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

[Faolyn]

None of which addresses the core point.

The claim was that a game which forces a character into a particular emotional state (fear was the topic at hand, but the claim was made in a way that was more general) specifically because they failed a roll, is a game that cannot feature agency, because it is a rule dictating what a character feels. This is of course immediately undercut by a massive glaring exception--magic--but I am well aware that that ship has sailed, and am willing to accept the modified claim that a mundane situation would be unacceptable intrusion into player agency as had been defined, e.g., the player has absolute control over the thoughts, feelings, and actions of their character outside of non-mundane causes, or more succinctly, "The rules cannot tell me what my character thinks."

I then cited several examples where D&D does in fact do that exact thing: a purely mundane source, written as purely mundane, which can in fact force a specific mental state (fear), specifically by having the player fail a roll.

Note the bolded bits. Even in 5.24, a perfectly normal lion isn't telling you what your character is thinking. It's roar is causing you to secrete norepinephrine and epinephrine, causing you to experience fear. Or possibly it causes an increase of blood created in the marrow, thus causing an imbalance in the humours and for the person to become frightened as a result. It depends on where your world is on the realistic-to-medieval scale.

But it doesn't change how or what you think.

Compare to the duel of wits. According to actual rules I've seen, if a player loses any dice during the argument, they must compromise on their terms, and if they lose, they must agree with the other person, even if only for a short time. In other words, the roll of the dice means that a person's thoughts changes, albeit by a small amount for a short time.

So your premise is quite wrong. No amount of roaring on the lion's behalf is going to make me think differently about something.

And in the BW example, one player was forcing another player to hesitate, because pemerton refused to say for nearly two weeks that this was taking place in a highly unusual two-player game where both players were also GMs.

(Actually, in doing more reading about the duel of wits, it seems like it's not designed to be used as an actual way to argue with someone--you can't use the duel to convince someone to mend your armor, which is what, IIRC, pemerton suggested. Instead, it's designed to be used like a debate where you convince a third person or an audience, who are NPCs. Which would also have been nice to know two weeks ago.)

 

[pemerton]

Those sound more like games that focus on logistics, or planning, or problem/puzzle-solving.

OK, here you're proving you're not actually understanding anything that I've been writing. Like, at all.

Maybe not. But in your post you go on to (i) set out a "story arc", and do it (ii) in terms of logistics, tasks and puzzles/problems that will make those tasks harder:

"You need to bring blood to the naga, but there's an assassin there who killed the guy whose blood you need." Now, I can't remember what exactly you said so I will say that for this version of the example, the naga said get me blood right now, you measly biped, or you will learn first-hand how far my jaw can dislocate!, meaning the PC has to hurry. Let's break down the tasks involved here:

Task 1: Getting to the sick room in time.
Task 2: Seeing a cup.
Task 3: Getting to the cup while avoiding the assassin, or Fighting the assassin, then getting to the cup.
Task 4: Getting to the corpse while avoiding the assassin, or Fighting the assassin, then getting to the corpse.
Task 5: Getting the blood in the cup and not all over you.
Task 6: Getting the blood back to the naga in time while keeping onlookers, guards, etc. from seeing you're carrying blood in a cup.

I think that's all of it. Any tasks I missed?

So perhaps I have misunderstood you, but your post here seems quite consistent with what I posted above.

 

[robertsconley]

Referees “fooling themselves” or engaging in “self-deception” when treating a setting as a real place for adjudication purposes is not a neutral observation, it’s an inflammatory claim dressed in polite rhetoric. It belongs to the same class of dismissive fallacy as Ron Edwards’ notorious “brain damage” comment. The difference here is that the claim is being walked back, through denial, obfuscation, and semantic sleight-of-hand, because its implications are damaging to the speaker’s credibility.

The pivot to the Santa Claus analogy compounds this by framing those of us who adopt an objective, treat the world as real, plausible, approach as immature adults who can’t distinguish fiction from reality. It casts judgment while positioning the speaker, and their framework, as the grown-up in the room. This tactic flatters supporters and subtly delegitimizes opposing viewpoints by implying superiority through metaphor rather than argument.

This rhetorical posture isn’t neutral. It is designed to bait opponents into emotional reactions, thereby undermining their own arguments with fallacies. It’s clever, but ultimately corrosive to honest discourse. And yes, it’s malicious, because its purpose is not clarification or mutual understanding, but diminishing another perspective while appearing above the fray.

Why does this keep happening? Because the Living World framework, and others like it, arises from assumptions and goals incompatible with the speaker’s preferred model. Rather than acknowledging that a coherent, procedural logic underpins this style of play, the response has shifted into mischaracterization and degradation. Not through direct refutation, but through rhetorical maneuvering disguised as polite disagreement.

