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

[el-remmen]

I just want to state for the record that I would very happily try games run by either @hawkeyefan or @Maxperson

 

[Maxperson]

Except that the determination to not run away has nothing to do with playing "in character" but, with whatever is most advantageous to the player. Running away makes a LOT of sense when a beholder just disintegrated your friend. Running away when you are already wounded and baddies are closing in is very much in character. Believing an NPC or not because you Dungeon Master doesn't make what you feel, not your character, what YOU feel, is a compelling argument is 100% not playing "in character".

The dice provide the direction. You provide the script. By never allowing the dice to determine the mental state of your character and insisting that you, and only you, can ever do that, combined with the fact that you just said that players will never accept any outcome that is disadvantageous to themselves, means that no player actually ever plays in character. Players will always do the cost/benefit analysis and choose the best option. That's not "method acting". That's very much not playing a personality.

To me, not allowing for the dice to influence how a character behaves is far more immersive breaking. It means that characters act very implausibly all the time.

I want to preface this by saying I can't see who you are talking to, so this might be completely out of context.

The determination to run away can be 100% in character, 100% out of character, or any combination of the above. Going with the beholder example, sure it would absolutely make sense to run away when a companion was just disintegrated. It would also 100% make sense to stand to the death if you are a paladin dedicated to protecting the helpless and said beholder is on the way to an orphanage. It very much depends on the game circumstances, who the character is, and also the player involved(because sometimes the player will want a result and then try to justify it later in character).

I also want to disagree with whoever you are talking to if they said that players will never accept(assuming accept means to initiate it themselves in roleplay) any outcome that is disadvantageous to themselves. I see that all the time in my group and others I play in, and I've done it myself.

That's why I hate the dice being able to affect myself or players in general when I play in a game. The dice are far more likely to force the PC's action to be out of character if social skills are allowed to mind control PCs into doing things. I know how my character would react to various situations. The dice can't, and for me randomness isn't an acceptable alternative to knowing the character well.

 

[Hussar]

Agreed. My issue with such rules is that they're asymmetrical; that they apply to NPCs but not to PCs.

Sultion: take those rules out completely so they don't apply to anyone.

Ugh. The worst of all worlds. The only way I can convince an NPC is if I game the DM and hope that whatever reading I have of the DM gives me the results I want.

I thought you insisted on a neutral DM? What could possibly be more neutral than following mechanics?

 

[AlViking]

I just want to state for the record that I would very happily try games run by either @hawkeyefan or @Maxperson

I think it would be quite interesting for people on the opposite side of many discussions to get together and play couple of sessions with each other - each side exemplifying their approach. I think in actual play our games may not be so different or, even if they are different, even if we still don't agree with each other on much of anything, we might come to a better understanding.

Also, on the bright side since it would likely have to be remote we couldn't come to blows.

 

[Hussar]

That's why I hate the dice being able to affect myself or players in general when I play in a game. The dice are far more likely to force the PC's action to be out of character if social skills are allowed to mind control PCs into doing things. I know how my character would react to various situations. The dice can't, and for me randomness isn't an acceptable alternative to knowing the character well.

And yet, you have zero problem with dice determining every single other element of the game. It tells you how good a warrior you are, how knowledgeable your wizard is, how pious your priest is. But, giving you direction over how gullible you are is not acceptable?

The level of double standards of conservative gamers is just mind blowing.

 

[Hussar]

I think it would be quite interesting for people on the opposite side of many discussions to get together and play couple of sessions with each other - each side exemplifying their approach. I think in actual play our games may not be so different or, even if they are different, even if we still don't agree with each other on much of anything, we might come to a better understanding.

Also, on the bright side since it would likely have to be remote we couldn't come to blows.

The thing is, you're assuming none of us HAVE played with DM's like what the other side claims as priorities. Heck, I used to BE a DM that would have agreed 100% with everything you've said, once upon a time. You seem to think that our preferences are born out of ignorance, yet, get really, really annoyed when people point to your complete lack of experience with other types of games as a source of your perceptions.

 

[Maxperson]

And yet, you have zero problem with dice determining every single other element of the game. It tells you how good a warrior you are, how knowledgeable your wizard is, how pious your priest is. But, giving you direction over how gullible you are is not acceptable?

The level of double standards of conservative gamers is just mind blowing.

There is no double standard here, because those things are not equivalent with decision making. As a warrior I decide when and who to attack, and which ability to use, not the dice. As a wizard, I decide when I want to see if I know something, pick my proficiencies, etc., not the dice. Same with other aspects of the game that don't involve the PCs agency.

It's only the loss of agency over decision making caused by social skills working on PCs that the issue.

 

[Hussar]

There is no double standard here, because those things are not equivalent with decision making. As a warrior I decide when and who to attack, and which ability to use, not the dice. As a wizard, I decide when I want to see if I know something, pick my proficiencies, etc., not the dice. Same with other aspects of the game that don't involve the PCs agency.

It's only the loss of agency over decision making caused by social skills working on PCs that the issue.

But, the dice tell you how well you attack. The dice tell you whether or not you know something. You're saying that what your wizard knows isn't part of your character? You don't know what you character knows, but, you absolutely know 100% of the mental state of the character? How does that work?

Like I said, the double standard is so deeply ingrained in traditional gaming that people don't even see it anymore. It's no problem for the mechanics to say, "No, you actually AREN'T the greatest swordsman" as you whiff simple attacks multiple times. "No, you aren't all that knowledgeable about the workings of magic" as you fail multiple times to recall simple information about the arcane. "No, you aren't actually all that true to your god" as the dice declare that everything resists your Command spells.

But, "No, you believe that charlatan" is apparently completely off the table for mechanics.

Like I said, and I know this is just a preference, I get that, to me, the dice provide the direction, I provide the script.

 

[AlViking]

The thing is, you're assuming none of us HAVE played with DM's like what the other side claims as priorities. Heck, I used to BE a DM that would have agreed 100% with everything you've said, once upon a time. You seem to think that our preferences are born out of ignorance, yet, get really, really annoyed when people point to your complete lack of experience with other types of games as a source of your perceptions.

I was just trying to acknowledge that we're talking about a game. Maybe different games, different approaches, different preferences. Much like I admit I'm not going to be the GM for everyone, not every game is going to be for me either. That's perfectly fine. I have played, read up on, watched streams from other games. I don't have as much variety as some of the people on this forum, but I doubt that more than a small fraction of people that play TTRPGs could say they have.

I was attempting to extend a hand as a token of acknowledging that in many ways we have more in common than we have different. I don't know why you feel compelled to spit on it.

 

[AlViking]

But, the dice tell you how well you attack. The dice tell you whether or not you know something. You're saying that what your wizard knows isn't part of your character? You don't know what you character knows, but, you absolutely know 100% of the mental state of the character? How does that work?

I don't see an issue with a bit of wish fulfillment and playing out the fantasy of a character that is in control of their emotions when we're in a world where people feel like they have control over so little.