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

[JConstantine]

I don't know why they just didn't start fishing.

Maybe their stomach was making the rumblies that only hands could satisfy?

 

[Pedantic]

You mean like when @TwoSix stated that perception skills shouldn't exist (which would, at best, fundamentally alter several RPGs, including the most successful one to date) because they dislike simulationism?


Because that's the only example I've seen in this thread of what you're talking about. @Micah Sweet has been pretty darn consistent in stating that they have no interested in Narrativist games, but has no problem with them existing for those who do.

Personally, I think Perception (and perhaps more controversially, Knowledge) clearly should be defenses. Hidden creatures or things (or unknown relevant details) should be rolling against PCs, and offered up immediately if they fail.

Edit: But I also think an appropriate reward for investing significantly in perception is "never being snuck up on or surprised" because that's the benefit you've bought.

 

[Micah Sweet]

When I talk about normative standards of discussion I'm not talking about judgement. I'm talking about erasure when it comes to broad discussion of roleplaying games (on this site). It's about the normative standards of play being assumed to be worthy of respect while other ways of playing roleplaying games are assumed to be less worthy and must justify themselves against that normative standard instead of being treated as just a different way to play.

It's especially frustrating to deal with this from people I have been discussing this sort of stuff with for decades on this site. One would think the familiarity would lead people to not treat how we play as this like weird, strange thing that does not get to be included when addressing roleplaying games more broadly, especially contextually when discussing them with us.

This is also fairly localized to this particular site. Other online spaces where roleplaying games are discussed seem to be a lot more welcoming to the diversity of play.

Do you really feel that Narrativist viewpoints are being erased? You folks talk about them on a bunch of threads all the time. To me it is a major opinion block on this site. Do we all have to agree with you for you to feel heard?

 

[DinoInDisguise]

Do you really disagree that constraints are necessary?

Hope it's okay if I weigh in on tone here. But does this phrasing seem to imply something about a belief?

Here is an alternative phrasing, without a key word, "really."

"Do you disagree that constraints are necessary?"

Maybe it's me but this question is neutral in tone. It's just a question. It's asking for clarification. But that sneaky word "really" that you have in your version. It really changes something.

“Do you really disagree that constraints are necessary?”

This isn't the same tone as the prior example. This is a challenging or skeptical tone to me. That word "really" implies disbelief or surprise or even incredulity towards the disagreement. It, to me, implies that you find the position to be surprising or hard to take seriously.

For fairness, we can attribute the same to Micah's statement.

The person whose rhetoric you are defending explicitly stated, "constraints are good". Exact words. Are you willing to disagree with that statement?

This is confrontational from the "The person whose rhetoric you are defending…" to "Are you willing to disagree with that statement?"

Sticking with the latter example here, because it's so similar to the first quote. "Are you willing to disagree with that statement?" Frames the conversation as about willingness rather than logic or reasoning. This is easy to take as a challenge to someone's intellectual consistency or courage. You can read it differently, of course, but as an observer it reads in a certain way. To me, this promotes a defensive reply - which Micah got.

Both sides are being confrontational. Both sides are using language that can, easily, be read as hostile, dismissive, or worse. And it's not just you two. It goes back dozens of pages. This all makes for great reading, but probably contributes to the friction some folks have started to point out.

 

[robertsconley]

Sure, and I stand by that, as someone who currently runs 5e more than any other system. Perception skills cause issues in play as opposed to simply attempting to be as clear as possible to give the players gameable information.

My view is that rolls are needed to resolve uncertain outcomes, situations where, in response to a character saying “I do X,” the result could reasonably be success, failure, or something is uncertain. When things are uncertain, that where a roll makes sense.

From my experience running and playing LARPs, it’s often uncertain whether someone notices something in the environment. I remember a moment after a fight when we were all searching a room. It was crowded and chaotic. I got out of the way and leaned against a wall. I happened to glance at a wall shelf and noticed the corner of a scroll tucked into a gap. I wasn’t actively searching, I was looking around to see what people were doing, but I just happened to spot it.

In a tabletop game, if a player said, “I go over to the wall and lean on it while keeping an eye on everyone else,” that’s where I’d roll. I will have the player drop a die in the tower, check the result, and describe them noticing the scroll, if the roll succeeded.

Curious to hear your thoughts on that.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Do you really feel that Narrativist viewpoints are being erased? You folks talk about them on a bunch of threads all the time. To me it is a major opinion block on this site. Do we all have to agree with you for you to feel heard?

