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

AlViking said:

Yes, I've occasionally had long shopping trips. I don't "allow" it in any sense because I don't intervene in what the players are doing as long as I don't believe they are simply misunderstanding something. As far as shopping for outfits? The players were having a blast, why would I tell my players that the fun they were having was wrong?

Click to expand...

I'm not sure where the word "allow" comes from. I didn't say anything about anyone granting anyone permission. Nor did I say that you should tell your players anything. I talked about what I "need", meaning what I am looking and hoping for, out of play.

If my friends want to play-act among themselves shopping for finery that is of course their prerogative, but it's not something I really care to spend my leisure time participating in.

AlViking said:

But as @robertsconley eloquently pointed out above it does point out quite clearly that you are exercising a great deal of control on what the players do and putting your thumb on the flow of the game when you stop no-stakes colorful-in-character narration.

Click to expand...

Again, I don't know where this language of "stop" comes from. I'm talking about what I do or don't enjoy, and what I do or don't look for in RPGing.

To set up a comparison: I speak no Greek, and so I would get little pleasure from participating in a RPG session where all the other participants are speaking in Greek. But I never have occasion to stop my friends from playing RPGs using Greek as the principal language of communication, because as it happens they all, like me, default to English as their preferred language.

Similarly, I've seen no sign over the decades that I have been playing RPGs with them that they are inclined to spend tens of minutes settling on the cut and colour of their PCs' finery.

hawkeyefan said:

Like, the lack of explosions or swordplay doesn't make something ununinteresting.

Click to expand...

You'd think someone would have told Michael Bay that by now

Micah Sweet said:

I agree that the experience is the more important bit. For me, and I suspect to some degree for you, to get the experience I want I have to use the process I want.

Click to expand...

Yes. I've spoken a great deal in this and other threads about procedures of play.

Generally I have been trying to steer the discussion away from the properties of the fiction ("realism", "verisimilitude", "coherence", etc) and onto processes of play - and in particular, what rules, principles, heuristics etc guide and constrain what the GM says when making contributions to the shared fiction.

We could talk about these for the players also, but there is not as much controversy there - at least most of the time, what the players do is say what their PCs are doing. The two main variations in heuristic here are between choosing on the basis of what their PC would do and choosing on the basis of what they think will make the social experience of play work out in accordance with group expectations (whatever those expectations might be).

One way to ignite a little bit more controversy about the player-side principles and heuristics would be this: the second one that I described, of players choosing their PCs' actions on the basis of social expectations, is in my view far more common than is often acknowledged. It's just that the discussion of it is often framed not in terms of player-guiding heuristics and principles, but rather "table etiquette" like follow the GM's hooks or don't declare actions that will tend to break up the party.

pemerton said:

One way to ignite a little bit more controversy about the player-side principles and heuristics would be this: the second one that I described, of players choosing their PCs' actions on the basis of social expectations, is in my view far more common than is often acknowledged. It's just that the discussion of it is often framed not in terms of player-guiding heuristics and principles, but rather "table etiquette" like follow the GM's hooks or don't declare actions that will tend to break up the party.

Click to expand...

I would imagine given the necessary character motivations this is maybe more prevalent in PbtA games? I suspect the slower pace of trad D&D helps alleviate some of this issue?
Although having several heads negotiating the story may help rather than dumping that responsibility all on one person.

As I mentioned upthread I had a player who specifically decided to have his character split from the party. It made sense with their PC's bonds but I also believe a large part of it being that we ran several very successful sessions alone together when his character found himself in Sigil separated from the party. I think that experience gave both of us the confidence that it can be done. I'm not sure if the other players at the table have that in them.

pemerton said:

I'm not sure where the word "allow" comes from. I didn't say anything about anyone granting anyone permission. Nor did I say that you should tell your players anything. I talked about what I "need", meaning what I am looking and hoping for, out of play.

If my friends want to play-act among themselves shopping for finery that is of course their prerogative, but it's not something I really care to spend my leisure time participating in.

Again, I don't know where this language of "stop" comes from. I'm talking about what I do or don't enjoy, and what I do or don't look for in RPGing.

To set up a comparison: I speak no Greek, and so I would get little pleasure from participating in a RPG session where all the other participants are speaking in Greek. But I never have occasion to stop my friends from playing RPGs using Greek as the principal language of communication, because as it happens they all, like me, default to English as their preferred language.

Similarly, I've seen no sign over the decades that I have been playing RPGs with them that they are inclined to spend tens of minutes settling on the cut and colour of their PCs' finery.

Click to expand...

I was responding to

pemerton said:

What @hawkeyefan said. "Exciting" is a useful shorthand for "interesting, exciting, emotionally resonant, etc".'
..
I aspire to play being exciting, engaging, interesting, surprising, tragic, hilarious or otherwise moving, as much as possible. Of course there are breathers after dramatic moments, chatter, breaks to pour drinks or whatever. But I don't need what I have called upthread "low stakes" action declaration and what @Campbell recently called "conflict neutral" action declaration, where the PCs are just "poking" at the setting so that the players can elicit further information from the GM about what the ingame situation is. Nor do I need extended periods of no-stakes colourful in-character narration (eg someone upthread talked about half an hour of play choosing outfits for a ball - maybe @AlViking?).
...

Click to expand...

I was attempting to discuss and point out different approaches to play. You state that you don't "need" things you feel are not interesting, etc.. I don't care one way or another about the moving the story forward to what you term highlights or to the point where we get to something I find something interesting. If someone is hogging the spotlight I'll move things along but the game isn't about me, or at least not me alone.

