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

[Faolyn]

How many enemies do you actually talk to?

In TTRPGs? Most of them.

In video games? I generally don't.

In many video games you do have conversations with primary antagonists. Sometimes you have multiple options. You can frequently eavesdrop on other less important NPCs.

Are you saying that in video games, you have as many options for dealing with enemies as you do in RPGs?

I don't run murderhobo games, the intelligent creature enemies are enemies for a reason. But that's my game. If someone else wants to run a murderhobo game ans they're having fun with it? Who am I, or anyone else, to tell them that they're playing wrong?

Where did I say that they were playing wrong by murderhoboing?

 

[AnotherGuy]

Though maybe part of the fun WAS the mistakes and things which resulted from them; and that is what has since been lost.

The fun I remember were the antics of my players and their characters.
The fun thing I did as DM, I feel, was provide the platform week-after-week for us to play.

 

[Lanefan]

The fun I remember were the antics of my players and their characters.
The fun thing I did as DM, I feel, was provide the platform week-after-week for us to play.

Oh, same here. And while the platform I provided wasn't (and, let's be honest, still isn't) always perfect, it did the job well enough to keep us rocking.

And I certainly made some mistakes. Having (I hope) learned from them and carried on, I don't lose any sleep over them now.

 

[AlViking]

In TTRPGs? Most of them.

In video games? I generally don't.


Are you saying that in video games, you have as many options for dealing with enemies as you do in RPGs?

No, I'm saying that D&D has always been pretty combat oriented and people don't talk to the majority of enemies they face.

Obviously we have far more options than video games. But when the pirates are attacking your boat there's generally not good to be s call for parlay.

Where did I say that they were playing wrong by murderhoboing?

It felt implied that providing options other than being murder hobos was preferred.

 

[clearstream]

@clearstream, you asked if it is "okay for posters to disfavour mechanics out of moral concerns" and did so in a fashion that suggests you believe that a moral concern is equivalent to a simple difference in taste where there is no moral component.

I responded to say that forming an opinion on a mechanic is based on moral concerns is, by definition, making moral judgements and thus it is something you should do carefully (especially if you want to voice the opinion that it's a matter of morality). I also indicated that I don't believe that moral judgements should be treated the same way as individual preferences with no meaningful moral component.

When you state that your grounds for disliking a mechanic are moral concerns, you are not merely sharing a preference. You are also suggesting that people who do not share your concerns, and who use the morally concerning mechanic, are behaving immorally.

You raise a couple of interesting, closely connected questions here that I'd like to tackle. I think they can be stated like this

it is accepted as possible for a player to have distaste for a game mechanic out of that player's moral concerns​

​

to have distaste something out of moral concerns necessarily entails judging those who do not share that distaste to fall afoul of those concerns​

​

given the above, where moral concerns inform a player's preferences, judgement of those who don't share those preferences necessarily accompanies them​

Does that look roughly right to you? My response in a nutshell is that the preference is as to the choice to extend compunction into the magic circle of play on some matter, and not as to the immorality of that matter. I don't suppose that just because @AnotherGuy enjoys including minion mechanics in their game, that they necessarily promote mass slaughter in their real life.

To attempt to precis this argument

suppose that X is something you and I agree is immoral in real life, and X' is its fictional representation in play​

​

suppose that you and I agree that X' being fictional is not necessarily immoral​

​

however, I additionally hold distaste for X' and prefer not to include it in my play​

​

seeing as I have agreed that X' is not necessarily immoral, I am not bound to apply moral judgement to others who include X' in their play​

​

I think your worry denies that knowing that X' being fictional isn't immoral doesn't allow one to suspend moral judgement (after all, it's not immoral). Folk here are saying that they can do exactly that: suspend moral judgement. The nature of my preference is thus better described as follows

when I pretend to do X', I can maintain some sort of separateness from doing X​

​

that separateness can be leveraged for inter alia irony, investigation (see @Umbran's example of the Paradox Realm), and ignoring​

​

how well I maintain that separateness and whatever it costs me is a personal matter​

​

my preference appertains to that personal matter​

I could as well judge myself for over-sensitivity as others for not sharing it, but that would not relieve me of having that sensitivity. What I suspect can happen here is that others notice my compunction and feel forced to reflect on X which then may erode their playful separation from it when they include X' in their fiction. But this is not about my judgement of them, it is about their judgement of themselves.

