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

[EzekielRaiden]

I think a lot of the Q&A feels like people are being made to take the witness stand at times. I just don't think it is productive, and too much of it seems to be getting steered towards a GNS vocabulary or framing, which I think most people on my side of the discussion simply view as not a useful model for understanding

Yes, because how dare OTHER people have words and vocabulary that don't make sense to YOU.

But YOU having words and vocabulary that don't make sense to others is fine. If they ask for clarification, screw 'em. They won't get a blessed thing.

 

[Old Fezziwig]

I'd call you on that narration (cue the table argument!): the hesitation occurs before I take a stab, not during; and barring outside intervention once the moment of hesitation passes I should be back to status quo with nothing else having changed. From there, knowing I'd hesitated once, it'd be on me-as-player to decide whether to go through with it anyway or not.

--- the target disarmed me. Did he, really, or could I (try to) fend off the attempt? UNRESOLVED
--- if the disarm succeeds, you declare by fiat I can't get my weapon back in time to do anything e.g. throw it at his fleeing back.
--- if the disarm fails, are we now in combat? Do I get to (try to) stab at him again only this time with him fully able to defend? Does he get to (try to) clock me one and leave me sprawled on the ground? UNRESOLVED
--- the target flees. Am I able to react in time to tackle him or get in his way? UNRESOLVED
--- the target is gone. If I can't stop him, am I able to see which way he goes? Also, if I inflicted any wounds are they slowing him down and-or is he leaving a trail of blood for me to follow? UNRESOLVED

Where's the detail here?

Resetting to status quo completely violates the rules for BW. If the intent is "I murder the innkeeper" (that bastard!) with a task of "stabbing him" (take that!), returning to the same scene four seconds later with no change in circumstance is a misplay. Things must be complicated by the failure. The good news is (for some sets of good news, I suppose), BW encourages discussion of stakes up front. So you should be hearing what's going to happen on failure, at least roughly, before the roll.

This does, though, point to something else I dislike about some of these systems: you just squashed about six different detailed actions into one brief mostly-fiat narration without giving any opportunity for reaction or granular resolution:

--- I took a stab at my target. Did I wound him? Kill him anyway? Miss completely? UNRESOLVED

RAW, you did not take a stab at him, you hesitated and missed your window.

--- the target disarmed me. Did he, really, or could I (try to) fend off the attempt? UNRESOLVED

This could happen next. Depending on the character and their traits, I might be inclined to make it a Vs Test at penalty or have the situation pick up in a desperate struggle for the knife.

--- if the disarm succeeds, you declare by fiat I can't get my weapon back in time to do anything e.g. throw it at his fleeing back.

If he could disarm you, such that I ellided the roll, I'd let you go after him to get the weapon back.

--- if the disarm fails, are we now in combat? Do I get to (try to) stab at him again only this time with him fully able to defend? Does he get to (try to) clock me one and leave me sprawled on the ground? UNRESOLVED

We could absolutely come around to him reaching for the club under the bar and go to Fight!

--- the target flees. Am I able to react in time to tackle him or get in his way? UNRESOLVED

Maybe not, but it's just four seconds -- you could chase him out the door and then we'd have a foot chase.

--- the target is gone. If I can't stop him, am I able to see which way he goes? Also, if I inflicted any wounds are they slowing him down and-or is he leaving a trail of blood for me to follow? UNRESOLVED

It's four seconds, how far can an innkeeper run? Assuming he's not a professional athlete and can't run in a straight line (because of circumstances, not some sort of other issue), it'd be well less than 40 yards.

Yes, it's all unresolved, but that's what we're playing for. We're playing to find out what happens! (In this situation, at least. I thank you for your cooperation!)

 

[Bedrockgames]

Yes, because how dare OTHER people have words and vocabulary that don't make sense to YOU.

There is nothing wrong with it. But it is frustrating if that framework is being imposed on a Conversation

But YOU having words and vocabulary that don't make sense to others is fine. If they ask for clarification, screw 'em. They won't get a blessed thing.

We have terms here or there like most play styles. But it is night and day. GNS comes with a whole framework of thought, an extensive vocabulary where each term seems to shape the debate and it also feels like it has baked in hostility to what we do.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

D&D (every edition) has all sorts of broken rules exploits, and these forums are full of examples of a) what they are and b) people's various fixes.

By no means does that make my calling this one out for what it is a double standard.

When the whole point is discussing why one set of things is (allegedly) a Huge Problem while the other thing(/set of things) is Totally Fine, pointing out that the first has a broken rules exploit as though it were a contributing problematic factor very much is a double standard.

