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

[Maxperson]

Would the lines and veils safety tool adress your concern? It sound to me like you might have a line at character behaving in a way you don't envision yourself?

I don't know what that is.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

That said, if people are getting real value from this, who am I to rain on the parade? And looking at the massive number of comments, that must be the case.

I'd say the signal to noise ratio isn't great, but when you do get signal, it's something good. Panning for gold, one might say; a single nugget is worth many hours of sand.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I'd say the signal to noise ratio isn't great, but when you do get signal, it's something good. Panning for gold, one might say; a single nugget is worth many hours of sand.

Maybe! Maybe for you. I don't even buy green bananas anymore.

 

[AnotherGuy]

Right, this is why I've found the argument from gameplay more compelling. Consequences are unknowable to the player unless you include negotiation, and negotiation is generally unpleasant and bad gameplay (for the specific understanding of game-as-game).

Just so I understand your concern, the idea is that making consequences known breaks immersion as it opens up negotiation.

So is your preferred method for the consequences to be unknown until the die is rolled? Kind of like combat, where the PCs are NOT always aware of their opponent's capabilities (supernatural/magical, offensive/defensive, legendary/lair, damage output etc)

 

[Micah Sweet]

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?

Verisimilitude. Sometimes bad things, things we don't want, happen anyway. If you're exploring a world that operates in many ways similar to our reality, the universe doesn't provide special protection to personal talismans.

Get a fireproof box.

 

[Maxperson]

If it’s something that the PC would “never do”, then obviously it can’t be the result of a successful resolution roll in the game.

If it’s a valid option for a successful resolution roll, then it seems like the player is making a categorical error in thinking this is something the character would never do.

It can’t be both.

This sounds like you are saying that if the roll is successful, that it by default turns something the character would never do into something that the character would have done. Is that the case? If not, then I need you to be a bit clearer with what you are trying to say there.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I don't know what that is.

Short-and-sweet name for a useful thing to do when figuring out what a group wants from a game (e.g., something to deploy during Session Zero).

"Lines" are things that, if crossed, would break the experience. "Veils" are things that are okay to occur, but not much "on camera", so to speak--hidden behind a veil of fade-to-black/nondescript summary. More or less, the antithesis of "must-have" and "big plus"--a "must-NOT-have" and "keep it soft touch".

Lines and veils can be anything, whether in-world or game-rules or whatever.

If a group has incompatible interests, e.g. one has a line against (say) killing innocents and another player (or the GM) is specifically there to play through seeing/doing genuine, unrepentant evil, spelling this out saves everyone time. It helps nip bad group comps in the bud. For groups that have compatible interests, it helps avoid unintentional harm; if you know that sex scenes or high-detail bartering are veils for player A and B respectively, then A knows not to get hyper-invested into detailed shopkeeper interactions and B knows that adult events are okay but nitty-gritty details are not.

The point is to promote communication and avoid causing unintentional harm.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Verisimilitude. Sometimes bad things, things we don't want, happen anyway. If you're exploring a world that operates in many ways similar to our reality, the universe doesn't provide special protection to personal talismans.

Get a fireproof box.

So verisimilitude is more important than players enjoying the characters they wish to enjoy.

 

[Maxperson]

Other than gaining some biographical information that you’re willing to cut away a broad swathe of games and play techniques to fulfill your aesthetic needs (like most of us, I imagine), I’m not sure what information we’re supposed to take away from this.

That social skills used on a PC deprive the player of agency.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

This sounds like you are saying that if the roll is successful, that it by default turns something the character would never do into something that the character would have done. Is that the case? If not, then I need you to be a bit clearer with what you are trying to say there.

No. The point was, if it is on the table in the first place, it must have been possible to begin with. If it wasn't possible to begin with, it never should have been on the table in the first place. These two things are logically equivalent, as they are contrapositives of one another. ("If A, then B" is logically equivalent to "if not-B, then not-A" because it both reverses the order and negates both parts. Miss either one of those and it fails to be logically equivalent in general; specific exceptions exist.)