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

[The Firebird]

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.

It's also not how I play, outside of establishing background information in session 0. In that case it's ok for everyone to take a more GM sort of role.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

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

I'm not incredulous, I know people play D&D lots of different ways. I've been round a long time, and I pay attention. I am incredulous that anyone feels the need to argue that their way is in any way better.

 

[The Firebird]

There is no difference between "confirming" and "making it up".

There is a massive difference. If I call to confirm a reservation and they make up a different time, for example.

It seems to the view of gaming that views these two as identical has some significant unstated assumptions, like "nothing can be considered real until it is introduced to everyone at the table". It would do to be more upfront in that regard.

 

[Thomas Shey]

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.

I've seen people get sticky about players defining, even fairly broadly, NPCs in the village their character grew up in. Its really incredibly bright-line for some people (I don't know how they'd engage with the necessary expansions you need to do when creating most characters in a superhero setting).

 

[Micah Sweet]

It's also not how I play, outside of establishing background information in session 0. In that case it's ok for everyone to take a more GM sort of role.

Yup. For me, session zero is when everyone at the table contributes to the setting, whether directly related to their PC or possibly otherwise. After that, the players are inhabiting their PCs and the GM is inhabiting everything else.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I've seen people get sticky about players defining, even fairly broadly, NPCs in the village their character grew up in. Its really incredibly bright-line for some people (I don't know how they'd engage with the necessary expansions you need to do when creating most characters in a superhero setting).

Personally I've always carved out an exception for superhero settings in regards to that stuff. Whole different kind of play for me.

 

[FrogReaver]

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

I think it’s an important component. By no means is it everything or even the most important component.

 

[Maxperson]

Moreover, in households from medieval times all the way up through the Victorian era, servants were never supposed to be seen by residents in most cases, unless they were direct personal servants. Messes were, in effect, supposed to seem like they magically cleaned themselves, with entire staircases, hallways, etc. all present, almost a shadow household to keep the servants out of sight. Many of them would do the majority of their work only after the "masters" had gone to bed.

So the idea that you have a cook--or some other servant--awake at 2:30 doing something generally in that area? Not only possible, extremely likely because of the social mores of medieval, renaissance, and early-modern Europe.

So the cook(not maid) would be up at 2:30am for some reason, but wouldn't be around to serve and prepare breakfast, lunch or dinner because they shouldn't be seen?

 

[FrogReaver]

How probably does it have to be? If I were reading a book or watching a movie, and the cook was in the kitchen late I wouldn't say this is a verisimilitude buster. Even if it happens one night a week it happens.

The precise line is going to vary by person. There’s also additional context of it not just being a single cook in a single kitchen over 20 hours of gaming. Complications like that are presumably much more common. Though we can’t even get to an idea of how common they are when their existence is outright denied.

You brought literature so Imagine some about winning the lottery which can happen. As premise for a story primarily about other things or about exploring someone that wins the lottery it’s probably fine. As the solution to a particular conflict in the story it’s going to ring hollow because of the greater degree of implausibility. That’s essentially the difference and importance.

 

[AlViking]

What makes this different from the DM rolling on a random encounter table? This seems even more related than the previous examples, because now it's (quite literally) a direct connection. Failing to pick a lock nearly guarantees that you've spent a lot of time trying. You don't spend two seconds and then realize "oh, unpickable". That stuff takes time. And time spent locked down, in one specific place, doing something that does make noise, is one of the greatest risks to a would-be thief. That's why locks exist. Locks don't guarantee people can't get in. They make getting in sufficiently slow and onerous that burglars decide to burgle elsewhere.

For goodness' sake, this roll IS specifically tied both diegetically and physically to whether or not someone MIGHT get discovered. That's literally the physical reason why locks exist! This has greater similarity to what locks truly do! It has the form of truth! It IS VERISIMILITUDINOUS!

I'm assuming you do not have alzheimers or some other memory issue so I don't see any reason to repeat the back and forth yet again.