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

Okay.

Do you think most players would view it that way? That if you were introducing this style to someone new, they would view it that way?

Imagine someone whose only exposure to D&D is seeing Honor Among Thieves and good episodes of an actual-play podcast (doesn't have to be Critical Role but that's the most likely one), so they're excited to play the "real thing". Would you expect them to take that attitude?

Because that--to me--is the crux here. Something SEVERAL people have used as a criticism of "narrative" games, both in this thread and elsewhere, is that they depend on the group already being highly aligned in terms of both what they want out of the experience, and what things they're expected to accept without comment. But now, with this argument, that seems to be no different for the "traditional GM" approach. That also requires the players to be highly aligned with what they want out of the experience, and even more about what things they're expected to accept without comment.

If you're relying on pre-existing understanding, if that's supposed to be something that generally applies--which the people who have upvoted you seem to be saying--then doesn't that rather weaken several of the arguments already made?
I expect a new player joining my group will learn how my group functions, not expect us to change to emulate some pre-conceived idea about how gaming works, that was acquired watching actual plays.

I have recently added a new player to the group, whose pre-existing understanding did, indeed, come from whatever they've seen online and two or three 5e D&D one-offs, and we've had no issues arriving at aligned expectations, even though my games are nothing like what he's seen online, aren't using D&D and, initially, was actually a supers game.

It's not that hard.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

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.

So once a player learns the spell 'control weather' the game is no longer simulationist?
;) I'm just kidding. I know what you meant, I just thought it was a funny example.
 



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.
The DMG instructs that "During each stage of the characters’ journey, you can determine what the weather is like by rolling on the Weather table, adjusting for the terrain and season as appropriate."

Per RAW, in D&D weather is caused by players deciding their characters go on a journey. That seems inside player control.
 

True in general, but meaningless otherwise.
Er...no? Like VERY specifically it is not meaningless otherwise?

Because that's literally THE thing that people uphold as the selling-point of D&D, and TTRPGs in general. You cannot get that "we can do ANYTHING we can imagine" thing from the main competitors, like video games, film/TV/books, etc.

The specific fact that we CAN reimagine things into whatever form we like, unbound by the restrictions laid down by those who came before us, is an essential part of TTRPGing. Obviously, we do not have to. But the fact that we can is of central importance. It can't just be brushed off as an uninteresting trusim. It's key.

This is the point though. You can't just say something at random is an elf, and then change it on a whim. An "Elf" has to be a fairly specific thing in general.....or it is not an elf.
Yes, you can. That's literally a thing you can do.

Whether or not others accept it is a different story, of course. But if it really is the case that "the GM is reality", then whatever the GM says, is true. "Elf" does not have to be a fairly specific thing. It's whatever the GM says it is.

As always you want the DM to jump through all sorts of hoops to make the players happy. So...where are all the hoops for players? They would have to do the same thing, right?
Is the player not inherently doing so simply by playing in a game where someone else defines and runs all opposition, all the time? Where every difficulty they face is of that one player's design? Where every fact they could ever uncover comes solely from that player's lips, or that player's pen?

You act as though the player is unbound, but cords like unto Fenrir's chains surround.

Odd you see everything as so fluid...again the everything is anything. It makes it all pointless.
Notice how you ignored the extremely important argument based on the thing that an actual real-life author did. He actually did do the thing you're claiming we can't do--and, in specific, the thing that MADE "elf" mean what you now say it must ALWAYS mean.

If Tolkien can do it, and have it be good and right and proper, we can too. As the man himself wrote in Mythopoeia:
Though all the crannies of the world we filled
with Elves and Goblins, though we dared to build
Gods and their houses out of dark and light,
and sowed the seed of dragons, ’twas our right
(used or misused). The right has not decayed.
We make still by the law in which we’re made.


That is the nature of fiction--and is essential to the nature of tabletop roleplaying. We make still by the law in which we're made.
 

The DMG instructs that "During each stage of the characters’ journey, you can determine what the weather is like by rolling on the Weather table, adjusting for the terrain and season as appropriate."

Per RAW, in D&D weather is caused by players deciding their characters go on a journey. That seems inside player control.
That's like saying the weather is caused by stepping outside your door.

