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

[AlViking]

I agree with your last paragraph. I believe many folks have a good idea of what they’re looking for in a game and select games and gaming methods accordingly.

However, I also think that there’s plenty of people who don’t fully understand the things they’re claiming not to like. And when they elaborate or put forth their ideas on those things, this lack of understanding becomes clear.

Some of the posts in this thread are, therefore, not about trying to tell anyone their preferences are wrong or even that they’d adopt such and such game if only they understood it… but rather about correcting misconceptions or outright falsehoods about a game.

Regarding your earlier point about risk mitigation and long term goals… I have never really struggled to see either one in the narrativist games I’ve run and played. So I don’t agree with your assessment.



I don’t see how that’s the case. Anyone picking a lock is going to be concerned with possibly being caught. The risk may vary, and therefore the odds will fluctuate… but it’s always a possibility. It is clearly a potential consequence of picking a lock.



I think at this point, the only person operating under the assumption that fail forward produces unrelated consequences os you.

The fact that you think it has anything to do with your crazy ninja example just illustrates you’re not getting it… and that’s why you’re getting pushback. It’s not because anyone cares about your preferences or wants to change your mind.

It’s because you say things about fail forward that show you’re not getting it.

What am I not getting? Because it seems like you keep repeating that I just don't understand because I don't care for the technique. The old "If you really understood you would accept how good it is." Examples

1. In another post I asked for clarification on how a failed perception check led to needing a shoe replaced and @AnotherGuy responded with D&D General - [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting..
2. "Failed attempt at kidnap => word on the street of a knife-wielding assailant." in D&D General - [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting..
3. In the same post Pemerton also mentioned "Failed Sing to try and restore my sense of self => harassed by a guard."

For #1, what I didn't understand was that the character was in a ditch, failed a perception check to notice a trap and were lucky that it only damaged their shoe. The failed perception check caused the character to not notice a trap the effect was that the trap was triggered. Cause and effect clearly linked. For #2, their character did try to kidnap someone at knife point and failed. Cuse and effect also clearly linked because he was the knife wielding assailant. But #3? Failed to restore his sense of self and failed so a guard shows up? There's no connection between what the character was doing and the complication, just a correlation of unrelated events.

That #3, no connection between the action and the complication, is pretty common in examples. Fail a lockpick check and because you failed the attempt you get noticed by someone. A guard coming along, being noticed while attempting a break-in and similar are fine in and of themselves but there is no cause and effect, no logical chain of events showing causation instead of correlation.

Attempting a break-in and flub a stealth check, fail a perception check to notice the dog, fail an investigation check and set off the alarm are all things that would connect the failure to a result of a guard showing up. But that kind of correlation is in no way required or even expected. If you're saying that I'm incorrect about this than you need to also correct a whole lot of people who have said otherwise. Because what I've been told is that sometimes there's a logical chain of events and sometimes there's not.

 

[pemerton]

Yes it does.

It doesn't. Here it was it literally says, and literally means: "4e D&D is the version of the game that actually gives me what I wanted from D&D when I first learned about it and played it."

That doesn't say or mean or imply that I dislike other versions of D&D.

 

[FrogReaver]

It doesn't. Here it was it literally says, and literally means: "4e D&D is the version of the game that actually gives me what I wanted from D&D when I first learned about it and played it."

That doesn't say or mean or imply that I dislike other versions of D&D.

It does.

Edit: to elaborate - the connotation of the phrase ‘actually gives me what I wanted’ implies a lack of satisfaction with everything before that which gave you what you wanted and a lack of satisfaction implies a level of dislike.

 

[AlViking]

First is you stop caring about the “metagame”. There’s just the game.

This is a fundamental difference of approach. I care about the difference between the game and metagame. If it doesn't matter to you, it doesn't.

Second, you telegraph danger ahead of time. Or at the very least, you establish what the likely risk is, the stakes of the roll. You let the player know “okay this sounds like a Stealth roll… what’s at risk here is discovery, so don’t fail!” and then you have them roll. I would likely be a bit more descriptive in the nature of the discovery… but that may not be necessary.

Then they roll, and if they fail, you already know the consequences… so you follow through on that.