 

[SableWyvern]

My response in a nutshell is that the preference is as to the choice to extend compunction into the magic circle of play on some matter, and not as to the immorality of that matter.

I have no idea what this means. [Edit: having separated it out from the rest and read it again after going through everything else in your post, it now makes sense, but I do feel it's written in an overly convoluted manner for something you intend as a brief summary.]

To attempt to precis this argument

suppose that X is something you and I agree is immoral in real life, and X' is its fictional representation in play​

​

suppose that you and I agree that X' being fictional is not necessarily immoral​

​

however, I additionally hold distaste for X' and prefer not to include it in my play​

​

seeing as I have agreed that X' is not necessarily immoral, I am not bound to apply moral judgement to others who include X' in their play​

If you do not believe that the use of a given mechanic in a game raises moral or ethical questions, I would suggest not saying that it does. "I find this kind of thing distasteful and don't enjoy it in my games," is, in my mind, a very different statement to, "I have moral concerns about the presence of this mechanic in my games." The former is a statement of preference (and whether that thing is moral or immoral when we encounter it in the real world is irrelevant; the preference is just as valid in either case). The second is suggesting, at best, that you're reserving judgement as to whether those who allow that mechanic are behaving immorally.

You have talked about such things as "disfavouring a mechanic out of moral concerns". You quoted academics who seemed to be arguing that accepting things in game that we would consider immoral out of the game is tacitly accepting the immoral. You have stated quite clearly that you have ethical concerns about mechanics that support mass slaughter in TTRPGS.

It is thus quite confusing to have you turn around and say that you don't actually think these things are immoral or that you're not making moral judgements. That said, if you don't actually consider their existence in games to be morally concerning, then we have nothing to disagree about, and you can feel free to disregard my comments on the matter.

 

[clearstream]

If you do not believe that the use of a given mechanic in a game raises moral or ethical questions, I would suggest not saying that it does.
"I find this kind of thing distasteful and don't enjoy it in my games,"

One might hope writing something like that would work out as you say. In my first post in this strand, I wrote that

"I worry about the trope of dozens of lives of our demonized enemies being worth less than one of ours. So I'm not generally aiming to support the play envisioned in the 4e text on minions."​

I do not see the substantive difference between what I wrote and what you say that I should have written.

is, in my mind, a very different statement to, "I have moral concerns about the presence of this mechanic in my games." The former is a statement of preference (and whether that thing is moral or immoral when we encounter it in the real world is irrelevant; the preference is just as valid in either case). The second is suggesting, at best, that you're reserving judgement as to whether those who allow that mechanic are behaving immorally.

I've drawn a distinction between a moral concern motivating a personal preference for some fiction over others, and that moral concern as such being applied to that which is fictional. I'm not saying that I don't have the moral concern, I am saying that I can see how what might be immoral in real life might not be immoral in fiction. (That was never unclear to me, incidentally.)

You have talked about such things as "disfavouring a mechanic out of moral concerns". You quoted academics who seemed to be arguing that accepting things in game that we would consider immoral out of the game is tacitly accepting the immoral. You have stated quite clearly that you have ethical concerns about mechanics that support mass slaughter in TTRPGS.

Yes, it looked worth investigating whether or not a mechanism could be identified by which the fictionally immoral could be "exported" back to the real world. One such mechanism could be "procedural rhetoric". If one found that compelling then that might form grounds for taking X' to be not separated from real-life as believed. Investigating that does not involve judging others, although I suppose it could if robustly evidenced result in grounds for doing so... which I take to be what you meant in saying that the arguments would need to be compelling.

It is thus quite confusing to have you turn around and say that you don't actually think these things are immoral or that you're not making moral judgements. That said, if you don't actually consider their existence in games to be morally concerning, then we have nothing to disagree about, and you can feel free to disregard my comments on the matter.