It would be like if we were critiquing command economies vs free market ones, and someone brought up tax evasion as a serious problem in a free market economy without even casually mentioning that, y'know, it's just as much of a problem--arguably worse!--on the command economy side. Jabbing one while ignoring the other in a conversation is a rhetorical trick. I've seen it far too many times in my life.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

There is nothing wrong with it. But it is frustrating if that framework is being imposed on a Conversation

That's literally what you have done to others. You have also enforced your framework onto the conversation. Others are not allowed to criticize your framework--we must simply accept it whole, and any complaint is rejected as unacceptable. Your complaints about other frameworks, however, must be taken seriously.

We have terms here or there like most play styles. But it is night and day. GNS comes with a whole framework of thought, an extensive vocabulary where each term seems to shape the debate and it also feels like it has baked in hostility to what we do.

As if yours doesn't come with a framework of thought?

It's just a framework of thought you refuse to explain in any way beyond the most shallow, facile descriptions. Hence why people have repeatedly gotten frustrated about vagueness!

Everyone here is bringing a framework. All of us. Literally 100% of people participating in this thread. One side is quite willing to explain its terms when asked. One side is quite willing to go into any detail--and has done so over and over and over again. The other side refuses to give anything more than the most uselessly abstract gloss.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yes, because how dare OTHER people have words and vocabulary that don't make sense to YOU.

But YOU having words and vocabulary that don't make sense to others is fine. If they ask for clarification, screw 'em. They won't get a blessed thing.

Is the traditional side really being so vague and confusing that you can't understand what they're talking about? And as for the Narrativist stuff? Plenty of folks don't care for GNS and the Forge, and have no interest in using its IMO biased framework to discuss general RPG topics.

 

[thefutilist]

For my Living World sandbox campaigns, a perfectly fair novice question might be: what makes a place worth visiting or adventuring in, and how do you keep that interesting without writing a plot?

I am interested in that, did you answer it in one of your previous posts?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I don't know, man. I don't want to take this trip with you. It doesn't seem helpful.

I'm just extraordinarily frustrated with the constant accusations, the unending litanies of requirements, the "no you're just wrong and I won't explain why", etc., etc., etc.

I, and others who share (at least some of) my positions, have jumped through hoop after hoop after hoop. We have explained in painstaking detail. And what do we get for it? Diddly-squat. We have to explain; the other side explicitly refuses to explain. We have to justify. The other side explicitly refuses to justify--unless it resorts to "justifications" which almost instantaneously crumble as soon as the slightest touch of discussion hits them, like the whole "it takes my agency away to tell me what my character thinks or feels, like if a failed roll causes my character to feel fear", only for that standard to be completely outright contradicted and that contradiction to be claimed as some kind of victory.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Is the traditional side really being so vague and confusing that you can't understand what they're talking about?

YES.

I've literally said that. Repeatedly. I have repeatedly said that the terms being used are so vague I cannot understand what is being said. I have repeatedly asked for clarification, for alternative phrasing, for ANYTHING that might help me understand better.

I have, repeatedly, been told--by multiple people!--that they simply refuse to do that.

And as for the Narrativist stuff? Plenty of folks don't care for GNS and the Forge, and have no interest in using its IMO biased framework to discuss general RPG topics.

So you admit to refusing to actually participate in discussion? Either everyone must dance to your tune, or not at all? Everyone must agree to use your terms and only your terms, or else the discussion is called off? I mean I guess I appreciate being so up front about it...

 

[Bedrockgames]

That's literally what you have done to others. You have also enforced your framework onto the conversation. Others are not allowed to criticize your framework--we must simply accept it whole, and any complaint is rejected as unacceptable. Your complaints about other frameworks, however, must be taken seriously.

Me not accepting your framework, isn't me enforcing my frame work. I feel like I haven't really challenged the assumptions about what happens at your table. When @Hussar said he ran a sandbox with a less trad based system, I said that sounded like a sandbox to me and was great. I haven't challenged any of your assumptions about how narrativism works in your games. But you guys have drilled down any time we try to say things like our games are focused on the characters or on agency.

As if yours doesn't come with a framework of thought?

I would say not as much of a model as you guys have. GNS is clearly a model in the way something like music theory is a model

It's just a framework of thought you refuse to explain in any way beyond the most shallow, facile descriptions. Hence why people have repeatedly gotten frustrated about vagueness!

Just an FYI, this is the kind of thing I am talking about. I get frustrated and I have said things I wish I hadn't. But I try not to make statements like this about your descriptions of things. I even took some nasty messages on my blog over this thread so I was getting frustrated because it was spilling over and becoming very personal

Everyone here is bringing a framework. All of us. Literally 100% of people participating in this thread. One side is quite willing to explain its terms when asked. One side is quite willing to go into any detail--and has done so over and over and over again. The other side refuses to give anything more than the most uselessly abstract gloss.

It is very hard to have a conversation if this is how you feel about what we say