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

[pemerton]

Earlier in the discussion we discovered some games you reference state skills meant one thing only to find out that in play they functioned differently. As such, I'm not sure how to proceed when we can have potentially 'lying' game texts. It seems not just the skill description but the full set of details around it's use also must matter.

The infamous lockpicking with cook and runes examples both show this.

Nothing is stopping you from reading the relevant Burning Wheel rules for free, to see whether or not they are "lying". I've also quoted them extensively upthread.

The reason I quoted the BW skill rules is because they are very simulationist as that is being characterised by at least some posters in this thread. Here's a post I made about BW, making a similar point, well over a decade ago:

In these situations, the way I avoid those "hiccups" is to introduce external elements - like the unexpected street fair, or the bird crapping on someone's cloak during negotiations - which then explain the outcome that has been mechanically determined without needing to posit that anyone (PC or NPC) suddenly became incompetent.

The "cost" of doing it this way is being prepared to sever the link between making a check where a PC's skill number is used, and interpreting that check as reflecting nothing but the PC's effort within the fiction. You have to be prepared to narrate the outcome of the check using director's stance.

I think Burning Wheel is an interesting example of this. Like RQ, RM or classic Traveller it has very simulationist-seeming character building mechanics, with detailed skill lists, intricate interaction between skill bonuses and stat bonuses, rules for improving by doing and by training, etc, etc. And even it's action resolution mechanics begin in a simulationist way - the GM is urged, for example, to set difficulties based on the objective difficulty of the situation in the gameworld, and not in any sort of relative way (so very different from 4e, HeroQuest, Maelstrom etc).

But then its action resolution mechanics take a very non-simulationist turn. In particular, when a skill check fails in BW, the GM is urged to focus not on failure or success at the task, but failure or success at the intent. Thus, failure on an influence check might represent not an objective failure of your guy to be convincing, but rather that it turns out that the NPC knew and hated your father, so turns out to be more hostile to your offer than you expected. The GM is actively encouraged to use this sort of external, meta-gaming approach to describing the outcomes of checks - and especially failed checks - as part of the techniques for keeping the game moving.

A very ingenious blending of traditional simulationist, and indie, sensibilities.

And here's one making the comparison to 4e D&D, from around the same time:

one thing that surprises me is how many people seem to be trying to make D&D deliver a game that would be more easily acheived using another system - particularly when I see people playing highly exploration-focused, somewhat gritty games, I wonder why they don't use Runequest or HARP or even something like The Burning Wheel.

<snip>

My approach to my 4e game is basically what the Forge would call "narrativist" - Story Now, but with story being the result not of any one person (player or GM) aiming at story, but rather me (as GM) doing my job, of setting up engaging situations for the players, and the players dong their job of playing their PCs to the hilt in those situations.

The DCs don't impede this, because the players aren't looking to the DCs to get their sense of the gameworld. They're looking directly at the fiction - the fiction that I'm narrating as GM, and that they create through their own endeavours at action resolution. And 4e is quite rich in this, in my view, because it has very evocative mechanics, for those who like that sort of thing - for example, in 4e a wight with a horrific visage gets an attack that inflicts psychic damage and pushes foes away - so the story is revealed not just through description, but through mechanical resolution of the action. It's really secondary to the play experience whether the wight's attack bonus or AC or damage roll is 1 point higher or lower - it's the keywords (psychic damage) and the effects (a fear-typed push) that define the fiction.

In some ways it's like HeroQuest or Maelstrom Storytelling - the DCs (with their scaling) don't objectively measure the world, but rather set the relative difficulty for the PCs. But it's got the tactical crunch in combat that (at least some) traditional RPGers enjoy.

I'm in no way saying it's the only, or even the best, way to set up DCs and scaling. I've GMed a lot of RM, which uses objective target numbers, and where PC bonuses really mean "mechanical progression" and not just "story progression". And if I was to start running a different game from 4e, it would probably be Burning Wheel, which uses objective target numbers as well, and in its GM guidelines emphasises the use of objective target numbers to build immersion in the setting in the way that (I think) you have in mind.

 

[AnotherGuy]

-but when you don't care about the appearance...AND you accept the "the same but objectively better" elf stuff...I just don't understand what the problem is.

I would imagine for this discussion, that lore is built into appearance, right?

 

[pemerton]

This seems to be a description of GM-driven/GM-centred play. The players declare their PCs actions, and everything else is worked out by the GM (either directly or, as you say, mediated via the mechanics).

If all it takes to be GM driven is (1) the players declare their PCs actions and everything else is worked out by the directly or mediated via the mechanics then that seems to designate even the RPG's you call player driven as actually GM driven.

