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

[EzekielRaiden]

So is going to the bathroom. It doesn't have to be on camera. It can be, just like going to the bathroom, but there are generally better things to play out in the limited time the group has.

Except it isn't. Going to the bathroom has no mechanical effect, nor is it a retrocausal explanation which has been expressly forbidden, nor is it a change of state in the world.

Spell-acquisition has clear and overt mechanical effect. It is being given a (forbidden) retrocausal explanation. And it is very explicitly a change in the world.

I didn't have to invent anything. The wizard is in fact experimenting and practicing with his spells all the time. It's called spellcasting. Wizards do it a lot, and they get inventive with their spells.

NO THEY IN FACT ARE NOT!

For God's sake man. If you're going to agree with that "new simulation" manifesto that says the world is always, completely, 100% primary, that the abstractions are NEVER the reason to change ANYTHING in the world EVER, then you are doing exactly what that manifesto forbids. You are saying "well actually the Wizard is and must be experimenting, even though there is ZERO evidence thereof, because we know the abstractions tell us they gain more spells."

I never said I don't invent new stuff. I said that that it doesn't happen retroactively.

But you do! By definition, you do!

The Wizard can select any spells they like. Hence, you are inventing--after the acquisition of the spell--what experimentation produced that spell. That MUST be retrocausal. It cannot be anything else. You are determining, after the mechanical event, what world-contents must have been required in order for that mechanical event to occur.

That is the thing expressly forbidden by the "new simulation" manifesto--and the thing so often described as a horrible awful gamist nightmare by so many self-proclaimed sim fans.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Whaddya mean there's no alternative paths? Does this house not have any other doors besides the one to the kitchen? No windows? Did nobody bring a crowbar to pry the door off its hinges, or a good pair of boots to kick it in? Do we have magic that can help?

Defaulting to "there's no alternative paths" on failing to get in to a big house through a specific door is exactly the kind of stuck-in-the-box thinking that leads directly to the problems you're describing.

You have never, not once, in any way shape or form, expressed anything other than this door and its impossibility. The players must now completely reinvent their approach, as they haven't cased the joint, haven't got the foggiest idea about anything else, etc., etc.

Remember, you were the one who kept insisting that nothing else is known! I repeatedly said that that was not how actual play works.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

For the lock picking example, what I narrated upthread was

Player "I attempt to pick the lock" [rolls and fails]​

GM "Nothing happens"​

Player "Righto, I take my crowbar and smash a window"​

Bedlam ensues...​

This assumes a mode of play in which players can be active, i.e. drive play forward.

Which reads quite plainly to me as a pretty passive player being corralled into doing something incredibly stupid, specifically because the GM stiffed them.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Why is it a dead end? There are several different ways through a door other than picking the lock. And who said they need to get through it?

....

Lanefan did!

Lanefan said these things. As noted, he was the one who insisted nothing else was known. I repeatedly noted that this was not how actual play works, and repeatedly asked questions to confirm nothing else was known.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Please stop with the absolutes. This is very much (one of) the sort of thing I enjoy doing in RPGs. Admittedly, I don't always get to indulge in it because others at the table aren't really into it and I don't want to hold them hostage as it were, but that's a playstyle clash/table culture problem.

What I described is accurate for the overwhelming majority of games played.

Your game might be different. I'll note that in several other posts, I specifically allowed for the fact that a very, very slim minority (far less than 1%, I'm quite confident in that) do actually do this.

But even Max recognizes that almost no games actually do this.

 

[Maxperson]

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).

D&D is plenty granular for what I look for out of a game. I do tweak some things to make them a bit more realistic, or just to make sense. What I love about D&D, though, is that the gamist/narrativist/simulationist portions are about even. It doesn't do any playstyle fantastically, but does all of them decently to pretty well with a few tweaks.

 

[Lanefan]

Yeah, OK, but if they (generic they here) are actively messing up the game because they can't or won't agree to the tone and rules, then I doubt that the good things they bring to the game matter, because they're making the game unplayable, or at least unfun.

Maybe in those players' eyes bad gaming is still better than no gaming, and so they're kind of playing under protest.

 

[Maxperson]

In 5e (2014) at least, the attacker absolutely can (if using a melee weapon) get to decide if the enemy they reduce to 0HP lives or dies. Per the PHB:

The very first rule my group got rid of. We had decided to play the first 5e campaign by the books with no rule changes. Within the first few sessions there was a fight and someone wanted to know how to knock someone out. When we read that rule all of us were like, no way in hell would you be able to swing to kill and then if you do kill, decide after the fact that you actually just rendered the enemy unconscious. We changed it on the spot

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Maybe in those players' eyes bad gaming is still better than no gaming, and so they're kind of playing under protest.

Of course, the real situation in most cases is that things are way more complicated than the "good gaming"/"bad gaming" binary.

E.g., maybe the game isn't great, but this is a social group that does many things together, not just D&D, so leaving the game would be a major social cost. (This one has been my personal experience more than once.)

Maybe the game is great 50% of the time and kinda bad but not horrendously bad 50% of the time. If you want to give it numbers, call it a 50/50 mix of +10 and -1. The -1 moments are obviously much worse than the +10 moments, but they happen about equally. No gaming would be straight 0 all the time--so while it would be better than the bad gaming, it would be much, much worse than the no-gaming.

Maybe, for folks who've had an experience like mine, "no gaming" isn't a temporary condition that you get out of in a few weeks, maybe a few months at worst. Instead, it's a multi-year prospect. "I'm having a rough patch with this game right now, but things have been good in the past and could improve again in the future" looks a lot more enticing when "no gaming" means NOT gaming for an extended period of time.

Or, maybe you have multiple friends in the group who will feel hurt if you "turn your back on them" or the like. Even if they're completely chill about whatever events occur between the characters (your "CvC" concept), they might not be chill about someone proverbially burning bridges IRL, y'know?

 

[Maxperson]

I prefer the other way round. When something happens in the fiction, some sort of mechanics need to be there to compliment it.

Lots of in-fiction lore has no mechanic and no need for one. No in-fiction mechanic should be without lore.