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

[Emerikol]

Might not need a rules lawyer, though.

@EzekielRaiden 's statement that the DM is always right is valid, but only to a point. Where even an I'm-god-and-what-I-say-goes DM can be wrong is when saying something that directly contradicts something he's already said.

Trivial example: he narrates the wall as white then when next asked he narrates it as dark gray.
More relevant example: he first narrates the opponent as only carrying light weapons yet when said foe attacks a round later she does so with a greatsword.
Silly example: he narrates the sun rising in the east every morning until one day to get the right lighting effect he has it rise in the west.

These sort of mistakes shouldn't need a rules lawyer to correct, and a DM who insists on doubling down on them on a regular basis (as opposed to rare one-time magic effects) is IMO unfit for the chair.

Yes I agree but the recourse is to abandon that DM not argue him to death. I know your trivial example is an attempt to do something obvious and I accept it as that but in reality even a walls color could change in a magical setting.

 

[Emerikol]

There will always be exceptions, of course. It is a broad generalization..

But, I believe I didn't just imply it - I think I said it pretty directly in another post.

Then someone should talk out about making your posts personal attacks.

1) What?
Are you trying to imply that someone's approach to discussion on an internet messageboard (the only place you have ever seen me, afaik) has squat all to do with how they approach gaming sessions?

I don't know about you, but I understand that people can, and should, behave differently in different contexts. EN World is not my gaming table. Don't extrapolate one to the other.

I wasn't talking about an internet message board. I was replying to your suggestion to "talk things out"

2) What?
Are you trying to imply that "talking through issues" is engaging in long rules debates? Because that's not what I am thinking of when I speak about talking through problems like mature adults.

During a game session, time is precious. So yes any out of game discussion over 5 minutes is wasting needless time and 5 minutes is pushing it.

3) What?
I think you'll find that on this site, I don't engage in many debates of actual game rules - I'm more a playstyle and philosophy guy. And when I do discuss specific rules, I typically say my piece and then leave in relatively short order.

Your responses indicate to me you are missing what I said.

"Antagonism" is your word, not mine. Since it is not mine, I don't know why you feel it is relevant to this sub-thread of discussion.

Well, what is flipping over tables? It sounds even figuratively antagonistic.

For me, leaving a DM I did not enjoy playing with was nothing more or less than a decision about a particular game.

 

[AlViking]

Would you like me to start pointing it out every time people use openly disparaging, mocking terms for other people's preferences? Because that's what you just did here. I do not want "reality-altering powers". That's never what I've wanted, and I've specifically and explicitly rejected that numerous times in this thread alone. Why are you comfortable mocking my preferences with phrases like "reality-altering powers", but get upset when others use terms they consider accurate, if harsh, for your own?

More importantly, games already aren't the real world. Something we've already discussed. Repeatedly. What "agency" means at a game table is inherently and significantly different from what it means for me as a human being.

I mean, for God's sake, we literally do have people here on Earth who think nobody actually has any agency at all. Superdeterminism and all that.

Would you like us to point out the every time you use openly disparaging, mocking terms for other DM's preferences in this one post? Because according to you if a DM has any preferences or restrictions on what is allowed in your game they're demanding totalitarian dictatorship because they have a clear picture of how their world works.

When I'm DMing I'm not just one person's DM, I'm the DM for the entire table and myself. I'm doing the best I can to be accommodating but I'm also deciding lore, mythology, feel and tone of my world. I don't particularly care for anything goes or collaborative world building* for my main campaign world, I've had several people over the years tell me that it's one of the reasons they accepted my invitation.

If you get invited to my campaign it will include my handful of restrictions and house rules, along with a link to a wiki with access to a ton of world lore I've generated over the years, some of which I've probably forgotten. If you can't accept that I don't want to run games with evil characters, that I have a list of allowable species, that I want to wait until we have a session 0 before you come up with a character and that I want you to create a character that will fit with the group? Then I'm not the DM for you. Speaking of backgrounds, they're largely up to you but I expect you to with me to figure out where your character comes from and ensure that the background doesn't contradict established lore and assumptions.

If that doesn't work, keep looking for a game that does work for you and good luck.

 

[TwoSix]

But I view the fixed world approach as the right way to address it. I see why you can get it with a fixed world if the GM is withholding information. But skilled GMs will provide you with enough. Players contributing to the worldbuilding doesn't do it for me, because every time I contribute as a player I am pulled out of character.

I'm the polar opposite; having aspects of the setting my character would either already know, or be able to immediately sense, be told to me is what I find "immersion"-breaking.

I think it's a pretty stark divide between players that isn't bridgeable by technique or approach. What helps my immersion hurts yours, and vice versa.

 

[FrogReaver]

As best I can tell, @Hussar is relying on widespread consensus that RuneQuest, Rolemaster, Chivalry & Sorcery, HERO, GURPS and the like are simulationist RPGs.