The key difference is that virtually every time a narrativist viewpoint (or game that has one) comes up, a bunch of people rush to say how much they disagree with it, even if that's totally irrelevant and adds nothing at all to the conversation.

That doesn't typically occur with gamist or even simulationist view points, and even people do point out issues with those, they tend to be dismissed out of hand, sometimes with the claim that "that's how it has to be" or the like.

I feel like the whole attitude reminds me a bit of how being discussing being black or gay or a woman is "political" in some circles, whereas being white or male is just "how it is" in the same circles. I'm not saying it's the same thing, I'm not accusing anyone of anything, but there's something about the behaviour that is very familiar and specific. Maybe it's just that they're "newer" ideas? But we're talking like, three decades even with narrativism.

I will note that gamist games did used to get the same treatment, albeit not quite as aggressive, but that faded out entirely over the last 15-odd years.

 

[Faolyn]

I'm looking for something that is genuinely, wholly independent of the GM. Something that--as was repeatedly referenced earlier in the thread--makes it so the GM is not deciding to do X instead of Y, but rather the GM has to do X instead of Y.

Play GMless games.

The GM is a player too. If it’s not cool for the players to be railroaded, then why is it cool for the GM to be railroaded?

 

[Faolyn]

Not far upthread you directly equated tests with "checks" in D&D; and in D&D avoiding having to make checks you don't need to is almost universally the best strategy.

Here, it seems you're saying the game actively wants players to run their PCs into these "test" situations even if it's directly contrary to what a wise character would do. As "do what the character would do" is my primary mode of play, no wonder this all seems senseless to me.

To be fair, it seems that the purpose of BW and @pemerton’s other games of choice is to do tests like that, and characters are built with that in mind.

So it would be like saying that, when playing Monopoly, the wise thing would be for the players to pool their resources and turn the city into a co-op where everyone does well rather than be at each others throats in a zero-sum game where only one player truly prospers. But you can’t do that in Monopoly because that’s not what the game is about.

 

[Micah Sweet]

“Rhetoric”?

Do you really disagree that constraints are necessary?




Considering this thread does not appear to be a casual conversation, and considering that you continue to contribute to it, mostly with confrontational posts, I’d consider the idea that maybe you’re not really looking for casual conversation about gaming?



It’s presented as the default assumption and the “baseline” where conversation must begin. It’s annoying.

It’d almost be refreshing if people came right out and said it instead of passive aggressively pointing out how a game doesn’t match the baseline, but no no of course there’s nothing wrong with that!

I believe in all gaming, some limitations are necessary. I think very few of them need to be set in stone (certainly fewer than you and some others seem to), but I do believe the ones that aren't are just as important. I don't believe in the blanket statement "constraints are good", because sometimes I think they're not.

I'd love to have a casual conversation about game design, playstyles and preferences. But it seems like everything I see is a demand for deeper analysis with more hard lines, coupled with a refusal to accept answers that aren't couched in the asker's terms. All I can do is repeat how I feel.

And conversation has to begin somewhere, with some terms people can agree on. I don't want to assume the Forge (for example) any more than you to don't want to assume traditional modes of play.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Hope it's okay if I weigh in on tone here. But does this phrasing seem to imply something about a belief?

Here is an alternative phrasing, without a key word, "really."

"Do you disagree that constraints are necessary?"

Maybe it's me but this question is neutral in tone. It's just a question. It's asking for clarification. But that sneaky word "really" that you have in your version. It really changes something.

“Do you really disagree that constraints are necessary?”

This isn't the same tone as the prior example. This is a challenging or skeptical tone to me. That word "really" implies disbelief or surprise or even incredulity towards the disagreement. It, to me, implies that you find the position to be surprising or hard to take seriously.

For fairness, we can attribute the same to Micah's statement.


This is confrontational from the "The person whose rhetoric you are defending…" to "Are you willing to disagree with that statement?"

Sticking with the latter example here, because it's so similar to the first quote. "Are you willing to disagree with that statement?" Frames the conversation as about willingness rather than logic or reasoning. This is easy to take as a challenge to someone's intellectual consistency or courage. You can read it differently, of course, but as an observer it reads in a certain way. To me, this promotes a defensive reply - which Micah got.

Both sides are being confrontational. Both sides are using language that can, easily, be read as hostile, dismissive, or worse. And it's not just you two. It goes back dozens of pages. This all makes for great reading, but probably contributes to the friction some folks have started to point out.

You're right. I have been getting steadily more irritated with this and it comes out in my own rhetoric. I apologize.