As DM when I am prepping for a session I think about how I can introduce options that I think will be interesting and engaging along with options for variety in pacing, as long as they make sense in context of the fiction. But those are all just options, things I think might happen. Once the game starts, the players are in charge and decide what they want to pursue. I've learned over the years to enjoy things like shopping trips by using them as fun RP acting opportunities, how can I give that shopkeeper interesting mannerisms and patterns? Can I use them to reflect some aspect of the society? I find ways to make it interesting for me. Is it no-stakes? Absolutely! I don't give a hoot about stakes because that has nothing to do with the game I run.

Maybe you don't shut things down like hawkeyfan claims and I may have misread what you said based on the general tone of the conversation. But it still goes back to foundational approach to the game. I think about what fun toys I can put into my sandbox that I think the players will enjoy. You think in terms of stakes, highlight events or focusing on those highlights. I don't play through hours of travel through safe country . But I'm not doing it because I want to shift focus to something more interesting, I don't do it because there are no actions or decisions the characters make that would change anything.

pemerton said:

Yes. I've spoken a great deal in this and other threads about procedures of play.

Generally I have been trying to steer the discussion away from the properties of the fiction ("realism", "verisimilitude", "coherence", etc) and onto processes of play - and in particular, what rules, principles, heuristics etc guide and constrain what the GM says when making contributions to the shared fiction.

We could talk about these for the players also, but there is not as much controversy there - at least most of the time, what the players do is say what their PCs are doing. The two main variations in heuristic here are between choosing on the basis of what their PC would do and choosing on the basis of what they think will make the social experience of play work out in accordance with group expectations (whatever those expectations might be).

One way to ignite a little bit more controversy about the player-side principles and heuristics would be this: the second one that I described, of players choosing their PCs' actions on the basis of social expectations, is in my view far more common than is often acknowledged. It's just that the discussion of it is often framed not in terms of player-guiding heuristics and principles, but rather "table etiquette" like follow the GM's hooks or don't declare actions that will tend to break up the party.

Click to expand...

It's certainly a factor in most games IMO, but the first heuristic is the one I focus on and is far more important to me. In particular, I very much do not want rules that specifically encourage or require the second heuristic be followed. Most if my players might often choose to make decisions this way, but they don't have to, and I don't want them to feel that they do.

AnotherGuy said:

You'd think someone would have told Michael Bay that by now

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, they told him the opposite. His one non-Michael Bay film « Pain and Gain » was his biggest flop, even though I rather liked it.

AnotherGuy said:

I would imagine given the necessary character motivations this is maybe more prevalent in PbtA games? I suspect the slower pace of trad D&D helps alleviate some of this issue?
Although having several heads negotiating the story may help rather than dumping that responsibility all on one person.

As I mentioned upthread I had a player who specifically decided to have his character split from the party. It made sense with their PC's bonds but I also believe a large part of it being that we ran several very successful sessions alone together when his character found himself in Sigil separated from the party. I think that experience gave both of us the confidence that it can be done. I'm not sure if the other players at the table have that in them.

Click to expand...

I'm glad that worked for you, sounds like you both had fun. But for me? I explicitly tell people when they're thinking of joining the game that I expect them to accept that they're on a team and to work with the other people at the table to find someone who will fit in. There will be opportunities for players to pursue their character's agendas to a certain degree during downtime and we'll exchange messages on it. But entire solo sessions? I just don't see that ever happening.

Still interesting to hear other people's experiences.

robertsconley said:

It is about your interests, your own words make that clear:



You didn’t say one player, or an isolated moment. You described the entire table, players plural, doing what they wanted. And you made it clear that if their choices didn’t meet your threshold for stakes or pathos, you’d step in and redirect play.

That’s not a group decision. That’s a referee judgment call.

Maybe it’s a call grounded in experience, and maybe it often improves the session, but it’s still your decision to override what the players are doing in service of what you think the campaign should be. That’s not collaboration. That’s the use of the authority the rules give you.



And I agree: your campaigns, from everything you've described, are player-focused. The systems you favor support that well.

But that’s not the issue.

What I’m pointing out is that your critique of traditional play, and the authority its referees exercise, is hollow when you're doing the same thing under a different procedure. The only difference is how the system frames the referee's intervention, not whether it happens. You still have the authority to say “this isn’t working” and shift the focus based on your judgment.

That’s fine. But calling it player-focused when you override the players’ current choices is a distinction without a difference.

Click to expand...

I think this is one of those arguments which sounds good, but falls apart on closer examination. The players clearly chose to engage in a type of high consequence play. It's thus absolutely on the GM to deliver it! I certainly think there's plenty of room for discussion and diversity of opinion and approach in terms of execution though. I make no judgement there.

EzekielRaiden said:

This is one of the reasons why I put forward the notion, previously, that using systems one is unfamiliar with can directly create a feeling of non-verisimilitude completely unrelated to the actual rules themselves or their origin. Until you know a system like the back of your hand, you're gonna be needing to check what the system expects relatively frequently. That pulls one's headspace out of the fiction to deal with the meta, as you put it. Totally unrelated to whether the system is new or old chronologically--it's whether it's familiar or unfamiliar to the user.

Click to expand...

I'm not going to say you're generically wrong here, but I'll just note that back in the day when we shifted over from OD&D to RuneQuest almost everyone in the (rather large group) got an immediately stronger feeling of verisimilitude. I'd speculate that's because RQ felt both more grounded and less stylized than OD&D, and any extra rules lookups couldn't come close to disrupting that difference. And it was kind of a radical change that took us a while to get used to all the details in.