David Howery
Hero
I disbelieve!
*rolls D20*
Okay, you succeed... therefore, D&D disappears... as does this website... so, you're not really here... and neither am I...
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
Is D&D an illusion?
- Thread starter Janx
- Start date
*rolls D20*
Okay, you succeed... therefore, D&D disappears... as does this website... so, you're not really here... and neither am I...
Croesus
Adventurer
I think it took me all of three sessions before I realized that roleplaying with a GM always involves bias - applying bias is the GM's job, just as it is when someone writes a book, or posts in a thread. Tournament play as always had this problem, that no matter how well designed the material, each GM will run it slightly differently.
Personally, I want bias in the GM, so long as it makes the game more fun. If the GM's bias (or another player's, for that matter) makes the game less fun, I leave the game. But a completely unbiased game? Not possible, IMO, nor desirable.
Argyle King
Legend
I personally prefer to let the 'dice' fall where they may. The reason being that the game world as I tend to run it reacts to the characters; not to the players. This is a subtle difference, but an important one.
"For example, here's a thought - as the GM, you either design the adventure and encounters, or you review and edit a published adventure (and the choice to not edit is still an editorial choice). As you say, the GM has a lot of power." (quoted only to provide context...)
I'm stepping outside of just D&D for a moment, but I strongly prefer to do neither. Preferably, I design the world, and then allow for events to grow organically from the elements of that design. As that relates to the PCs, that also means their actions have a hand in how the world evolves. However, the world also evolves independent of the PCs. Kingdoms fight wars; plagues infect the land; etc.
Now, if I step back in D&D mode, I have to modify that approach somewhat because the players tend to expect (and the system encourages) certain elements being part of a D&D game.
As for failure, I do believe there needs to be a chance of failure to make success meaningful. Failure need not be game nor life ending. However, as a player, it's difficult for me to immerse myself in my character and the world if I get the impression that my actions make no difference. For me, it's just as unfun to realize that everything I do is predestined to succeed as it is to realize that everything I do is predestined to fail. The reason being that I don't feel as though my actions matter if that is the case.
In the context of D&D, I am more willing to accept that there are story needs. Part of the game is moving forward and gaining levels, so I accept that there are times when certain events need to happen. As such, when playing D&D, I have tolerance (and even enjoy) having a few plot points set along the way. However, if I feel like I'm simply along for the ride and my actions have no actual impact at all, I don't find that enjoyable. I read books and watch movies when I want to observe a story; I play rpgs when I want to participate in a story.
"For example, here's a thought - as the GM, you either design the adventure and encounters, or you review and edit a published adventure (and the choice to not edit is still an editorial choice). As you say, the GM has a lot of power." (quoted only to provide context...)
I'm stepping outside of just D&D for a moment, but I strongly prefer to do neither. Preferably, I design the world, and then allow for events to grow organically from the elements of that design. As that relates to the PCs, that also means their actions have a hand in how the world evolves. However, the world also evolves independent of the PCs. Kingdoms fight wars; plagues infect the land; etc.
Now, if I step back in D&D mode, I have to modify that approach somewhat because the players tend to expect (and the system encourages) certain elements being part of a D&D game.
As for failure, I do believe there needs to be a chance of failure to make success meaningful. Failure need not be game nor life ending. However, as a player, it's difficult for me to immerse myself in my character and the world if I get the impression that my actions make no difference. For me, it's just as unfun to realize that everything I do is predestined to succeed as it is to realize that everything I do is predestined to fail. The reason being that I don't feel as though my actions matter if that is the case.
In the context of D&D, I am more willing to accept that there are story needs. Part of the game is moving forward and gaining levels, so I accept that there are times when certain events need to happen. As such, when playing D&D, I have tolerance (and even enjoy) having a few plot points set along the way. However, if I feel like I'm simply along for the ride and my actions have no actual impact at all, I don't find that enjoyable. I read books and watch movies when I want to observe a story; I play rpgs when I want to participate in a story.
Alright, I already got tangled up in just this topic inadvertently when I responded to others in the same thread. My incredulity over their stance had my head spinning.
Then I had to re-read things. Slowly...cause, I'm slow sometimes... From what I can see, we really aren't on that different of a page. Despite my approach drawing analogies to "scripting" (and I suppose by comparison "railroading" and such) and their making claims to completely open sandboxing and such.
