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

[Bedrockgames]

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.



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.

It is a game. You can want the game to be different. But people aren’t doing anything wrong by liking a game in its original form. Lots of games change very little over time because people aren’t familiar with them. I just bought clue for my niece and nephew and when we sat down to play with my mom, it was a bit different but pretty much how I remembered it from when I was a kid. There is value in having a system that is that familiar to people even after they have a break. And there is also value in innovation, which is why people make other games and sometimes change existing ones. But the problem any game faces when it makes changes is appealing to a wide range of fan base, many of whom will be more accustomed to an earlier version. Framing that as a moral or character issue, which the OP is doing, doesn’t add any clarity to the conversation. It makes people defensive because it is a kind of rhetorical attack on a preference

 

[Maxperson]

But the player in the "sandbox" game is locked into playing in that sandbox. If you're running them in (say) Forgotten Realms, then they can't just have their PCs jump on board a starship and head for the Spinward Marches (a part of the GDW setting for Classic Traveller).

Hey! False Equivalences are going to be false, just so you know. There's a rather huuuuuuuuuuge difference between narrow confines in one type of activity that you can't escape, and expansive areas in almost any activity you want to engage in.

If I'm running the Forgotten Realms, the game may go to(and possibly stay in), Planescape, Birthright, Dark Sun, Greyhawk, Spelljammer, and every other setting. Plus they could dungeon crawl, open a pub, become traveling merchants, traveling circus acts, pirates, soldiers, mercenaries or anything else that THEY want to try to achieve.

But yeah, all of that is the same as being stuck in only a dungeon crawl, unable to ever leave it if you get tired of doing it.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Is The Forge where the disparaging term, "play to find out the GM's notes" that gets bandied about by that side of the discussion comes from?

It sounds very forge like but not sure. One thing I will say is I don’t have the issue with Ron Edwards some others have. I think the brain damage comment was hyperbole and if you watch his videos, my impression at least, is there is a bit of WWE style Kayfabe to his presentations. I don’t have a problem with writers or YouTubers leaning a bit into performance to make a point. Where I think these things become an issue is at the ground level where some of the forge stuff is treated as default truth (often in conversations with folks who have never encountered the concepts and don’t know how to debate the terms). I don’t even really have an issue with the forge or GNS. But some of its advocates are too aggressive and treat the discussion as a zero sum game

 

[Maxperson]

Sooo ... asking for a friend ... you guys don't dress in character while you play? Like at all?

Not unless I break out Middle Aged Guys Sitting Around a Table for a one shot.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Which is why I think it's great that there are a ton of other games out there in case you don't care for D&D's concepts.



It's fine that D&D doesn't work for you. But people also excuse saying biased things by saying "It's just a joke". This is a forum and a thread dedicated to D&D General and you constantly go beyond stating what you like and into inflammatory language that the game is objectively bad and harmful. You do no frame it as your opinion, you just state it as fact. If anyone else wrote in the same fashion, that people that play narrative games are just ignorant fools that don't know better, there would rightfully be metaphorical torches and pitchforks. Heck there's already plenty of accusations that I've said they're terrible when all I've ever said that they don't work for me.

No. I say that a specific element of the way the game is run is more often than not bad. Its also in no way required to run D&D. If you don't understand both of those, again, on you.

(And again, your line about narrative games shows you really want to make this an us-and-them thing, since I've noted I'm not interested in narrative games. If you feel a need to lump me with someone who's participated in this thread, @Pedantic is probably closest, though we have our differences.)

 

[Thomas Shey]

D&D is it's own thing, but if GM authority didn't work for people I rather doubt it would be used by other games unless it was useful.

Its present in other games because it was an early assumption when D&D set the stage for most other trad games, and has carried forward for the same reasons.

Just like HP and being fine until you're dead is commonplace in a wide array of video games. The concept of HP isn't great but it serves a purpose. Just like the GM having a different role than the rest of the players.

Processes baked into the mechanics (which would require tearing up a lot of other systems) and game operation processes (which have no mechanical implications) are far from the same things.

 

[AlViking]

No. I say that a specific element of the way the game is run is more often than not bad. Its also in no way required to run D&D. If you don't understand both of those, again, on you.

(And again, your line about narrative games shows you really want to make this an us-and-them thing, since I've noted I'm not interested in narrative games. If you feel a need to lump me with someone who's participated in this thread, @Pedantic is probably closest, though we have our differences.)

Right. You state as objective fact that something is bad most of the time. Whether or not it's bad is your personal opinion.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Right. You state as objective fact that something is bad most of the time. Whether or not it's bad is your personal opinion.

I state all evidence I've seen is its bad most of the time, and explain why. That's may not be objective by some standards, but its about as good as anyone can do assessing anything.

 

[Pedantic]

No. I say that a specific element of the way the game is run is more often than not bad. Its also in no way required to run D&D. If you don't understand both of those, again, on you.

(And again, your line about narrative games shows you really want to make this an us-and-them thing, since I've noted I'm not interested in narrative games. If you feel a need to lump me with someone who's participated in this thread, @Pedantic is probably closest, though we have our differences.)

I'm mostly just annoyed that design and creative authority are so closely linked in the zeitgeist. I want more complete and better thought through rules, I'm simply not interested in compromising the "model an interactive fictional world" design goal, and hover between disinterested and confused whenever narrativist play priorities are explained.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I state all evidence I've seen is its bad most of the time, and explain why. That's may not be objective by some standards, but its about as good as anyone can do assessing anything.

What do you think is bad. Just sticking with D&D, do you think every edition's arrangement with GM power hasn't worked?