Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8924974" data-attributes="member: 6790260">To begin with, I want to be clear about what I am responding to. Your first "example" had spoken of games where a player can simply declare that there is a secret exit out of a trap room they were caught in, and that that simply becomes true. Your second example had spoken of games where a player can simply declare that ten 100d100 lightning bolts strike their enemies, whenever they feel like it, and that that simply becomes true.Unfortunately, to a certain extent, I cannot do as you have asked, because you are asking for me to quote the absence of a rule, and...I can't do that, I can't hold a book up for you and show how it does not contain anything that works that way. But I can quote for you the parts which tell you why you shouldn't do that.Here's the introductory text for the "Playing the Game" chapter (all emphasis in original):[SPOILER="Playing the Game"][/SPOILER]This isn't rules text per se, but it does explicitly tell you part of what I've been saying: the game arises from people talking to one another like people do. If you don't understand what someone else means, you ask questions. If you and another person have made assumptions and you realize those assumptions differ, you find a way to resolve those differences. Just like any actual conversation. That doesn't mean the people involved have to think perfectly alike--indeed, in most conversations, the participants don't think alike.From there, it lays out the general format of Moves, which are the things that fire when the players actually do something that requires rules to resolve (such as doing damage to enemies, escaping traps, casting spells, searching for information, or all sorts of other things.) All emphasis in original.[SPOILER="Moves"][/SPOILER]Notice some really important text here: "Isaac can’t just describe his character running past the orc without making the defy danger move and he can’t make the defy danger move without acting despite an imminent threat or suffering a calamity. The moves and the fiction go hand-in-hand."According to the actual rules of the game, you cannot just declare that whatever you want to happen happens. If you're attacking the enemy, as in the case with the 100d100 lightning bolts, you would have to make some kind of move that involves attacking--which requires making rolls and succeeding, for one thing, and doesn't include 100d100 lightning bolts for another. If you want to perform a move, you must actually describe the action that IS the move, and every single time you describe the action that IS the move, you must follow the rules of that move, even if you weren't intending to do so. Also, note that it explicitly says that it's possible for people to disagree about whether a move has been triggered. That means the rules expect that some of the time, people will disagree. The response, according to the rules, is that "everyone should work together to clarify what's happening. Ask questions of everyone involved until everyone sees the situation in the same way and then roll the dice, or don't, as the situation requires." Talking to people, figuring out the disagreement, is literally one of the rules of the game.Finally, in the GM rules section of Dungeon World, the text includes the following (all emphasis in original):"Play to find out what happens" is one of the Agendas of Dungeon World. Agendas are the things you, as GM, should always be trying to do, at all times. Having encounters planned out the way you described--where on round 3, everyone already knows that someone will break out of their chair--is explicitly contradicted by the rules themselves. The rules explicitly say, "Don't do that. It wouldn't be fun, and the rules of the game will make your life unnecessarily harder."This is what I mean when I say that the books repeatedly and explicitly reject the kinds of examples you're giving. It isn't just "oh, if you read the rules charitably, they wouldn't support it." The actual rules of Dungeon World itself say that you should not do that. That doing so is boring or frustrating. Exactly as I said before.I disagree with the following claims here (all emphasis added):a great many [read: majority of] players will abuse any system of rulesthere is no [benefit to be found in] "talking to them"plenty [read: a majority of] players will try to sneak stuff around the edges of the rulesAll of these claims are, fundamentally, saying that most players are abusive, coercive, selfish, power-hungry, and rude. That statement is simply false. Most players are just...people. Sometimes they'll grub for every tiny advantage they can get. Sometimes they will be kind to you and to one another. Usually, they'll just be enthusiastic about something and not always aware that the thing they've asked for isn't good.Unless and until you are willing to relent on this objectively false statement that most players are abusive jerks, it's going to be very hard or even impossible to discuss things with you. Because most players, by and large, are just ordinary people--neither sinners nor saints, just...people.So, to answer your question "to what end": To the end of reasonable people coming to a reasonable agreement about how to move forward. Because most players are fairly reasonable. Some will be unreasonable some of the time, and (lamentably) a few will be unreasonable all of the time. But most people will generally be fairly reasonable, and