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

[Genghis Don]

Note: I DO NOT MEAN POLITICAL CONSERVATISM. This is not a thread about politics.

I mean "conservatism" as in resistance to change. You see it all the time -- people complaining about the new art or aesthetics, literally saying things like "if they used the old art I would be in." It is so mind boggling to me.

D&D is a living game. OF COURSE the new books etc are going to adapt to the new market. If you literally won't play a newer version because tieflings or whatever, then it isn't for you. Don't demand it regress to the era you discovered D&D because that is what makes you feel good; play the version you discovered.

I don't liek every artistic or design choice either, but it isn't up to me to demand D&D coddle my unchanging preferences. If I want to re-experience BECMI (the edition I grew up with) I can just play that. And so can you.

/rant

While your rant applies to some, maybe even many, 2024 is utter poop, and nobody needs to love poop just because it's newer.
Indeed people should just play older editions(including 5th, which the vile 2024 tries to poison by refusing to have a name! worst edition EVER)
hopefully WOTC/Hasbro tank so hard, a new & not awful edition comes along. But if not, well, too true there is no need for any of them, so "conservative" I am, I have all of them still, and a dozen other games besides. Well, only a couple of the OD&D booklets survive, and my Holmes copy drowned in a flood decades ago, but the point stands.

Mod Note: edited for language.

 

[AlViking]

What I am talking about doesn’t really have anything to do with the game and is not me telling you anything about bad-wrong-fun.

I’m simply talking about common sense.

If you are trying to pick a lock, the consequences are more than “the lock does not open”. I mean… this is obvious.

Why were you picking the lock? Maybe to gain a map inside the locked place. Now you won’t get it, unless some other mean s of getting in exists.

Why did you want the map? Maybe it was to locate a valuable artifact. Now you won’t get that. Why did you want the artifact? Maybe it was the only way of slaying the great beast that was going to consume the princess in a sacrificial rite. Bow you can’t save the princess.

And on and on. There could be any number of consequences of all kinds. To boil it all down to just whether the lock is picked or not is silly.

Common sense, how? Common sense in how you think about and run your game? If a character can't open a lock the only common sense result in my game is that they can't open the lock. The characters will have to do something else. There's certainly nothing triggered one way or another by the failure to pick the lock. If the characters can climb up and get through a second story window, the window was always there and always an option whether or not they attempted to pick the lock.

In a narrative game you may approach things differently. In my games I create the world and it responds to the characters actions or inactions. It's not silly, what's silly is that you can't seem to accept that we just have different approaches.

 

[pemerton]

The only in-world consequence of failing to open a lock is that it doesn't get opened.

This is probably the silliest bit about this whole branch of the discussion. What it says to me is that people try to pick locks simply to pick them, and for no other purpose.

It's also silly from the point of view of philosophy of action and causation.

A post of mine from a few years ago makes the point:

Consider the famous example from Donald Davidson ("Actions, Reasons, and Causes" (1963)):

I flip the switch, turn on the light, and illuminate the room. Unbeknownst to me I also alert a prowler to the fact that I am home. Here I need not have done four things, but only one, of which four descriptions have been given.​

So when it comes to "declaring actions" in RPGing, the key question is who gets to decide what descriptions of the PCs' actions are true, and how.

It's true that some players are content with getting to decide only very "thin" descriptions, focused on the character's bodily movements (analogous to Davidson's "I flip the switch"), like I attack the Orc with my sword or I wink at the maiden or I hide from the soldiers in the barn or I bring the child into the Tiny Hut. But many players want to have some influence over the truth of "thicker" descriptions of their PCs' actions, like I kill the Orc with my sword or I soften the heart of the maiden with a wink or I avoid confrontation with the soldiers by hiding in the barn or I rescue the child, first by providing shelter in the Tiny Hut.

The obvious purpose of D&D's combat mechanics - which you, upthread, have flagged as different in some fashion from the "core play loop" - is to give players some influence over the truth of the thick description I kill the Orc with my sword. To me (although as I read your posts not to you) it seems to me obvious that the purpose of the Rustic Hospitality background feature is to give the player some influence over the truth of the thick description I avoid confrontation with the soldiers by hiding in the barn.

