D&D 5E Legend Lore says 'story not rules' (3/4)

[Nemesis Destiny]

I sort of agree this where things turn. The problem is if the rules support player agency over setting fidelty, that will bother groups who want setting fidelty. If you o things the opposite way, the you have the reverse problem. I can assure you, just as it bothers you when the GM makes a judgment against your character based on what he thinks would plausibly occur, it bother me when the GM lets you do something because it is genre appropriate or dramatic, but flies against what I regard as plausible.

The bolded section of this statement is something of a sticking point in these arguments. The way you've worded it makes it sound like what you're really against is the perception of player-entitlement versus GM authority within the rules.

One of the many problems with this approach as @Balesir very nicely illustrated above, is that often what a given GM finds plausible, is utter nonsense. This happens all the time with GM judgements in a "rulings not rules" environment, because most of us are not experts at all the subjects a given game is likely to run across.

That is one reason why I think it's better to let genre-appropriateness and dramatic tension drive decisions, rather than some GM's wonky idea of how "reality" works (because most of us will get it wrong). For the same reason, I find the attempts of verbose effect descriptions to cover all kinds of side-effects dubious at best, and immersion-wrecking at worst (the AD&D and SRD fireball is a prime example of this).

I'm not trying to fault those who want a process-sim game that models a fictional "reality" - but how do you go about modelling that reality when most people don't have a clue as to how it really works or should work?

This becomes especially problematic when you introduce "magic" elements into things. How does magic interact with physics? Even a magical fireball has a specific temperature in AD&D - it specifies how it affects certain metals for example (though I largely suspect that this was a misguided attempt to "balance" the spell in dungeon encounters), but how does that affect humanoid flesh? I'm no expert, but I'm fairly certain that any heat sufficient to melt metals, even soft ones, is going to outright kill any fleshy thing caught in the blast, and yet characters survive fireballs (or dragon breath, etc) on a regular basis. Now that breaks my brain and sense of immersion.

I think this is a genuine style divide and the best solution is to acknowledge that and come up with mechanical options that allow both sides to get what they want without imposing it on the other. I think where they made a mistke last time, was favoring one approach. It would be a mistake to do that again (even if they favor my style). Clearly this matters a lot to players and I think most of these debates over 4E ave involved lots of discussions and arguments over genre, believability, story versus setting etc. it really seems to be at the heart of a lot of the division. Probably wise for them to explore.

As I alluded to above, I think the style divide is more along the line of Player Agency vs. DM authority than sim vs narrative. You can still have a completely logically simulated environment (in theory) in which the fiction is the focal point, but it's a lot harder to do compelling fiction in a world of arbitrary and nonsensical judgements, IMO.

 

[Bedrockgames]

The bolded section of this statement is something of a sticking point in these arguments. The way you've worded it makes it sound like what you're really against is the perception of player-entitlement versus GM authority within the rules.

One of the many problems with this approach as @Balesir very nicely illustrated above, is that often what a given GM finds plausible, is utter nonsense. This happens all the time with GM judgements in a "rulings not rules" environment, because most of us are not experts at all the subjects a given game is likely to run across.

That is one reason why I think it's better to let genre-appropriateness and dramatic tension drive decisions, rather than some GM's wonky idea of how "reality" works (because most of us will get it wrong). For the same reason, I find the attempts of verbose effect descriptions to cover all kinds of side-effects dubious at best, and immersion-wrecking at worst (the AD&D and SRD fireball is a prime example of this).

I'm not trying to fault those who want a process-sim game that models a fictional "reality" - but how do you go about modelling that reality when most people don't have a clue as to how it really works or should work?

This becomes especially problematic when you introduce "magic" elements into things. How does magic interact with physics? Even a magical fireball has a specific temperature in AD&D - it specifies how it affects certain metals for example (though I largely suspect that this was a misguided attempt to "balance" the spell in dungeon encounters), but how does that affect humanoid flesh? I'm no expert, but I'm fairly certain that any heat sufficient to melt metals, even soft ones, is going to outright kill any fleshy thing caught in the blast, and yet characters survive fireballs (or dragon breath, etc) on a regular basis. Now that breaks my brain and sense of immersion.

As I alluded to above, I think the style divide is more along the line of Player Agency vs. DM authority than sim vs narrative. You can still have a completely logically simulated environment (in theory) in which the fiction is the focal point, but it's a lot harder to do compelling fiction in a world of arbitrary and nonsensical judgements, IMO.

Well, I think you are just seeing it from your point of view and not looking at it from the alternative perspective. I do think wanting to emulate fiction and genre is a valid way to do it for a certain style of play. But only if that is what you like. As I said, while focusing on that works well if everyone is there for a genre or narrative experience, if you are there because you want setting fidelity that presents a problem. Essentially what you are saying is what I want is impossible, so we should just do it your way. I disagree. Having played the game since 1986, my experience is I am fine trusting the GM or a very well crafted rules system to produce an experience of immersion based around what is plausible rather than what is dramatically appropriate. Yes there is a degree of subjectivity. But I am okay with that.

