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

[Maxperson]

Yes, they are. That's what makes them negative. It's the definition of the word.

Man. Years of playing with negative AC and I thought -6 was good! My bad. Animals starving to death is a negative, but if there is severe overpopulation, those deaths allow the species to live, which is good.

Negatives are not always a bad thing, even if they feel like that in the short term.

If it's a part of the game, and it's a known risk that the player is aware of, then it's kind of silly to say it's a loss of agency.

It's a fact. Agency is the ability to decide what your character says and does. My accepting the risk* doesn't change the fact that it's still a loss of my agency.

*and the idea that it's just a risk is ludicrous. It's an RPG with social interactions left, right and center. If you think you're going to succeed at every roll for the whole campaign, you're fooling yourself. It's not a risk. It's a certainty.

Like if I'm playing hockey, and I slash one of the opposing players, I get sent to the penalty box. My agency hasn't been taken from me... I've been punished for my choice.

Punished for that choice with a lack of agency. You no longer have the ability to choose to play that game. It has been forcibly removed from you, costing you agency.

Choosing to accept risk(or certainty) of the loss of agency, doesn't change what it is. It simply means that you are okay with losing agency for those periods of time, and there's nothing wrong with you choosing that.

 

[Maxperson]

I think you're using a considerable amount of hyperbole in your rhetoric (a tactic I'm personally not fond of, but I digress). GMs and players in traditional games have different roles with different degrees of power over the game. A GM has less motivation to act in bad faith I think, because under the rules they can pretty much do what they want anyway. They don't gain anything in play by acting in bad faith (not to say some GMs might behave badly regardless, of course). A player, on the other hand, defines and expands their role in the setting solely through the actions and abilities of their PC (in games I play anyway). They have motivation to try to increase that role by whatever means they can get away with. This doesn't mean they're going to act in bad faith, but often they have reason to do so, for in-game advantage, so it is IMO understandable.

Even with those different roles, I think most players know that cheating ruins the experience for everyone and don't do it. Players should be given the same initial trust that DMs should get. If the player demonstrates that trust to be an error, it should be addressed. Just like a DM demonstrating that trust to be misplaced should be addressed.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

It looks to me like it's any conflict that has a moral component to it. "Do we murder this orc, or let him go and risk him warning his tribe that we are here before we get far enough away?" We can't do both, so those ideas are in conflict and deal with morals.

 

[hawkeyefan]

And I sat through that discussion/argument between DM and player more times than I care to count.

As far as I can tell, the only way to prevent this behavior is to remove the roll completely.

I wasn't the DM. And the DM did his best, but it was an argument every time. (still is, from what I gather; with one player form then who is still active now in a game I'm not in)

Again… sounds like a GM problem. Or maybe a combo of that player and GM.

This isn’t generally a problem in the games I’ve run or played in.

Fair point about their learning my preferences. When I think of it I sometimes intentionally try to change it up some so I'm not as predictable, but it's an issue to be sure.

I think the dice are a better randomizer.

Interesting. Me, I want them speaking in character as much as possible, and we'll learn about their characters that way (much like character-development scenes in movies).

I think movies and novels are a good indicator here. I find in character dialogue to be a bit limiting, much like a movie… we don’t actually get into the characters’ heads. Whereas with a novel, we can get their thoughts and feelings. I find a player thinking out loud about their reasoning to be more like a novel. Ideally, they do both… they think aloud as a player and then speak in character once they’ve decided.

"Moved past" strongly suggests a comparison.

Yes… moved past people advising there is one way to do things, to a point where there are several ways.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Man. Years of playing with negative AC and I thought -6 was good! My bad. Animals starving to death is a negative, but if there is severe overpopulation, those deaths allow the species to live, which is good.

Negatives are not always a bad thing, even if they feel like that in the short term.

It's a fact. Agency is the ability to decide what your character says and does. My accepting the risk* doesn't change the fact that it's still a loss of my agency.

*and the idea that it's just a risk is ludicrous. It's an RPG with social interactions left, right and center. If you think you're going to succeed at every roll for the whole campaign, you're fooling yourself. It's not a risk. It's a certainty.

Punished for that choice with a lack of agency. You no longer have the ability to choose to play that game. It has been forcibly removed from you, costing you agency.

Choosing to accept risk(or certainty) of the loss of agency, doesn't change what it is. It simply means that you are okay with losing agency for those periods of time, and there's nothing wrong with you choosing that.

Again, I think this is mostly just semantics. My point is it’s not problematic in a game where it’s an expectation. And if loss of control of my character is a consequence of my actions, it’s hard to define as a situation where I had no agency.

 

[Maxperson]

The typical D&D module has few or no such choices - unless they've changed a lot in the 5e era, these tend to foreground expedience and optimisation in the face of uncertainty. But they are the mainstay of a lot of RPGing.

I don't agree with that assessment. You are correct if you're looking at the modules spelling out, "This is a moral conflict." In my experience, though, players quite often come up with moral conflicts in modules.

"Do we let the prisoners go, tie them up and if they eventually escape they live, kill them, try to talk them into being friendly..." Do we break into the lords manor, try to get invited in somehow, wait for the lord to leave and talk to him somewhere else..."

Lots of moral conflicts come about when running D&D modules from all eras.

 

[Faolyn]

So I can openly run dungeon world exactly the same way I run D&D without anyone coming shouting at me for doing it wrong?

I think the difference in the actual rules would mean that there would be big changes. But wth that in mind, you can use a very similar mindset.

 

[Faolyn]

and the manipulator doesn't get anything in compensation either? for the manipulee brushing off their success?

Nope. As @Thomas Shey said, carrot, not stick.

But also, I'd imagine that most of the time, the players don't rely on this move all the time. There've been times when one player of mine has tried to convince another one of something and I've suggested the move, and they've said no. So for many tables, this is probably a "last resort" type of move.

 

[Maxperson]

My point is it’s not problematic in a game where it’s an expectation.

This I completely agree with.

And if loss of control of my character is a consequence of my actions, it’s hard to define as a situation where I had no agency.

If you are running across gravel and you have accepted the risk of falling, falling is still falling if you slip, and is still a negative.

If you are walking across a desert known to have spots of quicksand and you accept that risk, you are still sinking in quicksand if you found yourself in it. And it's still a negative.

Things don't change from what they are just because you accept the risks*. The only real difference is that you only have yourself to blame if those risks come to pass.

Or certainties, as is the case with social skills working on PCs.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Except is based on game rules, and not being affected by social mechanics is based on PC fiat (that was fun to say).

Doesn't change the point that the roll still tells you how capable the opponent attempting it is. It just changes the nature of the resistance roll (and the fact people choose doesn't mean it never happens in systems where there's an incentive to let it).