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

[DinoInDisguise]

Challenge away.

I like a challenge. And I believe your original post on the matter to be incorrect.

That certainly makes it sound like the “purpose of a role-playing game” is a bunch of in-character dialogue and thespianism; that might have been the conventional wisdom 25-30 years ago, but I think we’ve moved past that.

The bolded parts specifically. It was never only about "in-character dialogue and thespianism." We can look back on the history of the game and see that it was never that unified, it never had a singular purpose. And the times when it was close, it was not centered on those concepts.

In the 70s and 80s, the earliest RPGs emerged from wargaming. Simply looking at publications from the time makes the focus of exploration, tactical problem-solving, and combat evident. The features you cite were far from the focus.

In the late 80s and 90s, games like Traveller, RuneQuest, and GURPS introduced more simulationist or open-ended approaches. Paranoia and Call of Cthulhu explored story and tone more, but didn't require “thespianism.”

In the mid 90s, The Storyteller system (e.g., Vampire: The Masquerade) did encourage more in-character drama and social play, but it coexisted with crunchy, combat-heavy systems (Rolemaster, Rifts, D&D 2e, etc.). Even AD&D, from 1989, defined "roleplaying" broadly, covering decision-making, character actions, and tactical choice.

And today it is even more fractured and diverse in both it's interpretations and purpose. Improv and theater of the mind in games like Monsterhearts, crunchy tactical games like Pathfinder and some OSR games. Game focused systems like Blades in the dark and Apocalypse World. And kitchen-sink systems like 5e, which try to do everything.

So I think the core challenge with the comment was this: it was never just about one thing, and it certainly wasn’t universally about in-character performance. What we’re seeing now is an expansion of what's possible, not a rejection of the past. RPGs have always been pluralistic.

We haven’t “moved past” anything. We’ve just added more to the table.

 

[AlViking]

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.

Every game in existence, every simulation for that matter, simplifies, makes assumptions and create abstractions to model complex realities. It has little to do with what it means for a game to take a simulationist approach as far as I'm concerned.

For me it's about the approach of the game not the details of those abstractions. "But the hit points!" is a strawman.

 

[AlViking]

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.

While I agree to a degree with the jargon/non-jargon bit I would also say that even that Boeing simulator still uses a fair amount of abstraction. They don't constantly calculate the exact airflow patterns that exactly match reality because as odd as it sounds, we don't really know why planes fly No One Can Explain Why Planes Stay in the Air. There's a lot of things we simulate. Weather patterns? We're getting better but we learn more all the time. Galaxy formation? We have a bunch of simulations but they don't always match up to observations. It goes on and on.

The only way to replicate reality is to actually do the thing and then we're not doing simulations any more. Even if our simulations accurately model real world results, we are making assumptions that happen to correctly model what we perceive as reality.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

The only way to know is to ask. Making assumptions won't cut it.

 

[Pedantic]

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.

I've spent some time trying to get to grips with the hidden design principles actually at play here. Mostly I think it comes down to "don't mess with forward causality of decision->action->resolution" and "don't separate character/player resources." This thread has me considering another principle "don't introduce new information through resolution."

I think that about covers all the cook/lock etc. swirl. You can reveal hidden information during resolution, and characters (GM or PC) can introduce new information during action declaration, but resolution can only enact changes to the known board through existing known rules structures.

I feel pretty good about that, because it answers the "realism" question. Calls for "realism" are best understood as appeals to use a relatively knowable common knowledge ruleset in cases where the rules are undefined.

 

[Enrahim]

Finally managed to compose a complete reply.

OK? It's not meant to be exhaustive or exclusive.

So useless?

I would hope that when you describe your world, you at least try to make the descriptions a bit interesting and engaging. Unless your goal is to be as bland as possible.

Well, if you want to water it down to that level..

They mean world maps, not encounter maps. As in, you don't need to fill in every square inch of your world ahead of time. It's OK if your world is "starting village, forest over there, dungeon over there."

Nope. No maps whatsoever except 3rd party modules. But then I do not make dungeon crawls.

Addressing the characters means staying in character and using their names. "Rime, you managed to nimbly leap out of the way of the dragon's breath; what do you do now?" versus "Faolyn, you didn't take any damage because of Evasion; you're next in the initiative order."

Well, if you want to water it down to "sometimes" do this. Let us then say I don't care being conscious about this, and I am sure I quite a few times adress the player.

Fair enough. I don't know how highly-magical a world DW expects and I tend to prefer lower levels of magic as well.

