D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

[AlViking]

This has nothing to do with actor vs author stance, which describe different ways a player goes about making decisions for their PC. "Author stance" describes a player making decisions for their PC because of things the player cares about rather than things the PC cares about - such as, in this case, making sure the GM's adventure gets played.

There is no such definition. Stance is a way of describing player decision-making.

I made a post, not addressed to any particular poster, about the reference in the 2024 D&D rules to players making decisions from the point of view of the player - ie choosing to follow the GM's hook - rather than the point of view of the character; which is called "author stance" in a terminology that was introduced into this thread by another poster at [https://www.enworld.org/threads/ran...d-fans-is-exhausting.712674/post-9664372]post 7739[/url].

@AlViking asked what the point of my post was. I replied. Then AlViking replied in a rather dismissive way, when all I had done was answer the question asked. If someone doesn't care "how the Forge would define anything", then why ask me about my post which used the phrase "author stance"?

The Forge went belly-up what 20 years ago? And you still think it's relevant? People argued about the terms back then, it hasn't gotten any better. The quote was about mutual respect between player and DM and I disagree that it leads to any assumptions of stance. Or that stance means anything that anyone agrees upon. If you had a point you need to give more detail than a term last defined decades ago. When I asked for what you meant you just repeated what you had already stated which added no value to the conversation.

If you have anything to say other than some out-of-date definition that is almost impossible to find, let me know because I wasn't being dismissive, I did try to discuss the topic.

 

[AlViking]

I fully accept your preferences. What personally bothers me is the way you leap to conclusions about how these techniques are used in play. In particular you often assume that the techniques used in other playstyles will used in the most inartful way possible.

I just looked up another example and provided the text from Failing Forward – RPG Concepts. I have said nothing else about how they will be used, I explained why it doesn't work for me. I don't care for quantum dead bodies or, from the post I found, quantum cooks. If it works for you, great.

 

[pemerton]

The Forge went belly-up what 20 years ago? And you still think it's relevant? People argued about the terms back then, it hasn't gotten any better. The quote was about mutual respect between player and DM and I disagree that it leads to any assumptions of stance. Or that stance means anything that anyone agrees upon. If you had a point you need to give more detail than a term last defined decades ago. When I asked for what you meant you just repeated what you had already stated which added no value to the conversation.

If you have anything to say other than some out-of-date definition that is almost impossible to find, let me know because I wasn't being dismissive, I did try to discuss the topic.

Let me restate my point, then:

The 2024 rules tell players to declare actions for their PCs having regard to the social desirability of going along with the GM's adventure. (There is even a heading about "social contract".)

I think that is an interesting thing.

I note that there is no such rule or advice in Burning Wheel or Apocalypse World.

 

[pemerton]

I just looked up another example and provided the text from Failing Forward – RPG Concepts.

Why should I care what some random website says? I'm talking about an actual thing invented by actual game designers and incorporated into their actual games.

You dismiss The Forge, but I think more RPGs came out of that set of discussions and discussants than have come out of the page that you linked to.

 

[AlViking]

Yes there is. We resolve all of A's actions, including their movement. Then we go back 6 seconds and resolve all of B's actions.

If we went back, then if A kills B, B would still have a turn. That doesn't happen. I didn't say it was a good system, I said I haven't seen better. Even if it were the worst possible system there is still no "going back 6 seconds".

The alternative is to imagine that the world of D&D really is a stop-motion one.

There are lots of wargames and RPGs that use simultaneous resolution. Gygax's AD&D tries to adopt an approach closer to simultaneous resolution, although the details are notoriously obscure.

In any event, I'm not making a post about what system is better. I'm pointing out that turn-by-turn resolution does not adhere to forward-facing causality.

There are alternatives that better simulate simultaneous actions but they are more complicated and time consuming and they still aren't perfect.

 

[The Firebird]

But why would you do that? I’m not advocating for taking steps that would lead to nonsensical results.

Right--and because you're avoiding nonsensical results, jumping back in time to gather herbs impose constraints. You can't have anything too interesting happen during the gathering because then the players may have acted differently. You assumed in advance it wouldn't be interesting and therefore imposed that it isn't interesting.

This differs from playing out the herb gathering in the present, where you can find a rare herb, observe evidence of magical disease, stumble upon a hidden grotto, meet a powerful patron, discover a camp belonging to a faction, catch sight of an advance party for an army on the march...

Do you see why these resolution methods differ?

 

[AlViking]

Let me restate my point, then:

The 2024 rules tell players to declare actions for their PCs having regard to the social desirability of going along with the GM's adventure. (There is even a heading about "social contract".)

I think that is an interesting thing.

I note that there is no such rule or advice in Burning Wheel or Apocalypse World.

As I stated before, the 2024 books are targeted at new players and linear campaigns are where most people will likely start DMing. They also discuss sandbox approaches in the DMG even if they don't use the language. When I play in linear campaigns, I accept that while I may have freedom for many things I still need to color inside the lines.

I don't personally run linear campaigns, I run sandboxes which have significantly wider choices. There are still limits which most games will have.

 

[pemerton]

If we went back, then if A kills B, B would still have a turn. That doesn't happen. I didn't say it was a good system, I said I haven't seen better. Even if it were the worst possible system there is still no "going back 6 seconds".

Person A moves 20' down a corridor to a doorway with an open door, shoots at Person B who is back near where A started, steps through the doorway, and shuts the door.

Then we go to Person B's turn. Person B can't shoot A, because A is behind a door.

Here are two possibilities:

(1) All the time that A was acting, B was frozen in place. This is the "stop motion" universe. I assume that no one adopts this possibility, but maybe I'm wrong.

(2) When it is B's turn, we are going back in time - they are acting more or less simultaneously with A - and we just ignore the fact that A's future shutting of the door stops B from shooting them now.

Option (2), which I assume is the interpretation that everyone uses, does not honour forward-facing causality, because B gets affectd in the past by things that A does in the future.

 

[AlViking]

Why should I care what some random website says? I'm talking about an actual thing invented by actual game designers and incorporated into their actual games.

You dismiss The Forge, but I think more RPGs came out of that set of discussions and discussants than have come out of the page that you linked to.

You're talking about The Forge as if the definitions they used still have great significance that we all agree on. We don't. People didn't agree 20 years ago on the definitions and they still don't.

 

[AlViking]

Person A moves 20' down a corridor to a doorway with an open door, shoots at Person B who is back near where A started, steps through the doorway, and shuts the door.

Then we go to Person B's turn. Person B can't shoot A, because A is behind a door.

Here are two possibilities:

(1) All the time that A was acting, B was frozen in place. This is the "stop motion" universe. I assume that no one adopts this possibility, but maybe I'm wrong.

(2) When it is B's turn, we are going back in time - they are acting more or less simultaneously with A - and we just ignore the fact that A's future shutting of the door stops B from shooting them now.

Option (2), which I assume is the interpretation that everyone uses, does not honour forward-facing causality, because B gets affectd in the past by things that A does in the future.

And? Yes, individuals act on their initiative. I know how the process works, I just don't have an issue with it and there is no "going back in time". It's a simplified abstraction like everything else in the game. Don't like it? Play a different game.