These two phrases don't say the same thing:

(A) The players declare their PCs actions, and everything else is worked out by the GM (either directly or, as you say, mediated via the mechanics).

(B) The players declare their PCs actions and everything else is worked out by the directly or mediated via the mechanics.

For a start, (B) contains no reference to the GM.

 

[TwoSix]

You say this like it's a bad thing.

Why on earth would I include something in my setting that I don't want to see there?

Because the point of a setting is to be a set of tools for players to use to support themes and modes of play.

There are plenty of races and classes I don't care for, aesthetically. I don't typically weave them into play as NPCs or background info if I don't like them. But I'm not going to stop a player from choosing them if that's what they have an interest in.

At the same time, if the DM says there's important setting rationales for why this setting doesn't have elves, as an example, then I'm not going to be like "But I really want to play an elf!"

As I've said before, the most important thing is for both players and DMs to attempt to be accommodating; your own personal aesthetic concerns should not be of primary importance. As a DM, you should only restrict options if it's of vital importance to a play concept you're introducing. As a player, you should accept that if a DM is being restrictive, it's because it's very necessary.

 

[pemerton]

there's a long history of talking about simulationism in RPGs.

<snip>

The ones with simulationist goals in mind.


No one is saying other games don't have some simulationist mechanics or that D&D is the only simulationist game.

Yes, there is a long history. And if you review that history, you'll see that games like RM, RQ, C&S, GURPS and the like are characterised as simulationist, generally in contrast to D&D. I 100% agree with @Hussar that this notion, basically dating from 2009, that D&D is a simulationist RPG makes no sense.

IMO. If everytime and no matter what you hope for you then proceed to get it on a successful die roll then you are doing more than hoping.

What RPG are you describing here?

Also, what action declarations are you intending to exclude as satisfactory? I assume that hoping to kill Orcs, climb walls, read runes to learn what they say when the GM has already pre-authored that are all fine.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

The kinds of players I look for are those who want to be invested in the world. They ask questions about the world before they come up with a character. I often have one on one meetings with players to help fill out their backgrounds. They tell me the kinds of ideas they have for their character and I try to find a place in the world that supports that idea. If my entire campaign is set in a vast desert, then I advise not choosing pirate as a background if you want your background to have relevance to the setting. Now if pirates exist anywhere in the world I might still allow it with that warning.

This is the exact reason my world now has sand skiff riding desert pirates!

 

[Enrahim]

I don't think the difference is nearly as hard as you claim.

Given you don't care about appearance, I'll be focused purely on mechanics. In 5e, being a tiefling gives you three things, the middle of which comes as package deals associated with the three heritages, Abyssal, Cthonic, or Infernal). The first is 60' darkvision. Given this is something many species have, I doubt you care about that. The third thing is the thaumaturgy cantrip, which again, I presume you have no problem with. So the whole focus is on the three-part packages.

I assume, for example, that you would not raise such objections with drow/dark elves as characters? Or just elves in general, really. Because guess what? Other than elves getting even more features, they're functionally equivalent to tieflings! Elves get: 60' darkvision, the three-spells package deal selection (drow/wood/high), advantage on saves to avoid Charmed, one free skill proficiency from Insight/Perception/Survival, and Trance.

Tieflings get 60' darkvision, the three-spells package deal selection, and Thaumaturgy. That's it.

Is it really so hard to have--for example--a wildly divergent subspecies of elf, that was experimented upon to test the boundaries of magic, which resulted in them manifesting slightly different magical powers and losing some of the benefits that come with being an elf? I could see such a group being ostracized and hated for their differences from regular elves (especially if they have the classical "bright red/purple/blue skin" appearance of tieflings!) despite not having any connection whatsoever to anything fiendish since, as you have said, fiends don't exist. It'll be a different spin--racism inflicted upon a people, rather than being an ancient "legacy of evil" or whatever--but when you don't care about the appearance...AND you accept the "the same but objectively better" elf stuff...I just don't understand what the problem is.

If the player is okay with something that explicitly isn't, in any way, related to demons or devils or whatever, but still has the same appearance and the same abilities (perhaps reflavored?), I don't really get what the problem here is. Is it that the spells are mostly good...?

Yes. I would be ok with working out something that looks like a thiefling and works like a thiefling. That still isn't a thiefling. You are still limiting away part of the defining lore. How do you know it is not this flavor the player is interested in? I would indeed find that incredibly more likely than that they just want to play something with darkvision and horns.

GMs. I thought that was understood? Like you...literally used your own example of having permitted something mechanically broken that you shouldn't have, out of ignorance rather than apathy.

