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

[Maxperson]

Sometimes people will be too scared to kill someone, sometimes they won't be.

Hmm. If only there was some way to resolve such uncertainties!

There is! Have a D&D player decide.

 

[Faolyn]

Well, given that the rules refer to committing cold-blooded murder, you've misunderstood.

So a minute ago, you said "it's not expressly mentioned." Now you say they refer to committing cold-blooded murder. Which is it? Where does "committing murder" fall under pain, surprise, fear, or wonderment?

Is that based on personal experience? Empirical research? Or mere conjecture?

In your example, you have PC 1 see that PC 2 had put an NPC in a headlock, and decided to kill the NPC. According to your example, that NPC was helpless--that is, he wasn't attacking anyone, he couldn't cause anyone any harm. How was that frightening? Or painful, or awe-inducing?

And that's ignoring the fight part of the fight or flight instinct people have when frightened! Dude has a weapon and is already a bit bloodthirsty, and he sees his companion is in combat with a foe. Why wouldn't his fear transform into fighting? Is that an option for a failed Steel check?

For that matter, how is this cold-blooded? Unless PC 1 (meaning Player 1) thought that PC 2 was a psycho who routinely attacked innocent people for funsies, the it would seem that PC 1 should logically feel that PC 2 had partially subdued a threat that needed to be killed, or at least knocked unconscious and then tied up. Calling his actions cold-blooded murder sounds like a bad GM call.

And if PC 1 did think that PC 2 was a psycho and was willing to kill her target anyway, then he's clearly fine with cold-blooded murder and wouldn't hesitate.

Now, if the NPC was some sort of horrific monster I can see PC 1 being frightened. If PC 1 was squeamish or pacifistic, I can see him being frightened--but then he was also RPed badly because killing a person shouldn't have been his first instinct.

For that matter, if character's first instinct is to kill someone, and this is enough in character that the other player didn't say "Whoa, this is new!" then he's not going to hesitate in the first place! Especially when he has a trait "I'm never wrong." (Which you've said doesn't matter, meaning that traits are pointless in this game, giving it another negative mark in my eyes.)

If I personally was in a position to kill a person, I'd hesitate. I'm not only not violent, but I don't like committing violent acts. But I also (a) don't carry a weapon and (b) don't see someone in a headlock and immediately think I should kill them.

 

[TwoSix]

And falling damage models(predicts what happens) falling and hitting the ground really hard. D&D sword swings model what happens when a sword hits the body. And on and on. They are really simple models, but they are designed to predict what will happen about what we know of these things.

They are simple models.

Dude.

Did you seriously turn to "hit points" for an example of a simulationist model? Hit points?

Solid joke. 9/10. You almost got me.

 

[Guest 85555]

To clarify, it’s not the method that’s BS. It’s a GM making decisions and attributing those to “the world” that’s BS.



This is one of the reasons I tend to consider it more GM focused. The prioritization of setting over character.

We aren't going to bridge this gap. I am fine with you not seeing it our way. From my perspective, you are just reframing things here. For example, I wouldn't say we prioritize setting over characters. What I would say is characters are part of the setting so generally you are influencing the campaign through your character. But I think this stuff:

As I said waaaay back, the GM should own their decisions.

Is extremely annoying

 

[TwoSix]

We aren't going to bridge this gap. I am fine with you not seeing it our way. From my perspective, you are just reframing things here. For example, I wouldn't say we prioritize setting over characters. What I would say is characters are part of the setting so generally you are influencing the campaign through your character. But I think this stuff:



Is extremely annoying

Why can’t you just say “In a living world sandbox, the setting is the priority, and that’s a good thing”?

 

[Faolyn]

Even LotR participates in it, with the discussion between Gandalf and Frodo of the pity that stayed Bilbo's hand, when the latter considered murdering Gollum.

Bilbo was a standard-issue small villager.

Also? If LotR was a game, then it would be more interesting if the player chose to hesitate instead of being forced to by the dice.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I'm not belittling anyone's processes. I'd just like people to describe them, instead of using ellipsis and metaphor like "the world responds to what the players have their PCs do".

I mean, "simulating a realistic world" seems to just be another way of saying "making things up about a world and trying to ensure those things are realistic". Like, no one is running models of the sort that engineers, economists and other natural and social scientists use when they run actual simulations - are they?

You seem to want others to describe them in your language and style. That's understandable, but yours is not the only valid method, and your formality and academic methodology simply isn't objectively superior to a more casually stated vernacular.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Ok, I’ve got it: they’ve been secretly doing a piece of performance art this whole time about how the average D&D group is actually a collection of absolute psychopaths.

I believe that the term 'murder hobos' is exactly capturing this.

 

[Micah Sweet]

There were no orcs because the reality of the fiction had been established long ago. Other than that, so what? If I'm creating an area for a game to take place I have to create it since i don'tuse a published setting. My approach when I create my world is that I do my best to make it logical, consistent and reactive to the characters, their actions and ripple effects. It will never be 100% but I'm tired of the extremist fallacy.

It's what works best for me, has worked well for players for decades. If you have a different approach that works for you feel free to share.

Apparently it's so much easier to tear down the way others do things so that your methods are the only ones that can work under your definitions. It really is starting to just feel malicious at this point. No one on the traditional leaning side is saying non-traditional playstyles don't work for their proponents. Seriously, you do you.

 

[AlViking]

Why can’t you just say “In a living world sandbox, the setting is the priority, and that’s a good thing”?

You could. It wouldn't necessarily be true, but you could. I create the world, the factions, the NPCs in order to have a playground for the player's characters. I don't design it for specific characters for multiple reasons but the only reason it exists is because of them. Taking a metaphorical microscope and artificially declaring which one has a priority is meaningless. They are both a priority.