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

[clearstream]

That's like saying the weather is caused by stepping outside your door.

Agreed.

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.

Also agreed. Something I hope was obvious from my citing pertinent D&D game text, is that the text itself does not support what you say unless someone uses it that way. D&D attaches weather to journeys because that's where they're normally relevant, but "DM decides how to apply the rules." And that applies as much to the Weather rules as any other.

That's why I propose something wordy like

I observe some sufficiency of game text articulating heuristics to be incorporated into the cognitive processes of play in light of other text such as principles and examples that are productive of any of immersive, noetically satisfying, explorative or investigative experiences of a subject when used in accord with its principles and for that purpose​

And I don't just mean that about D&D, I mean it about every TTRPG text. A ridiculous "proof" is, place any game text in the middle of the table, accessible to all, and see if it has any effect on play without anyone enacting it? That's just silly, right? But it's what folk sometimes present game text as doing: implementing itself. They also present that text as complete, when with even a moment's reflection one can list a great many things that players picture in play that aren't in the text.

Either knowing what something looks like in the imagined world doesn't matter to "simulationist" experiences, or it does matter and players in that way complete the mechanics by narrating what follows from the results at least simulatively, even if also dramatically, expressively, etc.

I am also saying that what is happening around the table cannot be taken to be diegetic! The fake gun the set dresser places on the sidetable isn't diegetic, it's the real gun that audience and actor have accepted into their fiction that is diegetic.

 

[Lanefan]

I was speaking to them about this because I was expecting 5e rules. You don't use 5e rules. What I said to them wouldn't apply to you.

Were I running 5e Drow might well be* kill-on-sight there too; as would demons, devils, jellies, oozes, githi, chromatic dragons, giants, and various other monsters.

* - almost certainly would be, actually, given that most of the other usual humanoid kill-on-sight options have been neutered into blandness.

 

[clearstream]

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.


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.


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.


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.

I just want to add that anyone playing can say what an elf is just so long as they're the right person saying it at the right time. Even children can assert, "I'm an elf", and none gainsay them for their play. However, I have observed it hindering some playful experiences to be tasked to do so.

There is some way in which a separation between or not dwelling upon establishing world, and inhabiting and acting within it, matters. That can be managed (by some at least) solo, or it can be managed by some participant(s) on behalf of others. GM as lusory-means has proven effective in managing it for a group... but that is just one way, and game texts such as Ironsworn evidence techniques for managing it other ways. It may even be the assumption itself that one does not have that job, that makes being tasked with it disruptive.

 

[Lanefan]

*Taking the reference to mean that D&D drow are the subject, so that I can access objective standards for what drow treasures are like. The final treasure in Vault of the Drow comprises four well-hidden, heavily trapped chests

Chest 1 contains 11,230 g.p. and 3 packets of 12 applications each of the special dust of disappearance.​

Chest 2 holds 4,389 p.p.​

Chest 3 contains 20 potions and 8 scrolls (all clerical or of protective nature).​

Chest 4 contains 37 pieces of jewelry set with gems (1,000 - 6,000 g.p. value each), a sack of 103 10 g.p. base value gems, a small pouch with 41 50 g.p. base value and 29 100 g.p. base value gems, and an ivory box (covered with an invisible contact poison which must be saved against at -6) lined with satin which holds 13 diamonds (base value 5.000 g.p. each) and a talisman of lawfulness.​

​

Something over a quarter million worth in gold pieces. To me an unembellished 1,000,000gp doesn't enhance my appreciation of anything drow, but I agree that some sorts of treasures could.

Couldn't resist...

Assuming average values for chest 4's jewelry of 3500 each and assuming the base value variances on the gems cancel out, there's 233,655 g.p. there in coin, gems, and jewelry alone.

The dust of disappearance, the potions, the scrolls, and the talisman all come on top of that. Oh, and the satin-lined ivory box which, though not given a value here, is probably worth a bit once the poison is washed off.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

Well, to be pedantic about it, narration of weather is caused by the PCs sending their characters on a journey. I think we can all assume there's un-narrated weather happening in the setting the rest of the time, can't we?

 

[Enrahim]

I have spoken with them for many, many years.

I'm very confident this is not their process.

Maybe

But did you see @Lanefan 's post #19,056? D&D General - [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting. I think it looks deceptively similar.

We have question as of why the player would want to play that concept.

Power reasons are singled out as common, and problematic (which make sense if we are in a somewhat gamist environement where in-fiction power balance is fundational to the experience) - but that indicate other reasons might be acceptable for further examining and might gain traction (like my race for flavor example).

(Indeed being able to identify a reason as common indicate Lanefan likely have actually had this kind of conversations more often than me..)

We even having someone that keep nagging without being thrown out of the group.

I have a really hard time spotting the essential difference to what I am doing?

If anything I would point to the pre-established procedure for getting a race outside the list that is seemingly outside the GMs direct control. But that in a way seem more permissive than me, rather than less. Here we have an established fallback fallback procedure that appear to be on offer. That is from the way I read it not something that is required, but an option the player can take instead of trying to talk it out and convince the GM. I can easily imagine quite a few people happily taking that option and see what they get, rather than making more fuss about it.

