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

[robertsconley]

Upthread, we talked about different assumptions.

This:

There is no objectivity here at all. There cannot be.

Embodies a distinct philosophical tradition. We do not have to get into the details, but the short version is that I do not share the assumptions of that tradition regarding objectivity. The fact that this is one of your beliefs is OK.

I'm still rather failing to see how this is different than what any DM does.

That is fine too. Just so it is clear, the reason we are having a disagreement (not an argument) is due to our incompatible views on the nature of objectivity. This difference results from irreconcilable philosophical assumptions.

Again, that is OK. It is an age-old debate, and we are not going to resolve it here on the forum. And your views make sense in light of your assumption and I hope mine does in light of mine.

I never questioned your methods. Your methods I agree with. Where I disagree is with this idea that your methodology results in some sort of independency of the setting from the DM. Since you are focusing on what is probable, but you are also the sole source of determining what is probable, any choice you make will always be the result of you and your personal views.

I understood that from earlier in the thread. So we are good.

Taking one last stab at this: if you say I have a choice, then by implication, I can choose to be objective. I can choose to hold myself to a standard of conduct that my group can assess for themselves in order to determine whether I am applying that standard of conduct.

As a result, I choose to have the setting unfold according to its own internal world logic. When I exercise discretion, I choose do so in accordance with specific principles, such as only selecting from plausible outcomes. I chose to use my players goals and motivations as part of the criteria to make that selection.

This follows logically from your premise that any choice I make will reflect my personal views. My point is that I can choose to discipline those choices in a consistent, observable way that gives the setting internal independence from moment-to-moment improvisation.

Otherwise, let us agree to disagree.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

There were three popes in two-and-a-half months in 1978. Weird stuff happens.

Right. The general 'how it goes' of the world is pretty predictable. We can be fairly confident that certain ongoing current events will continue to be ongoing for the near term. So the 'gist' of things is predictable. I'm not sure we can evaluate the plausibility though. I would have probably rated a lot of what is going on in the world today as seeming far-fetched 30 years ago. In retrospect we can often see the genesis and evolution of some trend or event, but looking forward is remarkably hard, and it is remarkably hard to even say what is possible. And that's BEFORE any weird black swan kind of stuff even comes into play. Nor am I even treading near the level of predicting anything about individual people. To say you have any clue as to what will happen in any given individual's life tomorrow is patently silly. I mean, we can assume it will be the same as today, but that's it. Often that's wildly wrong.

 

[SableWyvern]

Right. The general 'how it goes' of the world is pretty predictable. We can be fairly confident that certain ongoing current events will continue to be ongoing for the near term. So the 'gist' of things is predictable. I'm not sure we can evaluate the plausibility though. I would have probably rated a lot of what is going on in the world today as seeming far-fetched 30 years ago. In retrospect we can often see the genesis and evolution of some trend or event, but looking forward is remarkably hard, and it is remarkably hard to even say what is possible. And that's BEFORE any weird black swan kind of stuff even comes into play. Nor am I even treading near the level of predicting anything about individual people. To say you have any clue as to what will happen in any given individual's life tomorrow is patently silly. I mean, we can assume it will be the same as today, but that's it. Often that's wildly wrong.

We don't need need some objective rating of plausibility that can be reduced to some hard, numerical rating, though.

Do the players feel it's plausible? Do the players feel that less plausible things fall within an acceptable range as plausible outliers? Then it's plausible enough, which is all that is required.

It's already been established that this is something that occurs in many games, across a range of styles. The only thing that really differs is that some of us start prefer to start with plausibility when assessing outcomes, while others might look to other guiding factors first.

I given GM might first come up with a series of events that drive the drama or bring a character trait into play, or provide screen time to a particular player, or test a belief, or that they find personally interesting or whatever. Plausibility is likely be assessed later, and given a particular weight. Maybe, "is this actually possible" is enough. Maybe it's a matter of, "how much effort would it take to justify?" The precise weight given to plausibility will vary. It might be important, or not.

Some of us in this thread are simply saying we tend to start with plausibility first as part of our process. In the middle of play, I may pick what I feel is most likely, or weigh up rough probabilities and use a weighted die roll to select from a range. Outside of play, I will generally do that latter. If I have a particular, interesting idea I want to push ahead with (ie, I have failed to think about plausibility first), I will often specifically stop myself from just inserting it into the game, and will instead do my best to rate it objectively, assign a probability, and have it compete with other plausible options to help ensure my decisions remain more objective.

For the record, I disagree with @Lanefan that there should be a single, objectively correct outcome and the same situation should always result in the same outcome. I don't think that's at all necessary.

 

[Hussar]

I explain my position, the GM explains theirs, we reach a decision, we move on. Most likely, the root cause of the disagreement was a miscommunication and we both had slightly different understandings of the situation, so once we identify that point of confusion, it's generally easy to reach a mutually agreeable resolution.

"Wait, the manservant was definitely sneering at me earlier. Why am I being treated like the bad guy here?"

"Oh, my bad, I was saying that he was peering at your amulet."

