Recent content by TwoSix

Fortunately, dice do a pretty good job preventing those sort of situations from occurring. Although it would be a little weird to bribe enough guards during a campaign to get a statistically significant sampling of guards’ openness to bribery. :)

If you don't view having a traditional monogamous long-term marriage as being temperamentally "conservative", then I agree that we're using the word very differently.

That's fine. I have no desire to argue definitions. I'm still going to continue to use the word, though, especially since it's the thread topic.

Sure, but they aren't being used to protect anyone from malevolent actions. They are there to prevent someone from tripping and falling into the Grand Canyon, or driving off the road while looking at your phone for a new podcast episode (example 100% not personal). :)

Sure. The former is "stubborn", the latter is "conservative".

Considering "guardrails" generally exist in the real world to prevent people from having accidents, that doesn't seem correct to me.

All you're doing is simply a defense of a conservative mindset when it comes to roleplaying game choices. Why not just embrace being who you are? If the label "temperamentally conservative" somehow offends you, I'm sorry for that. I'm temperamentally conservative about all sorts of things...

Honestly, this reminds me of the "player agency" thread from a few years back, in which everyone sort of assumed "player agency" (much like "player-driven) was an obvious virtue in play. It isn't. Plenty of games benefit from being less player-driven or having less player agency.

I don't think it's "anti-sandbox". I think it's anti-"player-driven". I've run (and am running) plenty of trad-style sandbox games. The players enjoy them. They have a good amount of autonomy to pursue leads and push their character in various directions. But ultimately events are happening...

Like any large topic, there's a multitude of factors and no clear evidence of any root cause. I just see enough evidence to suggest some correlation.

It doesn't have anything to do with not liking what I like. It's the lack of desire to continually try new things in favor of the familiar that makes one conservative. I would classify anyone who only plays PbtA games and doesn't want to branch out to new systems "conservative" as well.

Which would seem to be an argument for FKR play? The "worst of both worlds" would seem to me to be a ruleset with detailed character building options and then a bunch of DM guidelines that amount to "Eh, you'll figure it out! Good luck!" But that seems to be a pretty popular paradigm! My gut...

Fair. I, personally, don't like the assumption of challenge/success-driven play outside of games in the OSR/NSR paradigms. For 5e, as an example, I don't think challenge play is the right paradigm; its ruleset and procedures push it in more of a performative/thespian play direction.

I don't see anything wrong with assuming a correlation, especially one that tracks with my observed experience. (And, to be clear, I'm talking temperamentally conservative, not politically, as per the OP.) If your observed experience is different than mine, that is of course a useful insight...

You don't need rules to prescribe every outcome. You need rules to decide who has the authority to determine outcomes, and what boundaries to that authority exist, for every scene that arises.