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

[Faolyn]

Why would a fantasy world not be created by deities? Why would plate tectonics, and atmospheric currents, even be a thing?

Like, where are the earthquake zones? Where Poseidon is when he gets angry!

That assumes that the world has gods in the first place, or that the gods regularly interact with or control the mortal plane.

 

[Faolyn]

I dunno. Reapearedly challenging someone because you have an incomplete understanding of that thing is not really saying much other than one’s lack of knowledge.

In this case, it was because pemerton was not actually providing the information. He'd quote some rules that had nothing to do with what I was talking about.

 

[zakael19]

What I do instead of what clocks do for the players is provide summaries, or if I am lucky, a player does the summaries. I generally like it better when a player keeps track because it is more immersive.

I’m not sure I understand how these techniques are analogous at all? A clock can be used to measure the progress of a variety of things, but is always a marker of forward movement. If you have a faction clock that says “Demolish the Reconciled” it’s tracking X/X progress towards that faction goal. If you have a clock that says “escape the airship Covenant’s gaze” the X/X is how many ticks of effect you need to get to escape the airship.

&etc.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Eh, as far as I can make out @SableWyvern and @Bedrockgames are Narrativists. They like the drama stuff and play is emergent. That's my bar anyway.

Well, I suspect that play would veer off in directions that were dictated by plausible events that arise out of the hidden backstory of the setting itself. So, in the Narrativist play I am familiar with, if an issue was settled, the Fighter goes and beats up the ruffians threatening Smirk the Halfling, then that's probably about it. Not to say that the ruffians might not show up again later, with a few friends, as a GM move in some future scene. Just that, once the players have resolved whatever, the Fighter's bond, motivated that element, that the element itself has served its purpose. BRG might well have town watches and magistrates, and who knows what, get involved. Everyone ends up in jail and then they get dragooned into something or other. But what would all that have to do with character concerns? Nothing. The game has veered off into some sort of fiction that engages with what the GM has written before.

So, I am not sure I agree with you that they're Narrativists. That being said, some Narrativist play is not focused on things interior to the PCs. Premise could be external. I think it is still necessary for the game to focus ON the PCs though. Maybe a game could focus on a social question, more generally, but then I'd expect the Play to Find Out to include "where do the PCs ultimately fall on this, how, and why?" Certainly Low Myth is not a requirement though, I agree on that.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I've already given my opinion on this, which is both approaches are viable and achieve different things. I like having things like fear effects. I think I am probably somewhere on the side of moderate mechanical effects (generally I would like to be in control of my characters thoughts but there are exceptions where I think it can add to play). But I also get some people just want to control what their character thinks.

When it comes to D&D, I wouldn't read too much into exceptions. This stuff came up in teh 4E debates too where someone would try to explain why a certain mechanic didn't appeal to them (and often it is possible that explanation wasn't well thought out, but sometimes it was). And a common response was to point to existing mechanics in D&D that already did that. I think there is a key difference between something periodically showing up in a game, perhaps so you barely notice it and it actually has to be pointed out to you it has been there all along, and something being a much more prevalent feature of play. Again, I think both approaches have validity, but so too do both preferences

If the preference is predicated on "X never happens in the game I like" and then someone points out to you that it does, repeatedly, in many different ways, it is not a valid response to them say "all the examples you gave don't count" for constant ad hoc reasons. Such a response looks, quite blatantly, like merely drilling holes through the original hard stance in order to never admit that the thing you thought was true wasn't, and that your dislike isn't actually rooted in anything at all.

Not having an objective root is perfectly fine for a preference. Not having such a root but adamantly insisting there is one, all while repeatedly making excuses for why no no no it totally is objective, is the problem.

I am distinctly reminded of the Alexandrian's continuous hostility toward "dissociated mechanics" and insistence that their presence is outrightly antagonistic to the very idea of roleplaying, only to then have to twist himself into knots to justify why his favorite mechanic of all time (DM intrusions from the Cypher system) is a form of good dissociated mechanic, not a bad dissociated mechanic. One of the most bitterly hilarious things I've ever seen.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

If our plans couldn't cause us to take consequent actions, what use would they be?

Unless one rules out the whole class of "I imagined X so I did Y" from causality... which produces a rather strange account of human behaviour. "I imagined X, but unrelatedly I did Y" where Y just happens to bear connection with X. Repeatedly.