So here's the deal, IMO, etc:
The DM is truly the Storyteller in a typical DnD game. Period. Pride may cause people to disavow "scripting", but the bottom line is, the DM is ultimately in control of the story no matter how many decisions they say their players make.
Typically, just as you state in the OP the DM has crafted or chosen the game world, has invested time in familiarizing themselves with the story space and they lay down the initial "boundaries" for the campaign. They then proceed to be the main person at the table who provides the players with the context for all of their actions.
These actions by the DM in turn often provide the completely crucial story element we call "conflict" which drives players to progress along whatever path they are on. Honestly conflict is the key to a good story. Not characters. Characters are just the cogs in the wheel. Usually the DM controls this whether they admit it or not.
Now, if there are DnD games out there (and I know some RPGs are built on this) where players choose not only how they react but how the world will react to them, then yes, the story is a completely collaborative one and there is less illusion so to speak and more direct control of the story by players.
I hear the rumblings already "Well my players completely choose their path and what they are doing so you are WRONG!"
Really? Let me introduce you to Dudley Do-right the Paladin. As the GM I refused to allow a PC named Dudley Do-Right. I refused to allow him to dress as a mountie and saying "eh" all the time. I perhaps destroyed his intended character goals to save Penelope from that dastardly guy and frankly, would not have added either him or a locomotive (train tracks) to my campaign. So right there, his choice was illusion and determined by me cause I'm a "scripting meanie"
Frankly, I know very few DMs that would not have done the same.
In fact, even if a DM would have allowed it, I fully imagine the reaction of NPCs would have been as if he were a mad man, which, is again the DM setting the rules and story direction and not the player who wanted to seriously play a freakin' mountie. We weren't playing "Toon", we were playing DnD and I was running the game. A game that neither had Canada or Mounties (no offense, eh?)
Johnny3D3D:
Precisely, love the quote!
Then I had to re-read things. Slowly...cause, I'm slow sometimes... From what I can see, we really aren't on that different of a page. Despite my approach drawing analogies to "scripting" (and I suppose by comparison "railroading" and such) and their making claims to completely open sandboxing and such.
So here's the deal, IMO, etc:
The DM is truly the Storyteller in a typical DnD game. Period. Pride may cause people to disavow "scripting", but the bottom line is, the DM is ultimately in control of the story no matter how many decisions they say their players make.
Typically, just as you state in the OP the DM has crafted or chosen the game world, has invested time in familiarizing themselves with the story space and they lay down the initial "boundaries" for the campaign. They then proceed to be the main person at the table who provides the players with the context for all of their actions.
These actions by the DM in turn often provide the completely crucial story element we call "conflict" which drives players to progress along whatever path they are on. Honestly conflict is the key to a good story. Not characters. Characters are just the cogs in the wheel. Usually the DM controls this whether they admit it or not.
Now, if there are DnD games out there (and I know some RPGs are built on this) where players choose not only how they react but how the world will react to them, then yes, the story is a completely collaborative one and there is less illusion so to speak and more direct control of the story by players.
I hear the rumblings already "Well my players completely choose their path and what they are doing so you are WRONG!"
Really? Let me introduce you to Dudley Do-right the Paladin. As the GM I refused to allow a PC named Dudley Do-Right. I refused to allow him to dress as a mountie and saying "eh" all the time. I perhaps destroyed his intended character goals to save Penelope from that dastardly guy and frankly, would not have added either him or a locomotive (train tracks) to my campaign. So right there, his choice was illusion and determined by me cause I'm a "scripting meanie"
Frankly, I know very few DMs that would not have done the same. In fact, even if a DM would have allowed it, I fully imagine the reaction of NPCs would have been as if he were a mad man, which, is again the DM setting the rules and story direction and not the player who wanted to seriously play a freakin' mountie. We weren't playing "Toon", we were playing DnD and I was running the game. A game that neither had Canada or Mounties (no offense, eh?)
Johnny3D3D:
Precisely, love the quote!
Jack7
First Post
Just as a philosophical point Janx, this is something I think Geeks and Nerds accept just on face value, but it isn't objectively true at all.
