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

[EzekielRaiden]

Your character's collection of ancient photos isn't sacrosanct in my game, and I don't need the player's permission to mess with those photos. I won't just arbitrarily declare they're destroyed in a fire but, if there is a fire for some reason, then your photos may well burn.

Entirely separate from the (IMO spurious) one-true-way accusations, what exactly is gained from this?

I'm not saying you should somehow warp every law and concept of reality--if the player herself puts her things at risk, that's her fault. But what is gained about having such a cavalier attitude toward the core things that make a character interesting to the player? What is gained by saying, "There could be circumstances where I will take away the things that make you enjoy your character because it would be realistic." What benefit is that? That seems to run precisely counter to the claim--stated repeatedly by numerous different people, including in that "new simulation" manifesto--that the players themselves are always more important than any other consideration, period.

What are you providing--to the players, to yourself--by reserving this right to destroy the things that make them enjoy their characters?

 

[Maxperson]

I don't understand this emerging view that it is unreasonable for a RPG to set out principles for players and GMs.

It's not a new thing. It can be found in quite early RPG rulebooks, like Gygax's AD&D books and Moldvay Basic. I believe it is also found in recent D&D rulebooks (eg the DMG). I've found some on DnD Beyond.

The following is from p 114 of the Apocalypse World rulebook:

• Be a fan of the players’ characters. “Make the characters’ lives not boring” does not mean “always worse.” Sometimes worse, sure, of course. Always? Definitely not.​

​

The worst way there is to make a character’s life more interesting is to take away the things that made the character cool to begin with. The gunlugger’s guns, but also the gunlugger’s collection of ancient photographs — what makes the character match our expectations and also what makes the character rise above them. Don’t take those away.​

​

The other worst way is to deny the character success when the character’s fought for it and won it. Always give the characters what they work for! No, the way to make a character’s success interesting is to make it consequential. When a character accomplishes something, have all of your NPCs respond. Reevaluate all those PC–NPC–PC triangles you’ve been creating. Whose needs change? Whose opinions change? Who was an enemy, but now is afraid; who was an enemy, but now sees better opportunities as an ally? Let the characters’ successes make waves outward, let them topple the already unstable situation. There are no status quos in Apocalypse World! Even life doesn’t always suck.​

​

“Make as hard and direct a move as you like” means just that. As hard and direct as you like. It doesn’t mean “make the worst move you can think of.” Apocalypse World is already out to get the players’ characters. So are the game’s rules. If you, the MC, are out to get them too, they’re plain [in trouble].​

​

This goes for highlighting stats, too. When you highlight a character’s stats, try to choose one that’ll show off who the character is. Switch up often — for certain don’t just choose the lowest stat and stick with it — and try to make sure that the character usually has at least one high stat highlighted.​

As this indicates, the principle be a fan of the players' characters interacts with the principle make the players' characters' lives not boring. It helps guide how to make those lives not boring.

I don't see how it is supposed to be objectionable.

I also note that it is not a principle that would have any work to do in, say, GMing a module like Tomb of Horrors. It's a principle that, together with makes the players' characters' lives not boring, applies in the context of a particular RPG, that is a very long way away from ToH, in respect of intended play experience, particular techniques to be used, etc.

It's not objectionable. It's irrelevant. Far, far, FAR more important than the characters' lives, is the players' enjoyment. When the players are having fun, the characters' lives are not boring.

I don't need some funkily named redundant rule.

 

[SableWyvern]

And who has made that claim?

I don't know. Possibly no one in this thread. I'm not about to go scouring the internet looking for the names of people who have; I'm simply making sure my position is clear.

As I mentioned, it seems to me that people suggesting that all GMs should be fans of the players are either pushing an idea that their preference is best or have watered the phrase down so much it's not especially useful. I'm simply addressing both possibilities.

 

[SableWyvern]

Entirely separate from the (IMO spurious) one-true-way accusations, what exactly is gained from this?

I'm not saying you should somehow warp every law and concept of reality--if the player herself puts her things at risk, that's her fault. But what is gained about having such a cavalier attitude toward the core things that make a character interesting to the player? What is gained by saying, "There could be circumstances where I will take away the things that make you enjoy your character because it would be realistic." What benefit is that? That seems to run precisely counter to the claim--stated repeatedly by numerous different people, including in that "new simulation" manifesto--that the players themselves are always more important than any other consideration, period.

What are you providing--to the players, to yourself--by reserving this right to destroy the things that make them enjoy their characters?

I am providing what my players want and enjoy -- a world where they know they generally don't have any kind of plot immunity and where the world doesn't do them any favours just because they're PCs.