They all have quite a bit in common, which mostly reflects how they react against D&D:

*Their rules for PC build tend to produce PCs who are defined in terms that are closer to "total" (ie aspiring to specify everything about this person's capabilities) than the trope-y and limited information provided by the classic D&D class system;

*Their rules for injury involve more than just hp ablation - eg there are rules for wound penalties, knockdown, unconsciousness/"bleeding out", hit locations and the like;

*Their combat rules try to approximate simultaneity of resolution and reduce the abstraction of classic D&D combat while also avoiding the "stop motion" feel of more contemporary D&D combat;

*Their spell rules, if they have them, tend towards power point or exhaustion rules rather than memorisation and/or slots;

*Their overall tone aspires to a type of "seriousness" about the fiction, the setting, etc that is absent from the classic D&D texts (eg OD&D, B/X, AD&D although parts of Gygax's DMG are clearly written in response to and defence against the emerging anti-D&D simulationist aesthetic).​

In terms of my post upthread, these RPGs aspire to (1):

It’s clear D&D has some aspects of simulation.

It’s clear some other games have more robust simulation at least in some areas.

It’s also clear typical narrativist mechanics interfere with simulation.

If I’m answering a Narrativist about why I prefer D&D to Narrativist games it’s due to the simulation differences. If I’m answering a hardcore simulationist about why I prefer d&d to hardcore simulation games the answer is the gameplay.

One can desire both simulation and gameplay while realizing simulation and gameplay can at times be at odds and having different personal preferences about the right mix.

 

[Don Durito]

I'm the polar opposite; having aspects of the setting my character would either already know, or be able to immediately sense, be told to me is what I find "immersion"-breaking.

I think it's a pretty stark divide between players that isn't bridgeable by technique or approach. What helps my immersion hurts yours, and vice versa.

And some of us never think or worry about immersion at all.

 

[hawkeyefan]

What is the isekai vibe?

Isekai is a sub-genre of anime and manga about a character getting transported to a different world. It’s popular in Japan, but can be used to describe works that predate the term… like the John Carter Mars stories, A Connecticut Yankee, the D&D cartoon, and plenty of others.

It’s very much “stranger in a strange land” where part of the interest is in finding out about the world through the eyes of someone new to it.

It’s a vibe many RPG games seem to have based on how they’re described, but one many players and GMs actively don’t want, or at least often do not.

 

[Umbran]

Usually the reason is to set The Rules when important parts of the story are going to turn on How the FTL Works in some fashion (or similar other likely counterfactuals).

This calls up the same basic question for the author: "If I cannot write confidently on this, should my plot/narrative hinge on the details of its operation?"

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I do not see the connection between your example and the concept of fleshing out the entire world in absolute detail?

We have:

1. You simply must trust the GM. No other option is permitted, unless you leave.
2. Any reference to anything involving cooperation or collaboration is dismissed as "having reality-altering powers".
3. The world is specifically expected to be self-consistent and definite ("clearly defined or determined; not vague or general; fixed; precise; exact").

Between the three, I don't see how we can avoid this.

Because of 1, all and anything the GM says goes, and there can be no commentary, criticism, or alteration--trust, or depart.

All collaboration is nixed by 2, hence everything in the world must be produced only, exclusively, through GM effort. Hence, for there to be anything for the players to engage with, it must already be fleshed out by the GM.

And then 3 closes off any remaining loopholes, because self-consistency and definiteness require that any information the players could obtain is already defined. Ad-libbing fails the definiteness requirement (and puts the self-consistency at great risk), randomness puts both at risk; and incomplete efforts cannot remain self-consistent because they aren't closed systems.

3 was already established by the thread ages back. It's the "realism" or "verisimilitude" criterion.

And the three together are summarized by "The GM is reality, and reality must be definite for simulation."

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Would you like us to point out the every time you use openly disparaging, mocking terms for other DM's preferences in this one post? Because according to you if a DM has any preferences or restrictions on what is allowed in your game they're demanding totalitarian dictatorship because they have a clear picture of how their world works.

No.

Only a GM who has those preferences...and demands absolute power...is doing so.

Hence why I keep saying that that specific thing is a problem.

When I'm DMing I'm not just one person's DM, I'm the DM for the entire table and myself. I'm doing the best I can to be accommodating but I'm also deciding lore, mythology, feel and tone of my world. I don't particularly care for anything goes or collaborative world building* for my main campaign world, I've had several people over the years tell me that it's one of the reasons they accepted my invitation.

If you get invited to my campaign it will include my handful of restrictions and house rules, along with a link to a wiki with access to a ton of world lore I've generated over the years, some of which I've probably forgotten. If you can't accept that I don't want to run games with evil characters, that I have a list of allowable species, that I want to wait until we have a session 0 before you come up with a character and that I want you to create a character that will fit with the group? Then I'm not the DM for you. Speaking of backgrounds, they're largely up to you but I expect you to with me to figure out where your character comes from and ensure that the background doesn't contradict established lore and assumptions.

If that doesn't work, keep looking for a game that does work for you and good luck.

I can accept most--possibly all--of those things.

I cannot accept "absolute power", and never will.