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

[Bedrockgames]

Why is this called "blorb" play? It seems excessively silly, to the point of being dismissive.

Lol I have to admit this was kind of off-putting to me. I thought perhaps it was a reference to something I didn't immediately catch

 

[Micah Sweet]

Possibly because you all view things in similar contexts and have similar play backgrounds?

Does your play background prevent you from understanding us?

 

[AnotherGuy]

On a side note, I just noticed that the 2024 rules have completely changed Favored Enemy to be simply getting Hunter's Mark and you can cast it a couple of times per day. All reference to specific monster or humanoid types is gone.

Oh I wasn't aware.
Seems like they made it a generic ability which perhaps gets more use than having it tied to a character's past. I suppose there are pro's and con's with these changes - comes down to what your table prefers.

 

[TwoSix]

I don't get why some people don't understand how completely different their game approach is from traditional play that they can't just clearly acknowledge that their games don't work the same. It would help if someone could clearly state whether or not the following is a true statement: "Items and equipment don't exist in game BW in the way that they do in D&D." I think that was the answer a few pages back, but it could have been cleared up hundreds of pages ago. Then again the post I'm thinking of didn't really come right out and say that, that was my interpretation.

Because it should be self-evident that different games work differently?

I didn't open the PDF for Brindlewood Bay and start thinking "Where are the feats? Where are the spells?" I didn't start playing Catan and think "Where is my token? Why am I rolling 2d6 and not moving my piece around the board like Monopoly?"

Likewise, I don't open a TTRPG and assume the rules are meant to serve as an objective simulator of a fictional world because I've played other games and am aware that there a lot of types of TTRPGs.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Not necessarily. The battlemaster’s Menacing Attack is a non-supernatural effect that imposes the frightened condition.

Not something I care for. A bit of design going in the wrong direction IMO.

 

[TwoSix]

Why is this called "blorb" play? It seems excessively silly, to the point of being dismissive.

Shockingly, if you read the not-very-long blog posts, they explain why. And the definition comes from someone who is actively supporting the types of play you advocate for.

 

[Campbell]

On Plausibility:

What I would say looking at my own GMing and self-scouting I have done after the fact is that I find say running Stars Without Number to the instructions it provides (and referencing blorb principles) to the best of my ability that I am still making aesthetic decisions that fit within my sense of what is plausible because when you have to create or design things there will be creative decisions. I would say that I am much more focused on plausibility as a constraint than I would be in say something like Dune 2d20. I would assume Stars Without Number as described in its text would count as a Living World Sandbox.

I have also seen a fair number of posts from Living World where they discuss certain aesthetic subjects they avoid (interpersonal drama. introspection, et al). That seems to imply within the context of the what's plausible decision space is also a filter based on aesthetic priorities.

My experience based on a broad range of roleplaying is that we as GMs weigh both aesthetic priorities and our sense of plausibility in nearly every decision we make. Our priorities will be weighted differently, obviously. The weight of those priorities and also having a different set of aesthetic priorities will also make a huge difference. This is not me trying to just flatten everything - just share how I see things based on experience that includes a broad range of play, including a game I would assume fits the definition of a "World in Motion".

 

[pemerton]

People talk all the time about what their characters do. I say that my barbarian stabbed the orc in the face. Since neither my barbarian or the orc in question exist, it is technically incorrect to state that. I should really say that I declared an attack action for barbarian targeting the orc (no called shots in D&D, so no face-specific stab) and rolled a high enough number to exceed the orc's AC reducing the orc's hit points.

I see no difference between that and talking about thinking of what is happening in the fictional world as determining causality and chain of events. It will never be perfect, it's just a GM's best attempt to think about logical consequences of ongoing events in the world and whether or not they are impacted by the influence of the characters. But that's quite a mouthful so instead it's "causal impacts".

Of course we talk about things happening in the fiction.

I'm just saying - what I think is obvious - that the fiction doesn't actually cause things to happen.

You say "I see no difference: - and as I posted in reply to @AnotherGuy not too far upthread, often there isn't. But sometimes there is: eg when talking about how consequences are determined, it's confusing to say "the world responds", as if the imaginary world had its own power, whereas it's much clearer to say that "the GM makes a decision about what happens next" - and then to explain what the heuristics and principles are that the GM uses, like "thinking about logical consequences".

 

[Micah Sweet]

Shockingly, if you read the not-very-long blog posts, they explain why. And the definition comes from someone who is actively supporting the types of play you advocate for.

Must have missed the link.

 

[FrozenNorth]

Someone (sorry, forgot who) posted a link to the duel of wits sheet to explain the process a bit. I see the same thing that I saw in 4e's skill challenges, that what I actually say doesn't really matter. You have different options you can use but they are still just options that are resolved with the roll of the dice.

If you are exercising your character’s agency, why would you say something that doesn’t really matter?

I think this is a circular argument. You can’t immerse yourself into the character, so you claim that what your character says doesn’t really matter. Then you claim that because what your character says doesn’t really matter, you can’t immerse yourself into the character!