But again, think of X as an affordance, not unlike a tool. I used my imagination to picture a world in which X is manifest (the nature of that manifestation being related to the nature of X). That PROCESS OF IMAGINATION, a thought process, then led me to consider doing Y, and my imaginings of X formed a blueprint, a plan, for that doing of Y. All the causality is centered in my brain and is the product of brain function. It may be useful to metaphorically, or abstractly, describe the situation as my imagining X causing my action Y, but that is at best an abstract approximation of what took place. One should ALWAYS drill down past all the abstractions in order to achieve real understanding. This becomes exceedingly powerful if done assiduously and prudently.

For example, when we drill down past all layers of abstraction and representation here we come to a situation described by the interactions of a large number of quarks, gluons, electrons, and photons. As these behave in completely deterministic ways we begin to see the true nature of things like 'free will' and 'consciousness'.

 

[Faolyn]

Are you genuinely arguing that fear is not a mental state?

Like is this where we're really at, where "fear" isn't something a person thinks?

Because if we're genuinely claiming that "fear" has nothing whatsoever to do with thoughts, I'm not really sure it's possible for you and I to have a meaningful conversation. You are outright denying something that is objective fact. Fear does correspond to certain physiological states, yes. It also corresponds to certain thoughts.

You may want to actually read what I wrote. I was talking about what happens in game, not real life.

The objective fact is that frightened condition of D&D does not alter thoughts. It alters how you perform certain actions (disadvantage on rolls when the object of your fear is within sight) and your movement (you can't get closer to the object of your fear; in some rare cases, you may be forced to use your speed to move away from the object of your fear).

It is also the objective fact that in Burning Wheel, a character who loses a duel of wits is forced to agree with the winner. There does not appear to be a "agree to disagree" option, the loser can't just say "&(#^ you!" after the dice are rolled and walk away or simply pretend to agree but actually plan on undermining the winner, and despite me asking several times, nobody has told me what happens if the player is convinced but the dice say they're not. The closest I got to an answer is when pemerton said there's no social agreement or collaborative storytelling in the game.

So to answer your initial question: a failed save against a lion's roar isn't causing you to change your mind on anything; you just take the frightened condition. A failed duel of wits does cause you to change your mind on something: you're forced to agree and go along with the winner whether the player or character like it or not.

And to answer the question from this post, no, the frightened condition is not a mental condition. Unless the effect states that a failed save means you have to role for a short- or long-term madness effect, and I don't even know if those are in the 5.24 DMG.

 

[Bedrockgames]

If the preference is predicated on "X never happens in the game I like" and then someone points out to you that it does, repeatedly, in many different ways, it is not a valid response to them say "all the examples you gave don't count" for constant ad hoc reasons. Such a response looks, quite blatantly, like merely drilling holes through the original hard stance in order to never admit that the thing you thought was true wasn't, and that your dislike isn't actually rooted in anything at all.

Not having an objective root is perfectly fine for a preference. Not having such a root but adamantly insisting there is one, all while repeatedly making excuses for why no no no it totally is objective, is the problem.

I am distinctly reminded of the Alexandrian's continuous hostility toward "dissociated mechanics" and insistence that their presence is outrightly antagonistic to the very idea of roleplaying, only to then have to twist himself into knots to justify why his favorite mechanic of all time (DM intrusions from the Cypher system) is a form of good dissociated mechanic, not a bad dissociated mechanic. One of the most bitterly hilarious things I've ever seen.

All I am saying is something existing before but was unnoticed doesn’t mean that thing can’t become a problem for done people if it is made a more prevalent feature of play. Sometimes something rarely coming up is fine, but it being more central might make it more of an issue. This isn’t saying your examples don’t count, it is just recognizing the core issue may be more complicated

 

[Faolyn]

The rules are clear that the PC involved in the DoW isn't subject to mind control and free to feel and think how they want. Based on that, my reading is that non-participant PCs also remain free to feel and think how they want but recognize who's won or lost the DoW and act accordingly. I don't think the suggested conflation of non-participant PCs and the audience is intended, and, as you're pointing out, leads to strange places.

Except that the rules are also clear that the PC must agree. "Although the Duel of Wits cannot make a character like or believe anything, it can force him to agree to something--even if only for the time being."

I'm not sure where Crane said this, but my understanding is that the conflict rules (DoW, Fight!, Range and Cover) are intended to be used for any conflict, regardless of participants. My experience has been that winner-take-all conflicts are very rare in DoW because of the compromise rules, and it usually happens because of bad luck in scripting or rolling. (I suppose it could happen because of poor scripting, too, but that's harder to quantify.)