 

[Bedrockgames]

The bolded section of this statement is something of a sticking point in these arguments. The way you've worded it makes it sound like what you're really against is the perception of player-entitlement versus GM authority within the rules.
.

I think a lot of people see it as this kind of an issue. For me, when I am a player, I want setting stuff to flow from the GM, not from me. I am just interested in contributing to the setting through my character (not through metamechanics that give me control of the setting). So I am fine with the player being empowered by clear rules that the GM is expected to follow (i.e. if you have 5 ranks in this skill, you can do X, Y or Z). But I don't like mechanics that create believability issues for me or that give players narrative control. At least not in D&D.

I am cool with you wanting something different. I think variety is what makes the hobby great. But I am not going to frame your preference in terms that make it sound like there is a moral difference between what I want and what you want.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

Well, I think you are just seeing it from your point of view and not looking at it from the alternative perspective.

I disagree. I just think that the 'alternative perspective' needs a healthy reality check and a physics textbook to operate on any grounds other than DM whim. If everyone at the table is fine with that, that's all well and good, but in a mixed group?

I do think wanting to emulate fiction and genre is a valid way to do it for a certain style of play. But only if that is what you like. As I said, while focusing on that works well if everyone is there for a genre or narrative experience, if you are there because you want setting fidelity that presents a problem.

As I said, I don't think that setting fidelity and narrative is/are necessarily mutually exclusive.

Essentially what you are saying is what I want is impossible, so we should just do it your way. I disagree.

That's not what I said, but thanks for putting words in my mouth. :/

Having played the game since 1986, my experience is I am fine trusting the GM or a very well crafted rules system to produce an experience of immersion based around what is plausible rather than what is dramatically appropriate. Yes there is a degree of subjectivity. But I am okay with that.

I've also been playing since the mid-80s ('87 in my case), and I managed to have fun too; what's your point?

I've had experiences both good and bad, and most of the bad revolved around (arguably bad) GMs producing experiences based on what is "plausible" and it certainly wasn't immersive, because most people are bad at eyeballing physics and psychology (though the latter is harder to prove faulty). I often see you post about how process-sim and setting fidelity are the sole route to immersive experiences, but my experience bears out that it is often not the case, so clearly this is something in the eye of the beholder, rather than a property inherent to the rules.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

I think a lot of people see it as this kind of an issue. For me, when I am a player, I want setting stuff to flow from the GM, not from me. I am just interested in contributing to the setting through my character (not through metamechanics that give me control of the setting).

Nothing about the approach I'm advocating prevents this, it just facilitates more than one gaming style better than a "rulings not rules" approach.

So I am fine with the player being empowered by clear rules that the GM is expected to follow (i.e. if you have 5 ranks in this skill, you can do X, Y or Z). But I don't like mechanics that create believability issues for me or that give players narrative control. At least not in D&D.

The problem with what you describe is that it isn't what I'm interested in either. A skill system like what you describe can only define what you can't do, rather than what you can.

I am cool with you wanting something different. I think variety is what makes the hobby great. But I am not going to frame your preference in terms that make it sound like there is a moral difference between what I want and what you want.

Where did moral issues enter into things? I don't understand where this came from.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I disagree. I just think that the 'alternative perspective' needs a healthy reality check and a physics textbook to operate on any grounds other than DM whim. If everyone at the table is fine with that, that's all well and good, but in a mixed group?

But it swings both ways in a mixed group. If you and I are in the same gaming group, we are both going to be irritated. Your efforts to use genre convention, and my efforts to keep it grounded in reality, are going to conflict. You can dismiss my approach all you want, I have never said I want a fulls simulation of reality. So a physics text book isn't called for. I want the feeling that the world is consistent and real, an air of believability. That can be achieved with a good set of rules and a competent GM. If me and the GM disagree slightly on whether it is realistic for my character to jump five feet into the air, I am fine with that. There is going to be disagreement on certain points.

As I said, I don't think that setting fidelity and narrative is/are necessarily mutually exclusive.

Well, if you are answering the question "is it possible?" by using genre conventions, then I think they are.

That's not what I said, but thanks for putting words in my mouth. :/

Then I must be misunderstanding you.

I've also been playing since the mid-80s ('87 in my case), and I managed to have fun too; what's your point?

That both of our experiences are valid, and we shouldn't dismiss the other's just because it hasn't worked for us personally.

I've had experiences both good and bad, and most of the bad revolved around (arguably bad) GMs producing experiences based on what is "plausible" and it certainly wasn't immersive, because most people are bad at eyeballing physics and psychology (though the latter is harder to prove faulty). I often see you post about how process-sim and setting fidelity are the sole route to immersive experiences, but my experience bears out that it is often not the case, so clearly this is something in the eye of the beholder, rather than a property inherent to the rules.

First, if that is your experience, that is fine. But mine is quite the opposite. I haven't had this issue you are describing. If you don't like playing with the GM eyeballing physics, then you shouldn't. For me it works fine.

Second, I never said my approach is the most immersive or the only way to achieve immersion, but it is how I achieve it. If following genre conventions is more immersive for you, then by all means you ought to persue that. But I can tell you from experience those sort of things are highly disruptive for me.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Where did moral issues enter into things? I don't understand where this came from.