"Embrace the fantastic" levels. Coupled with an agenda.

If this is in response to "make a move that follows" you do this. Player does X, the NPC or world event does Y in response. Like, the PC threatens so the NPC attacks or backs down, or the PC asks for information and hands over a gold piece so the NPC gives the info or is insulted by the bribe. Or the PC steps on the wrong floor tile and triggers a trap, or the PCs are in a room where there's a lava flow so each turn they take fire damage.

This one is tricky, as moves are not a thing in D&D. I think I accurately described the intention in DW context, transfered to D&D terminology.

If you follow the link, the move is described thusly: "Monsters are fantastic creatures with their own motivations (simple or complex). Give each monster details that bring it to life: smells, sights, sounds. Give each one enough to make it real, but don’t cry when it gets beat up or overthrown. That’s what player characters do!"

In other words, if your PCs encounter zombies, then don't just say "you see three zombies." Instead, spend a few seconds to talk about the stench of their rotting bodies as they lurch across the floor. Talk about the buzzing of the flies that are attracted to their shambling corpses. Things like that.

Yes. Generic zombie 13 do not get that treatment. ("More zombies in this room"). Nor do screaming goblin raider nr 7. ("Another ambush, roll initiative")

There are, fortunately, about eleventy gazillion random fantasy name generators online. I counted. But anyway, the text specifies NPCs with speaking rolls.

Yes. I know. That doesn't help. Dragging out a generator is even more pain than throwing out some random syllables on the fly. Still need to be noted and remembered at least for the duration of the scene.

It's exactly this.

I wonder why they would feel this was worth a full paragraph under principles..

This isn't fanboying. This is giving the PCs a chance to do cool things. If they do something cool, let them know that was awesome. if the rolls are bad and they get seriously injured, their only weapon breaks, they die, it's OK to say "yeah, that sucks, I'm sorry." But you're not making it easy for them and you're not taking it back.

Ok, I guess I am doing some cheering and condolences if you water it down that far. But I am also for instance doing some theatrical gloating on minor misfortune, which I guess isn't really according to then principle?

If you're at "think dangerous" here's the actual quote: "Everything in the world is a target. You’re thinking like an evil overlord: no single life is worth anything and there is nothing sacrosanct. Everything can be put in danger, everything can be destroyed. Nothing you create is ever protected. Whenever your eye falls on something you’ve created, think how it can be put in danger, fall apart or crumble. The world changes. Without the characters’ intervention, it changes for the worse."

If you want good to always prevail, then it will--and the PCs are that force of goodness. If you want a game where life is usually good, except for the occasional rise of evil things that the PCs put down, that's also OK. Just leave spaces for the PCs to be heroes.

Yes, and that is not following the principle as described.

What this means is that if the PCs do something, then what happens as a result of that should make sense in the fiction of the world.

Handing out an inspiration point is an act the GM does in D&D. It does not need to begin in fiction. It might end in fiction when used.

This is mostly for your BBEGs. Unless all your BBEGs have already accomplished all their goals and the PCs are just cleaning up up after them.

Situations might change, but not as a move. Ofscreen updates typically take place off-session. This would from my understanding be prep, not moves in DW parlance.

Because nothing happens isn't acceptable. When the player fails a roll (6 or less) or looks to the GM, the GM makes a move, either soft or hard.

A soft move is "this is a thing that happens" while a hard move is "this is a thing that is happening to you right now."

Exactly. Which was my point. I am not following this.

Putting the character on the spot means giving them a tough choice to make.

Highlighting a downside means things like, a PC has a criminal background and there are a lot of guards around who might recognize him. Or the PC cleric's church may not be too happy if the cleric hasn't been donating enough money to them.

Providing a tailored opportunity means things like, there's a rogue in the party, so sometimes the party will encounter locks to be picked. Or, there's a wizard in the party, so maybe they'll encounter a wizard NPC who can teach the PC a new spell.

Yes? And as I said, I am in general not doing any of these. I want to focus on the party.

Look, you misunderstood what most of these actually mean, so even though I linked to the site where the list was explained, you don't seem to have actually read it fully.

Nope. Read them. And see above.

Which is what I've been saying all along. You do a lot of these things. I'm sure that you have NPCs interact with PCs, that you describe monsters at least a bit, that you at least occasionally use the PCs' backgrounds, even if those backgrounds are only inferred from their race/class/whatever else combo. I first read about "addressing the characters, not the players" in reading Ravenloft material, so I know it's part of D&D.

