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

[pemerton]

‘Runes cannot be read without first assigning them a meaning’.

How did they get assigned a meaning? In this case the player selected a meaning, rolled some dice and got a successful result. That’s the part that’s non diegetic that doesn’t occur in d&d. In d&d the player isn’t selecting the meaning of the runes subject to a successful die roll.

This is no different from the rope case. A rope can't be severed without their first being a sharp rock. And how was the sharp rock posited? In response to a die roll yielding an unsuccessful result.

As to what you say about D&D, here is a counter-example:

"Oh, you failed your arcana check to identify the runes? They're definitely runes of demon summoning, and you've triggered them!"

I'm not sure what edition that instance of play is from. Here's a similar (not identical) example from 4e play:

The PCs erected a magic circle around the Mausoleum of the Raven Queen, in order to prevent anyone from entering it and potentially learning her true name (backstory here); then rested; then scried on the tarrasque, which they knew to have recently begun marauding in the mortal world, identifying its location and noting that it was being observed by maruts.

<snip>

The player of the eternal defender had already noted that, when I read out the description of maruts and their contracts earlier in the session, the only being actually mentioned by name was the Raven Queen. So he predicted (more-or-less in line with what I had in mind), that the maruts observing the tarrasque would be there at the behest of the Raven Queen (who is served by three of the five PCs), to stop it being interfered with.

When the PCs then took their Tower to confront the tarrasque, that was indeed what they found. Upon arriving at the tarrasque's location they found the tarrasque being warded by a group of maruts who explained that, in accordance with a contract made with the Raven Queen millenia ago, they were there to ensure the realisation of the end times, and to stop anyone interfering with the tarrasque as an engine of this destruction and a herald of the beginning of the end times and the arrival of the Dusk War.

<snip>

I wasn't sure exactly what the players would do here. They could try and fight the maruts, obviously, but I thought the Raven Queen devotees might be hesitant to do so. I had envisaged that the PCs might try to persuade them that the contract was invalid in some way - and this idea was mentioned at the table, together with the related idea of the various exarchs of the Raven Queen in the party trying to lay down the law. In particular I had thought that the paladin of the Raven Queen, who is a Marshall of Letherna (in effect, one of the Raven Queen's most powerful servants), might try to exercise his authority to annual or vary the contract in some fashion.

But instead the argument developed along different lines. What the players did was to persuade the maruts that the time for fulfillment of their contract had not yet arisen, because this visitation of the tarrasque was not yet a sign of the Dusk War. (Mechanically, these were social skill checks, history and religions checks, etc, in a skill challenge to persuade the maruts.)

The player of the Eternal Defender PC made only one action in this skill challenge - explaining that it was not the end times, because he was there to defeat the tarrasque (and got another successful intimidate check, after spending an action point to reroll his initial fail) - before launching himself from the flying tower onto the tarrasque and proceeding to whittle away around 600 of its hit points over two rounds. (There were also two successful out-of-turn attacks from the ranger and the paladin, who were spending their on-turn actions in negotiating with the maruts.)

The invoker/wizard was able to point to this PC's successful solo-ing of the tarrasque as evidence that the tarrasque, at least on this occasion, could not be the harbinger of the end times whom the maruts were contracted to protect, because it clearly lacked the capacity to ravage the world. The maruts agreed with this point - clearly they had misunderstood the timing of celestial events - and the PCs therefore had carte blanche to finish of the tarrasque. (Mechanically, this was the final success in the skill challenge: the player rolled Insight to see what final argument would sway the maruts, knowing that only one success was needed. He succeeded. I invited him to then state the relevant argument.)

The player succeeds in a roll to intuit the final argument that will sway the maruts, and thereby wins the skill challenge; and then the player authors the argument. This happened in a D&D game.

D&D is not simply how some posters prefer to play D&D. It encompasses quite a bit of variety.

EDIT: Also, in response to ‘Runes cannot be read without first assigning them a meaning’: this may be true. But a fiction about runes being read can be authored without first assigning them a meaning. That doesn't mean that the reading is not something that occurs in the fiction.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

This sounds like a normal good game to me.

