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

[clearstream]

Yes, this is strongly speculative on my part. But it is based on what I have heard from others.

I would be extremely interested to hear what you feel is not matching your experience?!

I can add that I think there are ways to play the game where these concerns are not in conflict with each other, and might even reinforce each other. Might that be a thing you are reacting to? My statement was meant as a commentary to why I think we are observing the kind of arguments I have often see around potential conflicts, and hence conflict was assumed.

Your theory roughly matches the idea of noetic satisfaction proposed some years back as a core agenda of simulationism. Examples were given of self-identified simulationists displaying noetic satisfaction when they observed accuracy to historical references. For me, Eero Tuovinen's more general take improved on that with

Simulationist play attempts to experience a subject matter in a way that results in elevated appreciation and understanding. The Shared Imagined Space is utilized for intensely detailed perspectives that sometimes surpass the means of traditional, non-interactive mediums.
​

So where the noetic satisfaction idea (at least in its earlier form) appeared limited to accuracy to real world, Tuovinen's take opened it up to any subject. He avoids any distracting psychological or neurological theorizing: it's enough to elevate appreciation and understanding... including of subjects found only in fiction.

With Tuovinen's ideas in mind, I think in terms of neo-sim. That means both that design innovations by the avant-garde are available for simulationist purposes, and some limiting assumptions about simulationism are abandoned (or counted misapprehensions.)

 

[SableWyvern]

That amount of simulation is worth an absolutely $#!+-awful experience for anyone who isn't as simulationist as you?

Who are these people, exactly, and why you are assuming they're sitting at a table with @FrogReaver while he participates in this game, and being subjected to this horrible experience?

Because I strongly suspect they exist only in your imagination, and there is no need for you to protect them from the depredations of @FrogReaver's playstyle.

 

[Hussar]

Nobody is saying or implying that from my side of things. And nobody has shown(or can show) the position my side is taking on encounters and die rolls to be without merit.

In fact, what you just said about our arguments being without merit is you saying that we over here are playing the game wrong. And that attitude has been shown by more than one person on your side of this playstyle debate.

We on this side aren't saying that what you guys do is without merit. We are just saying it doesn't work for us.

Now that was a Nat-20 Jump check for that leap of logic.

Sorry, but, no. That's not how that works. Just because your arguement is without merit says absolutely nothing about the quality of your game, just that you are not very good at fashioning a logical argument. And, since I, at no point, said any die rolls were without merit, your entire argument, again, fails badly.

But, sure, keep shifting the goalposts.

 

[TwoSix]

Even if-when the character has taken steps to determine there's nobody in the room being broken into? That the reason the character chose the kitchen as the point of access is because he knows there's nobody there at night?

No, then that would be crappy DMing, as we’ve all said. Once you establish something as true in the fiction, you’re supposed to build off that, not contradict it.

 

[TwoSix]

In this thread it’s been asserted by you that your game isn’t about overcoming challenges, it’s about playing to find out (whatever that actually means is never going to be clear to me). But when those are the descriptions you give about your game, then I don’t think it’s hard see how that gets understood as ‘telling a story’. IMO if it’s a mistake by so many people introduced to these concepts then it’s a mistake of your own making and your own descriptions.

To my mind, “telling a story” is how I’d describe the orientation of a session of Fiasco, or playing through a metaplot-heavy module of Vampire or other old-school White Wolf. There’s a focus on playing through a series of scenes to get a desired “narrative endpoint”.

What something like BW or AW or Stonetop shares with classic/trad D&D is the idea that we’re playing to see how one interaction flows into the next, and we can only really “reconstruct” a story by relaying the events after they’re finished. Both type of games emphasize not starting with the ending in mind.

 

[TwoSix]

The best way I can put this is that having some player-side visible prep - setting maps, history, cosmology, maybe brief notes about a few key NPCs e.g. who the current King and Queen are, etc. - gives the whole thing a bit more sense of permanence and solidity, if that makes any sense.

If it's clear the DM is making the whole lot of it up on the fly, it feels more ephemeral and temporary.

Similar difference in feel if I walk into two pubs, one where the furniture is solid and permanent with booths and a fireplace etc. and another where the lightweight stackable tables and chairs are obviously meant to be cleared away every night. I far prefer the former.

If I said “this game will be set in Eberron”, as an example, would that be sufficient?

 

[FrozenNorth]

I didn't make up the example, and I get that it's a bad one since the cook would almost surely not be in the kitchen, but it's the one that was brought up and is being discussed.

In the initial example (which came from a website) there was no mention that the break-in took place at night. That detail was added later.

 

[FrogReaver]

To my mind, “telling a story” is how I’d describe the orientation of a session of Fiasco, or playing through a metaphor-heavy module of Vampire or other old-school White Wolf. There’s a focus on playing through a series of scenes to get a desired “narrative endpoint”.

What something like BW or AW or Stonetop shares with classic/trad D&D is the idea that we’re playing to see how one interaction flows into the next, and we can only really “reconstruct” a story by relaying the events after they’re finished. Both type of games emphasize not starting with the ending in mind.

When you adopt narrativist definitions of story as the only possible definition of story then sure.

When someone says their main goal is to play to find out then I think it’s fair to categorize that as playing to find out what happens next, which to me is about ‘story’.

Now you are right that what happens next is incidental in traditonsl play, but I’m not saying it’s my primary concern. The primary concern is to overcome obstacles.

 

[TwoSix]

When you adopt narrativist definitions of story as the only possible definition of story then sure.

OK. Can you clarify which portions of my provided example you disagree with, or which portions need more context or greater granularity?

 

[FrogReaver]

OK. Can you clarify which portions of my provided example you disagree with, or which portions need more context or greater granularity?

Sorry. Added some detail after posting.