will want to help make sure everyone has fun, both them and others.The problem is, you keep acting like your statements are a broad generalization which covers essentially all games. Your response here is woefully inadequate, because I'm not saying "but that doesn't describe this one game I play." I'm saying, "That doesn't describe ANY game I've ever heard of, and I've heard of a lot of games!" Unless and until you actually DO name a name or two--unless you can give me a specific game that actually does get played this way--you haven't responded to the actual criticism.There are no games that get played like this. Name one. Just one! If you can name just one game where it's actually permitted by the rules that players can just declare the kinds of things you've spoken of, and that just happens no matter what the declaration is, then I will grant that you have responded to the criticism. I will still have reservations about whether your claims describe more than just that one game (because you keep making statements about how this is essentially universal, about how almost everyone does certain things, about how nearly all players are abusive and rude and selfish, etc.)TL;DR: I'm saying "No games work this way. Prove me wrong." You can't respond to that with, "Well I'm not talking about YOUR game, I'm talking about OTHER games." Name a game that actually gets played this way by most people who play it.No, it isn't. And unless you can prove otherwise, the chorus of people disagreeing with you is better evidence than just you alone.Again, that's irrelevant. Name a game that actually gets played this way, or stop saying that most games are played like this. Because none of us have ever heard of even one game actually played like this.Not really, at least not for me! I can't speak for Neonchameleon.Your original assertion was that even the smallest, tiniest, most minor problems (including taking any amount of damage whatsoever) cause total and complete meltdowns nearly constantly in most players. Your follow-up statement then asked if Neonchameleon had never seen anyone "freak out" at all, for any reason, ever, or "give up," etc. Those two are NOT the same thing. The former is saying that almost all players are incredibly hyper-sensitive to the smallest of problems and will respond with the emotional equivalent of the Chernobyl disaster. The latter is saying that sometimes players get really upset. That is, pretty much definitionally, moving the goalposts. It's also rather a classic "motte and bailey" argument: you opened with a statement that is extremely strident and difficult to prove, then retreated after being challenged to a statement that is trivially true, only to pretend that by granting the trivial statement, Neonchameleon had also granted the extremely strident statement. This is unfair and invalid. Either you must grant that your original statement is not supported, or you must provide support for it--you cannot pretend that the statement "sometimes players freak out or give up" is at all the same as the statement "many players will have a total meltdown simply because they took damage."Because you described someone who, to quote your own words, "For a lot of players, as soon as the slightest thing goes slightly wrong......they give up at best, and stop playing at worst.  And this is the normal 'good' players. A lot more players are super over sensitive.  The charterer fails a check or takes some damage, and they are ready to quit RPGs forever."You have said that a lot of players instantly give up at the smallest issue, and that even more players would simply quit TTRPGs forever solely because their character took some damage one time. That's so cartoonishly irrational and petulant, it beggars belief. I'm sure that, in the grand and glorious panoply of humanity, there have been a few people with their heads shoved so far up their own butts that they would respond that way. It's unavoidable that, with something like eight billion of us out there, a few are going to be THAT bad. But they are NOWHERE NEAR common, unless you can actually give evidence otherwise.Not at all. Because "doesn't read books" (or "reads books," if you prefer) is a pretty simple thing, which doesn't require someone to fall into hysterics or insanity. But what you spoke of wasn't that. What you spoke of was, if I may edit your original words..."For a lot of people, as soon as they see a single word they don't know......they give up at best, and stop reading at worst.  And this is the normal 'good' readers. A lot more readers are super over sensitive.  The reader doesn't understand the meaning of a sentence or reads something they find upsetting, and they are ready to quit books forever.""For a lot of viewers, as soon as they see an unpleasant scene......they give up on that episode at best, and stop watching entirely at worst. And this is the normal 'good' viewers. A lot more viewers are super over sensitive. The viewer dislikes a character or is upset that their favorite characters aren't in a romance, and they are ready to quit television forever."That's the kind of ridiculous hysterical nonsense you were asking us to accept--and then, when challenged, you tried to pass off these ridiculous hysterics as "you've never seen someone get upset because of a TV show? You've never seen someone stop watching a show because they got angry? Okay...sure...not sure why you want to pretend such people don't exist..."</blockquote>

Verification