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

[Enrahim]

Just calling them the same thing does not make them the same thing. The actual impact of the agenda and principle outlined is night and day in terms of its resulting impact on play. Your distillation isn't about the character's live or who they are as people. It's about their adventures.

I actually wanted to bring attention to a deeper point: The ideas behind those passages in the new games isn't new. However the way these same ideas play out is wastly different when they make contact with a new set of mechanics and purpose of play.

I think this is where a lot of the confusion come from - look at the heading and think that somehow can work as a short for what come under. What come under is an explenation of the heading in the context of this game. So if the heading is invoked in the context of that game what stands under that heading in the rulebook applies.

However quoting the heading in the context of a different game and believing that whatever was under the heading in that first game book should somehow be applicable (or even comprehensible) in context of the other game is missing the point. Even worse trying to quote it and think it should be somehow applicable (or even comprehensible) as a statement outside the scope of any particular game at all.

And this is what I have seen a lot of, and that I think I finally found a way to call out

If you want to find a way to communicate about for instance the virtues of putting single character's moral dilemas first and foremost in play, or similar - please find a short hand for that that make sense outside the scope of a game (like "focus on single character's ego") - or at least make sure you always attach something like "be fan of the character in the way you are supposed to be fan of the character in <game X>" (very tedious so I recommend the first variant).

 

[Maxperson]

And I disagree with this. To me, this seems like a pretty obvious poor use of the word.

If you create a definable metric of behavior that you could at least describe to someone else (even if you haven't yet), that's OK. But you can't be "faithful" to whatever decisions you might make in the future if there isn't some sort of standard to be faithful to.

Why do you think that something that you set up as a standard in your head for your character somehow isn't a standard or something you can be faithful to? Like if I set up in my head that my character will never harm a child, and he doesn't for his entire career, how is that not 1) a standard, and 2) being faithful to that standard.

I don't understand this line of thinking.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

When one takes these two passages and combines them:

As a player, part of your job is to advocate for your character. But being their advocate doesn’t mean it’s
your job to keep them safe. It’s not. It’s your job to make their life not boring. It’s about figuring out who
they are, what they want, and what they’ll do to get it – even if that exposes them to danger. Your character
can’t emerge triumphant if you aren’t willing to see them through some naughty word.

You share the same agenda as everyone else: make each main character’s life not boring. As the MC, that often means introducing struggle and adversity into their lives. Just remember that your goal is not to thwart them, or to gain some sort of unspoken power over them. The whole reason you’re introducing struggle and adversity is to see how they change under pressure, to watch their brilliance and flaws bubbling up, and to enjoy their story. You’re not here to coddle these characters or to bully them. You’re here to be their fan.


It reads like the GM's job is to provide struggle and adversity without being unfair, which makes sense; but then also reads as though the players are expected to have their PCs embrace this adversity with open arms rather than try to avoid or minimize it, which tells me I-as-player am expected to play my character as an idiot with limited or no sense of (emotional or physical) self-preservation. I mean sure, it's a game about high school and high-schoolers aren't always known for their stupendous wisdom; but even they learn fast enough that "once bitten, twice shy" is a useful way to proceed.

Doesn't it make far more sense that the that the character is going to do what it can to achieve its goals and "emerge triumphant" while taking the path of least resistance to do so?

There's no principle called 'be stupid'. You're reaching. Bringing the conflict to bear on the characters, challenging them, making them get up buckle their boots and get 'er done. That's what this is about. Now, if all a player wants to do is turtle? Yeah that won't work, but going in prepared? That's fine! But if your game is endless sessions of boring mundane junk, that's not interesting! You can make "concoct the antivenin' exciting, even though it is preparing for the real stuff.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Seems to me the player's just taking what the game allows him to take. Nothing "arse" about it.

If you don't want the player to take what the game gives, tweak the game so the game doesn't give it (simply asking the players not to take advantage is exactly the same tweak only soft-coded, might as well just hard-code it and get it over with).

Failing that, if the other players complain about someone having an unfair advantage they should first be looking in the mirror and asking why they themselves didn't think of it first.

I just note how you don't distinguish the interests of the player and the character here. Sure, it's probably advantageous from the character's perspective, but the player has different interests. There's no special correlation between having a character with fictional power/riches/authority and the quality of experience of the game for the player.

 

[The Firebird]

It’s so interesting to me to see this continued emphasis on “it’s more immersive to look to the authority (GM) for all details not from my vetted backstory” when like every game coming out rn is tending further towards creating a collaborative tone and table as the default. I think there’s definitely a continuum of personal ability to engage collaboratively full time from different people, but those of mine who hit the wall a bit seem to generally enjoy even just adding some tidbits on to ideas we throw out there.

I'll emphasize again--my preferences are not due to a lack of ability to engage collaboratively full time. Heard this one a few times now. I've played and run games where the players had more control over the world. I do well as a player and GM in them. It is just a preference.

It is a little disappointing to see this difference in preference framed as 'a continuum of personal ability'.

