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

[Maxperson]

This seems contradictory - something that only constrains me to the extent that I want it is hardly a constraint at all.

Many folks have integrity, so those things do constrain them. Sure they COULD break it, but they won't.

 

[Maxperson]

Where are you people finding such stable groups?! Stop hogging them!

My current group has been playing for close to 20 years, and the one before that where I was a player lasted 20ish years as well. He doesn't have them all!

 

[Faolyn]

This makes no sense.

Really? That really makes no sense to you?

I believe that you (sometimes) play Fate. So I'm sure you're aware that Fate permits a player to spend a fate point to establish some detail of the scene/situation that hasn't yet been established.

Do you regard Fate as "illogical" because it permits players to adopt "director stance" based on spending fate points? I assume that you don't; but then I don't know why you think a roll, rather than a point spend, is any different from the point of view of logic?

OK, lets look at the example from the original book:

Declaring a Story Detail​

Sometimes, you want to add a detail that works to your character’s advantage in a scene. For example, you might use this to narrate a convenient coincidence, like retroactively having the right supplies for a certain job (“Of course I brought that along!”), showing up at a dramatically appropriate moment, or suggesting that you and the NPC you just met have mutual clients in common.

To do this, you’ll spend a fate point. You should try to justify your story details by relating them to your aspects. GMs, you have the right to veto any suggestions that seem out of scope or ask the player to revise them, especially if the rest of the group isn’t buying into it.

Zird the Arcane gets captured with his friends by some tribesfolk from the Sagroth Wilds. The three heroes are unceremoniously dumped before the chieftain, and Amanda describes the chieftain addressing them in a strange, guttural tongue.

Ryan looks at his sheet and says, “Hey, I have If I Haven’t Been There, I’ve Read About It on my sheet. Can I declare that I’ve studied this language at some point, so we can communicate?”

Amanda thinks that’s perfectly reasonable to assume. Ryan tosses over a fate point and describes Zird answering in the chieftain’s own speech, which turns all eyes in the village (including those of his friends) on him in a moment of surprise.

Ryan has Zird look at his friends and say, “Books. They’re good for you.”

So in this case, Zird's player has used one of his aspects to justify something for his PC to know, based on an aspect he already has.

You can't see that this is miles away from making a player roll to see if they spot a cup that should be in plain sight, simply because you, the GM, didn't mention it? Zird's knowledge of the language is a permanent addition to Zird's character, whereas the cup--since it's just a tool being used to collect the blood, which itself is a macguffin/fetch quest goal--is a temporary item at best.

 

[Maxperson]

Yo dawg, I heard you like sandboxes, so I drew boxes in your sand so you can box sand in your sandbox.

A player in his sandbox.

 

[SableWyvern]

Some minimal allowance is required to get the game going, but I haven't seen anyone give even the slightest thought to how trust is built and maintained in a group.

I've gone to significant effort to explain this for you on a couple of occasions, but you ignore those responses so you can rant at other posters and complain to them that no one will answer you.

"This style isn't for anyone who isn't willing to accept a wink and a smile as justification for suspicious-but-not-egregious DM behavior" means this is a pretty damn restrictive playstyle. It's not just not for everyone--it's for pretty few people at all!

This may or may not be the case, but one thing seems abundantly clear. This style is absolutely not for @EzekielRaiden. I suspect that if you simply accept this, rather than demanding that people explain to you what they are going to do to make you feel more comfortable at their table (where you're not even a participant), and accusing them of being exclusionary if you're not satisfied with their answers, you'll be a lot less stressed about this conversation.

 

[Hussar]

snip

Yet again, the objective isn't to be perfect, it's to be good enough.

No. That's where you are wrong. Good enough isn't the objective.

A system that is robust enough to generate results independently of the DM is the objective. To create a setting that functions like a machine (I believe that was the direct quote). To create a setting where the DM no longer is creating stuff that is "good enough" but rather the setting ITSELF is so complex, so crafted, that plausible results are generated BY THE SETTING ITSELF.

That's the objective that I'm rejecting.

 

[Bedrockgames]

No. That's where you are wrong. Good enough isn't the objective.

A system that is robust enough to generate results independently of the DM is the objective. To create a setting that functions like a machine (I believe that was the direct quote). To create a setting where the DM no longer is creating stuff that is "good enough" but rather the setting ITSELF is so complex, so crafted, that plausible results are generated BY THE SETTING ITSELF.

That is your objective. It is not ours. I don't want a setting that functions like a machine. I want a human managing the setting because I think that creates the best reactive environment for players. Part of the issue here is we just have entirely different expectations

That's the objective that I'm rejecting.

You can object to it, and you can seek whatever games you want to support the objective you prefer (as I have said during this thread, that seems like a fine way to approach sandbox to me if that is what you want). But we are also allowed to have our preferences and there is nothing wrong with our preferences. They produce very fun, agency-filled play

 

[SableWyvern]

No. That's where you are wrong. Good enough isn't the objective.

It's certainly my objective, and every person you're arguing with has said the same thing on multiple occasions

A system that is robust enough to generate results independently of the DM is the objective. To create a setting that functions like a machine (I believe that was the direct quote). To create a setting where the DM no longer is creating stuff that is "good enough" but rather the setting ITSELF is so complex, so crafted, that plausible results are generated BY THE SETTING ITSELF.

That's the objective that I'm rejecting.

Too bad you're having this argument with a scarecrow.

 

[JConstantine]

No. That's where you are wrong.

A system that is robust enough to generate results independently of the DM is the objective. To create a setting that functions like a machine (I believe that was the direct quote). To create a setting where the DM no longer is creating stuff that is "good enough" but rather the setting ITSELF is so complex, so crafted, that plausible results are generated BY THE SETTING ITSELF.

I think we're going to need a citation on that one.

 

[robertsconley]

That is your objective. It is not ours. I don't want a setting that functions like a machine. I want a human managing the setting because I think that creates the best reactive environment for players. Part of the issue here is we just have entirely different expectations

Only people can pretend to be people and have it be any good.