Edit: I haven't read the "new simulation" manifesto and, as such, should certainly not be treated as a supporter of it. Nor do I see what other people's claims about how they run their games (even if made by numerous people or stated repeatedly by them) have to do with the way I run my game, nor why you expect me to justify my position in light of a position held by people who are not me.

 

[Lanefan]

But it's not actually 10 seconds, is it?

Implied in this dialogue is a whole lot of other stuff: maintaining lists of gear and of money, to begin with.

Well, yes; if you don't have it listed on your character sheet then your character doesn't have it. And I'd likely port this requirement into a system like BitD as well, to replace its equipment-slot system that (IMO far too generously) allows you to "have what you need" as long as you still have a slot left.

I mean hell, isn't part of planning a heist supposed to include determining and sourcing the gear you think you'll need before setting out on said heist?

And that's before we spend time on whatever is going on with Jocasta.

Which may or may not have anything to do with gear and inventory. If we're in downtime, odds are high someone's going to be training and if so I-as-DM often need to take a few minutes and help sort out what comes with the new level.

 

[Lanefan]

Lanefan and Max, you can honestly say you are not a fan of any of the PCs at the table in which you run games?

Not in the way I define "fan", no.

A fan is someone who cheers for the team no matter what, and always wants the best for it.

If you always want the best for the PCs and yet are also in the position of supplying their opposition, you're in a hard-line conflict of interest.

Do you not find ways to include PC background in setting story?

Finding ways to bring their backgrounds into play is the players' job, not mine. And as a player, I see it that way also: it's my job to bring my character's background etc. into play if-when it makes sense to do so.

Do you not find ways to be supportive to associated NPCs including animal companions, familiars, constructs, intelligent weapons etc?

Not sure what you mean by this. I play NPCs true to themselves, as far as I can, which may or may not work in the PCs' favour dependingon the specifics of any given NPC. We don't do animal companions, and familiars are very rare; I usually leave it up to the player to run their character's familiar if it has one.

Intelligent weapons are just NPCs in a different form. Constructs are always (potential) foes, and the only interaction with them, if any, is combat.

Do you not find ways to align or interweave PC goals/desires with setting story?

Again, that's on the players to drive, not me. If for example a player has a specific goal or desire for a character and can convince the rest of the party to help with it, and then goes and does somehting about said goal or desire, then that's what I'll DM.

Adhering to story and setting logic for the above is a given.

Yes.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I am providing what my players want and enjoy -- a world where they know they generally don't have any kind of plot immunity and where the world doesn't do them any favours just because they're PCs.

Edit: I haven't read the "new simulation" manifesto and, as such, should certainly not be treated as a supporter of it. Nor do I see what other people's claims about how they run their games (even if made by numerous people or stated repeatedly by them) have to do with the way I run my game, nor why you expect me to justify my position in light of a position held by people who are not me.

My apologies.

I presumed, totally inappropriately, that you were participating in a conversation, rather than shouting into the void.

As such, I now know any further interaction is completely pointless.

 

[SableWyvern]

Well, yes; if you don't have it listed on your character sheet then your character doesn't have it. And I'd likely port this requirement into a system like BitD as well, to replace its equipment-slot system that (IMO far too generously) allows you to "have what you need" as long as you still have a slot left.

I mean hell, isn't part of planning a heist supposed to include determining and sourcing the gear you think you'll need before setting out on said heist?

Half the reason Blades in the Dark exists is because John Harper hates planning, of any sort. The reason the equipment system works the way it does is to support the fact the players aren't meant to be doing any planning; you just assume the characters did it and then jump into the action in media res.

At the end of the day, I'd say it's safe to say there is almost nothing about the way Blades actually plays that would be of interest to you. I'm sure you could run a heist game in Doskvol, but I see no reason you'd want to use any of the actual mechanics from Blades.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

My take was the other way, but it wasn't me, so I can't say for sure. That said...

This is wrong. Sometimes circumstances are such that the most pragmatic thing you can do is act impulsively or unthinkingly, etc. Most pragmatic for circumstances doesn't equate to always being some level of pragmatic. Circumstances matter a great deal.

Not really. Both statements by both people could be read to an extreme or with moderation. I was just showing the moderation to your extreme for @Enrahim and the extreme to your moderation of @two70six.

Most likely neither was at the extreme.

And yet in so doing, as noted, you have disregarded what both of them actually SAID.

Forgive me for hoping that a conversation involves listening to the words people do, in fact, use.

 

[Lanefan]

You think that is what RPGs mean when they say be a fan of the PCs?
Make sure they succeed or stack it heavily in their favour?

That may not be what they intend it to mean but it's what comes across in print through use of that phrase.