D&D General Supposing D&D is gamist, what does that mean?

[Ovinomancer]

And that's fine. But it's still presented as "you shouldn't feel the way you feel".

It isn't, but you go on.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I always assumed they removed the requirement for training just because some people found it boring. Personally I like it, but admittedly it's a hard road to hoe with impatient players.

It has a number of problems, honestly; among other things it means there's no way to advance at all once you're away from civilization which doesn't make much sense for most types of characters, and defines learning-by-doing as impossible. I mean even games that take training seriously (GURPS and RQ come to mind) don't do that.

 

[Ovinomancer]

If I could codify this into an rpg design principle it would be something like:

'Fictional problems should not be solvable via player authorship (outside of declarations about what their characters attempt to do or have the fictional ability to do at the moment)'

Heh. So much special pleading here. This is saying nothing mire than "except for those places I'm already familiar and comfortable with breaking this rule." There's an actual argument to be made here that gets to what you're trying to say, but this isn't it, and if you're trying to hold 5e up as an exemplar, that's using quicksand as a foundation.

 

[Ovinomancer]

IMO, being logically inconsistent - assuming that's what's happening shouldn't be construed as being insulting.

Though I don't think there's actually logical inconsistency here. We've talked about authorship before and how it's much more than whether it occurs but who's doing the authoring, what gives them the power to do so, what limitations do they have on their authorship, what principles they must follow regarding it, are there any ulterior motives behind the authorhsip, and even when it happens in relation to the fiction.

Take that last one - 'when it happens in relation to the fiction'. In downtime there isn't any immediate problems that the authorship is solving - that's why it's downtime. Authoring a rope exactly when it comes up that you need one is authorship that's solving an immediate problem.

TLDR: Not all authorships are equal.

I find you to often be logically inconsistent, but don't seem to just dismiss you as insulting. Maybe that's not actually what I find to be insulting? Maybe I find cling entire approaches to play "unpleasant" and telling people it's their fault the poster holds that opinion a bit insulting. Or saying a game, and therefor people playing it, not serious? The bad argumentation is another reason for pushback, yes, but these are separate things.

 

[FrogReaver]

What is being retconned? When was it established that the PC did not have any rope in their gear load-out?

I believe that in D&D play a character is established as not having an item if it's never brought up that they have acquired it. This would be another unspoken D&D principle. There can exist a few exceptions (an NPC planting something on your character and being unaware of it till later). So in D&D if you didn't establish having an item, then establishing that you had it the whole time would be a retcon in D&D.

That said, BitD is a different game with different principles. I don't believe it's fair to talk about BitD using D&D principles. In BitD there is no principle that if you don't establish having an item that you don't have it - the rope makes a great example as it's something allowable by the rules.

IMO it's the mis match of principles (especially unspoken D&D principles) and game rules that often gets us into trouble when comparing different RPG's. For you I think it's important to understand this is what's happening as it may help you better communicate with D&D players that don't realize they are mismatching D&D principles with other games that don't share those principles when they are describing such rules and play with negative words like retcon.

 

[FrogReaver]

Heh. So much special pleading here. This is saying nothing mire than "except for those places I'm already familiar and comfortable with breaking this rule." There's an actual argument to be made here that gets to what you're trying to say, but this isn't it, and if you're trying to hold 5e up as an exemplar, that's using quicksand as a foundation.

The simple fact is that declaring your characters actions is a necessary component of all RPG play. Thus, the exception based on declaring your characters actions isn't special pleading.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I believe that in D&D play a character is established as not having an item if it's never brought up that they have acquired it. This would be another unspoken D&D principle. There can exist a few exceptions (an NPC planting something on your character and being unaware of it till later). So in D&D if you didn't establish having an item, then establishing that you had it the whole time would be a retcon in D&D.

That said, BitD is a different game with different principles. I don't believe it's fair to talk about BitD using D&D principles. In BitD there is no principle that if you don't establish having an item that you don't have it - the rope makes a great example as it's something allowable by the rules.

IMO it's the mis match of principles (especially unspoken D&D principles) and game rules that often gets us into trouble when comparing different RPG's. For you I think it's important to understand this is what's happening as it may help you better communicate with D&D players that don't realize they are mismatching D&D principles with other games that don't share those principles when they are describing such rules and play with negative words like retcon.

Let's unpack this.

