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

[Micah Sweet]

Or alternatively, "Using this technique actively works against things I and people like me want out of our gaming experience" without asking the question of whether that's particularly relevant in the hobby as a whole.

You'd be surprised how many people place a higher priority on their own play at their table than they do on the play of folks with whom they'll never play, and disagree with on several important points.

 

[Micah Sweet]

This has nothing particular to do with the game or its rules but with fiction. Essentially Harper's arguing for an equivalent of Chekhov's gun -- the metaphorical gun the GM put on the wall gets fired, the Corleone family moves to crush their enemies, the thing that was foreshadowed earlier in play now happens.

Amusingly enough, a classic narrative device. Explains why it cN be hard to accept for some folks.

 

[Pedantic]

Because 99% of the time on these forums when people say "This technique doesn't work", what they mean is "Using this technique violates an implicit understanding I have of how TTRPGs are supposed to work."

Right, but mostly we seem to design discussion as a rhetorical proxy for arguing our baseline assumptions should be normative of TTRPGs as a whole. Has anyone actually gotten anywhere laying out their design parameters ahead of time, and then along for feedback within that framework exclusively?

 

[TwoSix]

That's true, but to be honest I don't think a ton of people are all that interested in switching assumptions of play, so beyond acknowledging their existence there doesn't seem to be much more to say at this point, especially after 11k+ posts. The lines have been largely drawn.

I work under the assumption that the amount of people who read threads is larger than the amount of posters. I’m more interested in making sure everyone understands the assumptions they’re making rather than “switching” them.

Especially because the assumptions you use don’t have to be purely preference based. Just because a certain type of cuisine might only be my 4th or 5th favorite doesn’t mean I don’t also enjoy it when I eat it. Same thing with games.

 

[Thomas Shey]

That's true, but to be honest I don't think a ton of people are all that interested in switching assumptions of play, so beyond acknowledging their existence there doesn't seem to be much more to say at this point, especially after 11k+ posts. The lines have been largely drawn.

To be honest, for the most part that seemed to have occurred quite some time ago; its why I've just been seeing if anything interesting came up on the last page when I check back in with this thread.

 

[Enrahim]

All I can say is I don't think so. If you're going to want to represent things that are as rare as we're talking about, throwing them into 1 in 400 is no substitute, and I don't think most people would actually think it was.

Exactly, so how would it help with any way with a D1000? That was exactly my point - my entire claim was that bringing in the D1000 was not having the effect you seemed to be after!

 

[TwoSix]

Right, but mostly we seem to design discussion as a rhetorical proxy for arguing our baseline assumptions should be normative of TTRPGs as a whole. Has anyone actually gotten anywhere laying out their design parameters ahead of time, and then along for feedback within that framework exclusively?

My only normative judgment is that the norm should be that people examine and approach games with the mindset of “I wonder how this game works” rather than “Does this game work the way I think it should.”

 

[Thomas Shey]

You'd be surprised how many people place a higher priority on their own play at their table than they do on the play of folks with whom they'll never play, and disagree with on several important points.

No, I think that's perfectly legitimate, but at some point you need to be aware that, if you have idiosyncratic wants, that's not going to matter overly much to people in conversation. Its worth bringing up when people start to get overly-universalist in their discussion (as compared to generalist) but its like Pedantic and me; our gamist desires are probably just irrelevant to most people in this thread other than as a curiosity.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Exactly, so how would it help with any way with a D1000? That was exactly my point - my entire claim was that bringing in the D1000 was not having the effect you seemed to be after!

The effect I'm after is actually to skip the whole thing, just like we do random coronaries. My position is making it enough more common that it might actually occur is moving in the wrong direction. But if you're going to insist on representing it anyway, making it too common is not the right thing to do.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I work under the assumption that the amount of people who read threads is larger than the amount of posters. I’m more interested in making sure everyone understands the assumptions they’re making rather than “switching” them.

Especially because the assumptions you use don’t have to be purely preference based. Just because a certain type of cuisine might only be my 4th or 5th favorite doesn’t mean I don’t also enjoy it when I eat it. Same thing with games.

When you say, "make sure everyone understands the assumptions they're making", I want you to know that IMO that often comes off as looking for weaknesses in those assumptions and attacking them. Basically telling someone their feelings about what they enjoy are wrong. I'm not sure anyone came here for that.