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

[Campbell]

@Bedrockgames

The way you are boxing us in is by addressing all RPG play via reference to conventional D&D play and treating any breaks from that as something unusual that bears special inspection rather than as thoroughly normal play that deserves as much respect. You are placing the burden on us to describe less conventional play via conventional mores. You are also using definitions of railroading, agency and especially system that are not inclusive and do not consider less conventional play. It basically makes conventional D&D play the standard for what an RPG is (which I think is horse hockey).

If you are going to address roleplaying games broadly than it is on you to show some awareness and respect for less conventional play if you are expecting respect for your play.

You might not mean to be disrespectful, but expecting discussion to start from a normative baseline that centers a particular set of styles and particular structures of play is decidedly no bueno (and fundamentally erases less conventional play from the conversation of roleplaying games in the general sense).

 

[Bedrockgames]

@Bedrockgames

The way you are boxing us in is by addressing all RPG play via reference to conventional D&D play and treating any breaks from that as something unusual that bears special inspection rather than as thoroughly normal play that deserves as much respect. You are placing the burden on us to describe less conventional play via conventional mores. You are also using definitions of railroading, agency and especially system that are not inclusive and do not consider less conventional play. It basically makes conventional D&D play the standard for what an RPG is (which I think is horse hockey).

If you are going to address roleplaying games broadly than it is on you to show some awareness and respect for less conventional play if you are expecting respect for your play.

You might not mean to be disrespectful, but expecting discussion to start from a normative baseline that centers a particular set of styles and particular structures of play is decidedly no bueno.

Respect is a two way street and I do not feel like it has been extended int he other direction. I think you guys are so accustomed to talking a certain way about games you don't realize how condescending it sounds sometimes and how hubristic it comes across as also when you act as if you alone have cracked the code of how processes in games break down

 

[Campbell]

Respect is a two way street and I do not feel like it has been extended int he other direction. I think you guys are so accustomed to talking a certain way about games you don't realize how condescending it sounds sometimes and how hubristic it comes across as also when you act as if you alone have cracked the code of how processes in games break down

And I think you start from a place where your play sets the norm and we have earn our right to be part of the conversation (and pretty much the overall hobby). I think you do not realize how condescending you sound yourself. You certainly seem content stepping back while our right to our play preferences are questioned on normative grounds. Page after page of our play being called self-centered never got your intercession.

 

[Bedrockgames]

And I think you start from a place where your play sets the norm and we have earn our right to be part of the conversation (and pretty much the overall hobby). I think you do not realize how condescending you sound yourself.

I am not doing that at all. When other types of game are mentioned I am totally open to them. See how I handled Hussa'rs position on sandbox. But I do start with default assumptions of norms int he hobby

 

[hawkeyefan]

Because most people are playing some form of D&D and this is the norm. that doesn't mean there aren't other ways of playing. When they come up I acknowledge them, i don't crap on them, I don't accuse them of being less than standard games. But there needs to be a common frame of reference for conversation and it makes sense that frame of reference will be how most tables do things

So what?

in Savage World, initiative is based on a card draw. In Mothership, it’s based on a speed roll.

It’s that simple. No need to even mention other games or means of establishing initiative. We can just mention the way these two games do it, and then discuss what we consider the strengths or weaknesses of each approach.

Something can be a norm, but not be more valid than another option. I tis pretty clear what the norm is. That doesn't mean it is the better choice.

Also I've mentioned that I play games like Hillfolk too. This isn't something where I don't see how other games can operate.

Yes, you’ve mentioned Hillfolk. And it’s cool that you tried it and like it, but it also works the way it works and may not be indicative of a broader range of games.

This is the part I take issue with. It is the language capture going on, which seems to have the effect of steering things away from this style towards one with a different power arrangement at the table. The problem is you are taking terms like player driven, sandbox, and railroad, switching up their meaning and it feel like it being used to undermine the positions of people talking in favor of sandbox play

Except in my description of it as GM-led, I’ve explained my reasoning for it, and haven’t even mentioned any other games.

Because the issue is not that it’s GM-led. That’s neither a negative or a positive except in how it may align with one’s preferences. The issue seems to me rather to be that you consider GM-led play to be a negative in some way, and so you take issue with the description.

Also I don't think you have this comprehensive understanding of what is happening at the table that you think. You have a model for understanding and if that helps you, great. The problem is you are insisting that you are accurately describing what is going on and dismissing other peoples models for talking about it.

My comprehension of your game is based mostly on your descriptions and some material I’ve seen (of yours and @robertsconley ’s that has been shared) along with my own significant experience with more traditional play.

I’m confident in my understanding. If you think I’ve got something wrong, then please share your thoughts and make your argument. Don’t just tell me I’m wrong. Tell me you're right and then show your work.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I am not doing that at all.

But I do start with default assumptions of norms int he hobby

 

[Faolyn]

...Yes! That was the entire point! I was constructing something which was perfectly in keeping with the way people have described acceptable DM practice...and yet, as Hussar and pemerton and I (and others) have said, is indistinguishable from railroading.

That was the whole point. I was giving you an example of (fictional, constructed, I never ever claimed otherwise) behavior that would raise a player's suspicions for fully legitimate reasons, and which the player could not even in principle distinguish from railroading and other bad DM behavior, but which met all of the given criteria and then some.

The problem, though, is that you went into this assuming that the GM has no reason other than railroading you.

I'm sorry, I just...nothing you said got anywhere as far as I could tell. Basically the only point you made was...that it just cannot be railroading if the DM has written something beforehand. Like you've fundamentally defined the term so that it can't mean that. I disagree.

What? No I didn't say that. What I said is that example isn't railroading to me because your goal isn't being constrained.