Someone who is apathetic about permitting something they believe to be problematic has kinda surrendered at least some of their standing to argue that someone else caused a problem.

And what put me in the position to be the one to permit it, if it wasn't my authority as a GM? And I though it was this authority as a GM you sought to (severly) limit. So if you remove the GMs ability to make lines, who is then in a position to not permit something?

So...people intentionally and actively trying to destroy the premise of the game they're playing...?

I just don't really see this being an actual problem. The people who floated such an idea have made abundantly clear they would never play in such a game and would never run such a game. I don't see what is being achieved here.

Yes, indeed there are. You know how munchins, murder hobos and certain kinds of power players have a bad reputation? I am of the belief that with aproperiate constraints and nurturing players that would otherwise have been inclined to drift in these directions could indeed be a lot of fun to play with. I do not like the idea of excluding someone from the hobby if there might be known accomodations that would allow us to play well together.

I mean, I'm not against calling it out. Very, very much the opposite. I just don't think it fits in this place. That makes it sound like it is purely elective on the GM's part. It is not. Different GMs will apply personal judgment differently, but nobody will advocate approval of things they believe are outright harmful to the ability to play a game at all.

This is a restriction required by the very act of playing a cooperative game. It should still be called out. But it should be put where it belongs: at the very heart of the activity, a "we outright HAVE to do this if we want to play" type thing.

I struggle a bit with getting what you are trying to say here. I think I agree in the spirit. I am just not sure how it look like in practice.

 

[Enrahim]

These two phrases don't say the same thing:

(A) The players declare their PCs actions, and everything else is worked out by the GM (either directly or, as you say, mediated via the mechanics).

(B) The players declare their PCs actions and everything else is worked out by the directly or mediated via the mechanics.

For a start, (B) contains no reference to the GM.

But does it not then rather make it mechanics driven rather than player driven, if we use the same criteria for how to designate a "driver"?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

In what way is "a simulationist system must provide any information about how the result was achieved" incoherent?

What is incoherent how you deem this criteria to be satisfied.

In what way have I made any sort of qualitative statement about what would be a better or worse system?

You made statements about what is simulation and what is not. You think RQ is one and D&D isn't. Yet the skill systems in both games work in very similar manner. (Granted, I have not played RQ in decades, but I remember the basics.)

 

[EzekielRaiden]

What is the reason for the player to insist on playing dragonborn, that is not similarly a red flag for allowing them into the campaign?

Well, to begin with, you are now inserting an assumption into what I said that isn't supported by the text. Specifically, you've assumed that the player is (or even can be) putting their foot down. I would see an utterly intransigent player as being just as much of a problem as an utterly intransigent GM!

More importantly, there are a hell of a lot of ways that "insist on playing dragonborn" can play out, some of which have nothing in common with one another! Hence, that insistence is actually a very loose, weak thing taken in the abstract, while the absolute refusal to consider any possible alternative, no matter how weakened, is an extremely strong stance--and doing so by "pulling rank" is not what friends do with friends.

Consider: A player might value mechanics, aesthetics, narrative (meaning, species backstory/context), or loose concept. A player who only cares about mechanics would be willing to discard everything else, happy with looking like an elf or whatever, they just like the flight and the dragon breath. Someone who cares exclusively about the look and doesn't even care if it's narratively a "dragon" person would probably accept using lizardman mechanics and narrative, just a lizardman who has a dragonborn-like appearance. Someone who loves the aesthetic and certain specific parts of the narrative might be entirely happy using bog-standard human mechanics, perhaps as a genuine one-off weirdo (again, result of an arcane experiment, a mutant or otherwise altered human, a Etc.

There are many, many, many ways this could potentially cash out, so it is highly possible (not guaranteed, but often entirely achievable) that the thing that this GM doesn't accept about dragonborn isn't actually important to this player. If it is, if they truly do have an irreconcilable difference, that's a good signal that this group needs to change (what change depends on context--the presumed default is "player leaves", but sometimes the bonds between players matter more.)

Point being, "insist on playing dragonborn" is at least potentially a relatively weak thing to insist upon, depending on what specific things the player is seeking. "Insist on absolutely never dragonborn we won't even talk about it I'm pulling rank and telling you no" is not that, and specifically represents a refusal to discuss.

I get that some people will be jerks. That is, unfortunately, part of life. But this just circles back to the same inappropriate and unjustified presumption that GMs won't be jerks so we absolutely must trust them infinitely--even though they could 100% be jerks with their massive power--while any player ever expressing a preference and actually wanting to discuss it is presumed to be a jerk and thus told an adamant "NO" without any discussion because, apparently, doing that even once guarantees that the players WILL always be jerks forever? I guess?