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

[HaroldTheHobbit]

Not having the stamina to read the 1761 pages in this thread, I just want to remind everyone that old Traveller grogs are way, way, WAY more conservative than D&D folks. It’s a scientifically proved and fully objektive fact.

 

[Thomas Shey]

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.

That one might pass because its obscure--but you never want to assume its not something someone just happens to know. Gamers are often troves of obscure and mostly useless information. I've got a couple I know are minor-league animal nerds, and another who was originally trained as a zoologist. In other groups I've seen other things on different topics.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Sure, in that the GM can make a swarm of pixies appear and interfere with the player, irrespective of what the player rolls on the dice.

But being fair is at the core of the GMs job, and part of that is keeping the game logical and grounded, so that the players can make rational decisions. If pixies appear, it’s only because the pixies have a reason to do so.

What I have heard of Apocalypse games is that, with nothing to keep the world rational and grounded, the players try to outdo each other with ridiculousness. Which means they rarely last beyond one session. Whereas my D&D campaigns last years.

Then you have heard completely incorrectly. Like I have no idea how you have come to that conclusion. At all.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

In order for a rule to be set aside and not be breaking the rule, the rule itself needs to be worded with the ability to set it aside when the DM feels it's needed. Otherwise, it's breaking the rule.

Nope. And if this is how you're starting, I'm frankly not going to bother reading the rest. It won't lead to anything productive.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I mean, no. That's not true in the slightest. The narration said that the person was climbing the cliff. The mechanics said that the PC fell a distance of X feet and took Y damage. The narration cannot be completely arbitrary as it must conform to both the prior narration and the mechanics of falling X feet for Y damage.

Except the fictional circumstances and the social contract. Does the DM have the power to just poof pixies into existence to force the fall and then poof them back out again? Yes. Would that be DM abuse of power and authority? Also yes.

That's probably why in 42 years of playing with dozens of DMs, I've never seen something like that happen. DMs like when the narration and mechanics match as they are intended, so they generally don't do abuse their power to force absurd results.

So "except for nothing."

Good to know.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

The power and authority the DMs use is done judiciously at appropriate times and in appropriate ways.

Why? You've always said the power is absolute and that no rules, whatsoever, can ever limit them.

Social contracts accomplish nothing when someone can do whatever they want. That's the whole point.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Then you have heard completely incorrectly. Like I have no idea how you have come to that conclusion. At all.

So what keeps those games grounded? Because all I've heard are first hand accounts of sessions that make Monty Python and the Holy Grail sound sensible.

 

[Enrahim]

Why? You've always said the power is absolute and that no rules, whatsoever, can ever limit them.

Social contracts accomplish nothing when someone can do whatever they want. That's the whole point.

Social contract is a couple of steps over rules in big model isn't it? That is when we talk about not bound by rules we are talking inside the scope of play, not that we somehow suddenly are free to murder our friends litterarily with no consequence?

 

[Enrahim]

So what keeps those games grounded? Because all I've heard are first hand accounts of sessions that make Monty Python and the Holy Grail sound sensible.

It is impossible to say without knowing the game. But PbtA tend to have the same basic building blocks that keep D&D grounded. That is each player only get control over one character, the capabilities of that character is limited to a limited list of moves, and there is a GM that controls the rest of the world.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

So what keeps those games grounded? Because all I've heard are first hand accounts of sessions that make Monty Python and the Holy Grail sound sensible.

Well, the rules explicitly say that you have to start and end with the fiction. Over and over and over. It's....literally the explicit text. I'll be using Dungeon World, of course, but it's functionally equivalent to other PbtA games on this.

DW also includes things like "you have to do it to do it" and "if you do it, you do it", and specifically explains what those mean. Namely, "if you want an action to occur (like investigating a room for secret doors), that can only happen if you actually describe the actions which would achieve that"; it's very literally exactly what it says on the tin, you have to do the things you want to do in order to...do the things you want to do. And the second means "if you take these actions, then the consequences that are supposed to happen, happen".

Together, they are quite literally "rules are invoked if, and only if, the fiction establishes that they should be."

If people are throwing logic to the wind, it's exclusively because they feel like doing so. It's explicitly in contradiction with the rules, and (as you have no doubt read!) the GM is supposed to follow the rules. One of the GM Principles, for example, is "Make a move that follows", meaning, use mechanics specifically because they follow logically from the situation currently happening. This is explained in the text explicitly:

Make a move that follows​

When you make a move what you’re actually doing is taking an element of the fiction and bringing it to bear against the characters. Your move should always follow from the fiction. They help you focus on one aspect of the current situation and do something interesting with it. What’s going on? What move makes sense here?

It is repeated again and again and again throughout the text that what matters, what always matters, is ensuring things make sense, that things follow from what is known, or build upon either what is definitely already known, or fill in a genuine gap of knowledge. As an example of that lst one, "Draw maps, leave blanks"--the map matters, the stuff on it doesn't just change willy-nilly--but the map is not complete, and we'll learn more about what was in the blank spaces later on. Or, to quote the text itself where it explains this:

"Dungeon World exists mostly in the imaginations of the people playing it; maps help everyone stay on the same page. You won’t always be drawing them yourself, but any time there’s a new location described make sure it gets added to a map. When you draw a map don’t try to make it complete. Leave room for the unknown. As you play you’ll get more ideas and the players will give you inspiration to work with. Let the maps expand and change."