Again, look at Hussar's example: The party had a goal of their choice (heist). The GM pretended to go along with it and then yanked it away (or initially was going to go along with it and then changed their mind). They weren't allowed to continue it, nor were they allowed to find out why they couldn't continue it. All roads to that goal were blocked, no reasons given.

Your example: The party had a goal of their choice (information). One road to that goal was blocked, but there were other roads open. They achieved their goal and got the info. No reason was given as to why your pedigree and status wasn't helpful here (when you think it should have been), but the goal was still achieved.

If the GM was railroading you, then it was to stop you from using your character's pedigree and status. This is bad GMing, because if the GM actually had a problem with that (maybe your character is a pompous jerk who lords it over everyone else; maybe you're the pompous jerk), she should have spoken to you about it. But that's if she was trying to stop you from using your pedigree and status.

Which is why I've talked about getting more than one point of data. Have there been other times when she's indicated she's not happy about you being cousin to the pharaoh? Or that she's not happy with how you RP or how you act OOC at the table?

No?

Then the problem is with the temple itself. This is either a plot point she doesn't want to get into right now (bad GMing, because she should just alter the story) or she never fleshed it out and didn't want to or couldn't do so via improve (bad GMing, because she could have just said "I don't have anything written for it", or she could have asked you or the other players to describe what's in the temple).

See, the problem here is that you don't seem willing to ask this question. You decided right away that the GM was a power-hungry adversary who only does what she wants, damn everyone else. You phrase it as "why should I give them all these chances when they would just toss a player out immediately?" and that's neither the right question nor a healthy way of addressing the problem.

And what if they aren't a "problem...GM", but just a GM doing some problem things?

By your standard, I cannot address that at all. If they do something problematic and then merely tone it down, so that it isn't egregiously bad, and is instead a persistent but lesser problem, the player's only choice is to put up with it or meticulously document a string of problems.

Again, I never said that. Not even remotely.

So here you go: if the GM, either in game or out of it, acts in a way that makes you feel you are being railroaded or otherwise subjected to bad GMing, you have my permission to tell them they're a terrible person and then leave the game. Don't give them any chances for them to explain or improve; they don't deserve it. After all, they'd do the same thing to you.

Is that what you're looking for?

None. Because I don't play any style that puts the DM in absolute-power mode.

So you're throwing a hissy fit over something that has never actually happened.

Cool, cool. Why are we having this discussion again?

I invented it BECAUSE YOU ASKED!

I asked you for an example. You could have given me one that actually happened to you.

So I'll ask again but rephrase it: Do you have an example of something that you personally experienced? Because then I can tell you how I would address it.

 

[Campbell]

So, here's my overall read when it comes to agency. In any game two things matter:

1. Autonomy - The ability to act freely, to choose one's path.
2. Teeth - the ability to impact how things proceed moving forward.

My personal belief that these are somewhat opposing forces that need to be held in balance. If everyone has complete autonomy then no one has any real teeth, no ability to dictate what happens moving forward based on their actions. Teeth can be based on established fictional positioning as a constraint, rules we agree to abide by, agreements we agree to abide by, social pressure, etc.

More conventional play norms tend to value autonomy more. Less conventional one tend to put more emphasis on teeth, our ability to compel others and be compelled by them. My issue with most conversations around agency on these boards is that the teeth / efficacy element of agency is never really part of the conversation. I think autonomy obviously should be part of it, just not all of it.

Basically by not including the teeth component we fail to acknowledge key differences and also tend to view autonomy (go anywhere, do anything) is this like spiritual good without acknowledging what we might potentially be giving up in the bargain.

It's basically people saying the agency I most care about isn't agency, but then if I try to come up with some other terminology to describe it I'm being elitist.

 

[Zardnaar]

Respect is a two way street and I do not feel like it has been extended int he other direction. I think you guys are so accustomed to talking a certain way about games you don't realize how condescending it sounds sometimes and how hubristic it comes across as also when you act as if you alone have cracked the code of how processes in games break down

You don't come here to learn about D&D but to pontificate and lecture.

Go elsewhere for actual D&D content lol.

Every DMs different. Always has been always well be. If you have very specific tastes you might struggle finding a compatible one. It's badwrongfun to not cater to them apparently according to ENworld (lol x2).

Most people are good most of the time. 80-90% of players are decent imho. The remainder can go play elsewhere.

Great players are hard to find though. They're 10-20%.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Except in my description of it as GM-led, I’ve explained my reasoning for it, and haven’t even mentioned any other games.

Because the issue is not that it’s GM-led. That’s neither a negative or a positive except in how it may align with one’s preferences. The issue seems to me rather to be that you consider GM-led play to be a negative in some way, and so you take issue with the description.

Because you are taking a style most player would say is player driven and describing as GM led. It feels like you are twisting it, to turn it on its head. And you say you play such games and don't see this as a negative. But I am also reading it in the context of all the discussions we have had on these topics and it reads to me as trying undermine the language people have around sandbox play to essentially make it seems like it does the opposite of what it promises. And I think there is a fundamental disagreement here on what it means when the GM is using prepped material in terms of agency

My comprehension of your game is based mostly on your descriptions and some material I’ve seen (of yours and @robertsconley ’s that has been shared) along with my own significant experience with more traditional play.

And we have gone over those arguments. My point wasn't to continue that part of the debate. My point was you are applying a model to these kinds of games that I think me and @robertsconley and others in the thread would say is leading you to miss the nuance of what is happening

I’m confident in my understanding. If you think I’ve got something wrong, then please share your thoughts and make your argument. Don’t just tell me I’m wrong. Tell me you're right and then show your work.

Again, we have told you where we think you are wrong. I am not just asserting it. This was a long conversation already. And I am not even saying are side is right, but I do think you are way overconfident in your assessment of game processes and, whether you intend it or not, that is being used as a bludgeon in arguments over play style