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

[Emerikol]

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.

Sure. I may argue to the validity of my style which seems at times to be under attack. It's like chocolate ice cream has just come out and I have to defend why I like vanilla better. A game is meant to be fun and if a group of people are playing a game and enjoying it and not hurting anyone then they are doing it right for them. When I say something negative about a style I don't like it is of course how I see it and why I reject it. I'm not impugning anyone who likes it. Tastes really do differ.

And I agree. While I like the "playstyle" of 1e, I like a lot of the nuts and bolts of 3e. And I like GURPS for things. I imagine if I ever really get into D&D I'll write my own hybrid of 1e and 3e.

 

[Emerikol]

I'm not, and have never been, saying you should.

I have been responding to someone else who had said that it was a "structural necessity". And then to people twisting that response to what that person said as though it were some grand unified theory of all gaming ever, some pronouncement from on high.

For goodness' sake, does no one bother to read the context that a statement comes from? This is the third time people have twisted my words into something ridiculous simply because they either didn't read the whole post or didn't read the person to whom I was responding originally.

Honestly nothing is a necessity. Modern D&D isn't even D&D by the standards of the original. We all have what we hold dear as essentials of the playstyle. D&D keeps doing new things and we keep adopting, discarding, or ignoring as we choose. As the fan of a game, I do wish they'd stuck to the origin assumptions and just spun off other games with other assumptions. They didn't so that is that.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Sure. I may argue to the validity of my style which seems at times to be under attack. It's like chocolate ice cream has just come out and I have to defend why I like vanilla better. A game is meant to be fun and if a group of people are playing a game and enjoying it and not hurting anyone then they are doing it right for them. When I say something negative about a style I don't like it is of course how I see it and why I reject it. I'm not impugning anyone who likes it. Tastes really do differ.

And I agree. While I like the "playstyle" of 1e, I like a lot of the nuts and bolts of 3e. And I like GURPS for things. I imagine if I ever really get into D&D I'll write my own hybrid of 1e and 3e.

The bigger issue is when people project this style onto the whole of the game.

When they demand that the rules cater to them, and don't care whether they cater to anything else (or, more commonly, get annoyed when anything is provided to anything else).

When they treat any form of novelty or innovation as a "betrayal" of D&D, as simply not even being "D&D" at all--and thus what came before has to be almost totally fixed in stone, never changed, no matter how much better we might understand game design or the consequences of past designers' choices, no matter how much the interests of the gaming public at large might differ today from what they were half a century ago.

And that specific thing is the exhausting conservatism the thread's title is all about. Perhaps being a bit blunt, that feeling that your style is "under attack" often is part and parcel of said conservatism. That doesn't mean nobody ever bad-mouths classic D&D, some people absolutely do do that, but we are very much in the diametric antithesis of an anti-classical era, the in-vogue thing is to rip HARD into anything that even has the vaguest whiff of novelty to it.

Tradition is not inherently bad; but tradition is not inherently good either. To assert the former is chronological snobbery. I've called the latter "genealogical snobbery".

 

[thefutilist]

This example (2nd example) sounds very much like something that could occur in one of my d&d games. It’s a great illustration of what conflict across a moral line is, which is what the example was an answer to.

Though I’m not really seeing any rising conflict here. There’s certainly conflict, but rising? There’s some potential for rising conflict but it could also be uneventful. You cross without being noticed. You face the prophecy head on and discover the prophecy/prophet is false. Both success options that end this particular conflict before it ever rises.

There are lots of configurations of moral crisis. I'm not a huge fan of Vincent's definition for that reason but it serves it's purpose.


Here's an example of rising action through escalation.


Jill has a sick brother and no money to pay her medical bills. So she decides to rob a bank She crosses a moral line by choosing one value (priority) over another. Sue is Jill's friend and she joins Jill, choosing one priority over another and crossing a moral line.

So they're in the bank, holding everyone up with guns and Jill tries to lock pick the vault and fails. This triggers the alarm and so the police are going to be on their way. Rising action. Jill then threatens to cut off the bank managers finger if he doesn't open the vault (escalation and another moral line). She fails her 'go aggro' intimidate check. She cuts off his finger. Now she threatens to kill him (escalation and another moral line).

Sue isn't ok with this and pleads with Jill to let it go and fails to persuade her. Requires escalation if she's going to do anything which she must because...Jill fails her 'go aggro' check. The bank manager isn't talking and Jill is raising her gun and Sue has a choice. So she shoots Jill. She crosses a moral line, really choosing one value over another.


