D&D General DM Authority

[Charlaquin]

Method acting is also roleplaying. It's just not the same kind of roleplaying. The difference between a game like Space Hulk or D&D with improvisational method-acting is just HOW you are playing the role.

Kind of. It doesn’t help that there are tons of different acting techniques that all try to claim the title “method acting.” Generally speaking though, most techniques that get referred to as “method” involve roleplaying to a certain extent (with, for example, Meisnerian acting relying on it much more heavily than pure Stanislavskian). But in acting, the performance is the objective. Roleplaying is a tool you can use to try and achieve that objective. In roleplaying games, the roleplaying itself is generally the objective; any performance of the roleplay that may occur is ancillary.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Equating a way that people like to roleplay (ie; actor stance, imagining themselves as a fighter, etc.) to this sort of thing is just not good.

I agree, good thing I'm not doing that.

Again, the point is not judging how you RP. The point is that people who cannot separate their character from themselves often end up taking extreme offense when bad things happen to their character.

I am not judging how you RP. I am not talking about Stances. I am not doing any of that. If I was, I wouldn't tell you in every single post that I am not doing that.

To repeat it again, I am not doing that.

Not to the person who is imagining themselves as that character, it just doesn't make sense for them to call what they are doing "working at crafting a story". Because they aren't, the story is a happy byproduct at most.

If they think they are really going on a date with a fictional person in their head, that is not what I would consider rolepaying.

If they aren't thinking it is a real date, then they are considering it as though the character were perhaps some sort of puppet or avatar that they control.

What do you think a puppeteer is doing when they use their puppets to act our a scenario? Maybe... crafting a story?

No, you are only crafting a story if you are considering it. Crafting denotes intent at the very least.

If I take two slices of bread and a slice of cheese and put them together, I am crafting a sandwich

I may not be considering the fact that I am crafting a sandwich, but I am taking those actions with intent of an outcome, likely to eat said sandwich.

When the characters begin moving in the scene (oh hey, there is a novel/theater/movie term we use to describe a specific chunk of the DnD game) they are acting with an intent of accomplishing actions that will affect the narrative (oh hey, there is another novel/theater/movie term) They do have that intent, because otherwise they wouldn't act.

As has been mentioned, anything can be turned into a story and/or a narrative. My point is that; "working together to craft a story" is NOT the same as; "playing a game without consideration to the story, that happens to be easier to view as a story than a game of go-fish." And also, though I never made the point here, there are TONS of storytelling games these days and they are great, and tons of ttrpgs that focus on storytelling, and it's easy to play D&D with focus on storytelling it just isn't necessary.

No consideration to the story?

So, they aren't following clues? Seeking Treasure? Maybe out for vengeance against a foe? There is no monster they were sent to hunt? No inciting incident or crisis they need to resolve?

I think you are too hung up on picturing someone sitting down with the explicit statement "I want to make a story" and ignoring that the moment you sit down and consider your next move because of something an NPC did to change the situation, you are making decisions with consideration towards a story.

 

[Maxperson]

Kind of. It doesn’t help that there are tons of different acting techniques that all try to claim the title “method acting.” Generally speaking though, most techniques that get referred to as “method” involve roleplaying to a certain extent (with, for example, Meisnerian acting relying on it much more heavily than pure Stanislavskian). But in acting, the performance is the objective. Roleplaying is a tool you can use to try and achieve that objective. In roleplaying games, the roleplaying itself is generally the objective; any performance of the roleplay that may occur is ancillary.

Yeah. That's why I described it as a "how to" of roleplaying. Roleplaying is the goal. Method acting and other ways to achieve that are how people choose to achieve that goal.

In my analogy fishing(roleplaying) was the goal. The various ways of fishing are how you go about getting there.

 

[happyhermit]

The "real place" where you can fall 80' and get up, injured but still fulling functional? The "real place" where an attack that will kill a dinosaur leaves you alive pretty reliably?

You seem to think that what I have been describing is "realism" perhaps because I used the word "real" (within a specific context). It's not hard to imagine a world where things function very different from reality and yet do not appear to be changing on a whim. It's not hard to imagine a world where high level heroes become harder to kill than a dinosaur.