"Oh, that makes so much more sense. Well, in that case I obviously wouldn't have raised this with the King. Instead, I would have said X".

"OK, no worries, we'll disregard the original exchange. In reality, the King responds this way."

Or whatever, depending on the exact context.

If you're talking about some hypothetical situation where the GM and I have irreconcilable differences about how the events should turn out and neither of us is willing to budge, we're talking about a situation that can't be resolved, but I have never found myself in such a position in decades of play. If I did, I would recognise the the GM and I have incompatible styles and move on (ie, cease to game with them). In any case, the issue wouldn't actually be the style with which the GM runs their game, it would be the irreconcilable differences in perspective that exist for the purposes of this hypothetical, but which don't exist with anyone I've ever actually gamed with.

A miscommunication has nothing to do with what we are talking about though.

We're talking about the resolution of events somehow being completely divorced from the DM and somehow being objectively determined.

 

[SableWyvern]

A miscommunication has nothing to do with what we are talking about though.

We're talking about the resolution of events somehow being completely divorced from the DM and somehow being objectively determined.

If we are talking about irreconcilable differences of perspective then I can't see any method of GMing working for me.

If we're not, then, in my experience, disagreements do, indeed, usually come down to miscommunication.

However, if the reason wasn't a miscommunication and wasn't the result of irreconcilable differences, then I resolve the situation by explaining my position to the GM, they then explain theirs, and then we reconcile.

Edit to add: But no one is saying that the resolution is divorced from the GM. The GM is the referee. They are making decisions. The buck stops with them and they are responsible for the decisions they make and the processes by which they choose to make them. If I'm wrong, and anyone is claiming the GM isn't responsible for their decisions, they are not at all aligned with my thinking on the subject -- but I'm confident no one is actually claiming this.

 

[robertsconley]

And yet, you have no problems with @robertsconley using chaos theory to base what is probable in his campaigns.

Yes, but keep in mind that chaotic systems are still bounded by their circumstances. I may not be able to predict exactly where a droplet of water will go once it hits the back of my hand, but I do know it will follow some path along the surface of my hand.

That is how we can leverage chaos theory for practical use. It does not give us precise predictions, but it allows us to reason within the boundaries set by the system.

 

[Maxperson]

And yet, you have no problems with @robertsconley using chaos theory to base what is probable in his campaigns.

But, are you trying to claim that there was some sort of objective chain of causality that caused you to choose to eat whatever you ate for breakfast? Never minding that when we are talking about the DM adjudicating plausibility in the setting, claims of minor things like throwing a rock through a window is not really relevant. Nobody cares about that. However, when you choose for an NPC to do X or Y, the notion that it's any sort of objective choice goes straight out the window. The fact that modules never play out the same across different DM's. Sure, there's some stuff that might be similar, but, overall, virtually no table's experiences transfer between tables. And, while of course player choices will impact this, the DM's choices will easily have as much of an impact.

When have I said the bolded? I can save you the effort of looking. I never have. I like a lot of what @robertsconley has said, but I have also disagreed with him on things, such as what constitutes a sandbox.

Everything has a chain that can be linked to what caused it. We humans just can't see and/or figure out what that chain is a lot of the time. I can't figure out the causality for what I had for lunch(I don't generally eat breakfast), but I can figure out the causality for the broken window of the house that now has the rock I threw inside of it.

When it comes to settings, I similarly don't need to figure out the causality for everything, or even most things. Just some things. Some things are enough to make a setting feel like a living, breathing world.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Yes, but keep in mind that chaotic systems are still bounded by their circumstances. I may not be able to predict exactly where a droplet of water will go once it hits the back of my hand, but I do know it will follow some path along the surface of my hand.

That is how we can leverage chaos theory for practical use. It does not give us precise predictions, but it allows us to reason within the boundaries set by the system.

People have gone beyond straw man on this stuff. We've been getting deep into territory that has nothing to do with the level of plausibility one is looking for in a living world sandbox. The bottom line is for me there is a big difference between a GM who is clearly doing something because it is more dramatic and exciting, or because it clearly leads to 'the adventure' and a GM doing things based on what they think would likely arise, and doing so in a way to create a sense of a consistent world (usually also pinning enough factual information down that the place has a sense of feeling more like a model). It is pretty clear to me what Rob is doing, and that it achieves what he sets out to do. The level of scrutiny being applies is a little ridiculous IMO

 

[Faolyn]

I cut out nothing. @Lanefan claimed that both groups should have similar results, which is in direct contradiction to what @robertsconley stated.

Again: no, he didn't. He said that the world would remain recognizable, not that they would have similar results.

 

[Faolyn]

Butting in.

Ok. So, the DM decides that the King will not talk to your PC's for reasons. You disagree with the reasons because you think they are implausible. How do you resolve this?

What are the reasons?

Or the old chestnut about swimming in armor. Your DM rules that you automatically start drowning and sink to the bottom of the lake because of your armor. You've done your homework and you know that it is possible to swim in armor. In the days before easy access to Youtube, how did you resolve this disagreement of plausibility?

What do the rules say?