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

[AbdulAlhazred]

I would just say that learning and practicing equanimity is a primary indicator of maturity. I think that is a part of what Lewis meant. It's a central theme of Aurelius' Meditations.

 

[DinoInDisguise]

Which is fair. I'm not at all ashamed of my playstyle or playing D&D. However, that does not mean that it's okay to disparage what I do or that I shouldn't push back at such disparagement.

Reading the last few pages, I began to wonder. There’s been a lot of “why are you offended?” talk. But why is that the fight? Why is that the focus of the discourse? What if we simply acknowledged the harm someone felt and moved forward, instead of debating their reaction or telling them how they should feel?

To me, undermining someone else’s fun is never harmless. Whether it comes from malice or not doesn’t change that. Sadly, this thread is a case study in how easily that can happen, even unintentionally, and how that unintentional harm can spiral into telling people how they should feel.

So I wonder, why are we mixing parades and rain?

 

[Faolyn]

Well, so can princesses! I think we agree in this area. I certainly wouldn't consider either term derogatory, at least not inherently. @JConstantine's CS Lewis quote is pretty spot on. If I was concerned with seeming childish I would certainly not play RPGs!

Princess is by default a gendered term, and more specifically, it conjures up images of very pink damsels in distress: girls whose purpose is to be married off, harassed by evil queens, kidnapped by brigands or dragons, etc., with the only benefits being the ability to sing and call upon your woodland animal minions. Plus, we still live in a world where girl is "less good" than boy and woman is "less good" than man. So yeah, most of the time, princess is fairly derogatory, or when the trope is deliberately subverted (warrior princess).

Plus, princesses are primarily aimed at little girls--not only children, but young girls. Pre-tweens. Who notoriously are not as knowledgeable or sophisticated as adults or even older teens are.

You can, of course, say "For princesses of any gender!" if you have a game where people are playing as someone who is princess-coded but doesn't have to be female, but without that, it's still very much coded for little girls.

So calling a game princess play is basically saying "you're play like a seven-year-old girl!" Which is pretty insulting.

(Mind, I've read stories of people running D&D for their very young girls and they turned out to be murder hoboes.)

 

[Maxperson]

There are plenty of things children do that I think adults would be wise to remember.

I agree with this.

Not if you don't think that the word childish is itself disparaging.

He has a childlike sense of wonder.
He has a childish sense of wonder.

Only one of those sounds negative.

"Childish" is generally used to mean immaturity, rather than the better things from childhood.
"Childlike" is generally used to mean an adult having good qualities associated with childhood.

 

[Maxperson]

Does this not rather imply that LARP is childish? Seems to me you are doing exactly what you are complaining about.

No. A LARP is very different from Cops and Robbers that elementary school kids play.

RPGs are not inherently childish. Games with rules are not inherently childish.

Cops and Robbers is just a bunch of kids running around saying, "I got you!" "No you didn't!" "Yes I did! I pointed in your direction and said bang!" "You pointed off to the side!" There are no rules to it. It's a childish game that kids grow out of well before they even reach adulthood.

 

[Maxperson]

Reading the last few pages, I began to wonder. There’s been a lot of “why are you offended?” talk. But why is that the fight? Why is that the focus of the discourse? What if we simply acknowledged the harm someone felt and moved forward, instead of debating their reaction or telling them how they should feel?

To me, undermining someone else’s fun is never harmless. Whether it comes from malice or not doesn’t change that. Sadly, this thread is a case study in how easily that can happen, even unintentionally, and how that unintentional harm can spiral into telling people how they should feel.

So I wonder, why are we mixing parades and rain?

In my opinion it's because a lot of folks here use the same negatively charged terminology that the original authors used. Whether they have the same sense of superiority and look down on traditional play, I'd don't know for sure. I have suspicions about a few.

If they acknowledge that the terminology is disparaging, it could make them look bad and people will often fight tooth and nail for that not to happen.

And so we have repeated what has happened so often before on this site. Someone uses disparaging terminology. People get upset over it and push back. The ones using the disparaging terminology defend its use or else ignore those they are disparaging and just continue to use the terminology.

The end result is that they derailed their own threads/arguments from the moment they used that terminology, which is a shame since quite often the underlying question is an interesting one, but it will never get a chance to be discussed because of the disparaging terms.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

In my opinion it's because a lot of folks here use the same negatively charged terminology that the original authors used. Whether they have the same sense of superiority and look down on traditional play, I'd don't know for sure. I have suspicions about a few.

