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

[Bedrockgames]

Not at all. I think that there is virtually zero difference between what @robertsconley does and virtually any other good DM does. Choose the options that the players will find plausible and interesting is not particularly unique or unusual. I would argue that pretty much every single DM in this thread does this.

I don't think you are giving him enough credit here. I also don't think this is an aspect of the discussion anyone is likely to change their mind on.

 

[Hussar]

That's true, but I don't decide those things. If I have to make a chart for possibilities, I'll sometimes include a longshot in the 01 or 00 spot. If I'm deciding something based on an action declaration, it will be plausible.

How is you deciding what goes on that chart not deciding what is plausible? Since anything that is on that chart isn't just implausible, it's flat out impossible, and, even if you weight the table, you are still deciding what is more or less plausible based on your specific understanding. Absolutely nothing is based on any sort of "internal logic" of the setting since you are straight up creating that logic. And it is trivially easy to influence what is more or less plausible. I'd argue that it's impossible not to influence plausiblity.

 

[Hussar]

It doesn't matter whether the setting is independent or not.

Well, if that's true, then @robertsconley's whole methodolgy falls apart doesn't it? Since his entire line or reasoning is that the DM must strive to make the setting as independent as possible.

 

[thefutilist]

@robertsconley

I think I've had a flash of insight that might help me understand you a bit better.

When you say the world feels 'lived in and plausible' is that because the players know about and trust in the process you're using?

You'll surely agree that there are people that can convey the appearance of a lived in world much better than you without doing the hard work behind the scenes. An illusion of a lived in world as it were.

I think that's why your reference to the feel of things can throw people off. The ability to invoke feeling (even about plausibility) is merely a function of ones literary ability and has nothing to do with ones intelligence or knowledge. This is because when we parse fiction we're filling the lacunas of causality with our own plausible extrapolations.

 

[SableWyvern]

Well, if that's true, then @robertsconley's whole methodolgy falls apart doesn't it? Since his entire line or reasoning is that the DM must strive to make the setting as independent as possible.

No, because at no point has he claimed that he is not responsible for his decisions or not accountable to his players. He has, in fact, stated clearly on multiple occasions that his players are welcome to question him and that he will be completely open with them about his processes.

I can confidently state that @robertsconley is well aware that he has made a wide range of very deliberate decisions that have resulted in his games being of a particular style. He is clearly happy with that outcome, takes responsibility for it and takes pride in what he does. Nothing he has ever said suggests to me that he eschews any responsibility for choosing to use the methods he does and I have no real idea how anyone could conclude that he does.

A crappy GM may indeed choose to use a particular style of play as an excuse of poor behaviour but, as per my earlier comment, how a system can be abused by a dysfunctional GM or player is not of interest to me, as I choose simply not to play with such people in the first place.

 

[Maxperson]

How is you deciding what goes on that chart not deciding what is plausible? Since anything that is on that chart isn't just implausible, it's flat out impossible, and, even if you weight the table, you are still deciding what is more or less plausible based on your specific understanding. Absolutely nothing is based on any sort of "internal logic" of the setting since you are straight up creating that logic. And it is trivially easy to influence what is more or less plausible. I'd argue that it's impossible not to influence plausiblity.

Because all of those things existed before I thought of them. I didn't decide they were plausible. I recognized that they were plausible already and wrote them down.

And all of it is based on setting logic. The circumstances of what happened in the setting determined what was plausible. I then recognized those things and wrote them down. The connections are completely logical.

 

[Maxperson]

So, most of your decisions are basically whatever you feel is good at the time. Which, somehow, means that you are basing your decisions on the "Logic of the setting". When do you decide which to use? What is the criteria for deciding that you will use the "logic of the setting" and when do you not "need to figure out the causality" of something?

See, this gets to the heart of what I'm pushing back again. The idea that DM's choose stuff that the players will find plausible is just good DMing advice. It's not particualrly special and certainly not unique to any style of gaming. How is this claim of "Internal logic" not just pretention? You, yourself, say that you don't actually follow it most of the time. So, obviously, it can't be terribly important.

First, I said once in a while when I make a chart.... Not most of the time. The overwhelming majority of the time it's based on logic. Once in a great while I will introduce a longshot, because once in a great while longshots happen, and that also helps the world feel alive.

As for when I do that, there's no criteria for when that happens other than it hasn't happened in a long time. Those very rare occasions, though, do not and cannot invalidate the rest of the time when I am making decisions based on the logic of the setting.

 

[Hussar]

because at no point has he claimed that he is not responsible for his decisions

((Note, I left off the accountable to players bit since that's not relevant to my point))

He very much has repeatedly claimed that he is not responsible. How could he be responsible for things that are just "logical results of the setting"? That's like claiming that you're responsible for 2 plus 2 equalling 4. If we accept that the setting itself is an "independent machine" (his words mind you), then he cannot possible take responsibility for results.

How can someone be responsible for results they are claiming they have no direct control over?

 

[Hussar]

The overwhelming majority of the time it's based on logic.

You keep using this word logic and I don't think it means what you think it means.

There is no such thing as logic when you CREATE the setting in the first place. You create every single thing in the setting. Of course it makes logical sense TO YOU. Things that I make up in my head make sense to me too. But, since you determine every single aspect of the setting, then there is no "logical consequences". There cannot be.

 

[Maxperson]

You keep using this word logic and I don't think it means what you think it means.

There is no such thing as logic when you CREATE the setting in the first place. You create every single thing in the setting. Of course it makes logical sense TO YOU. Things that I make up in my head make sense to me too. But, since you determine every single aspect of the setting, then there is no "logical consequences". There cannot be.

I absolutely do know what it means and you are absolutely wrong when you say that logic can't exist when I create the setting in the first place.

I don't need to use logic to create all of the initial setting material. I can decide that I want 3 oceans and 46 lakes without having a logical reason for them. Once I have those placed, though, I can figure out what would logically arise from the existence of those water features and the terrain that surrounds them. I can further logically figure out what happens when the party interacts with those features.

Little Timmy wasn't thinking logically when he decided to shoplift from the grocery store, but getting in trouble when he was caught was a logical consequence of an illogical action.