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

[EzekielRaiden]

See, that's the point. There's nothing in the mechanics that necessitates that.

Yeah. The mechanics only tell you the result. It's completely up to the GM--completely, totally, absolutely arbitrary--what that result actually means, how that result happened.

Nothing actually prevents the GM from saying it was meddlesome pixies, except the GM herself. Genuinely nothing.

 

[robertsconley]

Too bad, I love that guy's work, pretty much his entire philosophy really.

Appreciate the compliment.

It expands on my Blackmarsh setting and puts a spotlight on traditional adventure sites—while also using cultural and religious conflicts as a key driver for campaigns.

For now it open to late pledges and the unedited draft is available to backers.

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/batintheatticgames/into-the-majestic-fantasy-realms-the-northern-marches

This thread has proven helpful to me in solidifying my thoughts on how to write up the things I do and how to organize it in an approachable way. Which has proven invaluable for the referee section of my next project the Majestic Fantasy RPG.

 

[clearstream]

This is interesting. We indeed have very common backgrounds. I absolutely see your point. It actually in a way strikes me as more humanity-optimistic than my own instincts. My major was in general relativity, but I got pretty deep in quantum mechanics as well. And I can see these theories as the absolute triumph they are in human kinds ability to cooperate to produce a simulation ruleset that produces results with an accuracy way beyond any expert intuition.

However one major thing that might be coloring my view in this matter was that I left academia much because I got disillusioned about the aplicability of said theories. We got a ruleset that in theory could simulate anything at micro scale, but where we even in my course about subatomic particles needed to use severe simplifications to produce any results at all.

I absolutely get your point about inviting critisism though! I shifted career to software engineering, and I am absolutely in love with the systems allowing/requiring other people to review any code before it get into the common codebase. Every time anyone are just accepting any code I have writte.n without any points of critisism I get nervous they might have taken too lightly on the task. Mind you, this is after the code already have passed the formidable suite of automated rules based checks we have in place.

I think the two paragraphs above suggest is that while I also recognise keenly the fallibility of a human, I also have been personally burned by the limitation of (human-made) rules.

I really like this hypotesis! If I read it correctly this would if true explain why the K/FK conundrum is indeed seemingly unresolvable. If both expert and ruleset always can reach any desireable ceiling then there will not be any way to distinguish their optimal performance from a practical standpoint.

In one way this is a really neat resolution of the associated design conundrum. It appear to justify several schools of design as equivalent as far as SRs go. On one hand we have the fixed mechanics design as you point out. On the other hand we have the "educate the referee to expert status" school of design. And then we have the more hybrid: "Provide rules support to elevate referee performance" school.

Obliquely, I think the three or so types of fact play a part in justifying the "expert-GM" of FKR. We have

Type-I facts - things true in our real world and in the imagined world​

​

Type-II facts - things not true in our real world but true in the imagined world​

​

Type-III facts - facets of things true in the imagined world, that are of kinds that match things true in our real world​

​

I can think of (at least) three ways a human GM may trump a designed mode.

Textual elements of game systems -- such as written rules -- don't implement themselves: even the highest fidelity type-I facts embodied in a TTRPG text must be interpreted and implemented in play by a human.​

​

A human appointed to author and validate type-II facts in an imagined world, is performing a creative act that is not in competition with any sort of expert-system for fidelity to reality.​

​

Allocating complex facts to types-II and -III and deciding when to migrate which facets of them from one to the other, is a hard problem for written rules and principles to solve. It involves intuitions and reasoning not easily commited to paper (as we are robustly demonstrating in this thread!)​

​

Folk have characterised the 'contest' between a written out list of rules (the game system text) and a human moderator as one that the human moderator can't have the expertise on every possible topic to 'win'. However, it seems mistaken to see the comparison as -- through the proxy of game system -- one between sole-GM and a host of experts. Play is process not product.

 

[Hussar]

To me this runs into at least two challenges (that I've already outlined). Foremost, how much is enough? TTRPG isn't played to the standard of scientific investigation, nor of expert consultation or testimony. Not all subjects matter equally. Lack of expertise in quantum mechanics is unlikely to make a difference to the experience of living in the Inmost Sea. Strong knowledge of the Earthsea texts will matter more. Secondly is that when the imaginary world is one created by people at the table, those people are its foremost experts.


