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

[AlViking]

I think this provides some clarity to me.

In an earlier post, I mentioned being perplexed by some of the pushback I received. I had assumed my position was nearly universal. But this post helped me realize a flaw in that thinking.

I view TTRPGs as games first, and I interact with them accordingly.

What I now see more clearly is that a subset of players—how large doesn’t really matter—prioritize something else. For them, verisimilitude matters more than the “game” part of the game. It’s not about constructing a streamlined or engaging gameplay experience; it’s about preserving a strict internal logic for the world, even if that means accepting, what I would think of as, slow, inconsequential, or repetitive outcomes.

That reframes my earlier assumption that “failure should always have consequences” as a universal principle. That principle only holds if one shares my view of the hobby as a game first. If someone is instead focused on realism or believability, then of course they’re comfortable with failure that changes nothing. For them, that is the key to making the game fun.

What’s fascinating is that this isn’t a narrative vs. traditional divide, like much of this thread. It’s about whether you prioritize the game experience in a vacuum or the fictional logic of the world. In the latter case there is, obviously, a different priority.

This gives me a view of the hobby that maybe I was blind to prior to this. Having seen the term "simulationist" in posts by the wonderful @Micah Sweet but never really grasping it's full meaning.

Back to my cave so I can reflect on this.

I think this is why D&D still "feels" kind of the same to me even after multiple editions (with the exception of 4e). Because I was always thinking of my PC as a character in a book. I wanted to be Fafhrd or the Gray Mouser, Aragorn or Gimli. I've always enjoyed board games as well, but this was different. It also ties into the whole living world idea and other things we've been talking about.

It's also part of why narrative games don't really appeal to me. Part of it is that I don't really want to play a game where the purpose of the game is to "discover my character" every time. But primarily it's these ideas of "a player did X so the GM responds with Y". I want things to sometimes happen just because they should happen even if the character did nothing. Other times the character does something and nothing at all really happens. In very rare occasions if the game gets too bogged down I'll just tell the players to move things along but for the most part the pacing just kind of takes care of itself.

I'm not sure I'd say the simulation is the priority per se because it's not like we can really measure these kind of things but putting myself into an imaginary world where we use rules to implement our character's actions is important.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I've never really had this issue. If and when it comes up I'll let you know.

Then what were you talking about earlier in the thread? About your job not being solely to make the players happy?

To me, a game that's all highlights makes no sense to me as a verisimilitudinous setting. And that's what I want.

Sure, but this is a failing on your part, not of that approach to play.

 

[pemerton]

I'm saying that games that do what you want are not objectively superior to games that do what I want. You just like them more.

How does this relate to the exchange I was having with @Thomas Shey. Or even to this post of yours:

What else would you mean by cinematic fiction?

I mean, to me that reads like a post about the characterisation of cinematic fiction. And I responded to it.

 

[zakael19]

So this is a bit of a sidebar, but I'm not entirely sure that our 1KA game was representative. Our Stonetop game also had a relentless pace, and I think we're bringing a significant part of that to bear in our action declarations for our characters. Manbearcat and I talked once about playing with the pedal down and our preference for that style of play in relation to that game, and I saw a lot of that in the 1KA game, too (e.g., Yorath's petitioning of Helior to save his bacon or Suetsuna kidnapping little Yoshimoto to bring him off to be baptized both feel conherent and consistent as aesthetic choices). But I don't think we have to play these games that way. I think we could play 1KA more deliberately without sacrificing tension or turtling up. And I know we could play Stonetop more deliberately: we didn't spend a lot of time with some of the quieter tech in that game.

Oh, I think that MBC's and y'all's Stonetop etc play is absolutely not reflective of the way many of us play those games, lol. Like, Stonetop clearly intends for there to be periods of "Let it Breathe" on the Homefront where there may be stakes, but they're intimate or about personal lives and obligations; or space to have a Festival with no rolls/stakes at all. Edit: Or the fact that based on what I see around the internet the vast majority of Blades players have entire downtime sessions that are mainly character beats.

heck, one thing I'm terrible about is pushing for time to pass! I'd love to see more seasons go by to give space for improvements and growth and all that, especially with how long and relatively slow life in a substance farming community like that really should go.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Then what were you talking about earlier in the thread? About your job not being solely to make the players happy?



Sure, but this is a failing on your part, not of that approach to play.

What exactly is a failing on my part? Wanting a verisimilitudinous world? Or not making every moment of a game into a highlight? Either way that is IMO quite unfair.

