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

[bloodtide]

So, seems loaded to me, because I expect most of us don't experience much, or any, player ranting. We have pretty low key interactions with our players.

To speak of "ranting" as a major concern seems either hyperbole (where the loading would be part of the effect), or you having a highly peculiar situation.

I find it to be common.

It would seem everyone else only plays RPGs with their best friends. I often play with strangers or people I "just" know.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I want to play a game.

By all evidence to date, you either want to bash people into your exact definition of what that accounts or put on a facade that's what you do online. In addition, if taken seriously, live in a very strange little bubble of experience, so you'll excuse me if I'm not going to take your responses here very seriously.

 

[zakael19]

On contrivance: at some point setting and scenario design needs to happen. Within the constraints of what is possible there will be a range of plausible stuff that could happen, all of it relatively equally contrived. We then have to look at, given a set of plausible stuff what are our aesthetic goals? Often it might include avoiding stuff that might look contrived, like interpersonal drama or running into people the characters have interacted with before. In the context of adventuring that makes perfect sense. In other contexts, like running a criminal gang in a city where no one ever really dies or a game like Exalted with larger-than-life characters with grand mythic destinies these sorts of "contrivances" seem downright realistic. Sometimes avoiding contrivance and personal stakes can itself be contrived.

Did I miss a thread of discussion with all this talk of contrivance? I don’t have any context for the back and forth about it these last couple pages.

 

[Thomas Shey]

On contrivance: at some point setting and scenario design needs to happen. Within the constraints of what is possible there will be a range of plausible stuff that could happen, all of it relatively equally contrived. We then have to look at, given a set of plausible stuff what are our aesthetic goals? Often it might include avoiding stuff that might look contrived, like interpersonal drama or running into people the characters have interacted with before. In the context of adventuring that makes perfect sense. In other contexts, like running a criminal gang in a city where no one ever really dies or a game like Exalted with larger-than-life characters with grand mythic destinies these sorts of "contrivances" seem downright realistic. Sometimes avoiding contrivance and personal stakes can itself be contrived.

I'd argue that's applying some concepts of verisimilitude to genres and settings where they don't work, at least as normally applied. I always think the most blatant example is trying to apply the same expectations to something that is avowedly supposed to be a fairly conventional superhero setting as you would to a gritty post-apocalypse game. There are some people who just can't properly engage with the proper approach to the latter (it used to come up back in the days on reg.games.frp.advocacy from the most simulationist members) but the bottom line is that you can't use one-size-fits-all here.

 

[Pedantic]

I'd argue that's applying some concepts of verisimilitude to genres and settings where they don't work, at least as normally applied. I always think the most blatant example is trying to apply the same expectations to something that is avowedly supposed to be a fairly conventional superhero setting as you would to a gritty post-apocalypse game. There are some people who just can't properly engage with the proper approach to the latter (it used to come up back in the days on reg.games.frp.advocacy from the most simulationist members) but the bottom line is that you can't use one-size-fits-all here.

I certainly couldn't do it. Superhero settings just crumble under any examination, I struggle to maintain the correct mindset. There's just never enough there, when you've got the whole palette of gameable interactions instead of consuming media that's already been cleaned up to fit the right shape.

 

[Umbran]

I find it to be common.

It would seem everyone else only plays RPGs with their best friends. I often play with strangers or people I "just" know.

My base group is folks I know well, but I play with folks I'm not familiar with several times a year, and don't see this problem.

Edit to add: This is not to say that I don't have disagreements with those players. Just that nobody "rants". Nobody takes up half an hour over rules points. Even when I play with kids, they are better behaved than that.

 

[thefutilist]

Whether it's real or an illusion in this case really doesn't matter. More to the point, even if someone believes that it's illusion and is correct, they're still wrong if they then go on to say, "And therefore, you would be better off accepting the contrivance." They may be better off accepting that contrivance. However, to claim that I, too, would be better off, is certainly a bridge too far.

Well I specifically wouldn't say that. Or rather, without context it makes no sense to say that because we're talking about techniques. I have no idea whether there are any techniques that could 'improve' your play, assuming you even found it desirable.

The most common way of getting Narrativism in trad play is to front load the contrivance in prep and then have no contrivance at all during play. In fact there are arguments that certain types of contrivance in play would be destructive to the whole endeavour.

'Living world techniques' are very similar to how you'd prep but you're making sure that the initial situation is tense in such a way that no matter what happens, it has some kind of pay off. Even if a character says 'screw this I'm off to start a stray dog sanctuary', then the character is constructed in such a way that this is a meaningful decision.

So in this regard. The Narrativist critique is 'hey I notice you're prepping a lot of tense geopolitical events rather than say, the types of fish found in the various rivers and their migration patterns.' Almost as if you're prepping for 'adventure stuff' rather than 'fishing stuff.'


Also if I make a character that has the background:

I want vengeance on my brother (the current King, rules in a climate of peace), he killed our warmonger father (the last King). I do actually want peace though and my anger issues mean I'm bad at leading people.


Then can I do that within a 'living world'. If I can, then aren't we at the breaking point for contrivance?