I don't agree that the audience has to think the winner is correct, necessarily (cf., my conversation with @Lanefan regarding parliament and MPs handling the aftermath of the PCs losing a DoW), only that the winner has won the argument. A certain amount of them might think the winner is correct and in some cases that might be the point of the DoW (e.g., the Stakes are "I want to convince the people to rise up against Johann the Bad!"), but I think it's easy to imagine daylight between (a) thinking the winner is correct or right and (b) thinking the winner won, and, then, in both cases, comporting themselves accordingly.

But again, the book is very clear that the audience will agree with the winner. It even gives an example: if the dwarf seneschal wins the debate against the elf ambassador, the dwarfs will stay out of elven politics and out of the war. If the elf ambassador wins, the dwarfs will stand with the elves on the matter.

There's a very creepy example a couple of pages later on where you (presumably the PC) "petition the Emperor for his sister's hand in marriage" and wins. The Emperor agrees! He gets the babe! That 100% answers my worry that awful players will use this to sexually exploit NPCs and other PCs--it's written into the rules as an acceptable use of the DoW! But I guess I can't be too surprised at this, considering one of the traits you can take is catamite, which you need to take if you want to be openly gay! barf.

(It's a male-only trait, so I guess lesbians don't exist. And I'm not looking through every trait but there's no asexual or nonsexual traits either, so I guess I don't exist. Excuse me while I poof out of existence.)

.
.
.

I think your reading here isn't entirely charitable -- the reference to "the cat's meow" isn't rules text but an analogy aimed at clarifying his intentions in the section and that the DoW is not mind control. Maybe it's unsuccessful at doing so, but I think the next paragraph is more useful in sussing out how the rules are meant to be used: "though the Duel of Wits cannot make a character like or believe anything, it can force him to agree to something -- even if only for the time being" (BWGR 398). As I've pointed out above, I don't think conflating the PCs (participants or otherwise) with the DoW audience is useful or helpful for play.

Back! I had to go look at a more welcoming game for a minute.

The rules: This isn't mind control.

The flavor text: All onlookers think the winner is awesome and the loser is a loser who loses! All onlookers thinks the winner is totally correct and see all the advantages of following the winner, and in fact must follow him!

Yeah, there's a bit of a problem here.

Imagine a game that wrote "GMs and players should think having negotiations between the PCs and the monsters they encounter instead of just killing them," but every single bit of flavor text and art was about humans and monsters killing each other. Nothing that shows a human and monster sharing a drink or having an intense conversation or anything like that. I don't think it would be uncharitable to think that maybe the game isn't really into supporting the whole "negotiation" thing.

 

[hawkeyefan]

It's quite possible that an event would have several potential outcomes. However:

(1) It's ridiculous to expect that any one person would be able to determine every single outcome the event could cause. Especially when you bring fantasy elements into it. It's possible that the deaths of all the members of the Imperial family triggered a prophecy that ripped open a portal into the Abyss.

I don’t disagree with this at all. It’s one of the things I’ve been pointing out.

(2) Not every possible outcome the GM can imagine is equally likely. In my Impiricide example, it's possible that the formerly warring kingdoms may choose to stay united as a republic or confederacy or something similar. It's possible that there would be no or minimal uprisings from oppressed groups because of local armies. Are these outcomes as likely as the former empire becoming Balkanized? I'd say no; someone who is more versed in this sort of history may say differently--but they're not running this game.

Sure, but how is plausibility of different events compared? Certainly there’d be some obvious answers when two possibilities are compared. But there are also going to be some that are equally plausible, or close to it.

How is a choice made from that point?

(3) Because this is a game, the logical outcome of an event also includes the proviso "must make the game interesting and fit in with the game's tone." Saying that the formerly warring kingdoms choose to stay united may not be all that interesting to the group or fit in with the tone, if the game is supposed to be grim or gritty. On the other hand, if the game is supposed to be about beating back the darkness and bringing hope to the world, then saying that the warring kingdoms do choose to be united would be more interesting and logical for the setting.

I think you’d be surprised how many people might disagree with the idea of a GM determining things based on what’s interesting or fun. I wouldn’t be one of them… I mean, who wants a GM to pick something that’s obviously boring?

And yet there are people who insist they do not think of this at all. That fun or interesting gameplay or character focus or anything other than depicting a living world should not be considered by the GM at all.

There may be lots of potential outcomes that could come as the result of an Impiricide. But keeping the above three points in mind, I'd wager it's more likely that there really will be only a single outcome that could logically happen. That's not to say that if two different tables had the exact same thing happen, their outcomes would necessarily be the same.

I think that’s a really odd conclusion to draw after your three points.