If they acknowledge that the terminology is disparaging, it could make them look bad and people will often fight tooth and nail for that not to happen.

And so we have repeated what has happened so often before on this site. Someone uses disparaging terminology. People get upset over it and push back. The ones using the disparaging terminology defend its use or else ignore those they are disparaging and just continue to use the terminology.

The end result is that they derailed their own threads/arguments from the moment they used that terminology, which is a shame since quite often the underlying question is an interesting one, but it will never get a chance to be discussed because of the disparaging terms.

The terminology policing goes FAR beyond questions of offense.

 

[Maxperson]

The terminology policing goes FAR beyond questions of offense.

The point is, there shouldn't be offense given at all. People have been using this disparaging terminology for years and they continue to do so because biased authors wrote articles demeaning other playstyles that they didn't like by coming up with these derogatory terms. Like somehow the fact that someone else came up with the derogatory term makes it okay for them to use. It doesn't.

It's not on me to put up with disparaging terminology. It's on the offenders to stop using it and come up with something neutral.

 

[pemerton]

I quite liked the After the Battle scene.

Thanks!

Does Prince Valiant require planning, particularly moral/ethical quandries as you wrote up this example as opposed to say Burning Wheel where the direction of the narrative is discussed at the table with the players?
i.e. greater player participation in BW when determining mortal quandries.

It's not necessarily planning - I've used a lot of pre-written scenarios in Prince Valiant because the rulebook includes them, and when I got it (via Kickstarter) it shipped with an Episode Book that had more of them. But some of the ones in the Episode book need reworking (like the Rein*Hagen one, which is unplayable as written) and I've also come up with stuff spontaneously when I've needed it.

But Prince Valiant is not all that character-driven. Edwards, in his essay on narrativism, distinguishes character, setting and situation as sources of (what he calls) premise; which, in Baker's formulation, is the source of the conflict across a moral line. In Burning Wheel that's the PC, and because the core mode of PC build in BW is by the player, the player plays a big role in establishing what the conflict and the moral line will be.

Whereas in Prince Valiant, the main source of premise/conflict is the situation, which is generally presented by the GM, so (as I think you've intuited) the player plays less of a role in establishing that.

In my Prince Valiant game, as play goes on and the characters get more established, character as a source of premise/conflict increases. But in BW it's there from the start.

Burning Wheel can be played in a way where the GM establishes the conflict (at least at the start) and the players' role is then to play it out according to their authorship: namely, by having the GM prepare pre-gens and an initial situation. This is how the demo module The Sword works (that got discussed somewhere upthread). And here's an example of that that I wrote, in the same context ("Not the Iron DM") as After the Battle:

B]The bridge[/B]
A situation for two Burning Wheel players and a GM.

Background: A river runs through the Welkwood, dividing the Elven kingdom of Celene and the human lands to the east. It was once traversed by a great stone bridge, crafted by the Elven shapers and a sign of friendship between the two peoples. The Elven bards would greet travellers and welcome many of them as Elf-friends. Seventy years ago, Ansley the Lion of Fax - lusting after the jewels of the Elves - led an incursion over the bridge. In the conflict the bridge was ruined. The Elven Protectors have left it in its fallen state, its stones lying in the long grass and the water. The Elves have retreated to their havens and citadels; and while the people of Fax now repent of Ansley's deeds, they lack the funds and skills to rebuild the bridge themselves.

PC 1: Dagoliir (Age 170 years; Born Wilder Elf, Song Singer, lead to Citadel, Bard, lead to Paths of Spite, Griever, Deceiver)

Will B6, Perception B6, Agility B6, Speed B4, Forte B4, Power B4, Spite B6,

Reflexes B5, Steel B5 (hesitation 4), Health B6, PTGS (Superficial B3, Light B5, Midi B7, Severe B8, Traumatic B9, Mortal Wound B10)

Resources B1, Circles B3, Reputation (+1D) as the last bard of the fallen bridge

Skills: Sing B4, Lyre B4, Elven Script B3, Conspicuous B4, Oratory B5, Persuasion B4, Song of Soothing B4, Sleight of Hand B3, Sword B3, Bridge-wise B3

Spellsongs: Song of Songs B3, Song of Merriment B3, Verse of Friendship B4, Tract of Enmity B5, Sorrow of Truth B3, Rhyme of the Unraveller G6

Traits: Charismatic, Deceptive, Vocal

Lives in the foundation hall of the ruined bridge, on the eastern side of the river; wears Elven clothes but goes barefoot; in the hall are Dagoliir's Elven lyre (+1D), Elven sword and the finery of their former office.

