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

[dave2008]

I would like events to proceed in a plausible fashion (subject to my and my players conception if what is plausible, of course) all the time. That doesn't mean always the most plausible option, just one that could occur based on available data. I am also open to being questioned (my wife does this all the time in our games), and am willing to change my mind if I hear a good argument.

Yep, that is what we do too. My only point is that there is not some grand internal logical other then what we (me and my group) think is plausible / logical.

 

[dave2008]

It does seem odd to advocate against choosing fun when playing a game.

I know that’s not exactly what anyone has said, but there’s an element here of “why would you not choose the fun thing?”

I mean people have been talking about how DMs have done this since the game started. So while it may not make sense to some, I think it is pretty clear it happens.

 

[dave2008]

I'm curious why you think that a living world doesn't run on the logic of plausibility.

I think I was focusing more on the logic aspect and less on the plausibility aspect. People are not logical so you can't plausibly expect them to act logically. That kind of thing.

 

[dave2008]

My apologies @EzekielRaiden , I see now that you let this thread. Sorry to summon you back. Feel free to ignore if you want (though I didn't answer on of the questions you said no-one answers for you).

 

[J.Quondam]

Astronomers are 99.7% certain that they found life on a planet 124 light years from us. I expect the earth isn't nearly as unique and/or unplausible as us humans like to think that it is.

Just a little OT quibble, but...
That 99.7% number applies to the certainty that astronomers have detected a particular pair of molecules in that world's atmosphere, not that life exists there. Where those molecules come from* is an open question not addressed by that research.


* Life is a fair guess right now, but only because on our little rocky Earth those gases are biological in origin. Planet K2-18b is completely different (maybe a huge water world), and we have no idea how planetary chemistry works under such conditions.

 

[robertsconley]

IMO, it depends on what you mean by internal logic. We know for a fact that people, and to some extent animals, do not always (and sometimes rarely) act based on what is logically the best choice for them. You then multiple those illogical choices across the millions of lifeforms (particularly sentient ones) and, IMO, it really breaks the idea of "internal logic."

Also, I find it the height a hubris that a single person (the DM) could reasonably determine what is "internally logical" in a campaign world let alone the vastness of the Multiverse.

Now, I do want to be clear that I do pretty much the exact same thing that you (and @Micah Sweet) do. The only difference, if there is one, is that I acknowledge it is not the world's internal logic but the logic, parameters, constraints, freedoms, etc. that I, the DM, construct. And that does not mean it is anything close to a RL world (even if that is my intent). It just makes sense to me and my players and that is all I am asking for.

Thanks for the reply. But I think you’re conflating internal logic with rationality. I’m not claiming people (or NPCs) make optimal or logical decisions, just that their behavior still follows from causes: past choices, emotions, goals, constraints, etc. That’s the kind of logic I’m using.

Also, I don’t claim to be simulating the vastness of the multiverse. I’m extrapolating what happens next in the PCs’ sphere of social influence, based on what’s already true. This doesn’t require omniscience, it just requires consistency.

If you and I are applying the same process, the only real disagreement is whether to call it “internal world logic” or “the referee’s logic.” For me, that distinction matters. I’m not choosing what I would personally prefer, I’m choosing what follows from what’s already been established. Moreover, I choose to commit to this process, and the players know this.

 

[hawkeyefan]

This is the thing. The straw man keeps coming up and people keep saying that isn’t what they are looking for. I mean the problems of counterfactual histories have been raised. Yes, history isn’t something you can put in a lab, so the idea that we would be able to have anything except different plausible arguments, is of course the case (you can’t prove difinitely what actions would have averted WWII). Yet people still like alt history, and they expect plausibility to be the priority in a counterfactual. You can cone up with the most exciting counterfactual if you want, but that will not be the most likely

I don't think that plausibility is THE priority in alternate history stories. There are plenty of alternate histories that would be very plausible that would be boring as hell to read/watch. They still need to be entertaining, and typically have dramatic concerns like any other form of fiction.

I think this is why @Campbell said that plausibility doesn't really tell us much on its own. I mean... if there's one thing in this thread that it seems that we'd all agree on is that we want some amount of plausibility or logic to be considered when a GM determines outcomes or other elements of play.

This is where you get phrases like The Tyranny of Fun. Also some of this gets back to things like it is a game and the outcomes being not what you expect, but simply what they are, and now you have to deal with them, is what leads to the fun for a lot of folks. I think when you shift to the GM emphasizing stuff like plausibility, that is one of the things being aimed for. The GM may not be rolling dice in that moment, they may just be deciding something based on what they think would happen. But you are looking for a let the dice fall where they may feel

Then why not just let the dice fall where they may?

When can something implausible happen? Or less plausible than many other possibilities? When does/can/may the GM decide that's what happens?

I mean... really bonkers stuff happens in real life all the time. How can that happen when plausibility is THE priority?

I mean people have been talking about how DMs have done this since the game started. So while it may not make sense to some, I think it is pretty clear it happens.

Sure, I get that. I was offering an answer to the question, not necessarily the answer or even my answer.

Although this touches on something I mentioned earlier in the thread... dozens if not hundreds of pages ago... that I think the idea of a neutral GM is potentially outdated for a lot of modern play. It certainly has its place in certain games, but I also think it is applied a lot more broadly than is actually suitable to the hobby at large. This is of course dependent on the game and the group, but it's something I've noticed conflicts with a lot of modern game design.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I don't think that plausibility is THE priority in alternate history stories. There are plenty of alternate histories that would be very plausible that would be boring as hell to read/watch. They still need to be entertaining, and typically have dramatic concerns like any other form of fiction.

I mean in a counterfactual history the priority is plausibility. It is an outgrowth of real history (though it wasn't generally taken very seriously when I was a student in college, it was fun). This is separate from alternative history novels (which would agree are taking more of a 'wouldn't it be cool if' approach to the question)

 

[Micah Sweet]

I don't think that plausibility is THE priority in alternate history stories. There are plenty of alternate histories that would be very plausible that would be boring as hell to read/watch. They still need to be entertaining, and typically have dramatic concerns like any other form of fiction.

I think this is why @Campbell said that plausibility doesn't really tell us much on its own. I mean... if there's one thing in this thread that it seems that we'd all agree on is that we want some amount of plausibility or logic to be considered when a GM determines outcomes or other elements of play.



Then why not just let the dice fall where they may?

When can something implausible happen? Or less plausible than many other possibilities? When does/can/may the GM decide that's what happens?

I mean... really bonkers stuff happens in real life all the time. How can that happen when plausibility is THE priority?



Sure, I get that. I was offering an answer to the question, not necessarily the answer or even my answer.

Although this touches on something I mentioned earlier in the thread... dozens if not hundreds of pages ago... that I think the idea of a neutral GM is potentially outdated for a lot of modern play. It certainly has its place in certain games, but I also think it is applied a lot more broadly than is actually suitable to the hobby at large. This is of course dependent on the game and the group, but it's something I've noticed conflicts with a lot of modern game design.

I don't see how whether or not anything is "outdated" in the opinion of any particular person matters to this discussion. What you're describing are the results of an eternal popularity contest. What does that matter?

 

[robertsconley]

I don't think that plausibility is THE priority in alternate history stories. There are plenty of alternate histories that would be very plausible that would be boring as hell to read/watch. They still need to be entertaining, and typically have dramatic concerns like any other form of fiction.

Sort of. For the Want of a Nail by Sobel is written as a history book mostly focused on economics. But certainly Turtledove's and Stirling's work are more dramatic history than regorus alt history. But on the Alt History forum, it is a completely different story.