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

[Emerikol]

As a random encounter? No problem. Added as a result of a failed attempt to open a lock when it takes the same amount of time, makes the same amount of noise? That's why I wouldn't do it.

That is an argument against the mechanism and not the plausibility. Remember my original quote said I probably agree overall with the viewpoint but the implausibility argument is a bad one.

 

[Emerikol]

Folks just so you know, bad logic bugs me even when my "team" uses it. I will point it out even if I agree with the overall position of the person using the bad logic.

 

[clearstream]

That is an argument against the mechanism and not the plausibility. Remember my original quote said I probably agree overall with the viewpoint but the implausibility argument is a bad one.

Well put. I take a similar view. To me, the distinctions worth understanding are not about the (im)plausibility of 2am cooks in kitchens.

 

[Maxperson]

Sometimes, the players say things that get very close to the line. Usually this happens when the MC asks a leading question.

​

MC: "Nero, what do the slave traders use for barter?"​

Player: "Oh man, those bleeps? They use human ears."​

​

That's a case of the player authoring part of the world outside their character, however -- and this is critical -- they do it from within their character's experience and frame of reference. When Nero answers that question, he's telling something he knows about the world.​

The player is not authoring it through the character, though. The player is authoring it outside of the game and then afterwards expressing it through the character. It's the player, not the character that is directly authoring new content for the world.

Authoring new content through a character would be something like a player using a wish spell to create something new. If a wizard used a wish spell to alter the world so that the traders stopped using gold for barter, but instead used ears, would be an example of authoring new content through the PC.

Earlier in the game you guys wondered what game allowed the player to directly author world content, and here you are giving an example of that. I suspect that most narrative games that allow players to author content are similar. The player directly creates new content and then it is brought out through the PC somehow.

 

[clearstream]

@Faolyn is it right that you mean that for all RPGs "only the GM can legitimately author parts of the world outside the players' characters" or do you mean that for some modes of play that you are defending, that must be the case?

 

[Maxperson]

By quantum do you mean the roll fixes not just the present situation but also the past situation?

Like I don’t view an attack roll as the same because it only effects the present.

I’m sure there’s more as well, but this might be a good starting point.

When it comes to wandering monsters the question is, is the monster going to go through that spot at that time, yes or no? We don't know yet. If the roll comes up yes, then that monster will be wandering past that spot at that time whether the players show up there or not. If the roll comes up no, then the monster will not be wandering past that spot at that time whether the players show up there or not. Before the roll the monster both is there and isn't there. After the roll it's fixed into the game fiction that there the monster is there or isn't there.

The attack roll is a very good point. To me an attack roll would be similar in that before the roll there are two unknown outcomes either of which could be true until the roll fixes one of them into the game reality. And it would be player rolled. Saves would be another example.

Maybe my issue is with player rolls controlling things that are beyond his character's control, like where an NPC will be in a house he is approaching, but not with things his character does control directly like who he is swinging his two handed sword at.

 

[TwoSix]

The player is not authoring it through the character, though. The player is authoring it outside of the game and then afterwards expressing it through the character. It's the player, not the character that is directly authoring new content for the world.

Authoring new content through a character would be something like a player using a wish spell to create something new. If a wizard used a wish spell to alter the world so that the traders stopped using gold for barter, but instead used ears, would be an example of authoring new content through the PC.

Earlier in the game you guys wondered what game allowed the player to directly author world content, and here you are giving an example of that. I suspect that most narrative games that allow players to author content are similar. The player directly creates new content and then it is brought out through the PC somehow.

So you're basically saying that a character making a diegetic statement about the campaign setting that already hasn't been introduced is player authoring?

Do you really not do that? That's just play. That's how I've played D&D for 30 years.

 

[Maxperson]

How dare you leave me out! ~ Captain Cook.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

So you're basically saying that a character making a diegetic statement about the campaign setting that already hasn't been introduced is player authoring?

Well, someone is authoring, who do you say it is?

Do you really not do that? That's just play. That's how I've played D&D for 30 years.

I don't do that. And that's how I've played D&D for 43 years.

 

[TwoSix]

Well, someone is authoring, who do you say it is?

I don't do that. And that's how I've played D&D for 43 years.

Which is probably why these conversations are so often laced with incredulity.