I'm thinking of the original FKR practice as well as the so-called Revolution. I don't think FKR adherents will mind that you think they must be above-average GMs I would agree with a sense that successful FKR simulative play is more achievable where GM's knowledge of subject is stronger than players'. That allows players to immerse and not worry about upholding the "pretended realism" of the imagined world.

There are two problems I see with this. The first is a slight mis-statement on your part. I did not say that FKR GM's must be above average. I said they must be experts in their field. And and FKR GM can only run games in their field of expertise. That's the weakness of the system. Sure, if you have an expert in the field who can reliably rule on what is plausible and not, backed up by knowledge and expertise, then fair enough, that works as a simulationist system. We do that all the time in job training for example. Heck, army training relies on exactly this sort of thing all the time. We do this in the education field all the time as well.

But that brings me to the second problem. This idea that running a simulationist game is somehow superior to other kinds of games. That you need "strong knowledge" of a setting in order to run a game in that setting. If it's a homebrew setting, in order to have "strong knowledge", the GM needs to put in all this work in order to build that library of knowledge.

Which makes running simulationist games very exclusionary. You can only run sim games if you're a expert in the subject. Otherwise, you can't run the game. I've objected to this all the way along in this thread. We add in mechanics for simulation specifically because most of us are not experts. And, if the systems are actually simulationist mechanics, they will guide narratives the same way that an expert in the field will. It might not be as good as having an actual expert in the field doing rulings, but, it will be far better than having someone just pull whatever out of their posterior.

But, in any case, the narrative is guided by the mechanics. Whether the mechanics are "use an expert in the field to judge" or "use these mechanics to give you some level of guidance".

 

[clearstream]

Appreciate the compliment.

It expands on my Blackmarsh setting and puts a spotlight on traditional adventure sites—while also using cultural and religious conflicts as a key driver for campaigns.

For now it open to late pledges and the unedited draft is available to backers.

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/batintheatticgames/into-the-majestic-fantasy-realms-the-northern-marches

This thread has proven helpful to me in solidifying my thoughts on how to write up the things I do and how to organize it in an approachable way. Which has proven invaluable for the referee section of my next project the Majestic Fantasy RPG.

In a similar vein, this thread has helped me with a casual project I've been working on, which has been to see how far player authorship of world can fit with D&D. Although we have had a lot of fun doing it, I have come to feel that the 'superpower' of D&D is it's robust commitment to a very high degree of GM curation. I'd moot that it is through properly understanding and leveraging GM curation that satisfying (and varied) D&D play is achieved. (Which I also now see to be on par with properly understanding and leveraging the principles of any RPG.)

I've also been able to revise my reservations about Earthdawn being insufficiently differentiated from D&D to justify bringing it back to the table. It was nicely elucidated by some posters here that Earthdawn's commitment to its world, and through that grounding features such as its class-equivalents in that world, makes it distinct. Seeing as I enjoyed the year or so we played Earthdawn when it came out, to me that's very satisfying.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Yeah. The mechanics only tell you the result. It's completely up to the GM--completely, totally, absolutely arbitrary--what that result actually means, how that result happened.

Nothing actually prevents the GM from saying it was meddlesome pixies, except the GM herself. Genuinely nothing.

Wrong. The thing about failed skill checks is that if the character had been more proficent, they would have succeeded. Ergo, any failed check is a consequence of the character being insufficiently skilled. Pixies don't come into it, it's no ones fault but the person using the skill.

The only exception is critical failures* on a natural one, if that rule is used. Because the check fails irrespective of skill. In which case, it could be due to something outside of the character's control, such as pixies. That's why a lot of tables don't use critical failure on skill checks.

*and successes

Note that if the skill check was with disadvantage, and they only role one 1, then whatever caused the disadvantage must have been the cause of the failure.

 

[Emerikol]

I think if you believe that at least the more blatant version of "I declare a real world animal doing something they can't do" would pass without comment in a "traditional D&D campaign" that certainly differs radically from the ones I saw back in the day. It might pass if it was declared as some setting-specific special offshoot, but even then someone who knew would mention how weird it was.