Regarding the shift in tone of current games--imo that is because the 'fixed world' game is largely a solved problem at this point. The collaborative games being released tend to fit into a similar mold, most commonly FitD or PbtA. But when you want to do a FitD game about pirates, you need new playbooks and new backstory and package it as a new game. When you want to run d&d with pirates, it is a supplement, not a different system.

 

[Faolyn]

I thought I did answer. I want to inhabit my character, experience the world as my character would. I don't want to switch lanes into a different mode of thinking because to me switching from character to world builder is a different mode. The exception is is the GM asks me something about my character's background because then I'm thinking through what important memories and events shaped who they've become.

I hit this lane switching thing once when my wife was DMing - we have a bit of overlap on our shared world now and then and one of my old characters had retired from adventuring and become an NPC teacher. There was a point where she asked me to handle a conversation from the NPC teacher to another player's character who was a student (it was on a topic I was familiar with from our discussions and previous campaigns). So I had to break character from the one I had been playing, put myself into the mindset of my old character and then roleplay that NPC. After the game I told her never to do that again, at least not without checking with me first. But even then I'd probably say no.

When I'm playing a character, the closest I can explain it that I'm method acting. I'm doing my best to become that character. It that's not clear enough, all I can say is that I don't like breaking character to help design the world.

But you're constantly shifting lanes every time you have to roll the dice. Every time you do so, you're reminded that your characters
aren't real and their lives are controlled by little plastic shapes and a set of rules, more so then suddenly switching characters. So how is the world building different from that? And indeed, how "On a 7–9, you still do it, but the GM will offer you two options between suspicion, danger, or cost" worldbuilding?

 

[The Firebird]

But you're constantly shifting lanes every time you have to roll the dice. Every time you do so, you're reminded that your characters
aren't real and their lives are controlled by little plastic shapes and a set of rules, more so then suddenly switching characters. So how is the world building different from that? And indeed, how "On a 7–9, you still do it, but the GM will offer you two options between suspicion, danger, or cost" worldbuilding?

It is about degree. Yes, we all know we are rolling to see if we hit. But if we also get to rule to decide what the runes mean or whether the cook appears, we've taken a step further from the character. Greater distance leads to less immersion.

For example, when I create a world as the GM, I do not feel immersed as any character.

 

[Enrahim]

There's no principle called 'be stupid'. You're reaching. Bringing the conflict to bear on the characters, challenging them, making them get up buckle their boots and get 'er done. That's what this is about. Now, if all a player wants to do is turtle? Yeah that won't work, but going in prepared? That's fine! But if your game is endless sessions of boring mundane junk, that's not interesting! You can make "concoct the antivenin' exciting, even though it is preparing for the real stuff.

I think you miss the point. @Lanefan described a in my eyes completely valid interpretation of the text provided read in isolation. The reading is valid if the character is considered a fixed piece created on session 0 to be handled according to player vision. In this context "It’s your job to make their life not boring" hard to not read as "go seek out trouble". Which is stupid.

I think what make this reading hard for you to see is that you indeed are supposed to not make the make the life not boring not by not seeking out trouble, but by tweaking the parameters mentioned afterwards on the fly as part of play. That is if they find themselves in a high school ball, don't make them act like a fool to cause social drama. Rather you should think if there is something new about who they are, what they want, or what they are willing to do to get it that would introduce drama intro the situation and shape the character according to that. So you are not woing the prom queen as the class nerd because it is your job to make drama. You rather decided the nerd now want to get attention (maybe to some charity previously established as an interest), and then thanks to this decission woing the prom Queen is a smart move.

The key is to shape the character so that the smart thing to do is interesting. This is the same we advice in trad, just that here it happens moment to moment rather than just at character creation.

This subtle but important difference is not clearly conveyed in this quote alone (and possibly not elsewhere either?)

 

[clearstream]

Because it's not about the player - it's about the character, independently of who is playing them. I am fan of the characters in the same way I am of the characters of a show I might watch on television - I am emotionally invested in them, their struggles, who they are as people. I am curious about them. I want to see what decisions they make, the sorts of relationships they form, how they respond to adversity.

When I am acting on be a fan of the main characters I am not concerned with how fun it will be for the player. That's not part of the decision space. Your fun is not my job. Often some of these moments might not be fun in the here and now. What's important is I'm creating space for you to act on the creative priorities we all share.

The separation between player and character fun makes sense, and it is clear the designers are making a localised characterisation: they weem to be stressing that in this game there can be a difference between player and character appetite for risk, willing to show passion, and the like.

Because that is about this specific game, it's not portable into a wider conversation. Not every game fail forward appears in is necessarily concerned with the exact same separation. And not every game using simple fail is bound to avoid that same separation. I can see how fail forward works with it, but fail forward is also distinct from it.

 

[clearstream]

Doing things that make sense isn't the goal. The goal is to craft an interesting story. It's hard to create an interesting story around a character who always makes the most rational, pragmatic decision possible.

I mean, you tell anecdotes about your characters, or others in your group, making crazy decisions all the time. Why wouldn't you want a system that encourages you to play how you want to play already?

How does GM introducing complications on failure encourage you to take risks or display passion any more than GM not introducing complications on failure?