To digress; I seldom see falling rules applied blindly despite the circumstance, D&D is a game where the GM makes rulings on such things after all and decides when the default abstract rules don't make sense in-fiction. Also, there are even rules for injuries. Still, this has nothing to do with the original premise.

That's the gig here; a lot of D&Disms only make sense as game abstractions of fairly stylized genre assumptions. If you push on them (and this applies to magic too, but its muddied here because it turns more on how much you're prone to press on magic) they don't make sense, unless you assume the world works vastly differently than ours or look the other way about the places it doesn't--and if you can do that with these, you can do that with metacurrencies that do the same thing.

The player can't imagine the world is "immutable" for lack of a better word, if they or other players can declare changes to the world in-game. They can imagine a world where things pop in and out of existence, but that is completely besides the point.

Most of the BRP derivatives come to mind, but there are others like GURPS and the like too, that on a base level try to avoid telling you counterfactuals outside of overtly supernatural phenomenon. Heck, if GURPS is too complicated a case for you, drop back to TFT.

Yeah, you are definitely talking about "realism" here I think, not the preference I am talking about. I haven't tried new versions of these games, but they all had issues when I did and I (not to mention new-to-ttrpg people) didn't find them any more suited to this preference (or very fun , sorry I did have fun with GURP and superheros). I do appreciate the examples, always on the lookout for something I missed.

I agree, good thing I'm not doing that.

Again, the point is not judging how you RP. The point is that people who cannot separate their character from themselves often end up taking extreme offense when bad things happen to their character.

I am not judging how you RP. I am not talking about Stances. I am not doing any of that. If I was, I wouldn't tell you in every single post that I am not doing that.

To repeat it again, I am not doing that.

Upon re-reading I realize it might seem like I was repeating, but when I said "imagining themselves as a fighter" I meant themselves as a fighter like someone mentioned earlier, not imagining they are a different character. I think this is what you are talking about, akin to an self-insert character.

If they think they are really going on a date with a fictional person in their head, that is not what I would consider rolepaying.

If they imagine they are going on a date with a fictional person, they can definitely be roleplaying and this even extends outside of gaming to therapy and such.

If they aren't thinking it is a real date, then they are considering it as though the character were perhaps some sort of puppet or avatar that they control.

What do you think a puppeteer is doing when they use their puppets to act our a scenario? Maybe... crafting a story?

Maybe, or messing around, or telling jokes.

If I take two slices of bread and a slice of cheese and put them together, I am crafting a sandwich

I may not be considering the fact that I am crafting a sandwich, but I am taking those actions with intent of an outcome, likely to eat said sandwich.

It's the intent. If you accidentally drop a piece of bread onto another you aren't crafting a sandwich.

I am not crafting a full compost bin, I am doing prep in the kitchen and making and eating sandwiches, which can result in a full compost bin.

When the characters begin moving in the scene (oh hey, there is a novel/theater/movie term we use to describe a specific chunk of the DnD game) they are acting with an intent of accomplishing actions that will affect the narrative (oh hey, there is another novel/theater/movie term) They do have that intent, because otherwise they wouldn't act.

I have an intent to make a sandwich, I don't have to be intent on filling the compost bin.

 

[Don Durito]

Eh. It turns heavily on how you view "alters the world." A lot of metacurrencies will let you, for example, reroll a roll or create objects in a scene that have not previous been indicated as being in the scene. From some points of view, both of those are world alterations. Some people are bothered by the latter, some by either.

They're not though. I explained why clearly in the post you quoted.

I would suggest if the objection is altering the world then the real issue is you don't like the rule and are struggling to articulate a clear reason why.

It's more likely the objection is to players authoring content which happens in the second case but not the first.

 

[Oofta]

I see you didn't highlight him calling that style of DnD a "D&D based board game", because we were talking about hack and slash megadungeons. Not even necessarily ones with no DM, but he found the very concept of a hack and slash megadungeon with few or no NPCs where you simply fight monsters and take their stuff "not the game described in the rulebooks"


I think that is false. I think that is so provably false that the very idea of it being true is ludicrous. Is it my preferred style of play? No. But that doesn't make it not DnD.


But hey, it is okay to judge other people's way of playing the game as long as you say "in my opnion" first right? That isn't saying that there is only one true way to play the game, just that in your opinion any way that doesn't fit your vision of how the game shouldn't work isn't actually playing the game.


