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

[Hussar]

/snip
As for the players exercising mind control over the NPCs. Yes they are. They are diminishing MY agency when they do that. However, since I control 10 billion and 1 NPCs, the amount of agency I lose is a tiny fraction of 1%. Since players control only one being, the loss of agency is 100%. I'm find with a microfractional loss of agency. I'm not fine with complete loss of agency.
/snip

But that NPC will likely only be present in the campaign for a tiny fraction of time. That PC will be present (barring unforeseen circumstances) in every scene throughout the campaign. There's no difference in the scale. That NPC loses 100% of their agency, but, that's okay because you have so many NPC's. That PC loses agency, but, that's okay because you have so many interactions and time with that character.

Again, I'm failing to see the difference. In both cases, you're losing a "microfractional" amount of agency.

Again, nothing about this is forcing you to play your character in a way that is untrue to the character. It's that the mechanics provide the direction. How you interpret that direction is still up to you.

I'll admit though, I'm in the minority here. This ship has sailed a LONG time ago. There's no way that the fandom will ever allow this sort of thing in baseline D&D. Granted, in my current campaign, I have insanity rules, which means it's entirely plausible that your character will act in all sorts of bizarre fashions. And, I like games like FATE where you have Aspects and the DM can invoke that Aspect to compel you to play the character you created. Huge fan of those sorts of mechanics.

 

[Lanefan]

That's also not how it works.

OK, do you know the term whump as used in fanfic?

That's a new one on me, but then the whole world of fanfic is a land in which I don't tread so this doesn't surprise me any.

If not, it's basically how some (many) fanfic writers will put their characters through hell. So it's kind of like that--you're a fan of the PCs, so you keep putting them in hard situations that they have to struggle through so they can have a chance to shine by overcoming them. You make their lives interesting. If they drop dead, they should doing so because they went out being awesome, not because they got unlucky on a roll.

That's a different motive than I have. I'm not here to "give them a chance to shine", I'm here to provide the opposition and challenges and obstacles and if they happen to shine in their overcoming of same then fine: so be it.

Also, you keep forgetting that you are not their opposition. You and the players are working together. If your players lose because you use your GM powers to keep them from doing cool things, then you lose as well.

Last night I threw five Giants at them. One character died (not permanently), in part because my dice got hot and I don't pull punches. I don't think the players exactly saw that combat as us "working together"!

I'm the opposition. As such, it's my job and duty to make their lives miserable now and then; which is much easier done if I'm not cheering for them at the same time.

 

[Lanefan]

Wait, wait, wait. If you let dice determine what your character is doing, that's playing in character. If you decide what your character is doing, that's not playing in character. Uh-huh.

I also think I'm going to need a citation on that "Players will always do the cost/benefit analysis and choose the best option" line. Because I know from my own experience that is very much untrue.

In fairness, I've DMed and played with one or two players who seemed constitutionally incapable of doing anything the least bit gonzo, and always tried their best to analyze down to the best/most optimal option. Great for their characters' survival odds, awful for the entertainment value.

 

[Lanefan]

No. It really isn't.

You're mixing successes and failures. The attack roll tells you to succeed. The NPC's persuasion roll tells you whether or not THEY succeed. Same as an NPC's attack roll tells you whether they succeeded. It's not mind control to let the NPC hit you with a sword, so, why is it suddenly mind control to convince you to do something?

It's not mind control to hit my character with a sword but - unless the blow puts me down for the count or worse - it is mind control to tell me how I react to the pain that hit causes.

Why are you conflating your successes with other character's successes? If an NPC uses Sleight of Hand on you and steals something from you, is that mind control? So, what's the difference?

Physical vs mental.

We have to abstract the physical side of any RPG (a bit less so in a LARP), and thus the dice come in and tell us what happens.

We do NOT have to abstract the mental side of things except in rare circumstances, because the PCs come with thinking players attached and the NPCs have a GM to do their thinking. Thus, dice are unnecessary there.

 

[Lanefan]

Ok, let's back up a second shall we?

