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

[Umbran]

I think the GMs responsibility here is more in the assigning of probabilities and conveying to the players what type of game they are in

Sure. The problem is that some folks here use language that at least seems to try to shift the responsibility, and/or make it sound more legitimate - the game doesn't run by their whim, but by the "world's internal logic".

The GM, however, is entirely responsible for that "internal logic". It is, in fact, the GM's logic!

It comes across like... the equivalent of passive voice. "Mistakes were made," rather than "I made a mistake."

 

[Umbran]

Sure, and if I’ve told my players up front that “a bag of poo” (whatever it actually is) is a possible result in this campaign and they still choose to play, is that still an issue in your view?

So, what I find an issue is the implication that the bag of poo has a source other than the GM's desire for occasional poo.

I don't actually find it a problem if a bag of poo shows up due to a pre-written, externalized chart/mechanic, an internal GM runtime logic that wasn't externalized, or even just because the GM thinks a bag of poo right now would be fun.

In the end, it is what it is, and it ultimately came from the same place. And if you hand it to your significant other on Valentine's Day, you're sleeping alone, no matter the path to poo.

I find, "It is the world's internal logic" to be...
Well...
...pretty directly analogous to a player explaining behavior with, "But that's what my character would do!"

 

[Micah Sweet]

So, what I find an issue is the implication that the bag of poo has a source other than the GM's desire for occasional poo.

I don't actually find it a problem if a bag of poo shows up due to a pre-written, externalized chart/mechanic, an internal GM runtime logic that wasn't externalized, or even just because the GM thinks a bag of poo right now would be fun.

In the end, it is what it is, and it ultimately came from the same place. And if you hand it to your significant other on Valentine's Day, you're sleeping alone, no matter the path to poo.

I find, "It is the world's internal logic" to be...
Well...
...pretty directly analogous to a player explaining behavior with, "But that's what my character would do!"

What is Valentine's Day in this increasingly tortured metaphor?

 

[Lanefan]

I mean I don't think that's necessary. 4e doesn't have un-carry-able books and isn't what people call "rulings not rules".

Three DMGs and two PHs* adds up to a fair chunk o' paper; and it was all explicitly called out as being core.

* - or was it two-and-three? I only got the first PH-DMG-MM set and lost track after that.

But then again, that just points out another annoyance I have with how folks use that term. (That is, 4e was damned if it did and damned if it didn't: not having rules for roleplay stuff was an unforgivable crime, and any time it ever did have rules or even just incredibly mild descriptive text for roleplay stuff, that too was an unforgivable crime. You may not remember the "Golden Wyvern Adept" debacle but it is burned into my memory.)

Sorry, "Golden Wyvern Adept" doesn't ring any bells.

(edit - typo)

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I think he definitely deserves credit as an influence, and I have no personal dislike of him (I tend to be more forgiving of the bloggers and thinkers because they are often framing things in a performative way, sometimes a facetious way, to cut through the noise online). But I do agree GNS fundamental problem is how it deals with styles outside narratives (and to a lesser extent gamism, which it seems at least somewhat friendly towards). Its analysis of styles outside N, seems like it is just missing certain considerations or confounding and reducing elements.

I kind of miss the days of when we talked more about types at the table. Managing different types of players and their expectations seems more workable to me (I can wrap my brain around the idea that some players just want a certain amount of fighting, that some players are really into rules, that some are very into talking in character, etc). The old breakdown in Campaign Sourcebook and Catacomb Guide is more my speed. I know GNS is more meant for design, but it gets applied to style and I would rather just think in terms of what different types of players want when I am designing.

Frankly I see the dislike as more ideological. My experience here is that, at least in this forum, there's no appetite for an unvarnished look at, or revisions of, the perceived orthodoxy.

The flaw with the whole sentiment is that, objectively, the discussion and theory that was home at The Forge totally revolutionized thought on the subject. While EW may not be far off the path in terms of what average gamers think, it's a total backwater in terms of game design and theory.

 

[robertsconley]

I find, "It is the world's internal logic" to be...
Well...
...pretty directly analogous to a player explaining behavior with, "But that's what my character would do!"

