So, what good is it to take things at face value when questions or looking for signs of problems are brushed off with "trust your DM" and being told that if you have a problem, there's the door?

The point you'r missing is that there will almost never be "overt proof" that there is a problem

 

[Hussar]

/snip
Anecdote time: Years and years ago--I mean, back in the 90s--someone in my then-group wanted to run a game of Changeling: the Dreaming. Now, this person had been in my game and basically tried to sabotage it[1], but at the time my ability to confront people was very poor so I never was able to deal with it properly. But Red Flag #1, as this indicated his pattern of behavior.

We were told to make characters who were students, staff, or faculty at a particular high school. That was our only character guideline. I wrote a character who was a substitute teacher as a way to pay the bills until she made it as a novelist. She liked being a substitute because it let her teach and also gave her plenty of free time to write.

He decided that the game involved sending us teachers on a quest to prove we were worthy of tenure, thus completely ignoring the fact that my character didn't want to be a full-time teacher. I mentioned that and he said no, I wanted tenure so I was going on the quest. Red Flag #2. (I can't remember why the students were along for the ride, but it was for a reason that ignored whatever was in their backgrounds as well.) I only went on the quest because, as I said, I was bad at confrontations at the time.

So we went to the Dreaming or whatever it's called in C:tD, found a village, and were quickly plonked down into a retelling of Snow White. Not what I was hoping for, and not actually interesting, but I can deal.

One of the other players was playing a redcap student. Dunno if you've ever played C:tD, but redcaps can eat. Like, anything and everything. They are always hungry and can't get full. That's a large part of their shtick. Anyway, at one point the PC said a curse word and, because this is the Dreaming, got hit in the face with a pie as punishment. The player quickly realized that cursing equals free food and started swearing up a storm. The GM realized what the player was doing and told him that his character was full and didn't want anymore pies. This is completely antithetical to the concept behind redcaps.

This player was very good at confrontation and did not want the GM to tell him what his character was thinking. Cue a huge argument and the end of the game.

Counter anecdote time.

I was playing in a D&D campaign about the same time, and the DM was using Keep on the Borderlands as a base. No problems. The DM was very adamant that this was a sandbox type campaign with the players having a lot of freedom. The group decided to rob the jewel merchant in the Keep. We spent most of an entire session planning the heist, doing tons of RP in character, learning the layout of things, getting schedules all that sort of thing. We wrap up the session with the plan in place and we would play it out the next session. All week the players are talking about this. The entire group is really excited.

Next week starts and the jewel merchant has closed up shop and left in the middle of the night. No warning, no note, absolutely no trail left behind. Can't follow him, he's got too much of a lead.

Now, I've told this story before on these boards and had multiple people say that the DM is not, in any way, railroading here. This was just the "objective" results of the campaign. The group quit on the spot. We all, as a group, thanked the DM politely and walked. The DM continued to have quite successful games with other groups that swore up and down that she wasn't railroading.

So, no, I really don't think terrible DM's are all dysfunctional, socially inept individuals. And, again, this is why I talk about, from the player's perspective, good and bad DM's look and do exactly the same thing and it's often impossible to tell the difference.

 

[Faolyn]

I have this same problem with theatre-of-the-mind play in general, usually when it comes to positioning e.g. did that lightning bolt just hit you or miss you.

That's definitely a possibility. Fortunately with my group, we have enough buy-in that the GM can say that the lightning bolt hit everyone over there and we accept it.

 

[Hussar]

If they have teleport, which is a pretty significant resource cost at a level 7 spell slot. They are teleporting to an area they've never viewed so they are only on target on a 74-100. Considering that being off target with a 54-73 could be just as bad, I don't personally like those odds.

Oh FFS.

This is why these conversations are so freaking exhausting. Instead of trying to actually engage the point being made, people will endlessly nit-pick. How many movement magic spells/effects are there in the game? Levitate, fly, shape changing, summonings, character abilities, hell, flat out ability of some characters to straight up fly.

Yes, I said teleport. That's true. But instead of taking the point, which is that the reason D&D is so high magic now is because it allows the players to see inside the black box and make decisions with full knowledge of the results, you're going to focus on the example.

 

[Campbell]

So, I think a certain level of mutual trust is necessary for most tabletop roleplaying, but the issue is what you are being asked to trust your fellow players and the GM to do. Trusting them to do specific things like be a fair referee in games where that applies or frame compelling conflicts that speak to the characters without directing play towards some story aim is fine. Trusting your fellow players to play their characters with integrity (where that applies) or be good teammates in more cooperative, adventuring centric play are all well and good.

Trust that someone will make it fun for you is not well and good (at least for me) because I have desires that go beyond did this not suck or was it reasonably enjoyable. I want to play in a cohesive game and the sorts of play experiences I desire require people to not be reading the room in that sort of way. That's not selfish is long as I am playing with people who share similar desires.

Trusting that everyone is bought in and playing with integrity is awesome. Using trust as an analog for don't rock the boat, don't seek out specific play experiences, don't have creative goals that matter to you is not awesome in the slightest.

 

[Hussar]

Or they enjoy it. It not meant to be a rational choice, at the end of the day tabletop roleplaying is something enjoyable we do with our hobby time.

Irrelevant.

The statement was "Games MUST have combat rules that are more complex than social rules". That's the argument. "I like complex combat rules and simple social rules" is a perfectly acceptable statement that would get zero push back from me.

But, again, this is another example of why these conversations are so exhausting. The constantly shifting goalposts. I certainly made no qualitative statements about which is better, although, again, it's being taken as such. So, instead of arguing with me for pointing out an easily falsifiable statement - "All RPG'S MUST have combat rules that are more complex than social rules" - why don't you argue with the original false statement?