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

[Bedrockgames]

Isn't plausibility the same as player expectations in the context of a fantasy TTRPG? Isn't that the whole point of Enrahim's post?

I guess what I am saying is plausibility is going to factor in what players expect to be plausible. If an NPC holds a ring over a pit of lava and releases it, they expect it to fall (and likely fall into the lava). But expectations can get different as you get into more things. Like if you shoot a gas tank on a car should the car potentially explode? If you are in the right action movie franchise, that is a plausible outcome of that action. If you are in the real world, I'm actually not sure, but I suspect it wouldn't blow up, or at least would be a lot less likely to combust the way it does on film. I call this knowing what franchise you are in. But just because you are in a franchise, that doesn't mean plausibility doesn't matter. Your players are using plausibility as part of their way of understanding how the world behaves.

Plausibility seems to melt away as a factor, if clear expectations about the way a world works are defined. We do it for magic all the time. It's just that expectation is inherent in many systems, so it's not discussed. But if something falls within player expectations for a world, it also falls within their expectations of what is plausible in that world.

When we label "plausibility" as a separate idea from player expectations things get weird. All of a sudden worlds with slightly different rules become almost problematic because they break this nebulous idea of plausibility even if they fall within player expectations.

Again, I take the view that plausibility can vary from one type of setting to another. I think something we have seen though in this thread, and what some folks are talking about, is setting that their campaigns are much more on the naturalistic side of the spectrum, so they expect plausibility that feels closer to our world's than to say John Wick's world

So I would guess that plausibility is really just player expectations by a different name. As I can, theoretically, get player's to expect implausible events and not run into issues because I am still meeting player expectations even if violating plausibility in a general sense.

I don't think it is just player expectation by a different name, but I think you want to get people on the same page in terms of knowing what franchise they are in and what kind of setting that are in

 

[AlViking]

The way I see it is some people want drama, when it happens, to emerge very naturally and organically, not part of the recipe of play, just a potential thing that can occur, while others want drama that is more driven by the structure of the game or pre-loaded elements. Both are fine, but there is a lot to be said for organic play in terms of its long term play. It is an approach that works very well if you want long campaigns

My goal with campaigns in D&D is always to get to level 20. I get that other people have different preferences and people should do what works for them. But I've had people RP pretty intense emotions (and sometimes be affected themselves) without it being the focus or even a concern of the rules of the game. If people care about drama (not all do) I find getting their organically has more impact. To each their own.

 

[dave2008]

There is no such thing as "referee's logic." Just bear with me. What we each have is our own way of reasoning about how we roleplay or adjudicate. As a result, we each have our own process that we go through.

I described mine.

You have yours.

In the course of the discussion on this thread, I figured out how to describe mine in detail. Now, other folks can try my methodology for themselves.

So if you have a similar explanation for your process, explained in a way that other folks can try it for themselves, I encourage you to share. I suspect it will be your own take on how to adjudicate and roleplay. To which I say: the more the merrier!

The term "referee logic" was yours, not mine.

What you are doing was never the point really, just what you called it. You term "internal logic" was flawed IMO and I simple described why.

Not a big deal one way or the other.

 

[hawkeyefan]

My thoughts were, "why do you think this matters?", because I clearly do not think that, and you answered. I think that advice is still valuable for the community, even if some games don't want it, and don't agreed with your implied call to action that folks should stop giving it because some games you favor don't want it or see it as against the spirit of that particular game. Not every piece of advice is going to be helpful for all games. We'll muddle through somehow I'm sure.

It's not about "some games I favor", Micah. It's about "this advice no longer really applies to many games". Because play has expanded beyond the challenge of a dungeon, which is something a neutral arbiter is useful for.

Given that you've not offered any insight as to why you think it is still broadly useful advice, I can for now only conclude that you're doing so reflexively... out of the kind of conservatism this thread was started to discuss. Maybe I'm wrong... but it's hard to say.

What makes a neutral arbiter so useful to 5e D&D, would you say?

The way I see it is some people want drama, when it happens, to emerge very naturally and organically, not part of the recipe of play, just a potential thing that can occur, while others want drama that is more driven by the structure of the game or pre-loaded elements. Both are fine, but there is a lot to be said for organic play in terms of its long term play. It is an approach that works very well if you want long campaigns

Okay... there is, to me, nothing at all more "organic" about what you've been talking about.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Okay... there is, to me, nothing at all more "organic" about what you've been talking about.

wait wouldn’t you say there is a difference between games where the set up or system encourage drama regularly and one where you just let it happens on its own if it arises but you can take it or leave it?