If players were not intended to have some influence over how their actions are resolved, and the outcomes that follow from their PC's bodily motions - which is to say, if players were not intended to have some influence not only over the truth of then descriptions but also over the truth of thick descriptions - then why would their be action resolution mechanics at all?​

When the player declares "I pick the lock", then - as you say - there will almost always be some other description, beyond "the lock is now open", that they hope to become true. Its failure to become true would be an in-fiction consequence of the character failing to pick the lock as they hoped.

How is it "silly"? If I try to open my front door and accidentally use the wrong key the lock doesn't open. That's it.

No it's not. You also don't get inside when you wanted to.

Sometimes that doesn't matter to you. But suppose it's raining - now you're drenched. Or suppose you could hear the phone ringing inside - now you've missed that phone call.

There are all sorts of ways that failing to open the door can generate consequences that are more than simply the door not being open.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Common sense, how? Common sense in how you think about and run your game? If a character can't open a lock the only common sense result in my game is that they can't open the lock. The characters will have to do something else. There's certainly nothing triggered one way or another by the failure to pick the lock. If the characters can climb up and get through a second story window, the window was always there and always an option whether or not they attempted to pick the lock.

In a narrative game you may approach things differently. In my games I create the world and it responds to the characters actions or inactions. It's not silly, what's silly is that you can't seem to accept that we just have different approaches.

Common sense in life. Forget play for a minute and think about how things work in the real world.

If you forget to pick up milk at the store, no milk may not be the only consequence. Maybe your spouse will he annoyed with you. Maybe your kids will go without breakfast in the morning. Maybe one of them will be so hungry they can’t concentrate and they flunk a test.

Who knows exactly what could happen? But for any failure there are a number of possible consequences. This is just the way the world works.

To then apply this to gaming, I would say that limiting yourself to just “the lock doesn’t open” as the only consequence of a failed pick lock attempt is actually far more artificial than having the GM come up with a consequence.

You can certainly play that way if you like… but stop saying that approach makes more sense and describing others as involving “unconnected” things. Your take is the one that’s more unconnected.

 

[pemerton]

I think Bakers argument here is justified, but shouldn't be generalised as meaning arguing against any attempts at establishing terms.

Just to add to this:

Baker is primarily discussing game design. And he is doing so, at a point in his career as a designer which is the culmination of decades of work. Contrast what he says now with this, from 4-10-04:

You'll have to forgive the GNS talk, or not, I mean, it is how I think about things​

Or even with the acknowledgement in Apocalypse World (p 288 of my copy), which states that "The entire game design follows from “Narrativism: Story Now” by Ron Edwards".

Maybe it's possible that Baker would have achieved the design success that he has via a different pathway, that didn't use the "big model" concepts and analysis. But it doesn't seem likely.

To put it another way: Baker may have transcended categories. But that's not the same thing as asserting that there's nothing useful to be said about different approaches to RPGing, and the various techniques and principles and so on that support or obstruct them. Nor that there is nothing to any of this beyond "vibe" and the GM being sensitive to different "player types".

 

[AlViking]

It's also silly from the point of view of philosophy of action and causation.

A post of mine from a few years ago makes the point:

Consider the famous example from Donald Davidson ("Actions, Reasons, and Causes" (1963)):​

​

I flip the switch, turn on the light, and illuminate the room. Unbeknownst to me I also alert a prowler to the fact that I am home. Here I need not have done four things, but only one, of which four descriptions have been given.​

​

So when it comes to "declaring actions" in RPGing, the key question is who gets to decide what descriptions of the PCs' actions are true, and how.​

​

It's true that some players are content with getting to decide only very "thin" descriptions, focused on the character's bodily movements (analogous to Davidson's "I flip the switch"), like I attack the Orc with my sword or I wink at the maiden or I hide from the soldiers in the barn or I bring the child into the Tiny Hut. But many players want to have some influence over the truth of "thicker" descriptions of their PCs' actions, like I kill the Orc with my sword or I soften the heart of the maiden with a wink or I avoid confrontation with the soldiers by hiding in the barn or I rescue the child, first by providing shelter in the Tiny Hut.​