I would think it immoral of you to engage in or promote mass slaughter in the real world, but I do not think it would be necessarily immoral for you to pretend do so in play. If you read back up the thread you will see that it is others who assumed that conclusion.

 

[clearstream]

Speaking in broad generalization (so, admitting that there will be exceptions) I find that much of the fiction that comes out of our play is enacted without mediation by the game rules.

Would it be right to infer from "much of" that some is enacted with the game rules? So that it makes some sort of difference what game text you have sitting on the table.

So, here's a point that maybe will bake your noodle - the game cannot position us to promulgate good ethical choices unless bad ones are present. Indeed, the strongest morals are depicted when the moral choices are not rewarded. The players cannot reject ethical violations, unless the game makes those violations possible.

That's why I linked that article. It's a great example of exactly that. Baker commented that

The Faith expects the PCs to enforce its naughty word archaic rules. The game doesn’t. The game hopes that the PCs kick that naughty word to pieces. Never, ever play Dogs in the Vineyard with people who agree with The Faith. Yikes.​

​

But as the article discusses, there's nothing in the game text saying "don't agree with The Faith". So far as that text is concerned, The Faith is right and what you do to enforce The Faith is right. The article lays out very well what you seem to be getting at.

Of course, I don't see anything from 4e's designers suggest that sort of subversive intention, nor has anyone here written anything to suggest they use the mechanic that way.

As in - if you are concerned about mass killing and colonialism, and that that the minion mechanic makes plowing through hordes of invaded people possible... It follows that the players cannot choose to not do that, unless the game gives them the option to do it!

I personally find it more edifying to play the invaded people being plowed through side of that situation, but mileages vary.

Spoiler: Case in point...

As an example, from many years ago, I was in a Mage: the Ascension game...

Someone had botched a major magical working, and most of the PCs were trapped in a Paradox Realm - a little pocket universe reality used to wrap up the inconsistencies generated by magic. But, the PCs didn't know they were in the realm. One of the ways out was for us to notice the inconsistencies, realize it was all a dream, and the bubble would pop. Unfortunately, thinking we needed to be saved, one of the party members who wasn't caught broke in, and informed us of the situation - we could then not realize it on our own, so that possibility was shut off.

The other way out was to sacrifice all the other denizens of the paradox realm, and use their collected energy to break the thing open. The GM figured that, since all the denizens of the realm were "fake", we'd be okay with that. Turns out, we collectively were not. We all decided that killing so many people, "fake" or not, was not something any of us were willing to do, and we were willing to end the entire campaign, with our characters living out their lives in the paradox realm, rather than be mass-murderers.

Eventually, the GM relented, and allowed a third option for escape, but that was only after we started talking about new character concepts. We didn't expect him to give in.

Great example! Could it however raise a conundrum? If it were truly a moral choice to have refused to pretend to be mass murderers in your game, doesn't that imply that things pretended to be done in fiction really can be moral or immoral? Would you say that refusal were covered by my answer to @SableWyvern? i.e. your compunction wouldn't imply any moral judgement of a player who chose to slaughter everyone in the Paradox Realm in order to escape it.

 

[Enrahim]

I was talking about combining narrativist rules w/ simulationist rules

That is something different from the challenge I was talking about though. I was talking about the challenge of taking the same creature, and handling it differently based on context, while not getting weirdness in the "transition" (More specifically we were talking about changing over to minion rules once the party become "strong enough").

 

[Faolyn]

No, I'm saying that D&D has always been pretty combat oriented and people don't talk to the majority of enemies they face.

Obviously we have far more options than video games. But when the pirates are attacking your boat there's generally not good to be s call for parlay.

Maybe not. Of course, with magic involved to calm things down, who knows!

Whether there's a chance to talk beforehand depends on what the (potential) enemy is doing, so if they're actively engaged in evil acts, then the party probably doesn't want to give them a chance to continue that evil.

It felt implied that providing options other than being murder hobos was preferred.

You inferred that; I didn't imply anything.