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

[AlViking]

I've answered this question multiple times in this thread, in replies multiple posters. I haven't gone back to check if I've answered it in a reply to you, but I expect that I have.

@zakael19 has also answered, in replies to you.

Here is the relevant rule, from p 103 of the Revised rulebook:

When scripting these maneuvers, players must speak their parts. Spitting out moves in a robotic fashion is not a viable use of these mechanics. The arguments must be made. Of course, no one expects us all to be eloquent, so just the main thrust or a simple retort usually suffices (but a little embellishment is nice).​

​

Keep it simple and to the point. Say what you need to in order to roll the dice. A multipoint statement should be broken down into multiple actions across the exchange.​

What is said correlates to what sort of action is rolled. And also - as I've posted upthread - determines the content of any compromise.

I don't understand why this is being treated as some sort of mystery!

They have to speak. Does the GM decide if they are "speaking robotically" or if it's not adequately addressing the situation?

But yes, it is clear that the content of their statement has no impact on chance of success. Which to me means the player has less agency for this type of interaction than in my D&D campaign.

 

[zakael19]

I know, it's definitely not a great feature for a game that wants to exhibit verisimilitude.

Having 100% control of a character's emotions and mental state is completely unrealistic (we certainly don't have that kind of agency in real life) and really is more like treating your character like a pawn.

No we did this argument already, last Monday/Tuesday. I think it went on for 30 pages and nobody was satisfied. At least one person (maybe AlViking?) stridently said they strive to control all their emotions in real life.

 

[TwoSix]

But yes, it is clear that the content of their statement has no impact on chance of success. Which to me means the player has less agency for this type of interaction than in my D&D campaign.

The GM deciding to give you a benny because of your good thespianism isn't agency.

 

[TwoSix]

No we did this argument already, last Monday/Tuesday. I think it went on for 30 pages and nobody was satisfied. At least one person (maybe AlViking?) stridently said they strive to control all their emotions in real life.

I also strive to complete all my tasks and be a respectable, reputable person at all times in real life.

Spoiler alert: I am nowhere near 100% successful.

 

[AlViking]

No we did this argument already, last Monday/Tuesday. I think it went on for 30 pages and nobody was satisfied. At least one person (maybe AlViking?) stridently said they strive to control all their emotions in real life.

I do my best to not let emotions control my decisions. But my real point is that it's a game and a fantasy. I'm not playing me, I'm playing Sir Badass who is never afraid unless I'm playing Sir Scaredycat in which case I'll run the character differently. But yes, I want to choose ... call it wish fulfillment if you like I don't care.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I know, it's definitely not a great feature for a game that wants to exhibit verisimilitude.

Having 100% control of a character's emotions and mental state is completely unrealistic (we certainly don't have that kind of agency in real life) and really is more like treating your character like a pawn.

it doesn't have to be realistic. The point is they want to feel like they are there in a real world, in the shoes of their character. Different players will have different levels of toleration for these things. Personally I am fine with stuff like fear effects, but I also realize it can raise agency concerns for some players

 

[AlViking]

The GM deciding to give you a benny because of your good thespianism isn't agency.

It has nothing to do with how eloquently you talk in my games. You could literally say "I remind the king of the time we saved his daughter and explain how the kingdom is in great danger." I may ask for some clarification but the content of what you say matters, not the how.

 

[zakael19]

They have to speak. Does the GM decide if they are "speaking robotically" or if it's not adequately addressing the situation?

But yes, it is clear that the content of their statement has no impact on chance of success. Which to me means the player has less agency for this type of interaction than in my D&D campaign.

Ok, last bit on this and I'm not bothering to respond on the "BW's Duel of Wit sucks" thread any more:

A player in a random given D&D campaign has 0 agency on the resolution of the task. It's up to the GM to call for a roll, it's up to the GM to decide if any of their words have meaning / lend advantage / are really intimidation / Persuade with Intelligence / all these other variants. It's up to the DM if they're using the social rules in the DMG or doing "persuade as mind control" outcomes. It's up to the DM what the player gets out of a success, and what happens on a failure.

In Burning Wheel, the task resolution steps are entirely in the player's hands. They have a purpose of the Duel of Wits set (intent), they choose their arguments and skills/weapons for each pass, they know the sort of resolution that's happening for each back and forth. The only thing in question is "what will the dice say" which retains uncertainty in a way that mimics how we're uncertain our arguments in real life or in a novel/movie narrative will have any sway.

 

[pemerton]

When a character attempts something, whether it's to stab a zombie in the eye or act more quickly than their opponent, there's no guarantee of success. But deciding the emotional state of the character? If the dice are determining that it means there is less agency for the player.

<snip>

when the rules dictate emotional state of or a decision made by the character there is less agency.

Why is my emotional state more important, to agency, than that I kill the Orc? Of course a game that foregrounds one, rather than the other, creates a different experience. But I don't see I any basis for saying that one is more significant for agency than the other: they both pertain directly to whether or not the PC achieves what the player has had them attempt.

I also don't see why Burning Wheel's focus on the emotional impact of trying to murder someone more significant for agency than D&D's focus on the emotional impact of a charging dragon or the emotional impact of seeing a mummy.

 

[Maxperson]

I used to think, but I remember that the point is to let the players choices drive the campaign. Not choosing or rather not being proactive, is just as much of a valid choice as any other. Some players, some groups have more fun when they place their characters under orders.

Is that a sandbox? As far I am concerned it is. Because if they decided to do something different, I am always willing to let them trash the setting and follow along wherever they decide to go afterwards.

If the players are passive, they don't really drive the campaign, though. If the groups "choose" to have me initiate things, place their PCs under order, etc., it ceases to be driven by the players in the way that a sandbox game is. Their choices in response to things I initiate absolutely matter, but those choices happen in a non-sandbox game.

And out-of-game, I've been doing this long enough to see that pushing players into being something they're not willing to be is a really bad idea.

Sure. I'm not saying to railroad them into something the DM likes. The DM will still be initiating things that the players enjoy. It's just not the players driving things most of the time.

What usually happens is that the players still shape their lives and the direction of the campaign, but within the context of being subordinate to a higher authority. This is different from what happens with a more proactive group, but still leads to the group having an impact and making its mark on the world.

This was the result of something happening in a game store campaign with a group that wasn't particularly proactive. The Overlord of City State's daughter pissed one of the party members off. He bided his time and when the opportunity arose assassinated her by teleporting a wall of stone through a dimension door. Crushing her and the blue dragon she was riding.

Yeah. There will be times when they do initiate things, but initiating things part time isn't sandbox play. In sandbox play the DM is reactive to the players pretty much all the time. If I'm frequently having to initiate things, the game has shifted away from sandbox play into play that's more linear in nature.

Even in linear games, players make choices that can affect the state of the world, like your player having his PC assassinate the Overlord's daughter and her dragon. The ability to make choices that matter is the hallmark of a non-railroad game, not that of sandbox play. The hallmark of sandbox play is that the player are setting their own goals and desires with the world as their oyster, and then taking action to try and achieve those goals and desires.