If I can't and must make an 'adventurer' who doesn't fit into the created geo-political landscape because the GM already has the world all prepared. Then isn't that itself a contrivance?

I'm not saying, it's all contrivance so throw away this living world nonsense and create a Sophies choice scenario each scene.

I am saying that to the extent that you must alter the world (during prep) to accommodate a character with drives, ambition and capacity, then that's the extent to which you've already stepped over the Narrativist threshold.

 

[robertsconley]

I would say they are likely constrained in some ways, no? Like they can’t get to Boston from Dallas without a long trip, or if they can’t afford passage of some sort. And to be clear… this isn’t a problem, it’s just that there are likely going to be constraints from within the setting that may limit their options.

To be clear, the response about players being “constrained” by things like distance or money misses the point entirely. It relies on a shift in meaning, what I referred to as constraint, was narrative constraint: the idea that the referee directs the story or limits player options through imposed plot structure. Reframing that to mean logistical or in-world limitations is an equivocation. Of course, players can't teleport across the map or bypass in-setting costs; that’s not what was being debated.

By substituting in-world realism for narrative structure, the reply effectively dodges the actual issue. It’s a soft strawman, replacing my point about player-driven choice within a reactive world with a much weaker claim I never made. It also assumes a false equivalence between all types of “constraints,” erasing the procedural difference between a Living World and other types of structure. Agreeing with a diluted version of my point about in-world barriers while sidestepping the structural claim is not clarification, it’s misdirection.

 

[thefutilist]

Did I miss a thread of discussion with all this talk of contrivance? I don’t have any context for the back and forth about it these last couple pages.

This post maybe:

T

D&D General Post in thread '[rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.'

Yesterday at 1:53 AM

It sounds like the way you construct your sandboxes and do the up front work, if your players do 1 & 2 you're quite possibly playing a game in the narrativist dynamic per 4. It sounds like your factions in the world have goals that they're pursuing the PCs may run up against, the PCs have drives and interests in the world, and you're not planning ways things turn out. This may not be your intention or goal, and maybe your players are a little less doing 1&2, but while games like BITD or AW or whatever may be designed from the get go to essentially force narrativist play dynamics...

• thefutilist

• 
• 

 

[robertsconley]

I know it’s already been pointed out, but yeah, these are the offhanded comments made about other games that I don’t think you and @Bedrockgames even realize you make.

Most RPGs aim to create and portray plausible, believable worlds (even if they’re fantastic in ways). Perhaps you place that above any and all concerns, but that doesn’t mean it’s a concern that only you strive for.

This mischaracterizes both the intent and content of what I wrote. I’ll break this down clearly, step by step:

1. “Offhanded comments... I don’t think you even realize you make.”

This is a mind reading fallacy, suggesting that myself and @Bedrockgames are subconsciously demeaning other games without providing actual evidence. It’s not based on anything I explicitly said, but rather on a perceived tone or implication.

It also serves to poison the well, framing our contributions as suspect before engaging with the content. Instead of dealing with the actual claims made, this line subtly undermines the speaker’s credibility by suggesting we’re unaware of our own biases. If there's a specific statement that seems problematic, it should be quoted and addressed directly, not vaguely alluded to.

2. “Most RPGs aim to create and portray plausible, believable worlds…”
This is a motte-and-bailey fallacy. I never claimed that other RPGs don’t aim to create believable worlds. What I did was describe the method and design structure used in my own campaigns (Living World sandbox) to support a feeling of realism. That’s a substantive distinction about process, not a denial that other games care about immersion or plausibility.

This shift from a specific point (different structures lead to different expressions of realism) to a generalized platitude (“most games want to be believable”) avoids engaging with the core argument and instead reframes it into something trivially agreeable.

3. “Perhaps you place that above any and all concerns…”
This is a strawman argument. Nowhere did I claim or imply that realism is placed “above any and all concerns.” I stated that in my campaigns, one of the primary design goals is to make the world feel as though it exists independently of the players, i.e., a "real" place. That is a goal, not an exclusive obsession or universal prescription.

This framing misrepresents my position to make it seem like I’m dogmatic, which invites the reader to dismiss the argument without considering its substance.

4. “…but that doesn’t mean it’s a concern that only you strive for.”
This is a false attribution. I did not claim exclusivity over the goal of realism or world believability. I drew a contrast in methods, how different systems achieve different effects. Blades in the Dark uses flashbacks, abstracted time, and shared narrative control to evoke a specific genre experience (e.g., heist fiction). My campaigns rely on a simulated, persistent world governed by in-world logic.

Highlighting these differences is not a claim that only one approach values believability; it’s a way to explain how different games get to different outcomes. If we can’t talk about design trade-offs without someone interpreting that as a moral judgment, then we can't have a meaningful discussion about design and theory.

Wrapping it up
This pattern of reframing and tone policing doesn’t move the conversation forward. If you disagree with my structural approach, then say so and explain why. But don’t recast my statements into exaggerated or emotionally charged interpretations I never offered.

I’m happy to debate procedural structure, design goals, and playstyle differences all day long, but I expect the discussion to remain grounded in what’s actually said, not what’s inferred through rhetorical projection.