Of course, since I'll be accused of twisting words and lying and all that, let me just go ahead and quote myself here so I can point out how, no, I'm not lying. Yes, I did say these things, and if Oofta misunderstood, well, I believe the recently shut down thread everyone was saying that misunderstanding would be entirely on him.

My Post



Note I start out with agreeing with his point before this post, that DnD is more than Dungeon Crawling for a lot of people.

I reiterate the original point of contention (that DnD cannot be played with a DM) and then follow up with the current point of contention (that a hack and slash, megadungeon with few or no NPCs is still DnD). I want to highlight this, because there were two different points. There was the point that Hack and slash games can be played with No DM, but that point was challenged, quite a few times, by claims that Hack and Slash games are not DnD. This post was about that second point.

I then offer a concession, that if Oofta's point is not to say that it is impossible to play DnD, but merely it is impossible to play DnD in the style he prefers, that of course he is right, because his style relies on the existence of a DM.

And I finish with reiterating the major point, that I figured no one could contest. That DnD is larger than one single style of play.

Oofta's response? Well, I'll do some highlighting this time




His first sentence acknowledges my point about styles. "If that is still DnD to you". So he has accepted that fact that we are discussing the hack and slash style of game.

I would again contend that "hack and slash, kick down the door, kill the monster, take their stuff, repeat" is actually DnD, as described by the books. Sure, it removes some other things described by the books, but kicking down doors, killing monsters, taking their stuff, that is classic DnD.

Oofta then calls this style, because he did accept that I was talking about a style,

1) Not DnD as described by the rules
2) Not DnD
3) a "Glorified Ad-Hoc Boardgame" (which is derogatory, in case you can't tell)
4) Not DnD
5) A DnD Board game, and not DnD

I know that gets repetitive, but I wanted to highly that he said four times it wasn't DnD (oh sorry, in his opinion, can't forget that since it forgives his one-true-wayism) and a Board game twice.


So, since this was a rather blatant example of claiming that a way to play DnD was wrong, and Oofta has often voraciously defended himself with claims of "but that is just my opionion, everyone can enjoy the game the way they want" and "there is no one true way, everyones preferences are equal" and ect ect ect. I took a rather harsh stance against that.

So no number of "in my opinion" or "I don't consider" or "if you do it's fine" ever matters? That if I have an opinion different than yours I'm claiming you're doing it wrong when I say that all that matters is that you're having fun?

So yes, what you describe I would personally not consider D&D. You do. But you know what? It's perfectly okay to have a difference of opinion. I'm not telling you your opinion is wrong.

I don't know why you go so out of your way to take offense. It's a game. It's only a game. If you're enjoying yourself while playing a game you're doing it right.

 

[Thomas Shey]

You seem to think that what I have been describing is "realism" perhaps because I used the word "real" (within a specific context). It's not hard to imagine a world where things function very different from reality and yet do not appear to be changing on a whim. It's not hard to imagine a world where high level heroes become harder to kill than a dinosaur.

To digress; I seldom see falling rules applied blindly despite the circumstance, D&D is a game where the GM makes rulings on such things after all and decides when the default abstract rules don't make sense in-fiction. Also, there are even rules for injuries. Still, this has nothing to do with the original premise.


The player can't imagine the world is "immutable" for lack of a better word, if they or other players can declare changes to the world in-game. They can imagine a world where things pop in and out of existence, but that is completely besides the point.

I'm just going by people I've seen who had problems with metacurrency who would absolutely have expected to treat things like the variable hit points as actually describing the world (and it sounds like maybe the ones you're talking about would too), and I think that's sometimes a problem; a lot of people don't really want to deal with the idea that hit points really are meat points either, but at the end of the day, variable hit points are not any more "realistic" than one where people have someone can get lucky and luck is represented by metacurrency at least.

(As I acknowledged in another post, I'm aware some people can deal with that and not with scene editing, and I understand the distinction there. People who can deal with level variable hit points but not "I didn't take all that damage" metacurrency I kind of can't.)

Yeah, you are definitely talking about "realism" here I think, not the preference I am talking about. I haven't tried new versions of these games, but they all had issues when I did and I (not to mention new-to-ttrpg people) didn't find them any more suited to this preference (or very fun , sorry I did have fun with GURP and superheros). I do appreciate the examples, always on the lookout for something I missed.