 

[zakael19]

Just as a side note, this would be a bigger problem for me personally than the Complication thing; I like actually engaging with the mechanics in RPGs particularly (though not only) regarding combat, and most of the PbtA and adjacent mechanics I've seen are pretty schematic.

(To be clear, they aren't alone in this; its a problem with almost any light rules set from my POV).

I do find what Lancer with its narrative expansion & ICON are doing fascinating attempts at having your cake and eating it too here. "Oh, here's your mega tactical grid-based combat, but also your free flowing fiction-first storytelling mode."

Ugh, I really want to get DH to the table though - so much promise to fuse both things together without separate game modes.

 

[AlViking]

Thanks for the clarification, but I think this cuts to the heart of the issue.

You're saying that you're fine with players doing what they want, until it stops being interesting for you. At that point, you intervene to move things along, skip ahead, or ask players to clarify what they’re “trying for.”

But at that point, it’s not really player-driven play anymore, is it?

It’s play filtered through your lens of what counts as meaningful, engaging, or worthy of spotlight time. That may not feel like “authorial control”, but you're still controlling focus, tone, and pacing based on your standards.

Isn’t that exactly the sort of referee authority you’ve criticized in traditional games?

In my living world sandbox campaigns, players can dicker with a shopkeeper, wander without a plan, or talk to their ghost-sword for as long as they want, not because I think all of it is thrilling, but because I trust that meaning and engagement will emerge from what they care about, not from what I impose.

And if engagement only counts when it passes your threshold for stakes, then the game isn’t shaped by player choice, it’s shaped by your editorial judgment.

So if you're shutting scenes down when they don’t meet that threshold, how is that any different?

Occasionally I'll do something like make an interesting shopkeeper that for some reason the players just love engaging with. For me? It's not exactly exciting and I remember spending half an hour or so talking about dress an other outfit options for a ball. I kept it up because it's what the players wanted to do. In my last game the players went back and forth on approach to a task. Again I could have just shut it down but they were having fun with it.

Every once in a great while I'll intervene but only in cases where I think they may not have a clear picture of what's going on or they're getting way too caught up in some insignificant detail. But that's more because I want to ensure that they have a clear understanding (from their character's perspective) not because I want to move the action along to something exciting. I was playing a game a while back where I was roleplaying my country-bumpkin barbarian at a fair running from stand to stand buying everything he could. Totally meaningless, lots of fun for everyone at the table.

 

[pemerton]

You may not plan stories in advance, but the impression I get strongly suggests to me that a major goal of play is to create dramatic character arcs, so I wouldn't say he's completely off-base here.

A major goal of play is to have interesting, emotionally resonant things happen frequently. Without it being known in advance what that will be, or exactly why and how those events will be interesting and emotionally resonant.

In the slogan "story now" the word story refers, broadly to that frequent occurrence, of interesting and emotionally resonant things; while the word now refers, again in broad terms, to the absence of knowledge in advance of what and how.

As I've posted already, to get this sort of play all the players need to do is play their PCs with a bit of verve and sincerity. But the GM needs to use techniques that are apt to produce that interesting and emotionally resonant stuff. The most basic involves working out what a player, as their PCs cares about and then framing a scene where that is put into question in some fashion.

"Character arcs" really have nothing to do with it. They may emerge, or may not. The focus is the "now", not the "then".

 

[pemerton]

They have been doing so all along. No one has suggested the way you play is wrong for you. They have only criticised your claims that your way is objectively superior.

I've made no such claims.

 

[Old Fezziwig]

Oh, I think that MBC's and y'all's Stonetop etc play is absolutely not reflective of the way many of us play those games, lol. Like, Stonetop clearly intends for there to be periods of "Let it Breathe" on the Homefront where there may be stakes, but they're intimate or about personal lives and obligations; or space to have a Festival with no rolls/stakes at all. Edit: Or the fact that based on what I see around the internet the vast majority of Blades players have entire downtime sessions that are mainly character beats.

heck, one thing I'm terrible about is pushing for time to pass! I'd love to see more seasons go by to give space for improvements and growth and all that, especially with how long and relatively slow life in a substance farming community like that really should go.

I think our steading was ultimately safer than it would have been without Yorath and Vahid, but it wasn't necessarily better positioned for long term success. We half finished the palisade, and we half finished the water catchment system. We secured more horses a couple times, but they always ended up getting sacrificed on the altar of our ambitions. And the only new settlers we brought in were (a) a slew of elderly Lygosians (including an evil necromancer), and (b) two hotheaded tribesmen, one turned into a fen troll and the other tried to kill Vahid. Rock'n'roll Viking Stonetop was only ever going to end in blood and tears.