You clearly do not know my game. You do pure guesswork. D&D is 1000s of different games. You read Ravenloft, and somehow think I play according to what stands there when I have never read the module?

But you looked at the list, drew some very incorrect conclusions about what it meant, and decided it wasn't useful.

I have a bit more exposure to dungeon world than this list. I have been actively searching for a D&D alternative. I love new games. I do not discard anything lightly. I could fully see myself playing and maybe even running a DW game. I know it would look nothing like my previous D&D games.

 

[Faolyn]

You asked me why I wouldn't want to play DW. Its been a while since I glanced through the rules (I even hunted down some actual play streams), so I looked through some yet again.

Its just not the game for me. I could add a couple more paragraphs and started typing them but it doesn't matter. It's not the game for me and much like I will never have an NPC use persuasion on a PC, you aren't going to convert me to the holy word of PbtA games.

I understand how it works well enough to know it doesn't appeal and explained why. There's nothing more to say.

Except that a reason you don't like narrative games is something that has been a part of D&D forever. Like, literally since it stopped being purely a wargame. So why is it that you're fine with narrative triggers in D&D but not in other games? The only actual difference is that they're labeled as narrative triggers in PbtA and not in D&D.

 

[Lanefan]

I'm not seeing rising conflict across a moral line.

Here is my example, from upthread:
I haven't spelled out any rising conflict, but I think it's fairly clear how rising conflict across a moral line is implicit in this situation: violation of a treaty, forfeiting our honour, etc; or the prophecy hanging over us like Damocles's sword, making each choice a potential self-sacrifice.

Where's the rising conflict in your example? For instance, suppose that the PCs kill the prisoners, where - in the typical D&D module, which was the context of your reply to me - is the rising conflict?

Over what scale of in-game time is the conflict expected to keep rising, in order to "count" as such?

The journey through treaty lands might see conflict rising for several days (assuming that's how long the journey takes), after which it's resolved somehow.

The discussion/argument over prisoners and-or what to do with them might see conflict rising for somewhere between a few minutes and a few hours, after which it's resolved if the prisoners are killed and remains unresolved (and perhaps still rising) if the prisoners are taken along until such time as the prisoners are given into someone else's care.

In either case, the conflict rises until it's resolved - so what's the difference I'm missing?

 

[AlViking]

Except that a reason you don't like narrative games is something that has been a part of D&D forever. Like, literally since it stopped being purely a wargame. So why is it that you're fine with narrative triggers in D&D but not in other games? The only actual difference is that they're labeled as narrative triggers in PbtA and not in D&D.

I could give you a more exhaustive list and it wouldn't matter. I even started writing one but it's pointless. It's not just one thing, it's the package taken together. I could go through the GM guidance, find the corresponding general ideas in the DMG and explain the differences. Things like "The GM has rules to follow" vs "The games aren't in charge of the game, you [the DM] are". It's everywhere. I want a game that has different assumptions and approach.

Why do you care that I don't happen to like your game? I've read through the rules. I've watched actual play streams. The game doesn't appeal. Going into detail doesn't change anything, isn't a reflection on someone's preferences. Might as well ask why I like raw carrots but not cooked. I just don't.

 

[Lanefan]

I’m not saying that I’ve never seen this. I’m just saying that it’s easily addressed without abandoning what is otherwise an interesting portion of the game.

Just “no rolls made before the GM calls for a roll count” or similar pretty much gets the job done. Show the player how others are rewarded for describing their approach and playing the scene out… give them lower DCs. Make him roll with disadvantage.

And sit through an argument every time. Ruling "No rolls before I ask for them" just brings pestering "Can I roll yet?" requests.

If you give the players a rules-based avenue to skip the playing-out of role-play scenes and just resolve them mechanically, there's inevitably going to be some who insist on doing just that. And it's bad news, unless of course the whole table wants to work under that paradigm.

And sure, a solution is just to toss such players out of the game; but that ain't so easy if they're friends otherwise. The IMO much better solution is to take that avenue away (or better yet, never have it in the first place).

This gets said often, but I don’t find it’s the case. Does it really “butcher” your ability to react in character? You can pretend one thing but not another?

Nah, players can separate what their character knows and doesn’t know. It’s really not that hard.

To the former: yes it does. Why? Because to the latter, IME players (including me) are almost universally awful at separating character knowledge from player knowledge. It's unnecessary mental overhead, often leading to overcompensation the other way where players pretend their characters don't know thing they in fact should or do know.

Keep the knowledge levels lined up where possible, and playing true to character becomes much easier.