Would you be okay with me quoting this (and, naturally, the post to which you replied) in the future, to others who might be skeptical that there are participants who think this? I am asking in advance since quoting you will ping you and you might not want to be pinged that way. If not, I am happy to simply include links to this post, or I can simply reference it without linking if you would prefer that I not mention this post at all.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

So D&D is simulationist, whereas T&T is not, because D&D includes weather rules?

No, it's simulationist if the weather is outside of the player's control. Like it is in the real world.

If the player narrates "just as I leave my house, it starts to rain", that's not simulationist, because the player is controling something they cannot, in the real world, control.

If the DM rolls on a weather table and says "as you leave your house, it starts to rain" that is simulationist, because the random weather table is attempting to simulate the uncontrolled nature of the weather.

This particular example probably works better if you are British.

Note: I am not saying either way is any better than the other, they are just different.

 

[Enrahim]

Questions in order:

1. Their power is absolute, as you have presented it. They get whatever they want, with regard to the toy.
2. No, as you have said, the players explicitly have no power whatsoever. They immediately concede anything the owner desires, no matter what.
3. I would argue yes, specifically because of how you presented this. The others cannot question--period. Immediate and total concession in all cases.
4. They did not hand over any control--because of how this was constructed, "immediately defers...whenever they voice any opinion regarding the toy's use", "provide clear instructions about what they find okay". They have complete, total control over everything which happens to the toy (within the limits of physics etc., I hope we won't bog down into technicalities on that front). The other people are simply able to witness it in action, and possibly be the hands which implement an action--but they can do absolutely nothing without explicit approval of the owner.
5. I don't see them as contradictory; the answer is the same, just not the answer I can infer that you were expecting.
6. No. The owner holds absolute power. The other kids have none.
7. I do not see this as "sharing" the toy at all. They are permitting other children to witness the toy, perhaps to touch it or move it, but otherwise, they are simply extensions of how the owner desires the toy to be used. They are a means for the owner's ends.

Now, separately, we have the question of "might [this act] be a very strong expression of a wish for feeling like they belong"? And to that, I again answer no. This does not read, at all, like a child trying to belong. It reads, fairly transparently, like a child displaying their superiority. "Look at this awesome toy I have. You can see all the cool things it does. Don't even try to do something I don't want you to do though." And they have the instant, unwavering obedience of all of their peers.

As someone who in childhood often fervently desired to belong and almost always felt like I didn't belong, this is nothing at all like what desiring belonging looks like. Someone who feels like they don't belong, and strongly desires to, acts accommodating to the interests of others. Will, indeed, accept much suffering, if it will bring the feeling of belonging that they crave. Such a desire is at the root of a great many psychological disorders (consider eating disorders, for instance). I would suppress my own interests, fake responses or feelings, subject myself to experiences I disliked (sometimes intensely so!), and generally accept any demand or even abused piled on me if it meant I would keep the appreciation of those who offered it--and I know I'm far from alone in having that kind of experience.

Instead, the toy-owner is demonstrating: you desire to belong in my social group, because I have something that confers high status. Because you desire to associate with my high status, I have control over this situation; you will do as I say, and indeed immediately capitulate to any request I might make, simply because I make it. This is not a demonstration of a desire to belong with others. It is a demonstration of expecting others to want to belong with you. And that ordering is incredibly important. The former--the desire for belonging to a greater hierarchy or structure than oneself--necessarily involves casting off some part(s) of oneself in order to belong. It is a form of submission.

Hence why the converse, acceptance, is such a supremely valued element in human relationships. A person or group that accepts you, is one that does not ask you to change who you are in order to be connected in their group, in order to feel that you belong with them. Part of acceptance is recognizing that another person may not always be precisely what you would like them to be, but not judging them simply because of that. (Now, if their behavior is in fact harmful or counterproductive, that's another story.)

The toy-owner desires dominance, and expresses that quite effectively through being completely dominant over the interactions with the toy. The other children desire belongingness, and thus submit to the owner's desires. A toy-owner who accepted the other students--allowing them the freedom to act, but with the expectation that each use reasonable judgment in their use of the toy so that it not come to harm, and if it did come to harm, expecting recompense and apology from the child(ren) who caused that harm. That would be a child actually sharing their toys with others, rather than a child rigidly supervising the use of their toys by others.

I am indeed surprised at how you recognise this situation as unambiguously a situation of absolute power. Which might help me reframe some of your previous statements for myself.

