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

[Micah Sweet]

Yes, but it's only weird if you're working under the assumption that the game is meant to be a toolkit, and there aren't any standard setting assumptions underlying them.

For 5e, my assumption is that the game will run in a setting that fits within the broader "D&D multiverse". And that playing an elf bladesinger wizard or a dragonborn monk will have a default expectation of being allowed. Just like I would expect to be able to play a Brujah in any V:tM game, or a goblin druid in any Daggerheart game. I would expect that I would almost certainly have to tweak details to fit the game and the other PCs (which is why I'm strongly against 20 page backstories), but not just be unable to play a core concept.

That is very much not my assumption. D&D is what you make if it.

 

[Enrahim]

Sure. That was my point all along. We drill down to find what really matters to the player, and determine if that is compatible. If it's not--if there are genuinely, utterly irreconcilable conflicts that appear as early as character creation, the group needs to reevaluate. Maybe the player leaves, maybe the GM does, maybe they agree to do a different activity (whether a different setting, a different system, or something entirely unrelated).


Ah, okay. It seemed very odd in context so I understand. My apologies if I was excessively testy.

When it comes to the actual rules of the game, as in the written textual elements, I consider things pretty different compared to the unspoken abstractions or high-altitude things like "setting concept" or the like. Rules, assuming they aren't crap, are clear and relatively well-written. They communicate their function. Hence, by agreeing to a particular game, one is signing up to make use of the rules in question. Some leeway should be allowed since I don't expect anyone to have encyclopedic knowledge of any system, but that leeway should have limits. Hence, the GM (or whomever; could also be other players!) enforcing the rules--and trying to preserve the functionality of the game's rules--is an absolute bedrock element of "playing a game". If we don't have that, we don't have "a game" in the first place, so the activity can't happen. It's like saying that people taking a road trip need to maintain the vehicle they're driving in. If you don't preserve the functionality of the vehicle, your road trip ends. Probably very unpleasantly.

Hence, "permitting" here is a matter of evaluating the game-mechanical fit of certain things. Generally, this entails at least some degree of calculation. You can actually compare quantities, concretely. I prefer game design where players can determine, from their own efforts, that in general (not in specific!), they have several possible and truly distinct paths...and all of them evaluate to having pretty much the same calculated value. When that happens, you get magic: the players must make their mechanical decisions on the basis of qualitative, not quantitative, reasoning. When almost all reasoning occurs quantitatively, the player is thinking about what matters, not about what evaluates. By having multiple distinct paths with comparable arithmetic value, arithmetic value cannot be what decides, and that inherently puts anyone playing--whether "gamist" or not--into the right kind of mindset for great roleplaying. Your head stays in the fiction almost all the time, because worrying overmuch about mechanics makes no difference. (This is why I am so opposed to badly-balanced games. Bad balance encourages pure-mechanics thinking, rather than discouraging it! You get rewarded for thinking mechanics-first.)

As a result, it's very important to build and maintain healthy rules function. For games like D&D, it's usually the GM who is best-equipped to do that. Sometimes that's not entirely true; I know people on this forum who have said that they trust one of their players to be the big brain when it comes to game-rules stuff.


Well, I have some ideas on that front, but they require more brain than I have right now. Perhaps later.


Okay. My concern was only limitedly practical here. More or less, the only practical concern I was voicing was that I see "bright lines" as being a purely personal thing, a "this would upset me, so please don't do that" kind of thing. Not instructions, more like...well, friends being friends with one another and recognizing that there are things it's okay to do and things it's not okay to do, though such things should be talked out rather than left to implication alone.

"Don't cheat and don't try to break the game", on the other hand, does not fit well into the "this is a personal request from me" mold. That's a thing everyone--including the GM--should be on board with from the beginning. While I do think it needs to be said at some point, given how deeply embedded it is, I think there's an argument that it can also be presumed to be true and anyone who pretends that they somehow don't know that you shouldn't cheat at games is probably being a disingenuous jerk.

(This is also, incidentally, a different aspect of why I personally am very opposed to fudging--noting that I define "fudging" slightly more narrowly than some do.)

Ok. In that case I think I would consider using the powers that come with the position in trad for enforcing anything that seem to match your "bright lines", abuse. It should be reserved for what you seem to consider fundamental uses. I think we might have slightly difference in stance with regard to how fundamental certain in-fiction integrity might be for our own games, but I think that is due to a slighthly different nature of those games.

In particular mystery and setting exploration is my bread and butter, while you seem a bit more into character and situation play. Setting integrity for instance I believe is more fundamental for the former, while I would consider character ownership and empowerment more fundamental to the latter.

For conflicts related to "bright lines" there might still be the case that the GM would be justified to use their power to settle the matter - but that would only be if there are something more fundamental at play that there are no other tools to handle. It could for instance be to keep the game rolling if this isn't really the moment to drag up further process. Otherwise I think means like a vote, or apointing a more neutral arbitator (I guess most groups have a good candidate) to call the shots would be good processes. This similar to your rules brain example.

