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

[Micah Sweet]

Is this fair? Doesn't this reasoning presume bad faith?

The whole argument is built on the assumption that players are trying to get away with things. That they have a desire to exploit for an advantage. But there is no indication that desire is universal or even widespread..

I don't believe that motivation to cheat is inevitable. We can acknowledge the possibility of abuse without preemptively justifying suspicion. That preemptive justification makes it harder to trust players by default. It sets up a default posture of caution and control, rather than trust and shared creative vision.

This is far out of line with my experience in this community. And I think is actively detrimental to the game, by encouraging downstream bad behavior in an effort to mitigate potential bad behavior that likely never occurs.

Do you disagree with my logic, or just the conclusions you assume I'm drawing from it?

 

[AlViking]

Right, but we’ve moved past the point where there is a conventional wisdom about this. Because the conventional wisdom aligns with your preferences, perhaps you're not seeing the issue.

It’s not that incorporating social mechanics is better than roleplaying everything freeform… it’s that we’ve moved past the point where “roleplay everything out freeform” is the standard.

You could just say that some games don't use a different approach. Same idea, not stating it as if it's an improvement.

 

[pemerton]

Can someone explain what "moral line" means in this context?

Conflict across a moral line.

Here's an example of conflict that is not across a moral line: do we go overland, risking frostbite, or through the underdark, risking getting lost?

Here's an example of conflict that is across a moral line: do we go overland, violating the ancient treaty never to enter <their lands>, or through the underdark, even though it is prophesied that one of our number will die should we attempt such a journey?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Conflict across a moral line.

Here's an example of conflict that is not across a moral line: do we go overland, risking frostbite, or through the underdark, risking getting lost?

Here's an example of conflict that is across a moral line: do we go overland, violating the ancient treaty never to enter <their lands>, or through the underdark, even though it is prophesied that one of our number will die should we attempt such a journey?

Can you provide a description of moral line that doesn't use the words "moral line"? The definition seems pretty important to the subject at hand.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I suppose to me a "standard" is a method agreed upon, officially or otherwise, by a majority of the people involved. It still allows for other methods.

And yes, I generally don't care about what other people see as standards, unless they're in my game and we're trying to have fun together (and even then the fact that something might be a "standard" is irrelevant to me).

I find the idea that you don't care about standards beyond your own game to be dubious given the nature of the majority of your posts.

You could just say that some games don't use a different approach. Same idea, not stating it as if it's an improvement.

But having more than one way is an improvement. It's not the actual methods that were being compared in @TwoSix 's comment, but rather the number of methods.

At least, that was my reading. @TwoSix can correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[DinoInDisguise]

Do you disagree with my logic, or just the conclusions you assume I'm drawing from it?

I disagree on both.

You're framing player motivation as something inherently suspect. That because players express themselves through a single character, they have an incentive to push boundaries or act in bad faith for personal gain. But that’s an assumption, not a logical necessity. This is a cooperative hobby, not a competitive one.

It’s absolutely possible, and in my experience, common, for players to invest in their characters because they care about the story, not because they’re angling for power or advantage. Treating self-expression, like this, as inherently suspicious puts a strain on trust before anything has even happened. It promotes bad behavior from the GM as a form of inoculation against the possibility of bad behavior from a player.

It all frames players as naturally inclined to "get away with things" for personal in-game advantage, but that runs counter to well-established psychological and sociological principles, particularly the human desire for belonging, acceptance, and cooperation in group settings.

So, yes, I think the logic is deeply flawed. We should maintain a presumption of grace as the default or we risk a spiral of negativity that is unproductive or even harmful.

Edit: This is all based on how I read your post. If I misread it, I could be wrong on your logic.

 

[Faolyn]

You choose to play the RPG that includes that rule.

But you aren't forced to take that trait.

 

[Faolyn]

Uhm, they absolutely can do that if you roll badly in SW. And there's no hard line between "creatures" and high end violence.

They're still not morale checks, and as I said, the game itself says to limit how they're used in fantasy genres.

 

[Faolyn]

No, I don't like the specific restrictions under discussion.

Because they're new to you.

Because if you actually read the books thoroughly, you'd see they aren't actually restrictions, and they're certainly not any different from what a D&D GM does. What they are is a description of your role as GM, codified in a way that previous games rarely did, because in those games, it was just expected you'd figure it out on your own or read Dragon Magazine and pick up stuff from there. Instead, PbtA took all that accumulated wisdom and bullet-pointed it.

 

[Thomas Shey]

True. But that doesn't mean that crowd wishes for MORE gamist structures.

I can get that. I just think anyone who's willing to deal with D&D style hit points shouldn't get too strident talking about gamism as an ill.