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

[FrogReaver]

And thus the exhausting, essential conservatism. There's no looking for a path towards realizing any sort of play goal, there's just reflexive defense of "playing the way I've always played and feels normal to me."

Because telling people they have a reflexive defense isn’t one of the most offensive things you can do…

 

[FrogReaver]

To use this as a springboard, a question for @AlViking @Maxperson and others who care about the independence of the world:
How do you feel about trad/sim systems that use roll-under, like BRP or the Black Hack, where the result is effectively subjective to the character's stat as opposed to an objective external DC?

I’m not a fan.

 

[JConstantine]

So if the GM doesn't narrate shadows, or ambient noise, or whatever, does that mean that no roll can be made for the Orcs to be stealthy?

Does the GM also have to decide on the visibility of the stuff floating in the gelatinous cube before rolling to see if it surprises the PCs?

The GM has to serve as the senses of the PC, but at the same time, it's simply not feasible to narrate every detail that we actually take in in real life, so some things get narrated while others are left assumed. I'm of the opinion that anything that sufficiently deviates from the characters and/or the player's norm warrants narrating, as does anything that would have a mechanical impact, and not doing so is a failure on the GM's part. If the area has sufficient enough shadows that it would result in dim light or even darkness, then that should be narrated. If such shadows haven't been established, then the orcs can still attempt to be stealthy, but retroactively adding shadows to account for it is not something I would do. "Fiction-first" applies to all RPGs, contrary to it's frequent misapplication in pitching it as the difference between narrativist and trad RPGs.

 

[JConstantine]

This makes Gygax's AD&D non-traditional, then

Going by the cultures of play article, Gygaxian D&D would be "classic", not "trad", so yes?

 

[The Firebird]

And thus the exhausting, essential conservatism. There's no looking for a path towards realizing any sort of play goal, there's just reflexive defense of "playing the way I've always played and feels normal to me."

I don't see how this whole conversation suggests an unwillingness to try new things. The goal of play seems pretty clearly defined imo.

To use this as a springboard, a question for @AlViking @Maxperson and others who care about the independence of the world:
How do you feel about trad/sim systems that use roll-under, like BRP or the Black Hack, where the result is effectively subjective to the character's stat as opposed to an objective external DC?

Agree with @AlViking above. To satisfy 'simulationism' in the sense I'm interested in, the important thing is that characters are able to interact with an external world in the way we do in reality. This is different than the rules accurately simulating reality. I think the use of simulationism for both muddies things.

Guys, I think RPGs are pretty cool

I know the conversation itself can seem exhausting, to say nothing of the conservatism. So it is worth mentioning that I've found the discussion useful and productive. I especially like @Enrahim's posts on the types of quantum and the comparison to fantasy literature and @Xetheral's discussion of fail forward. I thought the the earlier discussion on what GNS fails to capture was also instructive. I've long had issues with the approach of narrative games and I feel like I can better express those as a result of this thread.

In general I think we've arrived at a pretty solid understanding of where and why those mechanics fail for many of us, even if that understanding isn't shared universally.

 

[Pedantic]

And thus the exhausting, essential conservatism. There's no looking for a path towards realizing any sort of play goal, there's just reflexive defense of "playing the way I've always played and feels normal to me."

I just don't see it. It always comes back to "I'm imagining a world, and filtering it through these rules for players to interact with" and "no you're not, you're doing some other thing." There's not much point (and, understandably, not much interest) in taking any criticism about how one is doing that onboard, if the initial premise isn't validated.

 

[JConstantine]

You can layer many things on top of the game rules that are not in any of the books. Goal and approach is one of them. I have never seen nor have I ever heard of a DM doing it for D&D on any other thread.

Just to make sure, are you perhaps conflating "goal and approach" with BW's "intent and task"?

Goal and approach is simply advice to players to specify both what they're doing (approach) and what they hope to accomplish with it (goal), in order to help the GM adjudicate more accurately, and avoid potential misunderstandings. It can still be done in conjunction with the typical clarifying questions before acting, but there's always the possibility of missing an appropriate clarification.

As an example, let's say we have the cliché scene of a villain holding a damsel hostage as a meatshield while stood in a room with a chandelier. A player decides they want to do the pulpy thing of shooting the chandelier so that it falls on top of the villain (while avoiding the hostage). With a player describing only their approach (shoot the chandelier), a GM might intuit their intent accurately or they might describe how the chandelier falls to the ground, shattering to pieces, and doing nothing to the villain because they were not stood under it, and thus making the player feel like an idiot who wasting their action. With goal and approach, the player's intent is explicit and the GM can correct the disconnect in understanding by pointing out that the villain is not stood under the chandelier (something the character would be able to observe).

 

[JConstantine]

I'm not sure who you're talking about. I've only ever heard that kind of jargon from Narrativist-leaning folks.

Whilst I haven't explicitly advocated it on these boards, I am a proponent of it, but then you seem to consider me "Narrativist-leaning folk".

That said, "goal and approach" is simply a contraction of "players should state their goal and approach", it's hardly the obfuscating jargon that often came out of The Forge.

 

[JConstantine]

Here I thought that was just telling me what they were doing.

It is, but folks like to call it goal and approach. Gotta have terms for everything you know. At least they aren't calling it GAP and making it an acronym.

I disagree with this. "Telling [the GM] what they were doing" is only the approach part of goal and approach. It's got sod all to do with "having terms for everything".

 

[JConstantine]

For the players maybe. But, for the DM? Seriously?

GMs typically run the sort of game they want to play, so if there's something they value as a player, they're going to use techniques that facilitate that when GMing. It's perfectly understandable for an individual to talk about what they're aiming to deliver player-side from the GM-side.