 

[AlViking]

Yes, but it's only weird if you're working under the assumption that the game is meant to be a toolkit, and there aren't any standard setting assumptions underlying them.

For 5e, my assumption is that the game will run in a setting that fits within the broader "D&D multiverse". And that playing an elf bladesinger wizard or a dragonborn monk will have a default expectation of being allowed. Just like I would expect to be able to play a Brujah in any V:tM game, or a goblin druid in any Daggerheart game. I would expect that I would almost certainly have to tweak details to fit the game and the other PCs (which is why I'm strongly against 20 page backstories), but not just be unable to play a core concept.

You can assume all you want, I see no reason to assume anyone else agrees with you.

 

[Enrahim]

Because they really, really like dragonborn?

I mean, you're probably thinking they're picking the heritage for the bonuses, but some people just really like playing certain heritages for the aesthetics. I have two players in my group who, if they can, will always play some sort of cat-folk, even if it's just in appearance. (Fortunately, neither of these people fall into the "creepy furry" stereotype.) If I can, I'll pick a plane-touched of some sort. They speak to me, or perhaps to my neurodiverse ace-ness.

Obviously, there's going to be people who pick certain heritages because they get that bonus or ability which lets them win D&D somehow, and I'd consider that to be a red flag. But picking dragonborn because they feel like it? Nah. Especially not in a magical world that also has centaurs and owlbears and other such things.

But would you insist on playing a plane-touched even after you were politely informed that that would be very peculiar indeed, as in this world all known planes of existence colapsed into each other in the great sundering, and the game is set on the last known reality-bouble 1000 years after? (Indeed this was one of the first things mentioned in the game pitch)

Or might you be quite immediately accepting this, and ask if there was anything else in this world that might match your prefeences?

 

[Enrahim]

You can assume all you want, I see no reason to assume anyone else agrees with you.

My impression is that this type of assumption is very widespread indeed. This is one of the reasons I find Knave 2ed very tempting. It seem like a relatively clean sheet, with nothing but a human and whatever they have in their inventory (and stats that act like class levels)

(Edit: Unfortunatlely even that come bagaged with an assumption of a carefull and deadly kind of playstyle I am not particularly into)

 

[TwoSix]

My impression is that this type of assumption is very widespread indeed. This is one of the reasons I find Knave 2ed very tempting. It seem like a relatively clean sheet, with nothing but a human and whatever they have in their inventory (and stats that act like class levels)

Knave 2ed is a fantastic purchase. I love games with relatively little starting character building and the bulk of progression is diegetic.

 

[Enrahim]

....so....

What you're telling me is, you let the player play what they wanted...and it wasn't them riding roughshod over you, it wasn't them being a jerk, it wasn't them being demanding or rude or a sign that they were going to be a bad player. It was just the player making their case, and thus what they wanted, happened.

Where is the problem here? The thing you described is precisely what I'd like to see. A little adjustment from both sides. An acceptance of not getting absolutely everything one wants, but getting the core things that will support the experience. Etc.

Where is the problem here? You worked out a solution that would make both of you happy. It required you to do some extra work, and you were willing to do that extra work. It required the player to accept that their character would be somewhat more..."satellite", let's say, to the conflict, while the other characters will be more core to it. Give and take. Compromise on both sides. Acceptance of limitations. People working with one another, not announced demands from on high.

What exactly was I supposed to object to here?

Exactly! I don't know. And hence I am not sure why would you object to Lanefan, not knowing if they are likely to use the same process?

 

[AlViking]

My impression is that this type of assumption is very widespread indeed. This is one of the reasons I find Knave 2ed very tempting. It seem like a relatively clean sheet, with nothing but a human and whatever they have in their inventory (and stats that act like class levels)

(Edit: Unfortunatlely even that come bagaged with an assumption of a carefull and deadly kind of playstyle I am not particularly into)

It may be widely assumed, it is not universal. If I'm thinking of joining someone's game one of the first things I'm going to ask is what their restrictions are. I wouldn't expect to play an orc (or half-orc) in a Dragonlance campaign because they don't exist in that world.

 

[Faolyn]

But would you insist on playing a plane-touched even after you were politely informed that that would be very peculiar indeed, as in this world all known planes of existence colapsed into each other in the great sundering, and the game is set on the last known reality-bouble 1000 years after? (Indeed this was one of the first things mentioned in the game pitch)

Or might you be quite immediately accepting this, and ask if there was anything else in this world that might match your prefeences?

Would I, personally? No. However, if all the planes collapsed into each other, it seems like this would be the one place where plane-touched are incredibly common.

 

[TwoSix]

Would I, personally? No. However, if all the planes collapsed into each other, it seems like this would be the one place where plane-touched are incredibly common.

Agreed. No plane-touched in a world where all of the planes collapsed into each other seems backwards; I would expect lots of plane-touched in that world.

Which is another point as to why creating a setting all by yourself with no input can lead to problems as soon as your play group examines it.