All of this has happened despite multiple people, including myself, acknowledging that we understand their framework and its assumptions. We’ve explained how our framework operates differently, not as contradiction, but as an alternative rooted in a different vision of what RPG play can be.

I hope this breakdown is useful for those trying to move the conversation forward. Recognizing these rhetorical patterns is the first step in defusing them and keeping the conversation grounded in good faith and mutual respect.

 

[pemerton]

(Actually, in doing more reading about the duel of wits, it seems like it's not designed to be used as an actual way to argue with someone--you can't use the duel to convince someone to mend your armor, which is what, IIRC, pemerton suggested. Instead, it's designed to be used like a debate where you convince a third person or an audience, who are NPCs. Which would also have been nice to know two weeks ago.)

You're wrong here. What you describe is one possible use - in Torchbearer 2e that is called a Convince Crowd conflict.

But it can also be used to resolve an argument between two people, and in my experience that is the more typical use of it: in Torchbearer 2e these are called Convince conflicts and Negotiate conflicts.

(In case you're wondering why I mention TB2e, it's because it's a game by the same designers using many of the same basic principles and techniques, but with some refinement/development of the BW systems.)

I haven't quoted rules text in this post, but you can find it in the core rulebook, with further discussion in the Adventure Burner reprinted in the Codex, and if you review the free sample adventure The Sword you'll also see there that Duel of Wits is (inter alia) a resolution system for an argument between two characters.

 

[robertsconley]

If the conversation doesn’t move forward from here, I expect the next replies will focus on tone-policing, denying intent, or doubling down on analogies rather than addressing the core issue: that different frameworks of play, like the Living World model, operate on internally consistent logic and do not require narrative authorship to be valid or responsible.

At that point, it becomes less about discussion and more about defending a worldview. That’s fine, but let’s not pretend that’s mutual engagement.

 

[pemerton]

Referees “fooling themselves” or engaging in “self-deception” when treating a setting as a real place for adjudication purposes is not a neutral observation, it’s an inflammatory claim dressed in polite rhetoric.

No one is making it. You're boxing at shadows.

 

[pemerton]

That’s fine, but let’s not pretend that’s mutual engagement.

I'm looking forward to your engagement with my interest in discussing the heuristics and rules that govern GM decision-making in "living world" play.

I've identified plausibility as one heuristic; but made the (obvious) point that it does not normally generate unique outcomes.

I've also suggested conformity to tendencies that might be extrapolated from the GM's setting notes and from what has happened in play so far. I don't think you've said anything in response to that.

I've asked about whether doing something because it will be fun, or interesting, is acceptable - or rather is unacceptable "meta agency" - but you've not replied.

 

[robertsconley]

@pemerton You’re still missing the point. I’m not claiming imaginary things have real-world causal power. I’m saying that in a Living World framework, we treat the setting as if it has internal logic and continuity. That logic isn’t authored moment to moment, it’s extrapolated from prior events, procedures, and in-world reasoning. The world doesn’t change because I, the referee, decide it does. It changes because something in the world logically follows from something else. That distinction matters.

Saying “there is no world that exercises causal potency” is a complete rejection of that model. You’re collapsing adjudication into authorship, pretending that just because the referee is the one rolling the dice or consulting the tables, the world has no independent frame of reference. That’s not how I run my campaigns, and it’s not how a lot of sandbox referees do it either.

You’re trying to reframe this as if we agree on everything but the procedures. We don’t. This isn’t a mechanical disagreement, it’s a fundamental difference in how we treat fiction at the table. You want everything to flow from declared authorial intent. I want the world to follow from its own logic, shaped by player interaction and referee procedure, not referee authorship.

Calling that “unclear” or “obscure” doesn’t make it so. It just shows you’re not engaging with the actual distinction.

 

[robertsconley]

No one is making it. You're boxing at shadows.

You’re backpedaling. You literally described referees who “seek to fool themselves” as being like children who believe Santa Claus is real. That is the textbook definition of self-deception. Denying you said it doesn’t change the record, it just confirms you don’t want to own the implications of your own analogy. If you meant something else, you chose your framing poorly. But don’t pretend this is me “boxing at shadows” when the language came from you.

 

[Lanefan]

Compare to the duel of wits. According to actual rules I've seen, if a player loses any dice during the argument, they must compromise on their terms, and if they lose, they must agree with the other person, even if only for a short time.

What's the statue of limitations on "let it ride"?

(Actually, in doing more reading about the duel of wits, it seems like it's not designed to be used as an actual way to argue with someone--you can't use the duel to convince someone to mend your armor, which is what, IIRC, pemerton suggested. Instead, it's designed to be used like a debate where you convince a third person or an audience, who are NPCs. Which would also have been nice to know two weeks ago.)

And if the third person is a PC?

Bare-bones example: your PC wants us to go to Hightop and my PC wants us to go to Karnos, so we both try to convince pemerton's PC as his is the deciding vote.