All computers and programs are designed by people. They therefore arise from the biases and design assumptions of either the designers/programmers or the team of designers/programmers. (As others have hinted about the game itself.) A computer software application is merely a programmed system of human thought, it is not independent of human thought, it is just systematized human thought. A code. A particular kind of systematized human thought, just like mathematics is. But all human codes arise from human beings, math included.
A lot of Geeks and Nerds and modern people (and I'm not being critical in a harsh fashion, merely pointing out something about the way modern people think and look at the world - a world they created) reflexively think that if you wash human thought through a machine or device or some type of technology it gains automatic and pristine objectivity. It doesn't. It remains as subjective and biased as the human thought processes that produced it, it merely becomes systematized. (Some human thought processes and methods of thought are more objective than others I suspect, and some more subjective than others, but I can't think of any human thought process, system, or invention that's really objective. All human inventions, systems, and processes serve human ends. That is their function. It is a logical function because they were created by and for humans. But that doesn't make them objective, merely logically human.)
I'm not trying to open a can of worms just pointing out the fact that Geeks and Nerds just oftentimes reflexively and uncritically assume that because of current human society that our way of doing things (the modern way) is automatically more objective. I suspect that isn't necessarily true at all, as much as maybe we'd like it to be true. And scientists and inventors and mathematicians and statistical analysts all have their own biases as well, because they are all human, both individually and en masse. It's just impossible to fully rid ourselves of our subjective viewpoints, and although technology may help to mitigate our subjectivity somewhat, it does not eliminate it.
Nor, do I think it necessarily important to eliminate it, but merely in certain circumstances, to try and adjust and expand our own subjective viewpoint.
That being said I'd say D&D is subjectively illusory, but then again so what, what isn't? That doesn't make it any less real. Or anymore real, for that matter.
By the way if you, or anyone else, wants to disagree with what I just pointed out about human science and technology and invention then go ahead. It was just my opinion anyway.
Last edited:
ExploderWizard
Hero
Really? Let me introduce you to Dudley Do-right the Paladin. As the GM I refused to allow a PC named Dudley Do-Right. I refused to allow him to dress as a mountie and saying "eh" all the time. I perhaps destroyed his intended character goals to save Penelope from that dastardly guy and frankly, would not have added either him or a locomotive (train tracks) to my campaign. So right there, his choice was illusion and determined by me cause I'm a "scripting meanie"
In fact, even if a DM would have allowed it, I fully imagine the reaction of NPCs would have been as if he were a mad man, which, is again the DM setting the rules and story direction and not the player who wanted to seriously play a freakin' mountie. We weren't playing "Toon", we were playing DnD and I was running the game. A game that neither had Canada or Mounties (no offense, eh?)
Why not let a player play Dudley if it will make him/her happy? Of course having such a name might bring ridicule from npcs or even other PC's but I don't see it as a big problem. There won't be any trains or train tracks in the campaign just because of this silly character concept but I would certainly allow it.
We just started a new Dragon Age campaign last week and one player created an Avar warrior named Rosco. He has a faithful hunting dog companion named Flash.
The character is effective in his role as a warrior and it amuses the player. Where is the harm in this? Heck who knows, at some point in the campaign the players may cross paths with a corrupt Duke and end up encountering some of his boys.
I guess my point is that I don't treat the game as serious business and thus do not stomp on a player's fun as long as it does not stomp on anyone else's.
The first mistake in this statement is that D&D is not a story crafted by the DM, who coincidentally is not a storyteller, a DM is simply a referee or moderator between the players and the game world. It is not the DMs job to tell a story, it is not the DMs job to make sure the PCs get from point A to B in the adventure. It is not the job of the DM to control what the PCs do, where the PCs go, or how the PCs act within the game. The only job the DM has, is to interpret the consequences that occur due to player interaction.
Unfortunately, somewhere between AD&D and D&D4E, bad DMs and bad players of the game either misinterpreted or blatantly ignored what the game and DM are. "Story" is the result of playing through a campaign or adventure, not the reason for it.
There are DMs that wouldn't have a clue how to handle a group of players that didn't follow an outline or "story" they put down on paper, while similarly there are players that wouldn't have a clue how to "adventure" through the campaign setting unless the DM gave them point-blank directions in where they should go and what they should be doing, on every leg of the journey.
Both groups, of which, are a bane to the game. Game play is pretty cut and dry, I can't honestly see why there should ever be a need for illusion when playing.