Regarding the mindset. I am really surprised that you seem so confident in your attempt to deduce a mindset ("toy owner desires dominance") from my description of mostly outside appearances (I did describe the reason for the friend's deference). I however agree this is a possible intepretation of the scenario.

I am as such curious how you excluded the following scenario: There is nothing really special about this toy. Their friends have somewhat similar toys that they have shared in the past. However the kid really loves this toy as it is their toy. They really do not want anything bad to happen with it. Despite this, they decide to bring it to the group. They do so, as they envision that this gesture of faith in them might bring increased acceptance and strengthen their bonds of friendship.

That is, this isn't a person desperate for belonging to the point they are willing to sacrifice and accommodate everything to fit into a group. This is a person that already have found their tribe, but still have things they can do to further increase their sense of belonging.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

(the bolded words seem very challenging to me, but I will answer my best)

I guess the best way to put it, and answer your question honestly, is thus; (could be long, there's a lot of nuance to the question)*

We play a lot of different games. And newer narrative games (we play a lot of Fate) we play as they are intended.

But the discussion seems to be about DMs and their campaigns, so...

Yes, whoever DMs calls it "their world". And the players tell me "Chris, I really enjoy your world, its so immersive".
And I tell them I've had this world since 1985.

Players could say "I want an X style game" and I have a good idea where to start their adventures. I can answer questions about lore without research. Events are occurring behind the scenes they may or may not be aware of, until encountered in play.

But! There are no halflings or orcs on this world. So the players cant play one.

It feels like a trap, but to answer the "demand" question, Yes, I demand they do not play halflings, and I use absolute power over world creation.

BUT!! They don't care. The guy who wanted a halfling chose a gnome styled a a country farmer.

When creating characters I "allow" them to be creative unless it runs directly counter to the setting. If they want to create a new class, I normally "approve". And when they play, the players have complete control over their characters, I dont tell them what to do, I dont even tell them what to feel or think (may suggest as a way of describing the scene)


So BL, answering your question, the answer is technically Yes. Demand, Absolute, Allowed. Like the captain of a ship, the head coach of a team, the leader with veto power.

But? I am not a tyrant and these are my friends. I may have absolute power, but I talk to them, I work with them, and since they know and respect that, they would never insist on playing a hafling in a world where they don't exist.



* I wish we could sit at a table and discuss in person, I find people are usually closer together than they think, and stark text on the internet can be very polarizing.

Okay. This presents something very important.

You have set down certain, specific, and most importantly limited elements that are bright-lines for you. Anything that crosses a bright line is a problem. I have no problem with that--but the key word here is limited.

The presentation, consistently--and as noted, what I just quoted from Bloodtide in a very recent post--is that the GM can create bright lines at any time, for any reason, as frequently as they like. They can add or remove bright lines whenever they want, for whatever reason they want, including for no reason at all. Any time they want a bright line, it's there. Any time they don't, it's not. A bright line might flick back and forth numerous times. Etc.

That's when it becomes a problem, where one side has arbitrary, unlimited, unchecked power to draw bright lines. Having some of them is good, possibly even great--but that "some" needs to be relatively limited, not carte blanche. Otherwise, yeah, it really does look like demanding absolute and unchecked power to be used at whatever arbitrary times the holder feels like.

You gave as an example where you intentionally don't draw any bright lines around stuff like new classes. That seems a pretty stark exception from the way "traditional GMs" present their work, where everything gets almost coated in bright lines. Sharply constrained classes, and races, and backgrounds, and concepts, and approaches, etc., etc., etc. That's where the "better toe the line" side comes from.

Also I'm not sure what "BL" means in this context. Bottom line?

Edit:
To add something that would forestall the possibility that others might read a false narrative into the above, this should apply to EVERYONE. NOBODY gets free rein to write bright lines anywhere and everywhere they like.

Because I am 100% sure someone would respond to the above with "OH SO THE GM IS JUST THE PLAYERS' SLAVE HUH!!??!!"

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I am indeed surprised at how you recognise this situation as unambiguously a situation of absolute power. Which might help me reframe some of your previous statements for myself.