I think when people frame it as an issue of GM control versus player agency it sounds like I am against player freedom or about the GM being controlling. The language is just a bit charged with judgment.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

I think a lot of people see it as this kind of an issue. For me, when I am a player, I want setting stuff to flow from the GM, not from me. I am just interested in contributing to the setting through my character (not through metamechanics that give me control of the setting). So I am fine with the player being empowered by clear rules that the GM is expected to follow (i.e. if you have 5 ranks in this skill, you can do X, Y or Z). But I don't like mechanics that create believability issues for me or that give players narrative control. At least not in D&D.

I am cool with you wanting something different. I think variety is what makes the hobby great. But I am not going to frame your preference in terms that make it sound like there is a moral difference between what I want and what you want.

Where's the system tolerance for multiple playstyles in this? How does what you describe specifically apply to Next? Should Next do things your way and only your way? Is it possible for Next to be flexible and be able to give everybody what they want?

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

But it swings both ways in a mixed group. If you and I are in the same gaming group, we are both going to be irritated. Your efforts to use genre convention, and my efforts to keep it grounded in reality, are going to conflict.

I fail to see that this is inherently or necessarily the case. Why is it impossible to play genre fiction that is grounded in reality?

You can dismiss my approach all you want, I have never said I want a fulls simulation of reality. So a physics text book isn't called for. I want the feeling that the world is consistent and real, an air of believability.

I'm not dismissing your approach; I'm suggesting that you're implying mutual exclusivity where there doesn't need to be any. And again, I fail to see how genre convention necessarily flies in the face of a "consistent and real" world sim.

That can be achieved with a good set of rules and a competent GM. If me and the GM disagree slightly on whether it is realistic for my character to jump five feet into the air, I am fine with that. There is going to be disagreement on certain points.

IMO, prior rulesets have put either too much emphasis on a good gaming experience relying on a "competent" GM (AD&D), or too much emphasis on the set of rules (3.x). Both those things are harder to find and balance than they sound.

Well, if you are answering the question "is it possible?" by using genre conventions, then I think they are.

If that's the case, I think you're getting hung up on terminology, because I don't think that those two things are as unrelated as you seem to think.

That both of our experiences are valid, and we shouldn't dismiss the other's just because it hasn't worked for us personally.

Again, I'm not dismissing your experience, I don't know why you keep saying this.

First, if that is your experience, that is fine. But mine is quite the opposite. I haven't had this issue you are describing. If you don't like playing with the GM eyeballing physics, then you shouldn't. For me it works fine.

I guess you've had the rare pleasure of never having to play with a "bad DM". Count yourself fortunate. I think putting everything in the DM's hands CAN work, I just think it's much more likely that it won't.

Second, I never said my approach is the most immersive or the only way to achieve immersion, but it is how I achieve it. If following genre conventions is more immersive for you, then by all means you ought to persue that. But I can tell you from experience those sort of things are highly disruptive for me.

You often frame your arguments in just that way though; implying that it is, for you and "a lot of players" the only way to True Immersion.

I think when people frame it as an issue of GM control versus player agency it sounds like I am against player freedom or about the GM being controlling. The language is just a bit charged with judgment.

Just like it was charged with judgement when you replied to it, I guess. I think it's hardly a moral issue, and not worth taking that seriously.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Where's the system tolerance for multiple playstyles in this? How does what you describe specifically apply to Next? Should Next do things your way and only your way? Is it possible for Next to be flexible and be able to give everybody what they want?

I never said you shouldn't get what you want as well. But I do think it is very hard to satisfy both approaches without robust optional mechanics (which I am all for). I am all for having lots of playstyles represented. I have said several times, include something for taking a narrative or player agency approach to the game in the system. But because that basically makes my play style impossible there needs to be a method for taking it in and out.

I think it is possible for next to offer a variety of approaches to the game. They could easily stack on AEDU like powers that give players some kind of narrative control as an option (most likely in the advanced book, since you would want a full set of options I imagine and not stuff just wedged into the basic book). One idea is to have the advanced book focus on two to three major playstyles and present options for achieving them. But I don't personally know what their strategy is going to be.

I think if we talked with each other, instead of shouted at one another, we would arrive at a better understanding of our respective playstyles. What I am objecting to here, is being told there is something wrong with my preference (and I frankly have a hard time reading Nemesis Destiny's comments as anything but that). I am making an effort to understand what he likes in the game and what is important to him. So far it seems to be he wants genre fidelity and he wants mechanics give the players some power over the narrative (if I am wrong on that please correct me). I think that is doable. And I believe the best way to do it is to offer a complete book with a full range of options dedicated to that style (which is what I am also hoping to receive for my prefered style of play). What I would like is for my preference not to be dismissed or to be told I need a reality check when I explain what it is I want from the game. We can flame each other, or we can have a real conversation.

Heck, I have even said I am hoping for some kind of cinematic book because there are times when I do want that (I may not want it in exactly the same way or style that Nemesis Destiny does but I am currently running a Wuxia campaign and would love there to be a version of D&D where I can tailor some options to make the genre conventions consistently play out in it).