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

[Crimson Longinus]

I’m in disbelief that I’m even having to point out that a d&d persuasion check involving an established cleric that can cast remove curse doesn’t require the player to author anything outside his character, but that a player deciding what runes mean does require the player to author precisely that.

I mean yeah, this is just really perplexing and frustrating. I have hard time believing that someone could have genuine trouble understanding this.

No wonder this thread is well over 2000 pages long!

@clearstream where are you trying to get with this? A this point it must be clear what people mean, is this going somewhere?

 

[FrogReaver]

I mean yeah, this is just really perplexing and frustrating. I have hard time believing that someone could have genuine trouble understanding this.

No wonder this thread is well over 2000 pages long!

I mean, it’s the entire point of doing it that way. It gives players more agency over the fiction. It makes player driven either possible or easier depending on your definition. Like there’s merits to having the player do such authoring. In can help immersion by avoiding 20 questions with the dm before making a decision. It’s not an all bad all the time kind of thing. But then 20,000 posts later we are back to arguing about whether this kind of authoring is any different than in character authoring (if you even call in character action declarations authoring, I wouldn’t, but I’ve probably already lost that battle).

 

[FrogReaver]

I mean yeah, this is just really perplexing and frustrating. I have hard time believing that someone could have genuine trouble understanding this.

No wonder this thread is well over 2000 pages long!

@clearstream where are you trying to get with this? A this point it must be clear what people mean, is this going somewhere?

Well I believe it, but it’s hard for me to understand why.

 

[clearstream]

I’m in disbelief that I’m even having to point out that a d&d persuasion check involving an established cleric that can cast remove curse doesn’t require the player to author anything outside his character, but that a player deciding what runes mean does require the player to author precisely that way.

I'm surprised to hear you'd rule out the possibility of a cleric in say Tilverton (while it was extant), if one were not expressly pre-authored there. I've observed DMs agreeing to the presence of NPCs that were not pre-authored. Players regularly migrate fictional possibilities into actualities through their play.

 

[Enrahim]

I'm surprised to hear you'd rule out the possibility of a cleric in say Tilverton (while it was extant), if one were not expressly pre-authored there. I've observed DMs agreeing to the presence of NPCs that were not pre-authored. Players regularly migrate fictional possibilities into actualities through their play.

Do they? Or is it indeed the GM that listens to player input, and from that migrate fictional possibilities into actualities? The difference might be hard to spot in practice, but the difference say something about the nature of the game.

 

[clearstream]

I mean yeah, this is just really perplexing and frustrating. I have hard time believing that someone could have genuine trouble understanding this.

No wonder this thread is well over 2000 pages long!

@clearstream where are you trying to get with this? A this point it must be clear what people mean, is this going somewhere?

I'm roughly in agreement with @Emerikol... it's down to dislike; which is a fact about a given player's relationship with the game, rather than a fact about the game. I think it's worth resisting assumptions that it's about the game, in order to also resist pernicious norms.

Responding to something @FrogReaver asked earlier, I am not dismissive of differences. Upthread I attributed them to unwritten rules ported into play with players. Where that says more than @Emerikol's take is that unwritten rules are often strongly and at the same time unconsciously normed.

I don't see why that is hard to accept? I'd prefer to get onto proposing some analytical diagrams of game mechanics.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Also why I bristle when someone suggests that the rest of the game should be structured more like the combat, wanting some tactical "social conflict" mechanics and whatnot. No thanks! The combat minigame is fun and I'm fine with it, if it is just a part of the game, but I absolutely do not want the whole game to be like that. And the combat minigame of course is just an optional extra. RPGs function perfectly fine without one.

“Mini-game”? RPGs may function without one, but it’s kind of hard to picture what D&D would be without one.

No. You cannot rewrite reality (our reality) and make words say things they don't. If a player chooses to author some fiction, that is absolutely something their character cannot do. Their character would "discover" what was authored by the same player. The disconnect is very clear.

The only issue that I can see is that the player is the one who authored the fiction.

The GM authors fiction all the time… no one thinks that it’s one of the NPCs that authored the fiction.

I also think most folks criticizing this are ignoring the role that the mechanics play. The outcome was dependent on a dice roll, just like any other action a PC may attempt whose outcome is in doubt.

 

[Enrahim]

“Mini-game”? RPGs may function without one, but it’s kind of hard to picture what D&D would be without one.

I once ran an about 10 session D&D campaign where I cannot remember invoking that mini game once There might have been a close call in a treasure cave with some skeletons rising from the sand, but I think they found a way to evade that. I also think the end game PvP was resolved based on ability checks.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I'm surprised to hear you'd rule out the possibility of a cleric in say Tilverton (while it was extant), if one were not expressly pre-authored there. I've observed DMs agreeing to the presence of NPCs that were not pre-authored. Players regularly migrate fictional possibilities into actualities through their play.

Yes, perhaps. But that has nothing to do with the persuasion check. The cleric need to exist to be persuaded!

 

[Emerikol]

For me, D&D means something and if we allow the game to be modified to the point (even if in small steps) that nothing is this the same then their s nothing essential to D&D. It cannot just be a fantasy flavored adventuring game. A GURPS variant for example covers those bases but it's never going to be D&D. It may be fun. (hint: it is). That doesn't mean it is the same thing.

I think PbtA style games are a new thing that really resonates with some people. They aren't D&D though and trying to jam D&D into those molds is probably not worth it. Just play a fantasy PbtA game. I don't understand the slavish devotion to the name D&D.

D&D has some essentials. One of them is DM authority over the fiction and the campaign world. That has been there from day one. I can quote you the 1e DM's guide if you want. It also has a lot of dice and some core archetypes like Fighter, Cleric, Rogue/Thief, and Magic Users. It has six attributes.

And yes I am absolutely for you hacking the living daylights out of your game to make it whatever you want. That is also one of the traditions of D&D. So for sure do that and if that means changing other essentials that is fine. I just wouldn't expect the game in general to change that much.