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

[hawkeyefan]

So now the issue is that I express an opinion?

No, that is not the issue.

That I don't want the GM doing things simply to move the game forward?

That’s fine.

It's because I can't describe it in exactly the terms you use when we ask for examples but then on the rare cases we get examples we explain why they don't fit what others are saying or explain why that example wouldn't work for us?

No, it’s because the way you describe it… the reasons you provide for not liking it… are inaccurate.

If I say “I don’t like D&D’s initiative system” that’s an opinion and is perfectly fine. If I say “I don’t like D&D’s initiative system because I don’t like card based initiative” that’s something else. I’ve attributed my opinion (which is fine) to an element of the initiative system which is not correct.

Folks who better understand D&D’s initiative system are likely going to correct me. When they do, if I continue to operate with my original understanding and don’t onboard any of the new information being shared, then I’m going to continue to get pushback.

That’s the situation here. I’m not trying to change your opinion. I’m not trying to say any way is better or best. I’m not denigrating any type of play.

I’m trying to correct an inaccurate description so that anyone else reading realizes it’s inaccurate.

 

[AlViking]

Because one is a game.



I’m not talking about having to use a different method. I’m talking about the only consequence being failure to complete the task attempted. There can very clearly be more consequences than just failure.

Insisting on viewing it that way divorces the task attempted from any context. I don’t see how that’s useful in any way toward understanding the action attempted.

So I was just told that nobody tells us their way is better or that we're doing it wrong. But that's exactly what you're doing. We have a very simple preference that any consequence of failure be handled as something directly related to the action attempted. But it "divorces the task attempted from any context" which clearly shows that you either don't care or haven't read what we've said.

For example my assumptions on opening a lock are simple. In D&D success or failure of a sleight of hand to open a lock will take exactly the same amount of time and make exactly the same amount of noise. That's it. If a guard would have noticed you on the round you were picking a lock, that would have happened success or failure. Someone inside hearing you? Success or failure it doesn't matter.

It doesn't seem like it should be difficult to understand. We don't add any complication on a failure because as GM we don't take a proactive role in making things happen. The world and it's inhabitants react to what the characters do, and quite frequently we implement a living world where things are happening no matter what the characters do but that's it. There is no guiding hand, there is no extra punishment for failure, there is no guaranteed excitement every step along the way. Should be super simple to understand. Don't like the style of play we prefer? Do something else.

 

[hawkeyefan]

So I was just told that nobody tells us their way is better or that we're doing it wrong. But that's exactly what you're doing. We have a very simple preference that any consequence of failure be handled as something directly related to the action attempted. But it "divorces the task attempted from any context" which clearly shows that you either don't care or haven't read what we've said.

For example my assumptions on opening a lock are simple. In D&D success or failure of a sleight of hand to open a lock will take exactly the same amount of time and make exactly the same amount of noise. That's it. If a guard would have noticed you on the round you were picking a lock, that would have happened success or failure. Someone inside hearing you? Success or failure it doesn't matter.

It doesn't seem like it should be difficult to understand. We don't add any complication on a failure because as GM we don't take a proactive role in making things happen. The world and it's inhabitants react to what the characters do, and quite frequently we implement a living world where things are happening no matter what the characters do but that's it. There is no guiding hand, there is no extra punishment for failure, there is no guaranteed excitement every step along the way. Should be super simple to understand. Don't like the style of play we prefer? Do something else.

No, this is you reading something into what I actually posted that’s not there.

@Lanefan claimed that his preferred method works the same as how actions and consequences work in real life. That’s not true… actions in real life have consequences beyond just failure at the task at hand.

I don’t care if @Lanefan likes to play his game that way… that’s his preference, and that’s fine. But if he says he likes to play that way “because it’s closer to the way things work in the real world” then I’m going to point out the flaw in his reasoning.

Not because his preference is wrong or problematic in any way, but because the stated reason for his preference is flawed.

My comments in no way were about valuing one type of play over the other.

 

[The Firebird]

@Lanefan claimed that his preferred method works the same as how actions and consequences work in real life. That’s not true… actions in real life have consequences beyond just failure at the task at hand.

I am very curious what example you have in mind here.

 

[JConstantine]

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!

The setting being predefined vs established ad hoc seems besides the point. The GM is still in control of all the things the GM is typically in control of in a trad game, right? @pemerton seems to consider that GM-driven/centred in one game, but player-driven in another. I'm trying to reconcile what seems contradictory to me and I'm just not seeing a meaningful distinction in what's actually being communicated.

Coming back to this:

Going forward the MC does own the threat map and NPCs, and may establish custom moves, possibly describe work that the PCs can find, etc. All of this is supposed to be directly responsive to player input and liberal use of asking questions.

When people in this thread have talked about doing this sort of thing in a trad game, pemerton has considered it to be GM-driven/centred, but apparently player-driven in AW, or whatever games they've personally run. It really comes across as "that doesn't neatly conform to my specifics tastes, so it's GM-driven (read: bad), not player-driven (read: good)." Compare to @Campbell's more nuanced view of it as a spectrum.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I am very curious what example you have in mind here.