 

[AnotherGuy]

I know the average user of this forum is a cishet white man in his 50s,

Well, it depends how long this thread to goes on for, and only if you round-up, which I should say is not the norm for hit points and damage and shouldn't be for age

but the amount of people who act like they're 7 years old seems to dispute that.

Well, our characters tend to be younger the older we get as players

 

[AnotherGuy]

Once or twice it's been for legitimate flavour reasons but power is still lurking as well. Example: during the "Twilight" heyday I had a player lobby me for ages wanting to play a Vampire. She had all kinds of good ideas as to flavour and so forth but there was no getting around the fact that a Vampire (already a known thing in the game) in the then-current party would have been stupidly overpowered, never mind it could have threatened the loss of some levels on anyone who disagreed with it, and so I declined. Many times.

That's hardcore, you still use level drain!

Have you ever collaborated with a player using a non-traditional playable race or class for their backstory to fit your campaign or has it always been a no?

 

[Enrahim]

Okay...but...MANY participants in this thread have specifically said that that's an essential part of that authority. Enforcing constraints in terms of "pulling rank" over players asking to play a race the GM didn't originally plan for, for example. In-fiction integrity looks, to me, like it is at least an overwhelming majority of "bright line" type stuff, with at best a moderately-sized minority of bedrock-level stuff--most of which is in the form of things like "don't declare you have laser eyes" or the like, aka, expecting that players respect the tone and theme the game is using.

Maybe. I haven't spotted so many concrete examples. Very much have been abstract, and then I tend to assume they are talking about more fundational things until clear evidence suggest otherwise.

I'm not sure what you mean by "mystery" in this context. And, on reflection, I'm not super sure what you mean by "setting exploration", either.

Do these things just mean that the GM hides information until the players say the right things (possibly backed up by rolls) for it to be revealed to them? That seems rather...thin, so I suspect there's more to it, but I'm not sure what it would be.

This is as you can imagine something I would love to talk about! The revelation part of setting exploration I agree is rather thin. That is sort of like when opening a gift to see what is inside. It is in itself an enjoyable, but rather short lived experience. The thing that gives this mode of play depth is the exploration of what can be done with the thing revealed (in particular when combined with other previously revealed setting elements). As such the setting elements should be ripe with possibilities.

I think this as such is not that different to more situational play. The main difference being that situational play from my understanding tend to be a bit more opiniated about the nature of the possibilties the situation should present.

As for mystery, that get a bit more involved. If you strip it down, it usually reduces to something like a deduction game like guess who, cluedo or 20 questions. That is there is some hidden information that you try to figure out by asking good questions. As such there are typically no right question that need to be asked (that degenerative case are well known and certanly found in the wild, tough). Rather there are questions that might be more efficient than others to ask. In an RPG of course actually getting the answer to the questions you would like to ask tend to be a bit more involved than just ask the GM. And the motifs that is being revealed trough this investigation tend to be significantly richer than just the 3 facts of cluedo.

These two modes of play go very well together because things revealed trough setting exploration can often be exploited to gain information on the mystery, and the "answer" to the mystery is very often itself a rich setting element to be revealed and explored.

Right. In general, I expect most groups to resolve a disagreement by discussing it collectively (perhaps after first having smaller private conversations first), weighing opinions, and agreeing to a particular course of action; slight deference would naturally be given to GM opinion,* but even though their position is important and powerful, it's not without limits. Now, I personally think the "we HAVE to keep the game MOVING" example is drastically over-used, but yes, that is a concern that shouldn't be casually dismissed. (That said...if the rules were clear and well-written to begin with, there'd be fewer such arguments and thus less need to worry about needing to "keep the game rolling if this isn't really the

moment".)

*One might say that, in a group of four or five players and one GM, the GM has maybe the equivalent of two votes, and always wins in the event of a tie. That way, the GM can't just unilaterally ignore the players, but as long as the GM can convince even two people, not even half the players if there are five of them, they get what they want. And if the players are conversely unanimously overruling the GM more than extremely rarely, that's a good sign the group is dysfunctional and needs to do something different.​

I think this is very common indeed. And my big point has been that this is not impossible even in a situation where the GM technically could have overruled the entire process. Indeed I would find it likely that these processes are in play in most games, even among those where the GM insists on "absolute power".

I could actually easily imagine a context where I myself could have stated I as GM want absolute power over all aspects of the game. This while not even being able to imagining myself not following processes like you describe here.

And this is a serious communication issue. It would be really nice to find a practical formulation that encompasses my wish for an efficient way to resolve fundational issues, but without spilling over into this less fundamental domain that it seem we agree should be governed by higher order social processes.

 

[clearstream]

Well, to be pedantic about it, narration of weather is caused by the PCs sending their characters on a journey. I think we can all assume there's un-narrated weather happening in the setting the rest of the time, can't we?

I agree that type-I or -IV facts prevail in imaginary worlds until something has been said to override them. Implying it's right to assume un-narrated Weather, but here I'm focusing on what is in the game text itself.

Due to

The DM Narrates the Results of the Adventurers’ Actions​

I agree with you. The weather text prompts GM to narrate results of adventurers embarking on a journey in conformance with an imagined world; one with features like ambient temperature, wind and precipitation.