Let's talk about "plot", "story", and "play to find out."

[Crimson Longinus]

I don't think that making it like real life is possible. I think you can make it engaging by playing it out, and so you should do it for that reason, but that if you want to have a resolution method that isn't simply GM fiat then you should use some mechanics as well.

I think the aim should be to make it like real life at least in way any good fiction feels real and evokes real emotions. Now if rules can help with that, great, but often they cannot.

 

[Pedantic]

I think the aim should be to make it like real life at least in way any good fiction feels real and evokes real emotions. Now if rules can help with that, great, but often they cannot.

Here me out, you're both wrong, and the rules should provide the player a meaningful set of decisions to make in pursuit of their goal for that conversation.

If they can't do that, there's not enough difference between fiat and gambling to care.

 

[Maxperson]

Yeah, I see this kind of comment fairly frequently, and I know I’ve seen you say it plenty of times. To me, it makes about as much sense as saying “I prefer the roleplaying to get out of the way” when talking about RPGs.

Then let me give you an example.

The 5e skill rules are a great example of the rules getting out of the way when reasonably possible. The skill rules state that you only roll when the outcome is in doubt AND failure is meaningful. That means that instead of interrupting the game with tons of needless or unwarranted rolls, the skill rules get out of the way in a lot of instances where skills are used but in a manner that auto succeeds, auto fails, or failure won't have much meaning.

 

[Maxperson]

I would. They deliberately made a more specific, targeted game than they did previously. By definition that excludes folks who prefer the things they didn't target or stopped targeting. That doesn't make it a bad game by any means (not withstanding my personal dislike of 4e), but it doesn't change what I see as exclusionary compared to previous games made by WotC and TSR that WotC decided to use the same name for on their new game.

That doesn't follow. Just because I prefer things being done one way, doesn't mean that I can't also have fun with those things being done a different way. Their changes weren't intended to exclude anyone. They were just changes that they wanted to make.

 

[Maxperson]

No but it makes it pretty bloody useless to try and get consensus on. It is what it is.

Have you met humanity? Trying to get a consensus on just about anything is bloody useless to try.

 

[Micah Sweet]

That doesn't follow. Just because I prefer things being done one way, doesn't mean that I can't also have fun with those things being done a different way. Their changes weren't intended to exclude anyone. They were just changes that they wanted to make.

You can't make changes without excluding people who don't want them. And they had to know that. They were just ok with it.

 

[Maxperson]

You can't make changes without excluding people who don't want them. And they had to know that. They were just ok with it.

Sure you can. You choosing not to play =/= you being excluded. If you choose not to see a movie because it doesn't interest you, that doesn't translate into the theater denying you entry to see it.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Sure you can. You choosing not to play =/= you being excluded. If you choose not to see a movie because it doesn't interest you, that doesn't translate into the theater denying you entry to see it.

Harder to justify that stance with D&D specifically, given it's overwhelming influence, especially if you've been a fan for decades until a version comes along that stops supporting/actively works against play preferences you've developed from previous games named Dungeons & Dragons.

 

[Maxperson]

Harder to justify that stance with D&D specifically, given it's overwhelming influence, especially if you've been a fan for decades until a version comes along that stops supporting/actively works against play preferences you've developed from previous games named Dungeons & Dragons.

It's pretty hard to argue against. Unless you are prevented from playing in some manner, you are not being excluded. You simply disliking changes is not enough.

I didn't like 4e. I still don't like 4e. It's not that 4e didn't have some good stuff, because it did. It was because what I didn't like was too pervasive and baked in, so to play 4e I would have had to re-create it from the ground up. So I stayed with 3e. Do you know what didn't happen? I wasn't excluded. In fact, I tried twice at conventions to see if 4e was more enjoyable for me in actual play. Turns out that it wasn't, so I let 4e drop. Had I been excluded from 4e, I would have been unable to play in those two convention games.

 

[AnotherGuy]

Sure you can. You choosing not to play =/= you being excluded. If you choose not to see a movie because it doesn't interest you, that doesn't translate into the theater denying you entry to see it.

There is a meaningful difference between excluding dragonborn from play because you do not like them and having an issue with the actual engine of a game. If you perceive the game not to cater to your preferred playstyle then you effectively are excluded.

Now one can attempt to make adjustments to the engine in the hopes of making it more suitable to one's playstyle, but that may require some time and may bring about its own frustrations.