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

[The Firebird]

Sure, I'm not disagreeing with that. But with the wider implication that this is all that's always needed, and is always provided.

No GM will provide everything ahead of time. They will need to come up with details on the fly. And there's nothing wrong with that.

Go back to the Aristotelian idea I set up a while back...the right amount of improvising is 'some'. If you're improvising everything, it will not be enjoyable for some players (i.e., me.). If you improvise nothing, you aren't getting many benefits from RPGing.

See that's awfully judgmental and overly harsh. It describes my entire 5e game that I ran this past weekend. I didn't hide salient details, but I made all kinds of things up on the spot.

I think I've mentioned that it characterizes games I've run on short notice, and that these were well received. I don't mean that they can't be enjoyable or that I'd never run anything like that. But when I think of ideal (for me) RPGing, it doesn't involve making everything up that as it is happening.

A repeating refrain in this thread has been about how we're just talking about preferences here. I'm going to tag @Micah Sweet here so he can wag a finger at you as he does at me when he thinks I'm being too judgmental about his preferred play style.

Yes...I added 'imo' to the end of my statement to clarify it was about my preferences.

Via their character.

Another way of phrasing it is that author and actor stance conflict. To the extent that one is in author stance, the feeling of immersion one gets from actor stance is diminished.

 

[JConstantine]

--- meanwhile lurking in the long grass in a closet* off the kitchen hides Godzilla, waiting to ambush...the cook? the thief? his wife? her lover?

* - which in Tardis-like fashion must be bigger on the inside, otherwise Godzilla wouldn't fit

A wealthy noble with a closet of holding to manage their hopeless fashion addiction seems well within the bounds of D&D.

 

[Enrahim]

And again, you're out of your depth. You have clearly never participated in Narrativist play, as your characterization of how it works does not comport with reality. You're making the mistake of overlaying your trad agenda and (to paraphrase @clearstream) lusory attitude on a game which they don't apply to.

Ok, now that you are done with the ad hominem argument against me, maybe you can try to adress the substance of the matter? My posts in this matter has mainly been me phrasing my understanding of what @The Firebird has tried to explain. He at least claim experience in games that claim to more or less ensure nar play from my understanding. So has he managed to play these games wrong? Or have I completely misunderstood his posts, despite him liking quite a few of them, including the quoted? Or is there anything substantial you can contribute with to explain how the fundamental analysis is wrong?

Mind you, I think noone claim playing these game feels the way described. From my end it has been an attempt at bringing to light a subtle bias these games appear to produce that are likely to cause some, but not catastrophic inteference with the illusion of an independent world. Firebird in his testimony also attested to that, that he didn't observe this (conciously) before GM-ing himself, but that it did affect his experience at least to some extent after that.

(@The Firebird , sorry if I misgendered you - I tend to try to avoid pronouns, but in this case it became too demanding. Went for he by default)

 

[hawkeyefan]

I think the contention stems from the fact that not only in their view should players affect the world in a Watsonian/diegetic manner, while in yours (please correct me if I've misunderstood) it's acceptable from a Doylist/non-diegetic manner, but that distinction then leads you to overstate the primacy of setting in their view.

I don't know, really. I have asked people to share examples of this Doylist influence a player has that would be specific to narrativist games... but no one has really offered anything other than their vague idea that this is how these games generally work. If you can tell me what you mean, then that may allow me to elaborate.

I think that in most cases, settings in narrativist games are not as set in stone as those in trad games, and that is to allow players to help shape the setting... but I don't know if this is through Doylist influence.

Absent that, my original point was that exploration of setting is generally not as big a part of narrativist games. I mean, it may be an element... certainly, Stonetop involves physical exploration of the geography, and Spire involves navigating the strange city that gives the game its name... but neither is the focus of play. They are just elements.

Probably because the player's action itself wasn't the driving force, it was the die result, so it's more mechanics/system-driven.

But the die roll is made because of the player wanting something, attempting an action of some sort. What happens next is therefore based on what the player was attempting and how that attempt went. That's the player driving the game.

 

[JConstantine]

EDIT: Here's Exhibit A:
Had the check to climb succeeded, the GM would never have narrated that crumbling rock.

In other words, the weight-bearing capacity of the rocks are being decided and narrated after the dice are rolled, in response to the outcome of the roll. The GM has not made a prior decision about which rocks can bear what amount of weight, such that that prior fiction can then factor into the resolution.

It comes down to how it's framed. One way of looking at it is that the sturdiness is in flux and only established in response to the result. Another way is that the result determined whether or not the character grabbed a handhold that was weight-bearing vs a different one that was not.

But then I don't have a problem with a cook being in the kitchen, even at 2am. It was a crap example for other reasons.

 

[Pedantic]

(@The Firebird , sorry if I misgendered you - I tend to try to avoid pronouns, but in this case it became too demanding. Went for he by default)

I think it's best practice to use "they" until the matter is clarified, both to avoid getting it wrong and also to avoid assumption from uncertain secondary characteristics.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yes, it is a change. It's not a direct violation of the integrity of the roll, though. This is a perfectly valid way to handle the situation and your resistance to it is just an example of the thread title.

If the roll is to determine success or failure at a specific test, as many if us believe it to be, then yes, it absolutely is a violation of the integrity if the roll. Just one you don't have a problem with.

 

[The Firebird]

I don't know, really. I have asked people to share examples of this Doylist influence a player has that would be specific to narrativist games... but no one has really offered anything other than their vague idea that this is how these games generally work. If you can tell me what you mean, then that may allow me to elaborate.

The rune example is exactly what I have in mind here.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Honestly didn't think I'd find myself agreeing with pemerton, but I'd say this is true. There is nothing meaning;y different between the cook (or whatever) being there as a result of this roll vs that roll at a mechanical level, but the presentation is different and that matters to some people due to... oh, idiosyncrasies.

For the record, labeling the issues some folks have with presentation of material as "idiosyncrasies" comes off as demeaning, at least to me. Like only mechanical results really matter.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Careful, @Micah Sweet might come to the conclusion that you're actually a Narrativist!

Read my reply. I explained how that could work in a way that is both mechanically sound and verisimilitudinous. Just use different DCs, or distance in one direction or another from the target to generate varied results.