 

[Faolyn]

And I certainly understand what you are saying. However, I reject it. The events flow from whatever the Dm thinks will be interesting in play. This notion of the world having any sort of independence from the DM is ludicrous. A creation that is created, adjudicated, and adjusted by a single source cannot possibly have any sort of independence from that source. And it's fairly easy to prove.

<facepalm>

My point was that we're not actually suffering from a psychosis and really believe that a magic world with dragons and elves actually exists just because we use shorthand terminology to say that the world evolves logically after in-setting events.

Here. Go back and read my initial post on it. Because this:

So, no, I reject this notion that the setting is somehow separate from the DM of that setting. It can't be.

Is literally what I'm saying is not happening.

 

[Enrahim]

I don't think it is just player expectation by a different name, but I think you want to get people on the same page in terms of knowing what franchise they are in and what kind of setting that are in

But isn't getting people on the same page mainly a means to set and manage expectations? If the car explodes in a big fireball after being shot and a player complain "that is not plausable", they would probably come around to accept it as plausible if you just clarify that this is a game based on over the top action logic. And the thing that has changes is the player's expectation regarding the causal relationship between shooting something and how dramatic the effect will be.

 

[dave2008]

What makes a neutral arbiter so useful to 5e D&D, would you say?

I'm not @Micah Sweet , but I can give a response I think they might agree with and it is how I feel. A neutral arbiter is useful because, in our experience, it works for us and the games we run. The process is fun for both us *the DM) and our players. For the DM, the fun extends beyond the gameday, at the table experience as well. If it is fun for us, it might useful and work for others.

 

[Bedrockgames]

But isn't getting people on the same page mainly a means to set and manage expectations? If the car explodes in a big fireball after being shot and a player complain "that is not plausable", they would probably come around to accept it as plausible if you just clarify that this is a game based on over the top action logic. And the thing that has changes is the player's expectation that they can expect real world physics to apply to combustion.

It is coming from both ends. You have a sense of a world and what the plausibility of that world ought to be, and you explain to the players what that is, so they have their expectations set. And if you are talking strictly about, here is a realistic setting and the GM is trying to do only what would be plausible in the real world, I think it is still something where the GM has to do the mental work to figure out what is plausible, but the players are ultimately the ones judging his or her decision. So I don't think plausibility magically vanishes, it just means it doesn't exist in a vacuum. Like if you are using real world physics, as a GM you probably want to find out how real world combustion works when that sort of thing comes up. That isn't just about player expectations, because if their expectations aren't in alignment with what would happen, when they call foul, the GM can show them, 'no this is what happens if you fire a bullet through a full tank gas in the real world'.

I do think it is totally fair to reach out to players though and to not pretend like you know things you don't. For example if I have a player in my group who is a doctor, I am probably going to ask him medical questions during a scenario so I can get things right (like "how long does blood take to dry"). I think that is fair. If you have players at the table who know things, bringing in their knowledge can be useful.

 

[robertsconley]

And I certainly understand what you are saying. However, I reject it. The events flow from whatever the Dm thinks will be interesting in play. This notion of the world having any sort of independence from the DM is ludicrous. A creation that is created, adjudicated, and adjusted by a single source cannot possibly have any sort of independence from that source. And it's fairly easy to prove.

I’ve done something close to a controlled experiment in this hobby. I wrote two sandbox adventures, Scourge of the Demon Wolf and Deceits of the Russet Lord, and ran each of them repeatedly, nearly three dozen times combined, across the United States with different groups of players. Every run started with the same materials, the same opening situation, and the same referee: me.

If any of us took @robertsconley's setting and ran it for our own groups... within a very short time, each of our settings would progress distinctly... If the setting had any sort of independent existence, it shouldn't though.

What I found is that those differences didn’t come from me, they came from the players. The situations started out the same. The world state was the same. But what each group chose to do created divergent outcomes. That’s the point: the setting, properly structured, responds to input. It’s the players’ actions, not the referee’s preferences, that drive divergence. You could run my material and end up in a different place than I would, not because you made different choices, but because your players did.

So, no, I reject this notion that the setting is somehow separate from the DM of that setting. It can't be.

And yet, my experience suggests otherwise.