The idea of "simulationist" is there is always weather. The DM doesn't need to determine it if the PCs are not in a position to observe it, because a human DM is not omniscient. That's why it is a simulation of reality, and not the reality itself.
 

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.
Heh, I missed this one on the first spin through but @Older Beholder quoted it and it caught my eye.

Now, we both agree that if the DM rolls on the weather table, that's pretty sim leaning. What if the DM simply narrates that it's raining. The DM, without any other input, decides that it is raining. Is that still sim leaning? What if the DM decides it's raining because he wants to set a particular mood for the session? Is that still sim leaning? Does the reason the DM uses to choose the weather change whether it's sim leaning or not?

That's a great example actually. Because it's one I think we'd all agree that if the DM is using some sort of weather generator, that weather generator is pretty sim leaning. It's solely setting based, so, there's not a whole lot of narrative possible as to why it's raining. There's a pretty standard normal chance of any given day being rainy, so, most of us wouldn't think twice about using this sort of sim leaning mechanic. Fair enough.

But, is it still sim leaning if it's 100% generated by the DM without any input? I'm not really convinced.

But, the main point is, if the DM declares that it's raining, it has nothing to do with the system. The system isn't sim at all because there is no system being used, at all. It's 100% from the DM/GM. How can we claim that the system is supporting simulating weather when it doesn't have any weather generating mechanics?
 

And yet, even in AD&D, drow were never kill on sight. That's something that has been added. After all, drow have been playable in AD&D since what, '82? It's not like drow are something new to the game.
 

Yes, but as I said, I can’t comment on it without knowing more about the reason. @Lanefan has now elaborated a bit, and what he’s said is pretty standard stuff… his world and the challenge of adding things and so on. The original “artistic choice” is still unclear other than it relates to a bit of setting lore about a war between elves and drow that resulted in the drow fleeing underground. Very standard stuff when it comes to D&D.
Quite intentionally so. :)
So what I would consider if this was me… how much does that lore about war between elves and drow inform play? How much does it matter? Is it actively informing events in the game? Is it just a bit of background flavor? Must it have all played out exactly as commonly understood?

For me, the purpose of the setting is to provide a framework for play. So how does any given element do that? How important or influential is it to play?

And how does that ancient lore inform play?
As background for the most part, until a party killed off some "wandering" Drow in the desert without realizing a whole bunch of things.

Later, when a different party met a few other Drow and actually talked to them, it became clear that a) those killed Drow were among possibly only about 50 then left on the planet and b) the reason they were on the surface was that they'd swallowed their pride and were seeking help, and to warn the surface folk as to what has caused their near extinction (most of the normal denizens of the underdark have been wiped out by a combination of Mind Flayers and assorted servants of Jubilex, who in turn is working for the Great Old Ones.....long story......).

Since then that potential storyline has faded into the background again, though the adventure I'm running right now has the potential to take them into the underdark should they decide to press on that far. And the killings in the desert were three or four in-game years ago; from the PCs' perspective now, it's possible there aren't any Drow left at all.
Sure, but that’s a stat block and then maybe like a PC creation entry. Seriously… that’s like a few minutes of effort.
A bit more than that; I'd have to work otu their game mechanics so as to keep them vaguely balanced against other PC-playables while at the same time carving out some sort of niche for them (and thus their whole species) so they're more than just humans with horns.

More pragmatically, it'd need changes to numerous webpages, which for me always takes longer than "a few minutes" even for trivial things as I'm no good at it. :)
As for the lore, that may take a bit more… but it also shouldn’t be too much. Have you left any unknown regions? Continents across the sea? Forgotten valleys?
Had a hypothetical "new species" been living in numbers anywhere close to the part of the world where they've been adventuring, that species would have been or become a known quantity by now. Thus, these things would be coming from an unvisited faraway continent. And while that's feasible, it also kinda limits their numbers should more players decide to take them up.
But if your setting had a war between drow and elves they already exist in the setting, no?
Sure, a few do, but they're not available as PC-playables and thus not written up in the PC rules.
 

Pets & Sidekicks

Remove ads

Top