Sometimes I want to be surprised by danger, and no I don't want the level of detail you provide. I want to know what my character knows and nothing more. I want to try things that maybe in retrospect were the wrong approach because it's part of the process of discovering what the right approach is. If I'm playing a character and we run across a troll one of the first things I'm going to do is ask the GM if my character knows what a troll is. If he doesn't, I won't use fire (at least not at first). On the other hand I can't remember a game where it wasn't common knowledge that you needed fire to kill a troll but that's a different issue.

 

[pemerton]

we are in the hobby lacking a good non-inflammatory language for trying to express what we want out of a game in order to find a good group or align the expectations of an existing group.

<snip>

we are stuck with the in my view completely dysfunctional combat/exploration/roleplay trio

I think one principal issue here is that much of the hobby is allergic to talking about the role that the GM will take in directing/facilitating play.

 

[pemerton]

It does.

Edit: to elaborate - the connotation of the phrase ‘actually gives me what I wanted’ implies a lack of satisfaction and a lack of satisfaction implies a level of dislike.

"Actually gives me what I wanted from D&D" implies that other versions didn't give me what I actually wanted. That doesn't mean I disliked them. It means they didn't give me all that I wanted, and/or that they gave something other than what I was looking for.

I mean, I can tell you: I don't dislike AD&D, although these days I'm not going to play it very often. But it is 4e that actually gave me what I wanted from D&D - heroic fantasy as described in the foreword to Moldvay Basic (page B2):

I was busy rescuing the captured maiden when the dragon showed up. Fifty feet of scaled terror glared down at us with smoldering red eyes. Tendrils of smoke drifted out from between fangs larger than daggers. The dragon blocked the only exit from the cave. . .

I unwrapped the sword which the mysterious cleric had given me. The sword was golden-tinted steel. Its hilt was set with a rainbow collection of precious gems. I shoulted my battle cry and charged.

My charge caught the dragon by surprise. Its titanic jaws snapped shut just inches from my face. I swung the golden sword with both arms. The swordblade bit into the dragon's neck and continued through to the other side. With an earth-shaking crash, the dragon dropped dead at my feet. The magic sword had saved my life and ended the reign of the dragon-tyrant. The countryside was freed and I could return as a hero.​

 

[FrogReaver]

I think one principal issue here is that much of the hobby is allergic to talking about the role that the GM will take in directing/facilitating play.

I think most of the hobby is just not prescriptive about it.

 

[FrogReaver]

"Actually gives me what I wanted from D&D" implies that other versions didn't give me what I actually wanted. That doesn't mean I disliked them. It means they didn't give me all that I wanted, and/or that they gave something other than what I was looking for.

I mean, I can tell you: I don't dislike AD&D, although these days I'm not going to play it very often. But it is 4e that actually gave me what I wanted from D&D - heroic fantasy as described in the foreword to Moldvay Basic (page B2):

I was busy rescuing the captured maiden when the dragon showed up. Fifty feet of scaled terror glared down at us with smoldering red eyes. Tendrils of smoke drifted out from between fangs larger than daggers. The dragon blocked the only exit from the cave. . .

I unwrapped the sword which the mysterious cleric had given me. The sword was golden-tinted steel. Its hilt was set with a rainbow collection of precious gems. I shoulted my battle cry and charged.

My charge caught the dragon by surprise. Its titanic jaws snapped shut just inches from my face. I swung the golden sword with both arms. The swordblade bit into the dragon's neck and continued through to the other side. With an earth-shaking crash, the dragon dropped dead at my feet. The magic sword had saved my life and ended the reign of the dragon-tyrant. The countryside was freed and I could return as a hero.​

I don’t know whether you disagree that your statement directly implies a lack of satisfaction or that a lack of satisfaction directly implies a level of dislike.

 

[AlViking]

I think one principal issue here is that much of the hobby is allergic to talking about the role that the GM will take in directing/facilitating play.

I think most people have been pretty clear on what they want for the different roles of the game. We may want different things and I don't see how that's an issue.

 

[FrogReaver]

I think most people have been pretty clear on what they want for the different roles of the game. We may want different things and I don't see how that's an issue.

Yea. IMO they are typically very flexible within a narrow band of parameters that align to the kind of game they like.