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

[AbdulAlhazred]

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

Well, I think that the sorts of goals and how they relate to the setting matters. BitD has a setting, but the entire focus is on the life of the PCs and crew within that milieu.

I think Egri's description is good, it's discussed here: Revisiting GNS – lumpley games

 

[DinoInDisguise]

I came to the same conclusion and am increasingly convinced that I will need curate a group of like-minded strangers to get the level of satisfaction I want.

Surprisingly, I think this is a great idea. And I hope you find it as worth while as I did. If I was a like-minded stranger, I'd be very excited to play with you!

 

[Faolyn]

So it's fine for you. You and your players don't have a problem with something other folks do. In short: preference.

Why can't we all leave it at that? Does anyone by now not understand?

Because in many cases, that preference is based on an incomplete or incorrect understanding of the rules. Look at all the people still bringing up the idea of the screaming cook and treating it as the way all these games work, based on one person's blog--not even rules from an actual PbtA game. And no matter how many times we have said "that's not how the games actually work," people still use them as "proof" that narrative/fail forward games are are nonsensical, invent things, use "quantum" events, etc.

If you (generic you) don't like a game's rules, that's fine. If you don't like the rules, but you don't actually understand how they work, if your understanding of them comes from misreading them, from a mediocre blog post, other people's strawmanning of them, then don't you think that's a bit less fine?

 

[clearstream]

...not even (seemingly) Narrativist-leaning persons are in agreement on how Edwards or Tuovinen define simulationism, nevermind persons who claim to be simulationist-leaning, so their definitions shouldn't be held up as gospel.

It's been a long thread so perhaps you missed my several posts discussing differences between definitions and proposing that there is no stable identity for "simulationism"?

I've cited commentators who have written things that for one reason or another stand out for consideration. If anyone knows of others I'd be equally interested to read them.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Seem like a very strong change in situation. From "Do I manage to pick this lock?" To "What the **** should I do now?"

Edit: This would be the problem. The circumstance may also have changed similarly drastically from "There is a sweet lock, should be easy entry for someone with my skillset", to "No promising easy points of entry".

Except here you are still left standing in front of the locked door. When we say that the situation has changed, it's a material change, not merely a difference in information. I understand what you're saying, it's possible some situations are ambiguous. Still, in general, we have moved on. Some new conflict is now in scope of play.

 

[Enrahim]

Except here you are still left standing in front of the locked door. When we say that the situation has changed, it's a material change, not merely a difference in information. I understand what you're saying, it's possible some situations are ambiguous. Still, in general, we have moved on. Some new conflict is now in scope of play.

Are you saying gathering information is not a change in situation? How do this jam with AW's Read a Sitch and Read a person? On a miss you still only get information ("but expect the worst"). Is that a blatant violation of fail forward? How would your analysis change if I simply reframe the pick lock attempt as "I study the lock with my tools to figure out if I think I will be able to pick it?"

 

[Faolyn]

There is no 'setting' in AW,

There's an implied setting created by a combination of the psychic maelstrom, the playbook types, the Hot and Weird stats, the sex moves... it's the type of apocalypse where sexy people kill and/or have sex with one another while psychic weirdness abounds. It would be kind of hard to turn that into a disease or zombie apocalypse where everything is dark and gritty and focused on survival and working together above anything else. Probably not impossible, but kinda hard.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

but hope can never and has never changed what something actually is, my friend buys me a birthday present, i can hope til the cows come home for the box to contain this thing or that thing, but it's going to have diddly squat effect on what they actually got me or what the runes on the wall translate to.

What 'actually is' here that's being changed???!!! There's no real runes, there's not even a fiction of what these pretend runes 'mean'!!! So, nothing the character did, fictionally changed anything except their knowledge of the runes' content. That seems entirely diegetic to me. In the real world all that changed is the fiction was updated to add an agreement about the runes' content. This new fiction is in accordance with the wishes of the player who rolled the dice. This is literally no different from an attack roll in combat.

 

[Enrahim]

What 'actually is' here that's being changed???!!! There's no real runes, there's not even a fiction of what these pretend runes 'mean'!!! So, nothing the character did, fictionally changed anything except their knowledge of the runes' content. That seems entirely diegetic to me. In the real world all that changed is the fiction was updated to add an agreement about the runes' content. This new fiction is in accordance with the wishes of the player who rolled the dice. This is literally no different from an attack roll in combat.

Except it has been pointed out by other in this thread that the player's hopes are not supposed to enter the picture at all, as the action declaration is required to be an expression of the characters hope. Ref don't be a weasel.

And it is right that nothing was changed in the rune-example. The correct term there would be something got established. That change of word doesn't change the core of the argument.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I don't have Apocalypse World to check directly myself, but per John Harper (from the crossing the line article):

This is a pretty trad delineation, and - unless you're an adherent of the Humpty Dumpty school of language - seems to conflict with your view.

What is being said by Harper is that the MC decides things like what an NPC says, or how the psychic maelstrom manifests its influence in a given situation. But the setting is not a predefined thing, and the game doesn't work by having the MC tell you that finding water is impossible because they described the desert as totally waterless last February. The MC asserts things about what they're in charge of, but only in order to fulfill the agenda of the game!

This is indeed not radically different from most D&D games in some sense. However the centering of the PCs as the protagonists in play, and use and nature of the MC's 'stuff' is not typical of trad play.