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

[Umbran]

I’m only aware of one person not getting it!

Mod Note:

At this time, your posting pattern here looks less like someone who is trying to learn things, or make something useful, and more like someone who is trying to antagonize others while maintaining plausible deniability.

So, maybe do something about that, before it is decided that denials won't be particularly plausible.

 

[Maxperson]

There are all sorts of board games where that's true. Asymetrical board games have been around for years. Good grief, Heroquest has been around since '89. GW has made an entire empire out of that sort of thing.

I would hardly call them role playing games though. What people call Thespian play, or whatnot isn't actually required to play RPG's. And, again, I'd point out there are a shopping list of games where the players are allowed roles within the game that aren't assuming any sort of personality in the game world. Any meta-currency mechanics ignores any sort of role assumption.

Yes, the game changes if you play a fighter or a cleric. But, Father Generic and Fy Tor go into the dungeon, kill stuff and go back to town, all without a single word of anything approaching role assumption or pretending to inhabit the character's head is hardly a new concept in RPG's. That's the way the game was originally played for a LONG time.

You take on no roles in hero quest. You do take on roles in a roleplaying game. Even the gamists. Being gamist doesn't equate to treating D&D like Heroquest.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Since there was quite literally nothing quantum about it, I don't get it, no. Hard to get something that has nothing to do with the words written down.

Earlier in the thread, you used the word "quantum" to describe a play style that you don't like. Others expressed frustration with that term to describe their style, and explained why they did not feel it was appropriate or accurate.

You then continued to use it, insisting that it was correct and accurate.

So, the reason I made the joke was to point out to you how you are guilty of what you are now decrying.

 

[Maxperson]

Earlier in the thread, you used the word "quantum" to describe a play style that you don't like.

No I didn't. I described the resolution process of using an unrelated(no immediate connection) die roll in that moment to determine if a cook was behind the door or somewhere else, rendering her both there and not there until that resolution concluded, as "quantum."

It wasn't because I don't like the playstyle. It's not my thing, but I have no dislike of the existence of that playstyle.

The "quantum" portion was illustrating one part that doesn't work for us. The other part is tying character skill to whether she's there or not. It doesn't take any longer and isn't any louder in D&D for an unskilled lock picker to try and pick the lock than a highly skilled one. Both can do it in 6 seconds, and with the same tools doing the same things, yet the unskilled lock picker is more likely to encounter the cook.

 

[AlViking]

Earlier in the thread, you used the word "quantum" to describe a play style that you don't like. Others expressed frustration with that term to describe their style, and explained why they did not feel it was appropriate or accurate.

You then continued to use it, insisting that it was correct and accurate.

So, the reason I made the joke was to point out to you how you are guilty of what you are now decrying.

The complaint was that the cook only existed depending on some event. Much like light is quantum and in the double slit experiment* and behaves differently one way if it's measured and another if it's not (particle vs wave), the cook existed or not because of rolling failure or success. That's different from the quantum ogre that will appear no matter where you go because the GM has decided you will have a specific encounter whether you like it or not.

I don't use quantum cook any more (I may have used it once or twice because to me it acts like the double slit light experiments) since it bothers some people. I don't remember anyone has used the term in a long time starting shortly after it sunk in that people were taking offense. If they do, you should call them out. That's different from what @Maxperson was talking about - people raise concerns and rather than just choose a different phrasing some people double down on it or blame the people offended for being too thin skinned.

*If you really want to question our understanding of reality it gets even weirder, all particles consider all possible paths simultaneously , a Veratasium video.

 

[Faolyn]

There is no "the GM's role in PbtA games". The role of the MC in Apocalypse World is pretty clear from the rulebook, and it involves prepping threats and fronts (after the first session). There is no reference to prepping situations. Maybe you're thinking of Dogs in the Vineyard?

I honestly can't tell if you're being pedantic about phrasing here or my use of the word GM instead of MC. Maybe you're unaware of the fact that there are PbtA games out there that don't use the word MC. Maybe you forgot that you quoted the line in question and aren't aware that "situation" means "a set of circumstances" and therefore the two words can be used interchangeably.

Also, MC = GM. Just like Keeper = GM and Storyteller = GM. Same purpose, same role. They use different terms for the sake of mood or to be different. The fact that you said that there is an MC's role means you're aware that there's a GM's role. The only difference is in what actions the GM can take in each game.

