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

[Maxperson]

Why is that not authoring? You consciously chose to think of a bar.

Kinda sorta. I've created so many bars in my DMing career and seen so many others, that those minor details just pop in and can be said with very little or no thought. It is just kind of like saying what you see(providing you can see images like that).

It might also be because I have a really vivid imagination and daydreaming has been a problem for me my whole life. It's super easy for me, and now my son, to get lost in our own heads as we play out scenarios and think things through. A lot of the details in such a day dream are spontaneous and I don't have to think about them.

 

[TwoSix]

Kinda sorta. I've created so many bars in my DMing career and seen so many others, that those minor details just pop in and can be said with very little or no thought. It is just kind of like saying what you see(providing you can see images like that).

It might also be because I have a really vivid imagination and daydreaming has been a problem for me my whole life. It's super easy for me, and now my son, to get lost in our own heads as we play out scenarios and think things through. A lot of the details in such a day dream are spontaneous and I don't have to think about them.

It reminds me of the divide between people who see pictures, character, and whole scenes play out when they read fiction and those who don't.

 

[Umbran]

And I don't agree with that. A lot of writing attempts you find out by doing them if you have the skill for it. And it may not be obvious just reading it yourself.

"This is a thing that people get paid a lot of money to do professionally, and I have not been involved with that profession," would be a clue.

"This is a thing covered in graduate level classes in university, and I didn't even take bachelor's level courses in the subject," would be another clue.

"I read up in wikipedia on it," would be a third clue.

The answer to, "Am I likely to be in the Dunning-Kruger Club on this topic?" would also give you an indication.

Pemerton, in this thread, is a great example - He outright admits that he has only a duffer's understanding of Special Relativity, and no understanding at all of General Relativity. And, quite predictably, in his very first consideration of the issue, he steps right into a hole.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I forget: do you feel that way about "filling in the holes" cases? Because at that point the player isn't more of a reality warper than the GM and its not a given that the hole being filled in is inappropriate.

The GM makes up details all the time in play. They have to, because no model is completely perfect in every detail, and nobody thinks of everything. If the players want to do so, they can make suggestions that the GM can use, or not, as they see fit.

 

[Lanefan]

That is sure as hell the sentiment I have gotten from the vast majority of people promoting the "traditional GM" approach.

"You WILL adventure in the world I've provided to you. Don't like it? Tough, find a new table."

More "You're invited to adventure in this world I've provided for you. You're free to accept or decline" I think, because this happens at the player-recruitment stage before the campaign even begins.

And after I've just spent a year or so creating said setting I'm not about to start over if-when somone's acceptance of that invitation is conditional on my making some major change(s) or other. In that case I'll likely just withdraw the invitation and go invite someone else in.

Also worth noting in my case I'm not just designing the setting but the rules that go with said setting, so big changes to the setting (e.g. adding another playable species, or another character class) also requires a major rules re-write to include those new elements. Not exactly something I can get done in a week - probably more like a month or two* - and the frustrating part for me would be that I'd be re-doing work I only just recently did. No thanks.

* - in fact just yesterday I started what's probably going to be a full overhaul of my current rules system to include a new class, remove a species, and make a bunch of tweaks and changes. It's mid-July now and I'll be pleasantly surprised if I'm finished by Christmas; then comes some playtesting through the winter.

 

[The Firebird]

"This is a thing that people get paid a lot of money to do professionally, and I have not been involved with that profession," would be a clue.

"This is a thing covered in graduate level classes in university, and I didn't even take bachelor's level courses in the subject," would be another clue.

"I read up in wikipedia on it," would be a third clue.

The answer to, "Am I likely to be in the Dunning-Kruger Club on this topic?" would also give you an indication.

Pemerton, in this thread, is a great example - He outright admits that he has only a duffer's understanding of Special Relativity, and no understanding at all of General Relativity. And, quite predictably, in his very first consideration of the issue, he steps right into a hole.

These are clues perhaps, but there is a wide range of abilities here. Michael Crichton is a good acid test. He uses science and technology extensively, his plots often hinge on key details thereof, and big parts of what he presents are wrong in detail. But his novels are certainly stronger for having the technical discussion there. It's a good thing he didn't throw up his hands and say "well, who knows if this amber idea is sound anyway", and a good thing he ignored the fact that it doesn't quite work.

 

[TwoSix]

* - in fact just yesterday I started what's probably going to be a full overhaul of my current rules system to include a new class, remove a species, and make a bunch of tweaks and changes. It's mid-July now and I'll be pleasantly surprised if I'm finished by Christmas; then comes some playtesting through the winter.

"I'm calling my next campaign The Winds of Winter".

 

[Enrahim]

To draw the analogy with @pemerton 's runes, the player only had the power to suggest things, the formal power to declare their suggestion true-in-the-fiction lay elsewhere (with the GM in my case, with the invoked mechanics in theirs)

Just have to point out: Your example is more profound than that. I do consider the power to provide a narration to a random generator that does the mechanical formality of selecting if that narration is going to take effect a formal power of narration. I do not consider the power of suggesting something to a human that judges if this can be turned into narration a formal power of narration.

More to the point: There are some people strongly critisizing the first that is actively stating a preference for the second. I am really curious what they make out of this example.

 

[Lanefan]

Mature adults, whenever possible, pick appropriate times to have discussions. It is unclear why you assume that discussion must be in the middle of a session of play. Did it not occur to you that "talking things out" might well happen outside a game session?

Perhaps worth keeping in mind that for a lot of groups the only time they're together is during the game sessions, which thus makes them the only time they can talk things out with all present and having equal opportunity for input.

 

[Maxperson]

"I'm calling my next campaign The Winds of Winter".

In only 15 or so years you'll be making announcements on how you are both close and not close to starting it.