​

The obvious purpose of D&D's combat mechanics - which you, upthread, have flagged as different in some fashion from the "core play loop" - is to give players some influence over the truth of the thick description I kill the Orc with my sword. To me (although as I read your posts not to you) it seems to me obvious that the purpose of the Rustic Hospitality background feature is to give the player some influence over the truth of the thick description I avoid confrontation with the soldiers by hiding in the barn.​

​

If players were not intended to have some influence over how their actions are resolved, and the outcomes that follow from their PC's bodily motions - which is to say, if players were not intended to have some influence not only over the truth of then descriptions but also over the truth of thick descriptions - then why would their be action resolution mechanics at all?​

When the player declares "I pick the lock", then - as you say - there will almost always be some other description, beyond "the lock is now open", that they hope to become true. Its failure to become true would be an in-fiction consequence of the character failing to pick the lock as they hoped.

No it's not. You also don't get inside when you wanted to.

Sometimes that doesn't matter to you. But suppose it's raining - now you're drenched. Or suppose you could hear the phone ringing inside - now you've missed that phone call.

There are all sorts of ways that failing to open the door can generate consequences that are more than simply the door not being open.

If I don't have a key to the front door then I choose to do something else. Just like the characters in my games choose to do something else. I, as DM, don't have to do anything other than perhaps give them a quick review of options. It's up to the players to decide what comes next. When they make a decision and declare actions I'll figure out how to respond.

But failing opening the lock? They just can't open the door.

 

[AlViking]

Common sense in life. Forget play for a minute and think about how things work in the real world.

If you forget to pick up milk at the store, no milk may not be the only consequence. Maybe your spouse will he annoyed with you. Maybe your kids will go without breakfast in the morning. Maybe one of them will be so hungry they can’t concentrate and they flunk a test.

Who knows exactly what could happen? But for any failure there are a number of possible consequences. This is just the way the world works.

To then apply this to gaming, I would say that limiting yourself to just “the lock doesn’t open” as the only consequence of a failed pick lock attempt is actually far more artificial than having the GM come up with a consequence.

You can certainly play that way if you like… but stop saying that approach makes more sense and describing others as involving “unconnected” things. Your take is the one that’s more unconnected.

I don't know what else to say. If I can't open the front door I have options. Character can't open a door? They do something else.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It seems fairly safe to assume that "we" means literally everyone RPGing since no one playing an RPG is in fact playing a real person in a real world.

If that were self-evidently true, there would be no need to mention it at all.

 

[Faolyn]

How is it "silly"? If I try to open my front door and accidentally use the wrong key the lock doesn't open. That's it. The reason I was trying to open my front door doesn't matter to the lock.

Is your front door in a dangerous location where there may be monsters on either side of it?

Edit: I decided to go into a bit more detail.

OK, I'm a woman. The thing you might have heard about how women carry their keys if they happen to be out at night, so that it's (a) ready to jab in someone's face if they approach and (b) ready to put in the lock quickly in case you're being followed--that thing? Kinda true. Because for many of us, there's danger around every corner and you don't know who to trust. I do that and I live in a fairly safe neighborhood. If someone was following me, if there was danger, then there could be consequences if the lock didn't open.

In a typical RPG, your characters are usually in danger. How many times have you had the party have watches during the night when they're staying at an inn? It happens in my group quite a bit, and we don't even have a killer GM.

What this means is that if the PCs are trying to open a door and can't, and they're in a dangerous environment--the type that adventurers typically go to--not getting through the door can and probably should be very dangerous. Because the place is going to have either literal monsters who probably want to eat you, guards whose job it is keep people like the adventurers out, or something very similar. It's not like real life where that guy is probably just a decent enough person and not a creepy rapist.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I don't know what else to say. If I can't open the front door I have options. Character can't open a door? They do something else.

Yes, that's possible. It is also possible for many other things to happen. It's all contextual.

What if the house is on fire? Then is the failure to unlock the door the same as if the house was not on fire? Or would you say the consequences are then different?