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

[hawkeyefan]

Sorry, but for a bunch of reasons that's a complete non-starter.

For you it may be. But I’m not asking you to adopt this method for your game. I’m explaining the way these games work because you asked me.

It’s like if I tried to explain soccer to you and you asked where are the players sticks, and when I explained there are no sticks, you say well then this game can’t work!

My issue with that would be if (or when, as it's a very frequent occurrence) the risk is something as yet unknown to the character. Not everything can be or should be telegraphed; and telling the player the risk when it isn't telegraphed is giving the player information the character doesn't and can't (yet) have, which in my books is bad DMing because you're putting the player in a position of having to ignore that metagame knowledge in order to play the character true.

Honestly… we’ve talked about this so many times. I understand your concern. But having actually played games that way for years now, I can assure you that your concerns are simply unfounded.

Perhaps if you took one of these games and tried to play with your group, and you and everyone else ignored the actual guidance in the book and kept playing the same way you always play RPGs… then yes, I suppose your fears would make sense.

But if you ran the game per the intended rules and principles, and your players played per the intended rules and principles… then there would be no such issues. The games work perfectly well!

This really goes back to what @Campbell said about judging each game as its own thing, on its own merits and according to its goals and methods.

 

[Gimby]

If the guard showed up because they overheard singing, they should have shown up whether the check was successful or not. You can't have it both ways. Either the guard was bound to show up regardless of the result of the check or the guard showed up because the check failed. If it's the latter then the guard only showed up because the game rules tell the GM to introduce a complication.

If I recall correctly @pemerton clarified somewhere that the guard did not show up because their character was overheard.

If you want to be ever so slightly charitable, the failure caused the guard to harass our singer. I highly doubt that anyone narrates all NPCs in a city scene at all times, so the failure means that a guard who could plausibly be passing, un-noticed (and un-narrated and not introduced directly into the shared fiction, but plausibly existing amongst the background of a city) by our maudlin fellow starts to bother the singer when they would have otherwise ignored them.

 

[Faolyn]

Hmmm, we very much believe he preferred 4e.

But y'all don't seem to believe that he didn't hate the other editions.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Just because 3x was a bloated mess didn't mean people like it. So why shouldn't PF1, which is basically 3.75, do well? Especially when the alternative was a game those same people didn't like?

You can't say objectively (as @AbdulAlhazred presented their statement) that a game needed to be "firebombed" when it is quite clear that there were plenty of folks who liked it (and many whom I expect still do). Had the poster simply said they didn't care for 3.5e personally and explained why, I wouldn't have had anything to say. Yet some people persist in saying their opinion has significance beyond themselves and their tables.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

My issue with that would be if (or when, as it's a very frequent occurrence) the risk is something as yet unknown to the character. Not everything can be or should be telegraphed; and telling the player the risk when it isn't telegraphed is giving the player information the character doesn't and can't (yet) have, which in my books is bad DMing because you're putting the player in a position of having to ignore that metagame knowledge in order to play the character true.

I just don't consider what you are saying here to be some sort of axiom of RPGs. Classic skill-test D&D certainly included some hidden information, BUT I would point out that conventions largely served to telegraph everything. c1977 dungeon crawler, we're at a door. It could be trapped, there could be ear seekers, it could be a mimic, there could be a trapper in front of the door, etc. The door could be locked, and the lock itself could be trapped. It could be barred. And of course whatever is on the other side we can only learn about by sniffing and listening.

So, c1977 DC doors are NOT unknown dangers, they're complex dangers that could take a bunch of forms, and we don't know which one they will take, but this type of play is highly telegraphed and generally you AT LEAST know you are taking a risk of bodily demise when you just go and open it anyway.

Trad play, in the 'DL tradition' (epitomized by 2e play) sadly is what you are describing above. Complex situations and environments where risk determination is almost impossible and the game breaks down to either the players reading the GM, following a gold brick road, or turtling.

So, IMHO clear stakes, plainly stated to the players by the GM at all times, that's just how it has to work if it is going to function well all the time. Contrary to what you say, this is GOOD GMing! It isn't even necessarily non-trad, though it will probably be neo-trad/OC type play if it isn't narrativist (or something else).

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

You can't say objectively (as @AbdulAlhazred presented their statement) that a game needed to be "firebombed" when it is quite clear that there were plenty of folks who liked it (and many whom I expect still do). Had the poster simply said they didn't care for 3.5e personally and explained why, I wouldn't have had anything to say. Yet some people persist in saying their opinion has significance beyond themselves and their tables.

Oh, good grief, can we have an end to this whole "so and so said objectively" nonsense? As a rhetorical technique I now declare it dead and zombified. When I say a game needed to be 'firebombed' in the context of talking about the design of a new game, what do you think that means? 3.5 was, as a game design, at the end of its ropes, dead. Even PF1e didn't really do a lot new with it (they were able to do a few things by basically NOT claiming to be fully compatible with 3.5).

The problem here is, Paizo had the same problem with PF1e that WotC had with 3.x! Yeah, they tweaked and tinkered and kinda tried to fix some things, but the only way they could really do that? PF2e! And, AFAIKT (not having read it) PF2e is pretty much in the same ballpark of being a modest redesign of PF1e as 4e is of 3.x!