Do you really need one? Okay.

If you fail a test, is that all that happens?

When I was 16, I asked a pretty girl to go out with me on Friday night. She said yes! The problem was that I didn’t have my driver’s license yet… I was scheduled to take the test that Thursday. As long as I passed the test, I’d be able to pick her up Friday evening. But if I failed, then I’d have to cancel the date because I’d have no way of picking her up.

I failed the test. So, not only did I not get my driver’s license, but I also didn’t get to go out with the girl.

This isn’t complicated stuff. Actions have consequences, whether we succeed or fail. If we weren’t having this discussion in the context of RPG task resolution, this wouldn’t even be questioned.

That’s not to say that task resolution is bad or lesser in any way. All I’m saying is that the idea that it “works like real life” is a flawed idea.

 

[The Firebird]

Do you really need one? Okay.

If you fail a test, is that all that happens?

When I was 16, I asked a pretty girl to go out with me on Friday night. She said yes! The problem was that I didn’t have my driver’s license yet… I was scheduled to take the test that Thursday. As long as I passed the test, I’d be able to pick her up Friday evening. But if I failed, then I’d have to cancel the date because I’d have no way of picking her up.

I failed the test. So, not only did I not get my driver’s license, but I also didn’t get to go out with the girl.

This isn’t complicated stuff. Actions have consequences, whether we succeed or fail. If we weren’t having this discussion in the context of RPG task resolution, this wouldn’t even be questioned.

That’s not to say that task resolution is bad or lesser in any way. All I’m saying is that the idea that it “works like real life” is a flawed idea.

Yes--because I don't think you're right. This example is a case of "you fail and nothing happens". You failed and didn't get the license. Because you didn't achieve your goal, another plan that was already in motion and which required success failed.

That's different than--you failed and we don't want to be boring, so we'll come up with an additional complication of the missed date. In this case, the date would have been hinted at by interactions between you two so it was reasonable based on the fiction, but not made explicit as an independent event.

 

[JConstantine]

Again, nothing changed. Presumably in the fictional world we are to imagine the runes always represented a map. While I agree that 2 minutes ago that imagined fact didn't exist, many other things are also not yet established in the fictional world. All that I can see really being objected to is the player getting a chance to say what some detail is.

So, I'd agree that the implication is that the runes always represented the map - whether one actually does or even can accept that, I think comes down to perspective - but I don't think the objection some have is strictly "the player getting a chance to say what some detail is".

If we stick with the comparison to the farrier, there's a few differences:
1. With the farrier, the player asked the GM (what some might consider "Mother, may I?"), whereas with the runes, the player stated a "hope". This is effectively the objection you see.
2. With the farrier, there was no roll to determine if it was true. One could view this as simply a case of the GM deciding there is no uncertainty and so no roll was warranted, granting auto-success (what some have deemed "low stakes").

I think both of these aren't actually all that important compared to
3. With the farrier, it's was deemed well within the bounds of probability, not just possibility, whereas with the runes example, the player's hope just so happened to be true (thanks to a successful roll), which stretches credulity for those objecting to it, breaking their suspension of disbelief (this goes back to what @TwoSix, I think it was, about contrivance). This is what I suspect @The Firebird actually means by "harms verisimilitude".

 

[Campbell]

@JConstantine

In almost every game with a GM that I am aware of (Hillfolk being the notable exception) the GM retains backstory and situation framing authority. What makes a game more or less player driven is the degree to which the GM is expected to take the lead of the players in the situations they choose to frame.

In Burning Wheel the GM is expected to frame situations in regards to player established belief and instinct statements for their characters. The game is wholly about addressing evinced premise of the characters players designed.

In Sorcerer the GM is expected to frame situations in regard to kickers, inciting incidents that upended the lives of each player character. They also should have regard to the Humanity definition and what they have established for the demons they create.

In Apocalypse World they are expected to frame situations that bring the Apocalypse to life, make the characters lives not boring and reflect them being fans of the characters. There's a bit more premise coming from the game and GM here than in the previous examples.

In Apocalypse Keys the GM is expected to bring the premise of the mystery to life, show what the characters might become, tempt them to give into their dark desires and be fans of the characters.

In Dogs in the Vineyard the GM is expected to bring the sin of the town to life, bring home what being Dog means and lastly address the specific top of dog the characters are in their situation framing.

I hope we can see how as we move down this list more of the premise is coming from the game and GM and less from the players. Something like the new Warhammer Fantasy Old World game would have even more coming from the GM as they define the Grim Portent (inciting event that brings the characters together) that establishes the premise for the game.

Note that in all instances GMs and players will have strong imprints on the game. This is more about who is following whose lead and how much when it comes to the situations that see table time. In all cases it's not about level of GM Authority, but in how they are expected to use it.

 

[DinoInDisguise]

Because one is a game.

A brief thought. What if one type of game is based on pretending it's not a game?