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

[Micah Sweet]

It 100% comes across as extremely flippant about player investment and preferences, yes, and treating the player's enjoyment of the game as secondary to the austere purity of the feeling of "verisimilitude". (Because, as I've personally brought up in this very thread, there are commonly-held beliefs which are objectively, factually inaccurate and strongly divergent from resembling truth, people just think that that's how things need to be.)

I certainly believe that it comes across that way for you, but please speak for yourself.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Because I would be able to give actual, concrete examples I have personally played or run, rather than pure hypotheticals.


I don't understand this answer either. How is that not still under the GM's purview?


Again, I just want to reiterate: You would rather trash the things a player loves about the game, dispassionately destroying something they care deeply about, solely to maintain utmost purity of feeling verisimilitude. I want to be completely sure that that's where you're coming from.

Because that is distinctly at odds with previous things discussed in the thread, and as stated above, comes across as a flippant disregard for the people at the table.

And like I just said, I'm sure that's how you are seeing it. I don't. Why do you assume that the player doesn't value that verisimilitude as well? Is it because that's how you'd feel about it? If so, then please just state your personal, subjective opinion plainly.

 

[Micah Sweet]

No, but they are seizing control when they successfully use a social skill on a PC. In games designed for that to happen, it's okay. If it happens to me in D&D where that's not supposed to happen, I'm walking out of the game.

Fair enough. Good to know where the lines are.

 

[Pedantic]

I mean I feel like this is a pretty straightforward yes/no question.

If you had to choose between ruining a player's experience, destroying the thing that makes them enjoy playing their character, but preserving perfect fidelity to the feeling of verisimilitude, vs making a small (I emphasize small) sacrifice to verisimilitude, so that the thing that that player enjoys about playing their character would not be casually destroyed, would you choose the former?

It's a simple yes/no. Would you choose destroying a player's enjoyment of the experience in order to preserve that feeling of verisimilitude?

That isn't a simple question. Let me try an allegory; would you houserule a board game in the middle of play if a player wasn't enjoying the experience?

Generally speaking, I would answer no. I might not play that game again with them or at all, I might be open to a proposed change after enough plays that I really felt like I understood the design intent if I find some other merit there, and in some cases I'd be open to stopping play altogether (though not all, I routinely play games with player elimination or losing board states that expect all players to continue until the end point). Experiencing the game as-is is the point of the activity, and everyone came to do that; everyone there has chosen to risk their having a bad time to have this specific time.

You're trying to set up a hierarchy of things that are important to play, and arguing the player's attachment to this character item or beat is necessarily more important than whatever consistency might put it at stake, and that just isn't a universal value. Ideally everyone signing up a game in the first place shares the same set of values and is willing to make some sacrifices to achieve whatever verisimilitude is at stake if that's necessary. I really don't see a problem with setting that request outside of negotiation; that feels much like how I don't really like hidden movement games and generally opt not to play them, and if I do decide to play one, I don't feel entitled to complain about the structure.

There's no moral imperative to compromise here, if both parties aren't interested. We could just do something else.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Is it "not supposed to happen" in D&D? That implies there are things that are and aren't "supposed to happen" in D&D. Where do you derive this certainty from? I presume it would need to be something even more inarguable than the rules, since I know your stance is that the GM is the absolute authority in their game.

I have to agree. There's no ironclad reason social skills can't work on PCs. Just common (but not universal) custom.

 

[Hussar]

Not really. I saw something interesting and chimed in.

Then I checked this morning and saw ... well, you know. I think that there could be productive and interesting conversations that might be had if they were a little more focused, but given the lack of agreement on terms, the continual shifting of frames (talking about TTRPGs in general, but then using specific examples from specific games), and most importantly, the inherent assumptions that most people have that they have found the right way to play and use examples from that and then assume bad-faith examples from other styles of play as a counterpoint (and vice versa) ... it just doesn't work very well. IMO.

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.

Well, if nothing else, we seem to be containing our nonsense to a single thread which is nice.

 

[Thomas Shey]

If you dislike D&D so much, why spend time on a D&D forum?

Because the non-D&D oriented fora I've got access to and have experience have tone or other things I dislike to one degree or another, and even a D&D forum will spend a fair bit of time talking about things that are, even if discussed in the context of D&D, not D&D specific (most of my posts in this thread have not had to do with D&D per se for example).

Also note "so much" is doing heavy lifting there; even though they aren't my preference I played in three PF2e campaigns in the last five years and am running a 13th Age campaign right now. Its entirely possible for me to play a game despite the fact I think some of the mechanical basis is dumb as a box of rocks for other reasons. In the case of the 13th Age game I'm running, for example, it was done because part of it is easier on my one semi-blind player than others I might prefer, and its relatively easy handling in some ways than games I'd otherwise like better. That doesn't change my opinion about how AC or hit points are treated in the D&D sphere any though.

 

[Hussar]

That's an interesting take on it. I think I would still prefer to just decide when my PC does or does not do certain things, because when I play, I prefer to just play and not have to do DM things. I'd give that way a try if a DM ran it that way, though. It's not inherently objectionable like removal of agency would be.

Well at least the argument became more clear. This is what I was suggesting all the way along. Which kinda explains my confusion over your opposition.

 

[Thomas Shey]

That isn't a simple question. Let me try an allegory; would you houserule a board game in the middle of play if a player wasn't enjoying the experience?

Generally speaking, I would answer no. I might not play that game again with them or at all, I might be open to a proposed change after enough plays that I really like I understood the design intent of I find some other merit there, and in some cases I'd be open to stopping play altogether (though not all, I routinely play games with player elimination or losing board states that expect all players to continue until the end point). Experiencing the game as-is is the point of the activity, and everyone came to do that; everyone there has chosen to risk their having a bad time to have this specific time.

You're trying to set up a hierarchy of things that are important to play, and arguing the player's attachment to this character item or beat is necessarily more important than whatever consistency might put it at stake, and that just isn't a universal value. Ideally everyone signing up a game in the first place shares the same set of values and is willing to make some sacrifices to achieve whatever verisimilitude is at stake if that's necessary. I really don't see a problem with setting that request outside of negotiation; that feels much like how I don't really like hidden movement games and generally opt not to play them, and if I do decide to play one, I don't feel entitled to complain about the structure.

There's no moral imperative to compromise here, if both parties aren't interested. We could just do something else.

Yeah, the problem with Ezekiel's argument is that he's assuming there's no price for supporting the player's investment in important character elements for other participants. Its entirely possible that for one or more participants the sense that everything is at stake (even for just random chance) is as important as the penumbra of character elements is for the others. All this shows is that not everyone belongs in the same game.

 

[Hussar]

contrast, a social roll that tells a player, “Your character now believes X,” or “Now you act against your own convictions,” overrides the player’s portrayal of their character’s internal state. That’s much more intimate and subjective than a hit point total. If you do this without permission, you are infringing on the player's authorship of their PC through GM fiat. You are telling the player how their character interprets and reacts to stimuli. You are playing their character for them.

This is very much a misreading and misunderstanding of how social mechanics work.

In exactly the same way that social mechanics cannot override an Npc’s established character you cannot override a pcs character.