I did, indeed, assume at least some elements of actual, well, realism where an issue when you used "real". I suspect something like--hurm, "solidity" might have been a better term.

 

[Thomas Shey]

They're not though. I explained why clearly in the post you quoted.

And they don't see it that way. Frankly, if other people see it differently than you, how you do does not alter how they're going to respond to it in the least.

I would suggest if the objection is altering the world then the real issue is you don't like the rule and are struggling to articulate a clear reason why.

It's more likely the objection is to players authoring content which happens in the second case but not the first.

I think you're missing that this is sometimes players having this problem. And they absolutely do exist. Me, personally, I have no problems with most metacurrency I've seen at all; on the whole I find it better than things like level expanding hit points. The scene-editing part is a bit more of a step, but for a game where that kind of narrative control is appropriate I don't have a problem with it, either (though I'm not sold it always is).

 

[Chaosmancer]

The player can't imagine the world is "immutable" for lack of a better word, if they or other players can declare changes to the world in-game. They can imagine a world where things pop in and out of existence, but that is completely besides the point.

Personally? I don't see the difference between the players declaring changes and a DM declaring changes.

I literally just had a Roll20 experience where we were told we saw a fire down the street, I declared my actions based on that information. We were in a realm of darkness and the DM put us on the map, but we couldn't see the fire, so he moved us closer, and closer and closer... until I was right next to the fire and surrounded by guards.

I felt like I couldn't change my declared actions, but I definitely felt like the entire situation changed. I've seen it a lot, DMs declare something, then realize they forgot something or didn't mention it before the players acted.

I'm not saying all DMs do this, or that it is good, but I have experienced it many times. Both online and in person.

Upon re-reading I realize it might seem like I was repeating, but when I said "imagining themselves as a fighter" I meant themselves as a fighter like someone mentioned earlier, not imagining they are a different character. I think this is what you are talking about, akin to an self-insert character.

Not quite, but we are getting closer.

"This is what I would do if I was a fighter in this situation" is still playing a character, and you can still have that separation. It is a self-insert, but as long as you can separate your self-insert from yourself we are good. It is when players don't have that seperation that we are saying there is an issue.

If they imagine they are going on a date with a fictional person, they can definitely be roleplaying and this even extends outside of gaming to therapy and such.

Okay, if you are looking at it as similar to the roleplay for therapy, you might see why this is something we are considering could be a problem for the table.

Maybe, or messing around, or telling jokes.

Okay, are telling the jokes in game, or out of game? Serious question.

Because if they are telling jokes in the story... they are crafting a story.

If they are telling jokes at the table, outside of the game.... then it has nothing to do with playing the game. I mean, if we are saying "hey. maybe they are telling jokes that have nothing to do with what their character is doing" then it doesn't have anything to do with playing the game.

It's the intent. If you accidentally drop a piece of bread onto another you aren't crafting a sandwich.

I am not crafting a full compost bin, I am doing prep in the kitchen and making and eating sandwiches, which can result in a full compost bin.


I have an intent to make a sandwich, I don't have to be intent on filling the compost bin.

The problem is you are acting like making a decision in character is the same as dropping something, or it is the waste product of the game.

But making a decision for what your character is doing is the main driving force of the game. Without that there is no game. It can't be seen as an accident or as a waste product.

 

[Chaosmancer]

So no number of "in my opinion" or "I don't consider" or "if you do it's fine" ever matters? That if I have an opinion different than yours I'm claiming you're doing it wrong when I say that all that matters is that you're having fun?

So yes, what you describe I would personally not consider D&D. You do. But you know what? It's perfectly okay to have a difference of opinion. I'm not telling you your opinion is wrong.

I don't know why you go so out of your way to take offense. It's a game. It's only a game. If you're enjoying yourself while playing a game you're doing it right.

"There is no one true way to play DnD"

"In my opinion the way you play is not playing DnD"

Do you not see how those statements are in conflict? Just because you say "hey, that's only my opinion" it doesn't change the fact that you are declaring a style of DnD as not DnD, while at the same time trying to take the high road and saying all ways of playing DnD are valid. Because what you are saying is that playing it that way is wrong, of course it is only in your opinion, but you can't believe that all ways are valid and that one way is wrong. That doesn't work.