Beliefs: The ruins of the bridge exemplify the ruin of the world - its stones shall lie where they fell, and it shall never be rebuilt!; I will never forget Ansley's betrayal - it's better that I suffer than the humans prosper; I tire of living in squalor and solitude - why do none of my kin relieve me of my vigil?

Instincts: Always greet those who arrive at the river bank - and lift their purse if I can!; Always point out what is flawed; Sing the Rhyme of the Unraveller when anyone tries to build.


PC 2: Tripp (Age 35 years; City Born, lead to Noble, Bastard, lead to Soldier, Scout, lead to Peasant, Peddler, lead to Outcast, Strider)

Will B5, Perception B4, Agility B4, Speed B4, Forte B4, Power B4

Reflexes B4, Steel B5 (hesitation 5), Health B5, PTGS (Superficial B3, Light B5, Midi B7, Severe B8, Traumatic B9, Mortal Wound B10)

Resources B0, Circles B2, Noble father (the grandson of Ansley) who denies and despises Tripp, Infamous reputation (+1D) among the nobility as the bastard great-grandchild of Ansley the Lion, Affiliation (+1D) with the brave and sturdy woodsfolk of the Welkwood

Skills: Stealthy B3, Foraging B3, Orienteering B2, Observation B4, Mending B2, Sing B2, Etiquette B3, Haggling B4, Persuasion B5, Soothing Platitudes B4, Family Secret-wise B2, Forest-wise B2, Bow B3, Axe B4

Traits: Bastard, Blank Stare, Glib, Happy-Go-Lucky, Loner, Dreamer

Wears the clothes, boots and cloak of a traveller in the woods, and soft leather armour; carries travelling gear, a knife in a belt sheath, a kit for mending, a run-of-the-mill axe and a superior quality hunting bow (+1D).

Tripp has been visited while dreaming by the ghost of Ansley; and Ansley has described how, as the Elven Protectors routed his warband, he hid a pouch of Elven jewels in the foundations of the bridge.

Beliefs: It is a great life, wandering through this wonderful wood; I am not my ancestry; Ansley has visited me for a reason, so I will find the jewels that he cached.

Instinct: Whistle as I walk; Always offer a cheerful greeting; Never start a fight.


Additional setting details: Over the past 70 years, the river's course has shifted and the place where Ansley hid the jewels is now a couple of feet under the water, below Dagoliir's dwelling-hall. The jewels are a +3D fund.

As well as the stones in the river, there are also Dagoliir's old shoes. He lost them wading through the river during the battle 70 years ago. Being Elven shoes, while they are wet and damaged they can be mended.

 

[pemerton]

Conflict--tension, problems--shouldn't rise all the time anyway. Players and GMs get burnt out and it makes the issue unimportant.

I assume you are stating your experience and preference here.

If you mean that, of course, there will be local moments of resolution from time to time, well that is true. But if you mean that there should be significant periods of low- or no-stakes play, I don't share that preference.

You're assuming that conflict = combat and that's not the case.

No I'm not. As I think would be apparent from various examples of play that I've posted.

But RPGing that spends a of time on low- or no-stakes play - eg shopping, discussing niceties while drinking tea, etc - does not involve rising conflict.

If there's no known exit, then you have the PC/player not only create the meaning out of nowhere, but you quite possibly had them determine the shape of the dungeon by creating, or at least pointing out, the exit--something they should have no knowledge of. Neither the PCs nor players created the dungeon. They were not its architects or builders. Why on earth would they know where anything is? Why should they?

The PCs didn't create anything in the dungeon. They discovered it, were exploring it, and got lost in it.

The players established various things about the dungeon. You ask why should they? I answer, why shouldn't they? Making stuff up, in the context of RPGing, is fun. It's one of the points of the hobby. (At least for me.)

You're almost certainly trying to put a square peg in a round hole here by using MHRP for fantasy without taking the genre switch into consideration.

Huh? First, there is nothing about the fantasy genre that mandates map and key resolution. I ran plenty of D&D 4e without map-and-key resolution (unless you want to tell me I was doing that wrong too).

Second, the Cortex+ Hacker's Guide, which is what I drew on to develop my fantasy variant, sets out a fantasy variant of MHRP. And here is Cam Banks reply to one of my actual play reports:

This is really great!

Cheers,
Cam

So if you have a problem, take it up with Cam Banks and team. (Maybe you think he doesn't understand the game either?)

I don't understand your apparent obsession with telling me that I don't know how to play RPGs that you seem not to be familiar with, and that I have extensive experience with.