Obviously it would depend on how blatant it was, right? That a snake climbed down a rope would likely not draw much attention. It also depends on the educational background of the people playing. If they are snake specialists (or at least one is) then a comment is more likely forthcoming.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

That a snake climbed down a rope would likely not draw much attention.

"The speckled band..."

 

[Emerikol]

There are two problems I see with this. The first is a slight mis-statement on your part. I did not say that FKR GM's must be above average. I said they must be experts in their field. And and FKR GM can only run games in their field of expertise. That's the weakness of the system. Sure, if you have an expert in the field who can reliably rule on what is plausible and not, backed up by knowledge and expertise, then fair enough, that works as a simulationist system. We do that all the time in job training for example. Heck, army training relies on exactly this sort of thing all the time. We do this in the education field all the time as well.

I don't believe you have to be an expert in the way you are saying.

But that brings me to the second problem. This idea that running a simulationist game is somehow superior to other kinds of games. That you need "strong knowledge" of a setting in order to run a game in that setting. If it's a homebrew setting, in order to have "strong knowledge", the GM needs to put in all this work in order to build that library of knowledge.

The only kinds of games I enjoy are well designed and well thought out worlds crafted by a DM who is into it. It's why I used to DM a lot (I went to grad school so that is another story). It's also why my table was never empty. You love it when you can get it. Am I perfect in knowledge of every aspect of everything in my world? Yes and no. Since it is based loosely on the real world, of course I won't know every aspect of every fauna. I just tell my players that what I say is what their senses are telling them. The rules are musty old tomes that are often right but may not be every single time.

Which makes running simulationist games very exclusionary. You can only run sim games if you're a expert in the subject. Otherwise, you can't run the game. I've objected to this all the way along in this thread. We add in mechanics for simulation specifically because most of us are not experts. And, if the systems are actually simulationist mechanics, they will guide narratives the same way that an expert in the field will. It might not be as good as having an actual expert in the field doing rulings, but, it will be far better than having someone just pull whatever out of their posterior.

But, in any case, the narrative is guided by the mechanics. Whether the mechanics are "use an expert in the field to judge" or "use these mechanics to give you some level of guidance".

And to be fair, I am a mix of simulationist and gamist. My players want to work as a team to overcome challenges presented by the game. So I keep that in mind as well.

I don't think the game requires an Expert in everything. I do think the DM should know a lot about His world. If the DM says a snake can climb a rope then it can. Are you going to argue with your own eyes when the snake shimmies up the rope?

 

[clearstream]

There are two problems I see with this. The first is a slight mis-statement on your part. I did not say that FKR GM's must be above average. I said they must be experts in their field. And and FKR GM can only run games in their field of expertise. That's the weakness of the system. Sure, if you have an expert in the field who can reliably rule on what is plausible and not, backed up by knowledge and expertise, then fair enough, that works as a simulationist system. We do that all the time in job training for example. Heck, army training relies on exactly this sort of thing all the time. We do this in the education field all the time as well.

I missed that nuance (sorry!) and do agree with you here. I've concretely observed at the table that FKR GMs can be incredible... helped by being masters of their subject.

But that brings me to the second problem. This idea that running a simulationist game is somehow superior to other kinds of games. That you need "strong knowledge" of a setting in order to run a game in that setting. If it's a homebrew setting, in order to have "strong knowledge", the GM needs to put in all this work in order to build that library of knowledge.

I don't think simulationist games are superior to other kinds of games! I'm certain I have never said that.

It may be hard to believe but I like (and play!) all sorts of TTRPG. I'm as excited by other things games can do as I am by heroic narrative in the Western dramatic tradition. TTRPGs are satisfying in different ways, and for each of those ways I think there are game designs that are more or less accomplished in what they are doing... but that doesn't mean I prefer one mode of play over another.

Which makes running simulationist games very exclusionary. You can only run sim games if you're a expert in the subject. Otherwise, you can't run the game. I've objected to this all the way along in this thread. We add in mechanics for simulation specifically because most of us are not experts. And, if the systems are actually simulationist mechanics, they will guide narratives the same way that an expert in the field will. It might not be as good as having an actual expert in the field doing rulings, but, it will be far better than having someone just pull whatever out of their posterior.

The thing is that there is work other than specifically knowing a real-world subject needed for simulationist play, and written rules interpreted and implemented by humans aren't always the best way of doing it.