“World logic” is a criterion I use to decide how NPCs behave and how I roleplay them. It’s part of how I ensure consistency, not a deflection of responsibility.

Another part of World Logic involves the natural and supernatural rules represented by the game mechanics, but I realize that's not your main concern here.

I'm not evading responsibility by invoking world logic; I'm explaining how I exercise that responsibility to run a fair, fun campaign full of challenges that interests the players. I don’t know how to put it more simply than that.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I have never called you a dirty narrativist

No, of course not... that was obviously a bit of an exaggeration on my part. But you've very clearly binned me with narrativists in the sense that you do not believe or accept that my assessment of trad play is based on my own experiences with it, and my willingness to examine my own play and GMing of it over the years.

The fact that I disagree with some of your opinions does not mean I think you're a dirty narrativist. Or that if you were a narrativist that it would be a bad thing unless you declare that your style of game is objectively better.

I think maybe the conversation would start working better if we talked about games having a style of play rather than people. A game may be trad or a sandbox or whatever other label we come up with. People don't have play styles.

This would make room for those of us in the conversation who play different games for different reasons.

Whether or not you should share specific DCs is a preference and one I don't happen to share. I'll typically give them a general idea if I think it makes sense but giving out a specific number? For me it takes me out of describing a scene and puts it firmly into game territory. It's not "incomplete design" it's leaving it up to each DM and table to decide what works best for them. It has nothing to do with offending people, it's that they want people to figure out what works best for them because if they include a line about sharing the DCs then some players will be upset if it's not provided.

It's absolutely incomplete design. A fundamental process of play is not described in full. That's incomplete.

If they had said "There are several ways this can be handled, such as..." then that would be one thing. They don't even talk about the options or the pros and cons of each. They just avoid the topic altogether because they were trying to regain as many lapsed players as possible, and they knew those folks would bring their own experiences to the game, and shape it accordingly.

One of the things that came up in this thread before I joined, that I find contentious is the conflation of GM-created/authored with GM-driven. A notable example was you holding up BitD as a player-driven sandbox (and, to be clear, I agree it is), even though RAW the GM is the one deciding and presenting obstacles and complications, and is encouraged to provide opportunities for scores. Yet you disputed that @Bedrockgames sandbox was player-driven even though his approach is like 95% in line with how BitD is supposed to be run going by the book.

I stand by my assessment. Based only on what @Bedrockgames has shared here and in some past conversations, and also based on his advocacy of @robertsconley 's approach. To be clear... I have no issue with either of their games or the way they do things. I personally think that they're less focused on player agency than they could be, but as pages of discussion made clear (I hope!) I don't constrict my view of player agency to what a character can do.

But aside from that, the game they're describing very much sounds like a vehicle for the GM's content. I did use the phrase GM-driven, and I think that perhaps was a bit misleading, so I've clarified that as "GM -focused" or "vehicle for the GM's content".

And to be clear again, "GM's content" is not a bad thing. I'm not saying it's a railroad or anything like that. It's just the GM has put all this prep into the setting and its NPCs and factions and events... those are going to be the major focus of play. The player characters are meant and expected to interact with the setting. Look at the "star crossed lovers" example. This is a pair of GM NPCs to be interacted with... and the resultant action drives play.

 

[Lanefan]

No one is wrongheaded here. People just have different preferences and like to play the game different. Sometimes even if the same individual wants different things from an RPG at different times. I like rulings over rules, but I also enjoy systems that are comprehensive and require a degree of system mastery. What I like about the rulings over rules approach, is it allows you take steps outside what the rules have defined, and to me that is as real as it gets in terms of feel (because it gives me the sense, when I am a player, that I can try anything and I am not limited by a set of pre-programmed ideas). But that said, I also love games that reward use of system, deliver objective and consistent ways of handling different things that come up in games. That does have its benefits, just as rulings over rules has its benefits. It isn't that system doesn't matter. It is more like "it doesn't always matter nor is it always the most important thing". With anything it depends on the game and the group

Personally, I can't see why a system can't simultaneously provide both bolded elements: rewarding use of system when the matter at hand is covered by said system (which ideally is most of the time), while still allowing and even encouraging one to go outside the rules to handle things the system doesn't cover.