Regarding the mindset. I am really surprised that you seem so confident in your attempt to deduce a mindset ("toy owner desires dominance") from my description of mostly outside appearances (I did describe the reason for the friend's deference). I agree this is a possible intepretation of the scenario.

I am as such curious how you excluded the following scenario: There is nothing really special about this toy. Their friends have somewhat similar toys that they have shared in the past. However the kid really loves this toy as it is their toy. They really do not want anything bad to happen with it. Despite this, they decide to bring it to the group. They do so, as they envision that this gesture of faith in them might bring increased acceptance and strengthen their bonds of friendship.

That is, this isn't a person desperate for belonging to the point they are willing to sacrifice and accommodate everything to fit into a group. This is a person that already have found their tribe, but still have things they can do to further increase their sense of belonging.

I do not understand why the other children would care about the first child presenting their special, personal-to-them toy. (Call the first child Sam for convenience.) If everyone already has their own comparable toy, why are they seeking out this one specific toy for interaction?

More importantly, how can this be an analogy for what is going on with GMing a game? That was part of my analysis here--that you were using this as a demonstration of what is going on with GMing, where it is patently not true that every participant has a more-or-less equivalent toy. More or less, you clearly constructed this to be an analogy in order to fold back conclusions from it to the original case. But now you are introducing elements which make a sharp disanalogy; so while I might potentially grant some of these conclusions (I haven't thought about them much), such granting would be not very productive, because they're situations utterly distinct from the situation we were discussing previously.

If you invent a situation where Sam isn't in any way special from any other participant, where every person has a comparable toy and thus is genuinely an equal within the space, I don't understand why the children would have any desire (let alone need) to use Sam's toy specifically, nor how they would not automatically be entered into a relationship of complete equals, because friend Alex (to invent another rnadom child's name) also has a toy, which Sam is obliged to completely respect in every fashion and neither can nor will take any action which Alex thinks would harm that toy. Such a reciprocal relationship of equals certainly isn't going to involve absolute power. It's also not going to have any bearing on the "traditional GM" concept.

 

[FrogReaver]

This is no different from the rope case. A rope can't be severed without their first being a sharp rock. And how was the sharp rock posited? In response to a die roll yielding an unsuccessful result.

But not by the player!

As to what you say about D&D, here is a counter-example:
I'm not sure what edition that instance of play is from.

I’m not sure how that’s a counterexample?

Here's a similar (not identical) example from 4e play:
The player succeeds in a roll to intuit the final argument that will sway the maruts, and thereby wins the skill challenge; and then the player authors the argument. This happened in a D&D game.

And here the player didn’t decide what if any argument would sway the Maruts. Which for what I’m talking about makes it completely dissimilar.

The examples you choose for counters seem to reveal you don’t understand what is actually being objected to?

D&D is not simply how some posters prefer to play D&D. It encompasses quite a bit of variety.

Irrelevant to understanding what people cite as the difference in your examples to their d&d play.

EDIT: Also, in response to ‘Runes cannot be read without first assigning them a meaning’: this may be true. But a fiction about runes being read can be authored without first assigning them a meaning. That doesn't mean that the reading is not something that occurs in the fiction.

Maybe, but that’s not what happened in your runes example. The fiction you described about the runes being read with a specific meaning required the player subject to a die roll to assign their meaning via authoring.

Edit to add, the player assigning meaning of the runes via authoring isnt diegetic, unless some in world entity under the players control created the runes (the PC or some other player NPC). Then it would be.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

So if the bard tries to seduce a dragon, the GM should always allow it?

Did I say that? Have I once said that, in this thread?

Why is it that the only alternative to "If the GM arbitrarily vetoes every plan a player has, the player should always submit?" is "If the bard tries to seduce a dragon, the GM should always allow it?"

There are other options. Maybe it's worth considering what can happen when, I dunno, nobody ALWAYS gets EVERYTHING they want eternally forever and the other side must meekly submit???

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Makes sense to me. What's the problem here @EzekielRaiden ?

See my response to them above, and also a previous post (from someone else) replying to Enrahim about it.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Didn't see that one, and I don't agree with your premise that the GM can decide to not accept player action in the game that falls within the confines of their PC. Players take actions through their PCs, and GMs describe what happens. Rinse, repeat.

Except it has been repeatedly said that this is so. Consider what bloodtide wrote, just a little ways above this.