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

[jayoungr]

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.

For whatever anecdotal information is worth, that hasn't been my experience.

What is there that says "but you don't have energy beam eyes"?

Even in PbtA games, they'd have to be an option on your character sheet. You can't just declare that you have them out of the blue.

 

[hawkeyefan]

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.

This is nonsense. You did it earlier in the thread and now again. You hurl out a criticism that’s unfounded, but you couch it as “I heard this from someone” so that you maintain plausible deniability.

If you’re going to make a criticism, at least have the commitment to back it up.

I don't see how that keeps the game grounded. I can easily describe something as "I open the door with my energy beam eyes". I'm describing the action, so that makes it fine according to you. What is there that says "but you don't have energy beam eyes"?

What stops you from doing that in D&D?

 

[FrogReaver]

Social contracts are where we establish that people can't do whatever they want. The game rules are merely an appendix to the agreement between people about what we are doing.

And yes, enforcement of social contracts is awkward as heck. I am sorry, but being human is awkward as heck.

Until such time as we have game books that, I dunno... deduct money form the GM's and players bank accounts when rules are broken? Calls the Game Police to confiscate your dice, or something?... enforcement of all game rules is an extension of social contract.

I didn’t know you were a prophet

 

[Thomas Shey]

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

I have to point out he could have heard correctly about how those particular players treated it. That just means they were poorly engaging with the assumptions of the system, and unsurprisingly, that's going to produce ridiculous results, just like with every system where people don't engage with it.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

This is nonsense. You did it earlier in the thread and now again. You hurl out a criticism that’s unfounded, but you couch it as “I heard this from someone” so that you maintain plausible deniability

I’m just looking for someone to explain why that shouldn’t happen, to which no one seems to be able to give me an answer.

What stops you from doing that in D&D

The DM.

 

[Faolyn]

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.

"The speckled band..."

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I have to point out he could have heard correctly about how those particular players treated it. That just means they were poorly engaging with the assumptions of the system, and unsurprisingly, that's going to produce ridiculous results, just like with every system where people don't engage with it.

This is entirely possible. I don’t take anecdotes as representative of anything general, and I know my players are inclined to get silly. Which is why it helps to have someone that keeps them grounded in the fictional world.

What I’m really pointing at, is what I suspect to be the case: it’s a social contract that keeps the players sensible.

 

[Faolyn]

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.

There is something that prevents it: player buy-in (with the GM being one of the players). Will the players accept the idea that it was pixies? Unless pixies have been established as at least a possibility for the area, then no.

If the players continue to not accept these rulings, then they stop playing.

 

[Thomas Shey]

But what is the point? The DM is still going to rule. Even if a snake specialist says such and such snake can't climb down a rope, I'm probably going to say "Well this one did so what do you do now?"

The point is that its still not going to pass without comment. The point was that even traditional D&D players were still not going to just accept it blindly; they might after your comment realize it was an behind-pull and move on, but that's not the same thing as just accepting it. And in the case of things with more significance, they might well press the point.

The idea that people just take whatever the GM says as gospel in D&D seems to come from people with limited exposure to the population of players, and probably reads too much into even the most authoritarian version of GM power as presented to boot.

 

[Umbran]

I didn’t know you were a prophet

I am only a prophet by way of everyone else - I spew forth some amount of stuff, and some tiny faction of might turn out to be true, at which point I will be declared a genius and revered for generations, without consideration of all the crap I said that didn't come to pass.