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

[Maxperson]

By that definition, magical mind control of any stripe is out too.

Magic tends to be the get out of jail free card for things like this. That said, I very, VERY rarely use dominate, charms, etc. on PCs because of how much I dislike taking away agency. I will do it, though, because magic is an exception and can force PCs to do things, unlike social skills.

 

[Emerikol]

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

It may just be that verisimilitude is essential to the players enjoying the campaign. I seek those sorts of players. It does vary by person though and the degree it is designed also varies by person. For me though I like a high degree of it.

 

[Faolyn]

The question has been how to implement it without modifying the already generated setting or changing the rules of the game. It's also a question of how you determine the result of actions, the game takes the approach that you only take into consideration the direct and immediate result, not the downstream consequences of success or failure.

I can see some cases where fail forward can work, I just fail to see how you can maintain that sense of an established world reacting to character actions for both player and DM in all or even many cases. If that is the guiding principle it seems to me you have to alter or add a fair number of house rules to make it work in many cases. In other words, if a sleight of hand to open a lock doesn't result in a simple "yes it's unlocked or no it's not" the rule has to change. It becomes "the lock will always be unlocked but there's some other consequence".

Maybe I'm missing something. But it seems that either you have to modify some rules or you have to choose to change the paradigm of an established world reacting to character actions.

You implement it in the way you describe events, that's all. Instead of saying "no" you say "yes, but" or "no, but." That's all. It's nothing so amazing or difficult as to require a new set of rules.

 

[bloodtide]

Not a fan. Talk to your players and/or GM before you play, or work out disagreement as it occurs at the table. Creating binding rules that force the GM to behave in a certain way or make decision based on restrictive principles is not the way I want to play.

All these revenge games want to put rules on the GM to force them to do or not do things.......and it makes me wonder:

Would the players of such games agree to such rules for players?

 

[Emerikol]

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.

This is excellent advice that I have also been giving for literally years. The more the hobby and playstyles diversify the more we need these sorts of conversations. No DM should want a player thorn in his side the whole campaign.

 

[Campbell]

All these revenge games want to put rules on the GM to force them to do or not do things.......and it makes me wonder:

Would the players of such games agree to such rules for players?

Yes. Standards for players have always been front and center for Narrativist play. Stylistically it only works with players and GMs are in alignment.

• Monsterheart's Agenda section is addressed first to the players.
• Blades has a section on Player Best Practices.
• Daggerheart sets out a list of player principles.
• Sorcerer instructs the player to seek to resolve their kicker.
• Apocalypse World tells you to play your character with integrity.

 

[Maxperson]

Yes. Standards for players have always been front and center for Narrativist play. Stylistically it only works with players and GMs are in alignment.

• Monsterheart's Agenda section is addressed first to the players.
• Blades has a section on Player Best Practices.
• Daggerheart sets out a list of player principles.
• Sorcerer instructs the player to seek to resolve their kicker.
• Apocalypse World tells you to play your character with integrity.

I'm curious about Daggerheart's player principles. Can you give them here?

 

[hawkeyefan]

What's useful or evocative about a phrase that has nothing to do with the actual principle discussed?

Read the book for yourself and then at least your opinion will have weight.

I've been told more than once (albeit from the same poster) that this thread is an exception, where folks are supposed to complain about the attitudes and opinions of D&D players.

I don’t think anyone has said that. I know what I’ve explained to you is that this thread is about the conservatism of D&D fans and by extension, the game itself.

So… again… it seems perfectly reasonable to look at how other games do things given that context.

You are welcome to believe all those pithy principle names (not to mention all the playbook moves) are clear as to their meaning, and perfectly align to their descriptions, but that is not a universally held opinion.

Here’s the thing… if you actually read the book, the principles are described at length. They’re explained in full. So then when you are running the game or playing, looking at a list of them with just the names, you remember the full description.

It’s really amazing what actually reading the book will do for understanding, guys.

 

[Maxperson]

Read the book for yourself and then at least your opinion will have weight.

I read the portion in question. It deals entirely with making the game interesting for the players and gives advice on how to do that when the DM interacts with PCs. None of it is about making a boring PC life not boring.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Read the book for yourself and then at least your opinion will have weight.



I don’t think anyone has said that. I know what I’ve explained to you is that this thread is about the conservatism of D&D fans and by extension, the game itself.

So… again… it seems perfectly reasonable to look at how other games do things given that context.



Here’s the thing… if you actually read the book, the principles are described at length. They’re explained in full. So then when you are running the game or playing, looking at a list of them with just the names, you remember the full description.

It’s really amazing what actually reading the book will do for understanding, guys.

Then why are we seeing these terms attempting to be applied to other games? I said above if they stay in their lane it's no problem. But they don't, and confusion results.