We're all DM's. All of us here are running games. So, that means that every single poster here has been in the position where the players attempt to influence an NPC through some sort of social skills in order to achieve some sort of goal. This is basic game mastering. We're all capable of doing it.

Do you believe that the DM is incapable of responding in good faith to the player's actions?

No. Mechanics aren't required if the DM is acting in good faith.

Do you feel that it is mind control of the NPC's when they make a successful check?

Yes, just like it's mind control if an NPC succeeds vs a PC.

So, if you can do this as a DM and act in good faith, why are you incapable of doing it as a player? As a DM, you have to do this many, many times over the course of a campaign as the players attempt various social skill checks, reaction checks, intimidation checks, whatever to influence the NPCs. And ever time, you react in good faith.

I trust them to act in good faith absent any of those mechanics, and hope I've earned the same trust in return when it comes to running my NPCs. As such, I see no need for said mechanics and so out the window they go.

 

[clearstream]

Yes. That's why I referred to a bowdlerised version of "fail forward" that involves "the GM narrating failure in such a way as to keep things 'on the rails'".

At a mechanical level it's just fail forward. The way that it's deployed is as fits that mode of play. I suppose one could say that involves changing what would be "improper" in that mode.

When innovations are coopted into modes they didn't originate in, I see it as a testimony to the success of the ideas and a sharing of their benefits.

 

[CreamCloud0]

We're not talking about attack rolls here. We're talking about failing morale rolls and persuasion checks and thus being forced to flee or believe an NPC.

we're not talking about morale rolls here, we're talking about failing attack rolls and enemy's making saving throws and thus being forced to miss or not effect them with a spell.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Neither am I.

When someone posts some direct-quoted rules text and that text says X, it's not my fault if I read it as saying X even though the writer may have intended it to be read as saying Y. And this goes right back to day one; Gygax was guilty of this on a far too frequent basis and I (and others) have spent decades trying to tweak his game such that what says X, means X.

The work is still ongoing.

Oh, probably, if you were speaking from a position of no GM can be trusted.

Indeed, traditional games often leave way too much room for faulty interpretation as well.

That said, none of us are perfect GMs. I'm not. You're not. No-one here is. But what we all do, I think, is try to make the best of what we have; with success measured by level of player enthusiasm around coming back next week for more.

Okay.

That...doesn't really answer the question I asked.

Why is this thing getting the constant chary eye, while the other gets a pass because you know there's a problem and you're working on it?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

At a mechanical level it's just fail forward. The way that it's deployed is as fits that mode of play. I suppose one could say that involves changing what would be "improper" in that mode.

When innovations are coopted into modes they didn't originate in, I see it as a testimony to the success of the ideas and a sharing of their benefits.

I very much disagree. It is not FF.

It's simply a thing wearing FF's skin. Like if someone used a roll as a pretext to nerf a particular battle when it ceased to be going in the direction the rails required. Such a thing isn't a "morale check"--even if one can make a case that it resembles such.

The innovation is not being co-opted. It's being abused. Biiiiiig difference.

 

[Hussar]

In fairness, I've DMed and played with one or two players who seemed constitutionally incapable of doing anything the least bit gonzo, and always tried their best to analyze down to the best/most optimal option. Great for their characters' survival odds, awful for the entertainment value.

Just because @Faolyn did ask for a citation, I'd point this out:

There's no way to enforce this. A PC can accept being persuaded and then change their mind back to their original position later on. A PC can accept that morale is broken and run away and then immediately restart their attack. If there's a reward or penalty, the players will weigh the benefits of actually changing their PCs' minds or accepting the reward or penalty. Even in the most narrativist, most immersive game imaginable, they'll do this. And if the rules and penalties or actual gameplay are too boring or too unfun or get in the way of the players doing their thing, they'll simply switch games.

So, it's not like I'm pulling this argument out of thin air. @Faolyn is straight up saying that we cannot trust players to play in good faith because there is "no way to enforce this" and players would rather play a different game than actually play in good faith.