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

[Emerikol]

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.

PbtA games are vastly different that D&D as a general rule. I am sure many on here mix and match elements but those people are pioneers. I don't play with PbtA elements at all and actively do not like them.

 

[Eric V]

D&D worships at the altar of the HP god.
Character death is very much part of the game. Many rules revolve around dying and death.

Has the game pushed the envelope further from perma-death over the years with hit point bloat, permanent level and ability drain, Revivify, death saves, save end mechanics removal of system shock, resurrection survival etc? Yes is the answer.

What threat of loss? Item? Titles? Family/Friends/Animal Companions?
I'm not sure anyone is arguing what the most interesting form of loss is.


Your argument is that game x and game y create these GAMIST safety features in their games against character death and you are asking why simulationists that value verisimilitude do not accept those rules for their games?

How can D&D be both a simulationist game and worship at the altar of the hp god?

 

[AnotherGuy]

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.

I mentioned it upthread that D&D sadly trains players to act in ways that many DMs feel is out of character for their creations. Lanefan mentioned a similar thing that only rational choices are made which always happen to be the most optimal. The game promotes min/maxing due to its style of play and limited loss conditions of real consequence. Their characters are cardboard cut-outs, 2-dimensional, hollow...
I'm not saying all players are like this but enough are and it takes some time to weed players off this character-sheet stat mentality.

In my recent game...
Underdark bugbear ranger decides to abandon the Underdark, the only home he has known, to the demon threat (OotA), abandon his personal quest of vengeance vs an Illithid that he had been a thrall for many years, to join a surface party he had known for a day to deal with their issues.
Now I can make it work in the fiction, but there was NO attempt made by this player. The idea never crossed his mind. This dude is an old player who has just joined our table after many years. He is in need of desperate retraining IMO.

EDIT: He had a surface character ready to go in the other destination but because he played this bugbear twice he wanted to stick with him and the other character becomes a NPC now.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

I don't get to talk about the way I like to play and run games? I've never told anyone one style of play is objectively better or worse than another, but I also won't back down from defending my preferences, or explaining why other styles don't appeal to me.

It's all preference remember?

 

[Campbell]

I would say that there is significant crossover in the way some people run D&D (mostly younger gamers I've come across) and Monster of the Week play. But that's fairly distinct from more classic approaches to D&D and running Apocalypse World as directed. There really isn't a single form of Powered by the Apocalypse though.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

Are you saying players don't have a motivation for bad faith behavior, and GMs have less of one, based on the context I outlined? Because I think it's pretty clear that they do have said motivation, whether or not they ever act on it, or even feel it personally. It exists because of the nature of the game.

I never said it should be assumed players will act in bad faith (that's the assumed conclusion to my logic I referenced earlier), just that the motivation is there for them to do so, because of the way the game works. That motivation has, it seems, less force in many Narrativist-leaming games, perhaps because of the game structure but also I think because of a virtually required high level of player buy-in to the game's premise. If you assume that level of buy-in for all games (traditional or otherwise), then perhaps that explains your resistance to my logic.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

Do you realize you are telling me I wouldn't have any problem with Narrstivist GM restrictions if I understood them better? Do you understand how unbelievably arrogant and "holier than thou" that statement is?

Besides, when you codify things you put up walls. I don't want those walls in my games. I prefer advice and suggestion.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

Yeah, lots of folks like to use hit points as an excuse to completely abandon any desire for simulation as delusional, or at best wrong-headed. No one ever seems to understand just how insulting that is, or recognize any kind of spectrum.

 

[Maggan]

I don't play with PbtA elements at all and actively do not like them.

You're not alone. I never clicked with Apocalypse World, and have huge difficulties using other PbtA systems. I'm too set in my ways to change now, I fear.

But I find it interesting to read about how other people use different systems in a positive way. I might take some things with me to my ultra-traditional play style.

 

[AlViking]

Moving on from there being a conventional wisdom of what roleplaying games are and can be is an improvement from my perspective. Not marginalizing those who have tastes outside the mainstream is an improvement. Not the specific games and not the specific playstyles, but a more diverse hobby is a better hobby because more people can find their joy.

This is similar to what has happened in the board game space, where what we considered a board game here in the states was very biased around games like Monopoly, but now is much more diverse.

Options are great and competition is good. I really am glad people can find the games they like. Meanwhile I drive a car with an old school manual transmission because I enjoy the engagement I feel. It's not like I don't know how an automatic works, I just like it.