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

[Micah Sweet]

Why is who separating what?

Why is the GM separating the party? Very often, because it makes things more difficult and potentially more interesting and dramatic. It's an adventuring trope with a long history, after all.

Or were you talking about in-game reasons? I dunno; you'd have to talk to whoever is doing the separating.


The fact that the GM's roles in both trad and narrative games are built around the principles that range from very similar to actually identical. It's silly to complain about things being written down neatly in one game when it's been part of the rules and expectations of another game that I know you play and seemingly enjoy.

Things codified are things expected to followed by all participants. They set expectations you might not want to feel forced to meet.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yeah you do. You complain all the time about how 5e is nothing more than a money grab and about how the new books, which you don't like, are badly done. That's a bludgeon.

Haven't done that for a while. Got in trouble for it actually.

 

[Micah Sweet]

GMs don't use player moves. GMs use GM moves. Mind, depending on the game in question, it's possible for a GM to create a move associated with a place or NPC that they made that mimics a PC move.

(In case you weren't aware, GMs can create moves for their NPCs and locations.)

Also, moves aren't used "at will." They have to be triggered. And moves aren't special abilities or skills. They are specifically responses to narrative events. When X happens, Y results.

The fully reactionary role of GMs in these games (once the initial premise is presented) is one of those things one can point to that to my mind proves that there is more of a difference in playstyles than just whether or not principles of play are written down.

 

[TwoSix]

"It’s not an attack. But you can’t “not think about your play with deep introspection” and also be expected to be taken as seriously as those who do."

That very clearly says that if you don't think about your play with deep introspection, you can't expect to be taken as seriously as those who do.

It's a judgment that one way is superior to the other. Perhaps @TwoSix didn't intend it to be that way, but that's how it was written.

If it's OneTrueWayism to make a judgment that "thinking deeply" about a topic is superior to "not thinking deeply" when discussing said topic, then I am happy to accept the title.

I don't need some deep understanding of other games and styles of play to have valid and serious opinions about how D&D plays. I do try to understand other styles from the rules that are quoted here from time to time, and I make an effort not to get them wrong. If I didn't, though, to just dismiss my opinions because of a lack of "deep introspection" would be wrong. I would still know D&D well enough to have valid and serious opinions.

I would expect you to have valid and serious positions about some of the minutiae of D&D play, like what classes and spells are better, or details of the initiative system, or things like that. If you've only played D&D, I simply don't think your opinion about the complexities of play processes across all of the TTRPG space will be particularly informed or useful. At best, you can offer insight as to whether a particular process "feels like D&D" in your experience.

 

[Faolyn]

Things codified are things expected to followed by all participants. They set expectations you might not want to feel forced to meet.

I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous. All games have expectations. When you ran 5e, were you a failure if you didn't have 6-8 Medium encounters between every single long rest? Were you a failure if you didn't give out exactly the right about of treasure as expected by the PC's level? Or if you sometimes forgot to use a monster's ability? No, you weren't. Nor are you a failure if you don't meet every single bullet point on those lists every single time because nobody expects you to.

 

[Faolyn]

The fully reactionary role of GMs in these games (once the initial premise is presented) is one of those things one can point to that to my mind proves that there is more of a difference in playstyles than just whether or not principles of play are written down.

It's not fully reactionary because the GM can prep threats ahead of time. Also, "fully reactionary" is a thing in improvised RPGs, which is something that we all know can be done using D&D.

 

[TwoSix]

It seems odd to expect players to fit neatly into subjective boxes like “simulationist” or “narrativist.” The reality at the table almost always blurs those lines.

Players aren't simulationist or narrativist (or anything else). Play is.

You might label a player who only wants to play games that pursue only that agenda as "simulationist" or "gamist", but that's a weird shorthand that honestly confuses the issue.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It's not fully reactionary because the GM can prep threats ahead of time. Also, "fully reactionary" is a thing in improvised RPGs, which is something that we all know can be done using D&D.

Not my game. Or any I've ever played.

 

[FrogReaver]

Players aren't simulationist or narrativist (or anything else). Play is.

You might label a player who only wants to play games that pursue only that agenda as "simulationist" or "gamist", but that's a weird shorthand that honestly confuses the issue.

Why?

 

[hawkeyefan]

I don't need to prove you wrong. Those things are not just relevant to RPG simulations. You are still trying to misapply the wrong definition of simulation to RPGs. All that matters is that it is simulating the process of falling. It doesn't have to do it well. It doesn't have to say that you fell because the rocks were wet. None of that. Only that falling deals damage.

Then by this metric, which RPGs would you say are not simulationist?