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

[Micah Sweet]

Because no one is challenging the preference. Please seethe bolded below.



This is what’s getting push back. He’s not just stating a preference. It’s a description of a GMing method that he admits to not being familiar with that conflicts with how those familiar with it would describe it.

It would be like if I said “Hey, it’s cool that trad gaming exists for those who want it… a lot of people like to play through a GM’s story.”

If I said that, and you called me out on it, ai wouldn’t try to hide behind me stating a preference. If I comment on a GMing style in that way, I’m doing more than stating a preference.



Sure seems to me like you do!

Compared to some on this thread, very little of what I've done can be reasonably construed as analysis.

 

[Micah Sweet]

If this were a DW subforum or specifically labeled DW it would be logical to assume people are talking about this issue from the perspective of DW. On the other hand, we're on a D&D subforum labeled D&D general so why do you expect people to assume another system's rules are at play?

I've been told the purpose of this thread is to bash on / aggressively analyze traditional play.

 

[Campbell]

If this were a DW subforum or specifically labeled DW it would be logical to assume people are talking about this issue from the perspective of DW. On the other hand, we're on a D&D subforum labeled D&D general so why do you expect people to assume another system's rules are at play?

Any game, wherever it's discussed, ought to be discussed within the context of its own design. Taking out pieces of a game design and analyzing them within the context of other structures of play will never bring understanding. Understanding starts with empathy, stepping into the mentality and process of running and playing it.

This is as true for D&D as any other game. It would be foolish for me to look at D&D and ask why it doesn't deliver the same sort of play as Dungeon World, Stonetop or Daggerheart when it never contends to.

 

[FrogReaver]

DW has Discern Realities, which surely any competent player is likely to trigger. They're going to ask at least one question, and it's likely to be "What should I be on the lookout for here?"

And I'm positing that optimal play from a game perspective would be to use Discern Realities as little as possible. Now maybe it's that there are cases where invoking that move more often can actually increase your chances for success, but it's certainly not clear why that would be the case. I'm open to that possibility but I would love to see it demonstrated.

Or maybe it's that whether you use the move or not the GM is going to make soft/hard moves with or without it (so nothing actually changes mechanically other than you have a chance of finding what you want to find (provided it's implicit to the fiction that's already been generated up till now, ie no finding the macguffin under a random rock). I'm open to this as well, but I can see some parallels to this and what's occuring on a failed check in D&D where all that happens is you fail to pick the lock and some time passes by. They hold the fiction constant in such cases, whereas this hypothetical (for now) method holds the mechanics constant (soft and hard moves occuring either way).

The GM is bound by this, as it is part of the fiction now. A cook puttering in the kitchen is a fine answer, and the player can factor that into play. But if the GM gives some other answer, they're implicitly ruling out a cook! Such a cook would be obvious to the experienced thief who's just looked for exactly this sort of thing. Honor the game mechanics and the fiction!

Sure. But why does this point matter? Like I'm not seeing the relevance.

I should also note that 'experienced thief' is changing the scenario just as much 'cook at 2am' did.

 

[Enrahim]

If this were a DW subforum or specifically labeled DW it would be logical to assume people are talking about this issue from the perspective of DW. On the other hand, we're on a D&D subforum labeled D&D general so why do you expect people to assume another system's rules are at play?

(I think you have missed the context, they are i a long subtread that as far as I could gather from quickly skimming it now tries to figure out when and how things I fiction can be established as a result in non traditional games. As such DW is relevant for the immediate context. I still am not sure how this entire subthread attach to D&D, but I have a hunch you will find some comparison on ways of establishing fiction that might be incompatible with trad/D&D if you follow the reply chain far enough.)

 

[FrogReaver]

I've been told the purpose of this thread is to bash on / aggressively analyze traditional play.

