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

[hawkeyefan]

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

Yes, this is all accurate. I don't think that it generally delivers what is promised. I do think there is more freedom for the players than there would be in say an Adventure Path. But I don't think that it is the epitome of player agency that it is often cited as. I think it is still very GM driven in that there is a significant amount of prepared material and the players are meant to interact with that.

Now, does that mean it's in any way bad? No. It's not. I just don't think it goes as far as many claim.

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 don't think I'm unaware of what's happening in these types of games.

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

But I'm not attacking a playstyle. The "bludgeoning" that you're talking about is your perception of what I'm saying, because you have a different opinion on it.

But for me, I'm fine describing this kind of trad-sandbox play as GM driven because when I run it, that's what it is. The players are choosing what to do and where to go, and that's (nearly) all been determined by me. Yes, their actions matter and will influence what happens, but it's all filtered through what I've created.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Yes, this is all accurate. I don't think that it generally delivers what is promised. I do think there is more freedom for the players than there would be in say an Adventure Path. But I don't think that it is the epitome of player agency that it is often cited as. I think it is still very GM driven in that there is a significant amount of prepared material and the players are meant to interact with that.

Okay if you believe that, it is fair. I disagree but I at least respect the position. But I would say be clear and say that instead of slipping in the GM driven language.

 

[Lanefan]

For God's sake, NO!

I keep telling you

There are states between "being a terrible person" and "perfect trust".

What do we do about those states?

Why do you keep trying to exclude the middle?

Because trust is, in the end, a binary. In any given specific situation you* either trust someone or you don't.

Do I trust this guy's going to buy a round when it's his turn?
Do I trust this person to drive me home without piling us up in the ditch?
Do I trust this person to be fair and neutral when he runs a D&D game?
Can I trust this person with a secret?

I can think of people I've known where the answers to those questions - for the same person! - would be different based on specifics (e.g. in sequence the answers might be No, Yes, Yes, and No for one guy and Yes, No, Yes, and No for another).

Do any 'No' answers make someone a terrible person? Maybe, maybe not; dependent on a bunch of other factors beyond simple trust. That said, it's possible - and IMO quite common - to put up with or even actively like someone you don't always trust and-or to trust someone you don't otherwise like; again dependent on situation.

Breaking it down to within a D&D milieu it might go:

Do I trust this DM not to fudge?
Do I trust this DM to not play favourites among the players or characters?
Do I truat this DM to be true to the notes or module he's using?
Do I trust this DM will show up for the games consistently and-or give ample warning when he can't?

A single 'No' to any of these might not be enough IMO to flag that DM as being a poor DM (and certainly not a terrible person), depending how the rest of the game turns out. It also depends, for each of us, how much value we put in such trusts e.g. I might trust a DM not to fudge while at the same time not caring all that much either way.

And the way I approach it, a DM has these trusts from me until and unless it becomes clear by established pattern that trust isn't deserved. In other words, innocent until proven guilty.

* - general 'you' here, throughout.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I don't think I'm unaware of what's happening in these types of games.

I am not saying you are ignorant or anything. And I don't doubt you have experience with them. What I am saying is you are using a model of understanding play that I feel, and I am pretty sure Rob feels, is necessarily reductive when describing these playstyles. And I do think it glosses over very important details of play. And we have discussed this endlessly, so it isn't important for you to reconsider my arguments on that front. I just think this remains an unresolved point of dispute between us

 

[Faolyn]

For God's sake, NO!

I keep telling you

There are states between "being a terrible person" and "perfect trust".

What do we do about those states?

Why do you keep trying to exclude the middle?

I... haven't been.

OK then, I'll ask you: GM won't let you use your background to get answers. What do you consider the middle position here?

 

[hawkeyefan]

That's just plain wrong. Forcing a dungeon crawl =/= sandbox play. Sorry. It's just not the same.

I never said that a dungeon crawl and a sandbox are the same.

Play =/= designing the game. The game designers design the game. DMs do it a little bit if they modify game rules.

You are conflating world building with game design when they just are not the same thing. When I world build, I am not designing D&D. Crawford and Co did the game design.

No, I'm talking about the game that people play at the table. Not the game system. The actual game being played.

GM's design and construct all manner of things to actually play the game. If they don't, then there is no game.

I mean, that was a hur hur moment, but it was done in poor taste. You know very well he was saying that he approaches the conversation from that perspective, but he absolutely does not insist that other folks have to earn a right to be in the conversation or the hobby.

You need to stop telling other people what they know. I pointed out the contradiction because, as I said earlier, I sometimes don't even know if he realizes he's doing it.

So yeah... I found it relevant.

The town is what the town is. It's (ideally) on the players to figure out how and when to interact with it and-or any of its inhabitants, or whether they want to simply ignore the place and go somewhere else.

The setting is what the setting is at this moment in its ongoing history. It's on the players to figure out how they want to interact with it and-or what they want to do to it.

The town is what the GM makes it. The town doesn't exist, it's an imaginary thing that (in this example) begins as the GM's creation and then is shared with the players. If you want the players to engage with things within the town, then you need to provide things within the town.

If the GM has not given any thought as to what the players' characters will do in the town, then I don't think he's done his job.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Is anything that isn't Narrativist-leaning one kind of game?

Did I say it was?

@Paul Farquhar plays D&D and as far as I know it, that's it. He doesn't bring up other games, and every comment he makes seems to come from the viewpoint of someone that only plays D&D.

I don't doubt that you enjoy traditional games, but your arguments always seem to keep coming down on the side of the Narrativists. Lots of "likes" on Narrativist-supporting posts, for example. You do that long enough you're going to get pigeonholed.

Well, we're in a thread about challenging the conservatism of D&D fans. Despite my love of D&D, I do think that much of the fanbase is too conservative about the game. I think this of many fandoms. People tend to become fans of something and then they don't want it to change. It's an understandable viewpoint... but one that I think is limiting and ultimately harmful to the subject.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I am not saying you are ignorant or anything. And I don't doubt you have experience with them. What I am saying is you are using a model of understanding play that I feel, and I am pretty sure Rob feels, is necessarily reductive when describing these playstyles. And I do think it glosses over very important details of play. And we have discussed this endlessly, so it isn't important for you to reconsider my arguments on that front. I just think this remains an unresolved point of dispute between us

Let me ask you... do you think it's more about how you don't want to analyze and breakdown play in this way? Whereas I am comfortable doing so.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Let me ask you... do you think it's more about how you don't want to analyze and breakdown play in this way? Whereas I am comfortable doing so.

Part of it is that. But part of it is also because I think you are using a model of analysis that doesn't really work well (at least for the way I think about games). Like I said, if you have a model that works for you. That is totally fine and good. What bothers me is the way you guys talk about that model when it doesn't work for others (you have this approach where it sounds like you are saying we are too ignorant, too stupid, or too unwilling, to explore the truth).

 

[Old Fezziwig]

Well, we're in a thread about challenging the conservatism of D&D fans. Despite my love of D&D, I do think that much of the fanbase is too conservative about the game. I think this of many fandoms. People tend to become fans of something and then they don't want it to change. It's an understandable viewpoint... but one that I think is limiting and ultimately harmful to the subject.

I tend to think it's harmful to the subject and object. It can create some really perverse incentives for both sides of the relationship.