Anyway, this is kind of a pointless debate IMHO. All of these games seem to me to owe a lot of their 'DNA' to D&D 3.0, which did a pretty big rework of the whole game and made some pretty deep conceptual changes along with essentially writing a whole new game.

 

[AnotherGuy]

My issue with that would be if (or when, as it's a very frequent occurrence) the risk is something as yet unknown to the character. Not everything can be or should be telegraphed; and telling the player the risk when it isn't telegraphed is giving the player information the character doesn't and can't (yet) have, which in my books is bad DMing because you're putting the player in a position of having to ignore that metagame knowledge in order to play the character true.

I feels this ties back to something @AlViking said upthread, where he believed that Trad-gamers try immerse themself into the character whereas the other side treat the character as some sort of avatar.

I suspect there is some truth to that but it is not the whole story there is also:
- Trad-gamers believe immersion comes from knowledge limitation in an attempt to mimic RL in order to play a character true; whereas
- the Narrative side freely gives the meta knowledge in an attempt get it out the way, and allow the player to rather focus on the truth of the character.

A Trad-gamer is concerned with the numbers, the game prioritises the numbers, and thus meta knowledge is hurtful to immersion.
To a Narrative gamer the stakes, character bonds, win/loss conditions etc are in a sense more important than the numbers, therefore the meta knowledge doesn't lessen their character's truth.

Those that play Narrative games can please correct me, but that is how I understand it with my limited knowledge based solely on conversations here.

For @Lanefan the meta-knowledge being revealed is akin to cheating, because it is assumed a player cannot play their character true having that information, which, IMHO, is not a good reflection on the game.
It is 1 of my personal frustrations I have with D&D.

 

[AlViking]

...


I’m not sure I understand the example offered by @AnotherGuy … but I also didn’t read all the back and forth between you two that closely. @AnotherGuy has also been one of the more reasonable posters in this thread, and seems genuinely curious about understanding what people are saying… perhaps his example was meant to show something else. I honestly am not sure, so I can’t comment.

All I can say is that if you want to cling to the one example that may involve an unconnected consequence instead of many posters repeatedly telling you that’s not how it works… then go ahead.

But then I’m not quite sure why you’re asking questions only to dismiss the answers.



Why?



So here’s the thing… you’re in a thread with some of those other people. So why not ask one of us how we feel about character inhabitation?

Why assume you know and declare truths about what we’re doing?

And the when called on it, hide behind “oh I’m just stating my opinion, why are people pushing back on it”.

If I started telling you why you play the way you do, I’d expect pushback. Hell, @Micah Sweet wouldn’t be able to post quick enough to chastise me!

I have asked questions can't even get a simple yes or no answer. In the example of singing catching the attention of the guard from @pemerton, would the guard have appeared if the check had been successful?

I have no issues with how you play. I do not care that you have different preferences than I do. But you accuse me of not understanding.

My understanding is simple. On a failure a complication happens. The reason the guard overheard and came to investigate was because of the failure and they wouldnot have had the check succeeded. Correct?

There's nothing wrong with it even if it's not something I want to add to my game. But nobody will answer. Why not?

If you won't answer clearly yes or no, how can I understand?

 

[AlViking]

I feels this ties back to something @AlViking said upthread, where he believed that Trad-gamers try immerse themself into the character whereas the other side treat the character as some sort of avatar.

I suspect there is some truth to that but it is not the whole story there is also:
- Trad-gamers believe immersion comes from knowledge limitation in an attempt to mimic RL in order to play a character true; whereas
- the Narrative side freely gives the meta knowledge in an attempt get it out the way, and allow the player to rather focus on the truth of the character.

A Trad-gamer is concerned with the numbers, the game prioritises the numbers, and thus meta knowledge is hurtful to immersion.
To a Narrative gamer the stakes, character bonds, win/loss conditions etc are in a sense more important than the numbers, therefore the meta knowledge doesn't lessen their character's truth.

Those that play Narrative games can please correct me, but that is how I understand it with my limited knowledge based solely on conversations here.

For @Lanefan the meta-knowledge being revealed is akin to cheating, because it is assumed a player cannot play their character true having that information, which, IMHO, is not a good reflection on the game.
It is 1 of my personal frustrations I have with D&D.

To be clear, seeing your character as an avatar doesn't necessarily have anything to do with what game you play. I assume different people will view their character much the same in most RPGs that they play. I mean, I once played an anthropomorphic panda and immersive play was not in any way required. I just happen to be something like a method actor when I play.

People play for different reasons, saying that someone else doesn't care about meta knowledge or wants more information than their character should have? The only comment I would have is that we might not be a great fit at the same table for a long term campaign.

 

[Faolyn]

You can't say objectively (as @AbdulAlhazred presented their statement) that a game needed to be "firebombed" when it is quite clear that there were plenty of folks who liked it (and many whom I expect still do). Had the poster simply said they didn't care for 3.5e personally and explained why, I wouldn't have had anything to say. Yet some people persist in saying their opinion has significance beyond themselves and their tables.

He... didn't say objectively. I went back over the past 15 pages ago and he never said that word. He said they needed to be firebombed mechanically, but that's a different thing.