No. That's the purpose of life

 

[Eric V]

Numerous people die every day of accidental causes. That doesn't seem comedic to me. It speaks to the plain tragedy of mortal existence, where we don't always get to script a dramatically satisfying end for ourselves. In that, it strikes far closer to home -- it's far more like something one could actually experience -- than the pictured heroic encounter at the top of the cliff.

I'm not saying it should seem that way to you too, nor that it's what I'm always looking for in play; only to suggest that my criticisms should withstand the most charitable take, not the least.

Of course it's tragic in the real world; no idea what you're trying to do by pointing out something so obvious, but sure, yeah, ok.

In a game/movie/novel, it is comedic/lame precisely because it's the decision taken by a human being to have that conclusion happen when any of an infinite number of better solutions (for the player, for the game, for the campaign) are available.

 

[Enrahim]

And I'm positing that optimal play from a game perspective would be to use Discern Realities as little as possible. Now maybe it's that there are cases where invoking that move more often can actually increase your chances for success, but it's certainly not clear why that would be the case. I'm open to that possibility but I would love to see it demonstrated.

I really would like to second that, but with a big caveat. I think you here might be assuming the PCs success as the "goal of the game"? My impression with narrative games is that this is rarely the "optimal" mindset. For instance when I played fiasco I was actively looking for how much trouble I could get our characters into and thought "optimal play" involved them failing as miserably and spectacularly as possible.

I think Fiasco is probably on the extreme end there, but I see similar patterns in several other games I have not played. For instance BW really gears it's reward mechanics into teasing the players into throwing their characters into situations that are too tough to handle without spending serious amouth of meta resources. FATE provides fate points for introducing complications for your character, and strongly encurrages this.

With this backdrop identifying "optimal play" might not match at all what it would be from a mindset of wanting the characters to succeed with whatever mcguffin goal they are currently pursuing in the fiction.

That being said, I am really curious if indeed discern realities are detrimental to the character's chances of success?

 

[clearstream]

When talking about fiction-first games the fiction refers to the shared/established fictional situation the table has agreed upon. It does not include the conceptions that the GM and other players might have about the setting or their characters. Because those conceptions are not meant to be binding on play - things not revealed on screen are not meant to be binding or held on to by any participant. This is a fundamental part of the overall structure of play that needs to be understood.

Redefining the fiction to be inclusive of all our personal conceptions of the things we "own" is at odds with gameplay structures that are fundamentally grounded on the idea of a shared fiction.

I notice that Stonetop states that the setting book is intended for GM rather than players. It seems that there is going to be fiction that the group agrees has standing even outside of that which has so far entered their shared ongoing narrative.

However, Stonetop also defines the fiction much as you have. Perhaps we should maintain the twin concepts of the fiction and setting (as I have proposed in this thread) to facilitate discussion about them and their relationship. To my observation the standing that setting has does not appear to be all or nothing: it's probably be true that The Crossroads is unsettling but that isn't fixed until it's said at the table (enters the fiction). I suspect that's accurate to a greater or lesser degree of a wide range of modes of play (including some supported by rulesets characterising themselves as fiction-first.)

I really liked your discussion of the fiction and am not trying to nickel-and-dime it. Rather I'm trying to understand how many or most TTRPGs really do have setting that hasn't yet entered the fiction yet seems to have some sort of standing. That standing might be dismissed as not guaranteed, but for me that unhelpfully ignores the observable influence setting has on what enters the fiction at the table.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Any game, wherever it's discussed, ought to be discussed within the context of its own design. Taking out pieces of a game design and analyzing them within the context of other structures of play will never bring understanding. Understanding starts with empathy, stepping into the mentality and process of running and playing it.

This is as true for D&D as any other game. It would be foolish for me to look at D&D and ask why it doesn't deliver the same sort of play as Dungeon World, Stonetop or Daggerheart when it never contends to.

And yet folks keep trying to apply techniques designed for Narrativist systems to traditional games, and wondering why fans of those games aren't enthusiastically on board.