 

[robertsconley]

...pretty directly analogous to a player explaining behavior with, "But that's what my character would do!"

Also, in my experience, players who say “that’s what my character would do” often can’t back it up when questioned. By contrast, I’ve said multiple times that players are free to question what’s going on in the campaign, and I’m always prepared to show my work. If a decision comes from the setting’s internal logic, I can explain how I arrived at it.

 

[thefutilist]

I will come back to this in a moment....



It isn't entirely clear to me what you mean by "functional roleplay", but I'll try to work with this, regardless....



This seems highly inconsistent. A moment ago, you said that folks over-rate how impactful systems are, and you don't put the system within the top 4 things that impact results, but now you are saying the system was detrimental to play.

Why do you blame the system, and not instead say the player's ability to do functional roleplay within the system wasn't up to snuff? By your own presented logic, shouldn't that be the more likely candidate? Shouldn't you be blaming the player's inability to adapt to the system, rather than the system itself?



Coming back to this...

I am in the midst of experiencing the impact of system.

I was running a D&D campaign that recently concluded - low combat, but pretty traditional stuff - The Wild Beyond the Witchlight, which I consider a sort of "piecewise-sandboxy" published adventure. This group mostly goes for fairly traditional, somewhat linear play. They like it when there's a pretty obvious goal for them to shoot for, and a general path to reach that goal that isn't too hard to find. They typically want to concentrate on how they handle the details.

While I prep up the next campaign (which won't be D&D, but Savage Worlds, but still pretty traditional stuff), one of the players is stepping up to run a short-ish campaign in a completely different system as filler. In terms of campaign structure, this game is basically a tree of decision points, not a free sandbox.

But the system is quite different from D&D. D&D is very focused on small tasks - picking a single lock, casting a single spell, making a single attack, what you can do in a mere few seconds of time in a round.

This system isn't focused on minute task resolution, or full conflict/scene resolution, but something in-between. I might call it "sequence resolution", where I mean "sequence" as in a movie or TV show action sequence - the set of things that might happen in a period of time a character has focus on screen.

So, "I rappel down from the ceiling, use mirrors to bypass the laser alarm, cut into the display case, remove the Golden Idol of McGuffin without triggering its mechanical pressure switch by leaving my calling card with a weight, seal the case so my entry was invisible, and go back up the rope," which in traditional task resolution might be five or six individual tasks, is all one roll here.

The things that have the impact, and that takes time for the players to get used to, seem to be that the "task" is much longer, that anything that would fit into an action movie or Mission: Impossible episode action sequence is an acceptable proposition, and if it fits in the genre, and is consistent with what has already been stated, you don't generally have to check with the GM to get details.

Like, the door is locked, but how - maybe it is a fingerprint scan, or a retinal scan, or accessed by RFID chip - doesn't matter. If the player can narrate any of those, and how they deal with it, they're good to just pick the details and go! The difficulty is set on the overall "get into the vault" not on each step of trying to do so, so the steps can be handled as narrative.

And, once they are used to it, the result is palpable - plans become much more dramatic. and grandiose. If, in a more traditional system, I'd presented these players with a caper in which they needed to sneak into a place, get past guards, break into a vault, and get out with the McGuffin, this group would worry and fret and try to plan every single action. Here, we just hop in full-bore without much plan beyond "Jack and Steve are on distraction duty, Sarah and Jim are breaking into the vault. Go!"

I am letting 'functional role-playing' do a whole lot of work aren't I. Plus, if my thesis was totally true then it wouldn't matter much if the system was getting in the way and screwing things up.

My list is true for me, where I am now, but I've had exposure to a load of different techniques. I don't buy the whole 'Apocalypse World teaches people to play because of the GM rules' very convincing at all but that's maybe tangential to my previous points.

Also, good example of what you call sequence resolution.