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

[JConstantine]

What if the GM embodies the setting, but the Players set their own goals? Is that possible from your perspective?

This was basically what I was getting at with my question about BitD and such, but you put it more succinctly.

 

[JConstantine]

It seems obvious to me that if the GM embodies the setting, the players are not at full liberty to set their own goals.

Or, alternatively, they can set their own goals but it may be that failure is fore-ordained because of decisions made by the GM as embodying the setting.

By this token, BitD and AW would be GM-driven/centred in your view, no?

 

[JConstantine]

Tuovineni is a self-identified lover of simulationism. He doesn't reject himself!

Didn't realise Tuovinen was posting in this thread.

Also: the post that you quote was replying to @clearstream, who introduced the Tuovinen blog into this thread, in a positive way. (And Tuovinen's blog of course refers very positively to Edwards.) So if you want to pick a fight, take it up with clearstream.

If you interpreted my post as trying to pick a fight, you may have read more antagonism into it than was there.

 

[JConstantine]

I've GMed a fair bit of Classic Traveller over the past several years. I think it works best played in a manner similar to Apocalypse World: "if you do it, you do it" and making soft or hard moves based on success or failure on the dice. I would regard this as reasonably player-driven.

This seems contradictory to what you've said here:

It seems obvious to me that if the GM embodies the setting, the players are not at full liberty to set their own goals.

The setting is the purview of the GM in Apocalypse World, right?* I'm genuinely trying to reconcile these two views and struggling.

*Hence the whole crossing the line article

 

[JConstantine]

We could classify the trad GM’s process as quantum as well.

In some cases, yeah. That's not the gotcha you seem to be trying to present.

 

[JConstantine]

What do you mean by "author stance"? The only definition I'm familiar with comes from here, and you're obviously not using that one.

I've seen @The Firebird corrected that they meant director stance, but if it helps understanding in the future, it's worth noting that due to it's propagation outside the Forge, "director stance" and "author stance" are often conflated and sometimes even merged.

 

[Maxperson]

Of the thing being simulated.

That still doesn't make sense to me. If a game doesn't simulate something to the degree I want, I don't gain a greater appreciation or understanding of that something if I alter it to be closer to what it is that I want. It's just closer to what I want.

 

[JConstantine]

I don't see it as conservative to not want to undermine the integrity of my own game.

Putting aside the political connotations of the word, conservatism is simply about wanting to maintain some form of status quo, so if you're wanting to avoid changing anything about your game and how you run it, it's conservatism in a very literal sense.

(It should go without saying, but just to be clear, I'm not suggesting that any and all change is necessarily good or warranted.)

 

[JConstantine]

I personally loathe mechanical disconnects. If I note it on my sheet and the DM factors that in, but mechanically my PC is still an expert swimmer, it bugs the crap out of me every time I see it. Mechanics and fluff should match.

I prefer it when mechanics and narrative align myself, too, but it seems a more granular system would be more to your tastes (which you've alluded to yourself), so I'm curious why you stick with 5e (if you've elaborated before, I've missed it).

 

[FrogReaver]

Putting aside the political connotations of the word, conservatism is simply about wanting to maintain some form of status quo, so if you're wanting to avoid changing anything about your game and how you run it, it's conservatism in a very literal sense.

(It should go without saying, but just to be clear, I'm not suggesting that any and all change is necessarily good or warranted.)

Even then theres a clear undertone that this non-conservative way would be better. Else why even mention the non-conservative way in the first place.