Anyway.


You're correct that all that exists is the potential for rising action. Another reason I'm iffy on Vincent's definition. There is a conflict that means there are no good choices but it's entirely possible for the characters to just choose something and live with the consequences.

 

[Emerikol]

The bigger issue is when people project this style onto the whole of the game.

When they demand that the rules cater to them, and don't care whether they cater to anything else (or, more commonly, get annoyed when anything is provided to anything else).

When they treat any form of novelty or innovation as a "betrayal" of D&D, as simply not even being "D&D" at all--and thus what came before has to be almost totally fixed in stone, never changed, no matter how much better we might understand game design or the consequences of past designers' choices, no matter how much the interests of the gaming public at large might differ today from what they were half a century ago.

I think a single game should not try to please everyone. Too many people want to play rules as written and blindly follow them wherever they go. I'm for mechanical innovations like roll high etc.. But changing the fundamental playstyle of D&D to something like PbtA is not something I'd support. I'm still mad they seem to care not a whit about dissociative mechanics so they pepper every edition since 4th with things I'd have to houserule out. When the houserule gets big enough you just houserule something else or write your own. I think for me I'll just write my own and then stick with it.

And that specific thing is the exhausting conservatism the thread's title is all about. Perhaps being a bit blunt, that feeling that your style is "under attack" often is part and parcel of said conservatism. That doesn't mean nobody ever bad-mouths classic D&D, some people absolutely do do that, but we are very much in the diametric antithesis of an anti-classical era, the in-vogue thing is to rip HARD into anything that even has the vaguest whiff of novelty to it.

Tradition is not inherently bad; but tradition is not inherently good either. To assert the former is chronological snobbery. I've called the latter "genealogical snobbery".

If D&D were a flaming disaster of a failure, then I'd say they need to do something different but in that case the brand wouldn't be carrying the product. Instead we have a great brand because it represents something people do like. D&D though is always trying to be all things to all people. They swing back and forth. I do agree that 5e was a swing "back" from 4e but it's hardly a game predicated on 1e's playstyle. It's still very much a style based on ideas strongly the opposite of traditional D&D.

Now I am very happy that the OGL has provided a way out. I'm not trapped in the D&D ecosystem. I can play any number of others games. I can modify those games. I can write my own and use a lot of D&D stuff in my game (not everything but the SRD covers a lot).

 

[FrogReaver]

OK?

Well so far we've established for certain that D&D players handle conflicts across moral lines.

I'm fairly certain d&d players/characters typically encounter rising action.

There's a bit of an open question about what the phrase 'rising action across a moral line' actually entails. I think my next post will touch on that more and i don't want to duplicate efforts.

As I've posted ad nauseum for years, it is possible to play narrativist AD&D, although I think the resolution rules are a bit shaky as far as "authored by the players" is concerned.

I know you have. Understanding where my play differs from that or doesn't is what I'm after.

I was going to get to 'authored by the player' eventually but now is fine too. I think it really depends on what parts need to be authored by the player.

Obviously the players in your narrativist games don't author the specific situations. They do author their PC's actions, (often but not always their thoughts), and also typically author and share traits with the GM that the GM is encouraged or mandated to put these into conflict (possibly depends on the game whether it's encouraged or mandated). They also typically (though maybe not always) author what occurs on success (within significant constraints). Treat this as a non-exhaustive list, although I've tried to be as exhaustive as I can.

Which of the things being authored by the player enables the player to author rising conflict across a moral line? It seems to me that the player only plays a role, albeit a significant role in that and that the GM co-authors that rising conflict across a moral line with the player. Would that be accurate in your view?

 

[AlViking]

The bigger issue is when people project this style onto the whole of the game.

When they demand that the rules cater to them, and don't care whether they cater to anything else (or, more commonly, get annoyed when anything is provided to anything else).

When they treat any form of novelty or innovation as a "betrayal" of D&D, as simply not even being "D&D" at all--and thus what came before has to be almost totally fixed in stone, never changed, no matter how much better we might understand game design or the consequences of past designers' choices, no matter how much the interests of the gaming public at large might differ today from what they were half a century ago.

And that specific thing is the exhausting conservatism the thread's title is all about. Perhaps being a bit blunt, that feeling that your style is "under attack" often is part and parcel of said conservatism. That doesn't mean nobody ever bad-mouths classic D&D, some people absolutely do do that, but we are very much in the diametric antithesis of an anti-classical era, the in-vogue thing is to rip HARD into anything that even has the vaguest whiff of novelty to it.

