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

[The Firebird]

Yeah, the little "Imo" at the end doesn't really do much.

"In my opinion, your way of doing things is poor DMing" isn't much better than "Your way of doing things is poor DMing".

One thing I've been trying to do throughout this discussion across it's hundreds of pages is not to pass judgment on anyone's preferred play style. Even railroading has its place and its fans.

It is poor DMing for producing the kind of gameplay I enjoy. I will accordingly not enjoy a game where someone runs it like that.

That does not mean the style is objectively poor or that no one can enjoy it. I'm sure you are a great GM! You run fun games that people enjoy!

But why would you need to be in author stance to declare a hope and an action for your character?

You don't need to be. When you start authoring fiction via your declaration + a die roll determining the meaning of the runes, then you are in author stance. Your idea for what the runes should say became reality.

But it is a character action. It's not the player influencing play without their character being involved.

I disagree. It is still a Doylist, not Watsonian action, because in-universe the character could not define the meaning of the runes. They are external to the character. They are part of the world. Doyle, not Watson, determines what the runes are. You are in author stance.

So, in games were intent is meaningful, I expect two things. That the intention is the character's diegetic intent and not the player's hope for the scene and that intention is credible. If that is not the case, I will simply say it's not the case and ask the player to establish the equivalent of task and intent that fits within those criteria.

This is what I had in mind before when I said 'you have to appeal to the DMs sense of what makes a good story'. It's not 'what leads to the best story', but 'is the action I'm taking reasonable within the bounds of the fiction'. The DM is determining whether or not that is the case.

 

[clearstream]

Something seems easily recognizable as more than nothing.

Unless it's something I don't want, that's worse than nothing!

 

[JConstantine]

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 immediate thing that comes to mind is leading questions and how some GMs/players/games cross the line with them.

(The link is John Harper's thoughts on it in the context of Apocalypse World. I'd encourage the trad/sim crowd to read it if they haven't already because I think they'd agree with him, at least in sentiment, if not necessarily the specific examples used.)

 

[Micah Sweet]

Because PbtA games are about the PCs, not about NPCs.

But then your explanation regarding MotW seems rather specious, don't you think? The real reason for all of it is what you just said, a clear narrative marker. And a good reason why I didn't and don't like it.

 

[JConstantine]

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.

I apologise if it came off demeaning, that certainly was far from the intent. I assign no value judgement to the term as I think is evidenced by acknowledging my own idiosyncrasies. You've talked about preferences yourself, and I was using the word with a similar intent.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Nope!

Then why does it, particularly in the runes example?

 

[Pedantic]

The immediate thing that comes to mind is leading questions and how some GMs/players/games cross the line with them.

(The link is John Harper's thoughts on them in the context of Apocalypse World. I'd encourage the trad/sim crowd to read it if they haven't already because I think they'd agree with him, at least in sentiment, if not necessarily the specific examples used.)

Actually, I think the first example about the ears is a great case for precisely this kind of undesirable influence. In the kind of game, it might be given to a player to know that information, but not to establish it, and especially not to establish it as part of gameplay. You can imagine that being an out of game discussion, but that would be a separate worldbuilding activity, not part of play.

 

[JConstantine]

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.

I was just being flippant.
But I've read it now. Yesterday got away from me and I didn't have time to engage this thread actively. I'm torn between treating it like a real time conversation and responding as I read to give honest reactions complete with potential changes in thought/views, vs catching up entirely before responding because no doubt similar points, clarifications etc. have been made rendering potential comments redundant.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Why is it unhelpful and confusing to analyze play from the perspective of an independently real world?

Because that world is not real and doesn't work like it is! When you base an analysis on a mistaken idea of what the situation is, you cannot arrive at accurate conclusions.

 

[The Firebird]

The immediate thing that comes to mind is leading questions and how some GMs/players/games cross the line with them.

(The link is John Harper's thoughts on them in the context of Apocalypse World. I'd encourage the trad/sim crowd to read it if they haven't already because I think they'd agree with him, at least in sentiment, if not necessarily the specific examples used.)

Yes I think this is reasonable. I don't like the players having much control over the background of the world, but no worries.

Imagine the rune example cast in this way.
When you try to decipher some ancient script, roll +smart. On a 10+, choose what they say...

This is functionally what I see @pemerton 's runes example as doing. Its slightly different in that the PC declared intent first. You could also see it as different if the MC maintained control the whole time, but in this case just happened to go with the players decision...although if they are doing that regularly, isn't that functionally identical?

Anyway, I think the rune case crosses the line.