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

[pemerton]

I wouldn't really object.

OK. My post wasn't addressed to you.

 

[Maxperson]

I know this is probably bad form, but, if you wanted a clearer example of the conservativism of D&D fans, just look at the reaction to the new Banneret class. That's pretty much conservatism in action. It's not bad because it's bad. It's bad because it's new. At least, according to a LOT of posters in that thread.

Why is 2024 so close to 2014? And why is 2014 such a call back to earlier editions? Hrmmmm, :hrm:

That's not correct. The reaction isn't because it's new. We would have embraced a NEW subclass called the Banneret with appropriate abilities, they're backsliding to what they did with the Sword Coast book and taking away a specific subclass with specific FR lore in order to make some generic subclass that isn't it.

I would be like taking Superman's name away and just naming him hero. It's not conservatism. It's rejecting an obnoxious trend to make things generic, especially when it's soooooo out of place in a FR book where lore is supposed to mean something.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

What meta knowledge?

That making conjectures and having hopes etc significantly increases the chances of those things becoming true, and more generally that actions can have effects and consequences causally unconnected to them and that those acausal effects nevertheless are tied to the "skill" of the character doing the related action. Basic stuff like that which will be apparent to any player with half a brain.

 

[pemerton]

But it seems you do not have an actual counter argument.

My "counter argument" is that your description of an "incentive structure" is not borne out in play.

If your play is yielding degenerate incentive structures, I infer that your GM is not very good at framing scenes and establishing consequences.

 

[Maxperson]

It's totally not a railroad. It's you as a player understanding your role in the game.

So a player understanding that his role in a game is to just go down the one true path and not deviate means that the DM is not railroading?

Your statement by the way means that even though it was never railroading to begin with, the stance that traditional games are "railroads" is wrong since the players understand their role in the game.

 

[TwoSix]

So a player understanding that his role in a game is to just go down the one true path and not deviate means that the DM is not railroading?

Your statement by the way means that even though it was never railroading to begin with, the stance that traditional games are "railroads" is wrong since the players understand their role in the game.

You've completely made up this "one true path" nonsense. I don't know what you're on about.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

My "counter argument" is that your description of an "incentive structure" is not borne out in play.

If your play is yielding degenerate incentive structures, I infer that your GM is not very good at framing scenes and establishing consequences.

There is nothing degenerate about it. It is just that the game has more elements of collaborative storytelling and that not all actions are made purely in actor stance as the players are invited to take on author stance from time to time. And that is perfectly fine, it is not an attack, it is merely what is happening in games like these.

 

[pemerton]

That making conjectures and having hopes etc significantly increases the chances of those things becoming true

In any RPG, the fiction is likely to contain interesting and salient things. Otherwise play would be very boring!

that actions can have effects and consequences causally unconnected to them and that those acausal effects nevertheless are tied to the "skill" of the character doing the related action. Basic stuff like that which will be apparent to any player with half a brain.

As I've already posted, the accuracy of knowledge, conjectures etc is not independent of a person's expertise. Any player with half a brain can see that dice model correlations which need not be directly causal (but eg can have a common cause: I posted an example from a 1977 RPG upthread, but you ignored that).

In my experience, the main difference it makes when players realise that they can impact the shared fiction is to make them more interested in the fiction, and invested in it.

 

[pemerton]

There is nothing degenerate about it. It is just that the game has more elements of collaborative storytelling and that not all actions are made purely in actor stance as the players are invited to take on author stance from time to time.

I still don't know what you mean by "author stance" or "actor stance" as you are not using them in the only sense I'm familiar with.

"Trad" RPGing is replete with author stance play - the players know the GM has placed obstacles and opportunities into the fiction, and so motivate their PCs to look for them; know that there are certain expectations around attrition etc, and so make decisions about resource expenditure keeping those things in mind; etc.

But you don't need to be ashamed of that!

 

[TwoSix]

There is nothing degenerate about it. It is just that the game has more elements of collaborative storytelling and that not all actions are made purely in actor stance as the players are invited to take on author stance from time to time. And that is perfectly fine, it is not an attack, it is merely what is happening in games like these.

And again, the fact that the mechanical resolution method takes player intent and character modifiers into account INSTEAD OF being a purely neutral encounter roll or GM decision DOES NOT impact actor stance.

The fact that the GM used your Diplomacy roll to decide that a high-level cleric was in the temple, rather than consulting their notes or making an extrapolation based on setting notes, does not matter unless you choose to be bothered by it.