Tradition is not inherently bad; but tradition is not inherently good either. To assert the former is chronological snobbery. I've called the latter "genealogical snobbery".

When people tell me that the only reason I like what I like is because of it's what I'm used to, when they insist that the only reason I don't like some other game because I don't understand it, when I am told repeatedly that what I do is bad (e.g. "Nothing happens on failure is terrible") then yes, I am going to push back against that. People tell me that some feature of some other game would tell me that it is superior and then when I try to discuss any actual details of how to use fail forward and give the example of someone trying to break into a house, I'm creating a strawman, yes it's a bit frustrating. If I attempt to explain why another game doesn't work for me criticism focuses solely on my not using the exactly correct precise wording while ignoring the rest of my post which covers many other issues, it gets old.

But apparently I'm just a snob because I like D&D since I'm told time and again that the only reason I like it is because of tradition. I happen to like the current version, even if there were several things I wish they had done different. I have never, will never, tell anyone else that they're playing the wrong game or the wrong way. I don't care for PbtA games but I will never tell anyone that just because their game is different that it should play more like D&D. For that matter I wouldn't see the point of going onto a forum dedicated to PbtA games and constantly extol the virtues of D&D. I wouldn't see the point.

 

[TwoSix]

Come on man. You know you can't just make claims for the whole community like that. You can say you used to feel that way and now you don't, but that's about it. At least, that statement is very vulnerable to challenge.

Challenge away.

 

[TwoSix]

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.

If you accept hit points while wanting simulationist mechanics as a general principle, it makes it very hard for us, as outsiders to your perspective, to anticipate what mechanics will trip your sim sensors.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

If you accept hit points while wanting simulationist mechanics as a general principle, it makes it very hard for us, as outsiders to your perspective, to anticipate what mechanics will trip your sim sensors.

Well, if you are an outsider, then ask yourself this question-

Am I trying to understand, or am I simply looking for a reason to say, "Ha! Your approach to X, that I am not interested in playing myself, is not correct."

Further, I would add that the fundamental problem with discussions by people that do not enjoy the games Micah enjoys often use the "Texas Two Step" (conflation of a jargon term and the common sense term) when it comes to simulationism-

Spoiler

"Simulation" was first widely used in the threefold model (GDS). While it has various definitions, I'll just crib the one from wikipedia which is close enough for our purposes-
Simulation is concerned with the internal consistency of events that unfold in the game world, and ensuring that they are only caused by in-game factors - that is, eliminating metagame concerns (such as drama and game). Simulation is not necessarily concerned with simulating reality; it could be a simulation of any fictional world, cosmology or scenario, according to its own rules.

Notice that this is jargon. It has a specified technical meaning that arose in the context of RPGs, and it was about goals. It was trying to set it off against the "G" and "D" components.

The trouble is that while this is jargon, it also has specific connotations that people are familiar with in the real world. For example, when someone says that a pilot has 1,000 hours in a Boeing 737 simulator, a person who hears that assumes that the machine is designed to simulate the reality of flying a Boeing 737- not just some fictional world or fictional genre. In common parlance, simulations usually reflect our reality, and the closer that they completely reflect reality, they more accurate they are as a simulation. So this is where the Texas Two Step comes in, over and over and over again.

Zeno: I like playing that RPG because I like Lord of the Rings.

Achilles: Well, we all know that is a simulationist RPG. You like simulations! (Using the JARGON that someone is playing the game as a simulation of the LoTR genre).

Zeno: Um, sure. I like the way the game immerses me in the feeling of Middle Earth, and the fiction of Tolkien.

Achilles: HA! How dare you say that? Don't you know that game doesn't accurately simulate the economics of Middle Earth? For that matter, how can a world exist on the same technology for thousands of years? Heck, I don't even think that Tolkien understood plate tectonics and didn't accurately model how the mountains in his world formed!!!! It's not a simulation! (Using the COMMON VERNACULAR of simulation).

Unfortunately, this happens repeatedly- people that deliberately conflate jargon with the more widely-understood meaning in order to berate people for differing preferences. It's the Texas Two Step- first, get people to use jargon, then use the non-jargon meaning to criticize them, and then go back to defending the jargon. Rinse, repeat. Once you see this pattern happen, you will see it happen over and over and over again, with all sorts of terms.