You're saying that there's an unstated D&D principle by which it would be bad play for a player to suddenly remember, after leaving town, that they had wanted to buy something, ask the GM if it's okay, and the GM to say sure, go ahead and mark it. I don't think this is true, and I'm pretty sure you're not going to blanket claim that this cannot happen or is not supposed to happen ever in D&D. So let's look at what might be the reasons:

1) timing. If the player is making the above request when said item is useful, this feels bad. So timing is a problem.
2) permission. The above is okay because the GM is permitting it.

For 1, this seems artificial. The problem here is that we're assuming that since the player didn't think of it, the character cannot have thought of it. Even if the fiction had the players planning the mission, and the possibility of a use for the item was discussed, using the above timing makes it not fair because the PLAYER didn't do the right thing. We already elide huge amounts of what characters do (unrealistically so, in D&D) and do not follow every step. We allow for this in many other parts of the rules -- no training to improve abilities, no need to take actions to gain new spells, etc. So, timing is already a rather large hole in D&D. This argument is either about the need to challenge the player in their logistical abilities or it's special pleading that this isn't the usually accepted place to ignore timing.

For 2, this is about authorities. The idea that the player might have a certain number of 'I don't need to ask permission" slips to bring in the item is the problem.


For the record, because I know a good number of you have no idea how Blades does loadout, but the fiction is that the PCs have done thorough planning for the mission, but we elide that at the table. The players pick a level of loadout -- 3 items, 5 items, or 6 items (light, medium, heavy), that have consequences (light doesn't look like you're up to no good, medium looks like you're up to no good, heavy is call the bluecoats, this guy's loaded for bear). During the score, there is a list of commonly useful items for skullduggery that you can check loadout boxes to have brough with some requiring multiple boxes (like a heavy weapon requires 2, or armor requires 2, and heavy armor requires 3 more past that (total of 5)). If you want something special, you had to have either "acquired an asset" previously or you need to do a flashback to acquire the asset (which raises the cost of that and you don't know the quality of the asset you'll get until you roll, so more risky). That's the loadout system in Blades. Very tightly constrained, but no GM permission needed. Mimics the detailed planning that goes into a score and that fictionally has already occurred. Bazookas are not on the list (but, in hack where they could be, they'd already be accounted for in the balance of the system and would not be an "I win" button).

Also, it needs to be said that items will rarely just win a situation (and almost always in that case it was a good acquire an asset prior). They provide a different opportunity. Like, thugs accost you, and you spend load to pull out some knives so you can more effectively fight them. Or have a rope to increase the effect of a check to climb a wall. The crazy assumptions about how these things work are exactly what you complain about when you say, " I don't believe it's fair to talk about BitD using D&D principles." That's really only happening in one direction, here, because I run 5e, I know how it works intimately, and, even given all the times you've been involved in these discussions, you still show that you do not understand how these other games work.

 

[Ovinomancer]

The simple fact is that declaring your characters actions is a necessary component of all RPG play. Thus, the exception based on declaring your characters actions isn't special pleading.

Heh, strawman. That's not what I said. There's a host of unstated things that you've attached to declaring actions that aren't universal and are the special pleading you're engaged with. "I spend 1 load to pull out a knife and stab this turkey," is a perfectly cromulent action declaration. But it's also exactly what you're arguing against. So, yeah, no, the hidden caveats that you're using are the exact form of special pleading I'm talking about -- you mean "action declaration" to only mean "action declarations I'm familiar with and like."

 

[Micah Sweet]

Heh, strawman. That's not what I said. There's a host of unstated things that you've attached to declaring actions that aren't universal and are the special pleading you're engaged with. "I spend 1 load to pull out a knife and stab this turkey," is a perfectly cromulent action declaration. But it's also exactly what you're arguing against. So, yeah, no, the hidden caveats that you're using are the exact form of special pleading I'm talking about -- you mean "action declaration" to only mean "action declarations I'm familiar with and like."

Nobody is saying that BinD has an objectively bad loadout system, they're saying they don't care for it. Why is this such a problem that is seems to cause hostility?

 

[Ovinomancer]

Nobody is saying that BinD has an objectively bad loadout system, they're saying they don't care for it. Why is this such a problem that is seems to cause hostility?

Okay. You're telling me that saying a loadout system is only good for a "cartoon" "Looney Toons" game isn't making any objective claims. I should just not believe my eyes.