Maybe you can stop being so nitpicky and actually deal with what I wrote instead pretending to be stymied by a marginally different word. If you don't want to deal with what I wrote, then don't reply at all; this obnoxious "you said X when you really meant X" is tiresome.

This question doesn't make any sense. It equates an event at the table (making a roll) with a state of affairs in the fiction (the existence of an exit).

Which is what happens. Player/character separation is not meant for you to pretend that what your PC does isn't determined by what the player says that the PC does. You like to say that the game is imaginary. That means it would have to be imagined by someone--the players.

Or to use your example: a player made a roll at the table; as a result, the runes meant what the players wanted it to/hoped it would mean in the fiction.

You may as well ask, of a group using the DMG Appendix A random dungeon generation, "Was the corridor/door/room/whatever there all the time, or did you have to roll for it?" Like, yes?

Pretty sure that the people who made those tables did so with the belief that the GM would be using them to make the dungeon before the game started, not during play. So yes, the object was put there before the players ever entered the dungeon. And even if they were meant to be used during the game, they would still be rolled before, or at least during the time that the PCs actually entered the area, so the door would still be there before the PC asked about it.

What you're saying is that the player would roll to see if their hopes came true and there is a door, and if so, the GM would then have to keep rolling on the Random Dungeon Generator until they got a result that included a door. Or they roll to see if their hopes that the runes meant exit were true, they were, and the GM had to keep rolling on the Random Rune Translation Table until they got the result that meant exit. Which is obviously a rock-stupid way to go about things. Either the GM placed the door there ahead of time, or they didn't, the PC determined there was a door, and the GM then placed it (without rolling on a random table). One or the other.

 

[TwoSix]

Maybe you can stop being so nitpicky and actually deal with what I wrote instead pretending to be stymied by a marginally different word. If you don't want to deal with what I wrote, then don't reply at all; this obnoxious "you said X when you really meant X" is tiresome.

The point being made had nothing to do with "GM" and "MC" being (or not being) synonymous.

The point was that you can't create a general category of "GM's role in PbtA games" because the different games under the umbrella of "PbtA" have very different expectations of what the GM's role is.

The pivot from sentence 1 to sentence 2 in your quoted post (post #15522) was from "PbtA" generally to "Apocalypse World" specifically, not a pivot from the term "MC" to "GM".

 

[hawkeyefan]

No I didn't. I described the resolution process of using an unrelated(no immediate connection) die roll in that moment to determine if a cook was behind the door or somewhere else, rendering her both there and not there until that resolution concluded, as "quantum."

It wasn't because I don't like the playstyle. It's not my thing, but I have no dislike of the existence of that playstyle.

The "quantum" portion was illustrating one part that doesn't work for us. The other part is tying character skill to whether she's there or not. It doesn't take any longer and isn't any louder in D&D for an unskilled lock picker to try and pick the lock than a highly skilled one. Both can do it in 6 seconds, and with the same tools doing the same things, yet the unskilled lock picker is more likely to encounter the cook.

I’m just saying… if you think everyone needs to adjust their chosen language based on the feelings of others, then you have a strange way of showing it.

 

[Maxperson]

I’m just saying… if you think everyone needs to adjust their chosen language based on the feelings of others, then you have a strange way of showing it.

I don't require anyone to change. I'm just pointing out that if they use disparaging comment, their "support" of the style is suspect, and that if people here on the forum use those terms, they are self-sabotaging their own posts/threads. They are using terminology that is pretty much guaranteed to derail things and focus the thread on the terminology instead of the meat of the post/thread.

Use disparaging terms or not. That's up to you. Just don't expect things to go well when you attack other playstyles like that.

 

[Maxperson]

The complaint was that the cook only existed depending on some event. Much like light is quantum and in the double slit experiment* and behaves differently one way if it's measured and another if it's not (particle vs wave), the cook existed or not because of rolling failure or success. That's different from the quantum ogre that will appear no matter where you go because the GM has decided you will have a specific encounter whether you like it or not.

I don't use quantum cook any more (I may have used it once or twice because to me it acts like the double slit light experiments) since it bothers some people. I don't remember anyone has used the term in a long time starting shortly after it sunk in that people were taking offense. If they do, you should call them out. That's different from what @Maxperson was talking about - people raise concerns and rather than just choose a different phrasing some people double down on it or blame the people offended for being too thin skinned.

*If you really want to question our understanding of reality it gets even weirder, all particles consider all possible paths simultaneously , a Veratasium video.

That's an interesting video.