The first rule of frp is that there are no rules (or that the judge is the rules, if you want to put it that way).

I think that the emergent happenings of the action in D&D fit E.M. Forster's definition of "story":

http://conversationalreading.com/aspects-of-the-novel-e-m-forster/

What Wick seems to be trying to say is that RPGs, a priori, need plot as part of their definition. In my humble opinion, that's a bunch of donkey balls-- and I say this as someone who prefers plot in my games.

Quote from: LordVreeg;791576Vreeg's first Rule of Setting Design,
"Make sure the ruleset you are using matches the setting and game you want to play, because the setting and game WILL eventually match the system."

If you believe that then why are you posting here of all places.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;791572The big irony is that the kind of D&D John Wick seems to love is exactly the kind The Pundit so aggressively promotes, and yet here we are fighting over the one true meaning of [STRIKE]Christmas[/STRIKE] D&D instead of collaborating over that commonality.

As to those links...





So, not so much a rebuttal as a long winded agreement. I am disappoint.



Wait, are we talking about John Wick, or The Pundit?



That's actually an incredibly cool idea and is going into the incredibly cool idea bin.



Ah jeeze, are we supposed to be fighting over the definition of Technology too?



Very insightful, thanks to both of you, but why are so many people saying they only watched 10 minutes? Why not 5 minutes, or 15 minutes? Is this a useful data point on the optimal length of internet videos? Regardless, it makes me sad to think people are drawing conclusions after just 10 minutes and not bothering to watch the rest of it.



What John actually said was...



...which is a great thesis for a debate.

But I'm not transcribing it here to discuss, only to point out to the viewers at home how people like dragoner like to misrepresent things from people they don't like. I will however give dragoner the benefit of the doubt and assume they're just acting in bad faith and not actually an idiot.



I'm reminded of an old thread of mine which I won't link to as it was needlessly confrontational and I'm trying to move away from that style of vetting ideas.

Play is a product of the rules you choose to implement at the table. A rulebook is only there to help inform players of the rules which will be implemented at the table. It's not telling you what to do. It's not making value judgments on your playstyle. It's just a collection of procedures which have been found (or assumed in the case of bad designs) to help create a specific experience, and the rules you decide to implement will change what's possible or meaningful in play.

Let's take Poker. It's possible to bluff in Poker because there's hidden information. If you played with all cards facing up, bluffing would be impossible. And it's meaningful to bluff in Poker because that hidden information cannot be changed arbitrarily. If you could just decide which cards make up your hand arbitrarily without anyone else knowing, bluffing would be meaningless.

So is D&D a bluffing game?

Only when it comes to players bluffing other players. It's impossible for the players to bluff the GM because they can't keep relevant information hidden. And it's meaningless for the GM to bluff the players because they can change the hidden information arbitrarily and even make it up on the spot. So without changes to the rules, anything other than players bluffing players is either impossible or meaningless.

So is D&D a roleplaying game?

If players just engage the tactical elements, moving from encounter to encounter, considering each second in a turn, then roleplaying will be impossible and/or meaningless. And if players just engage with the roleplaying elements, exploring character instead of achieving objectives, considering time to move at the speed of plot, then tactical thinking will be impossible and/or meaningless.

All too often it ends up a zero sum game where every opportunity for one costs the other, and D&D is not clear on what should happen when they overlap. How much should good roleplaying and character skill impact a fictional negotiation? Favor the former and you're punishing players who aren't as socially deft. Favor the latter and you're punishing players who aren't as mechanically inclined. Either way, you're favoring one set of abilities over another no matter what you do.

This is why a group's creative agenda is so damn important, and how system choice (remember, not the rules in the book, the procedures you implement at the table) affects how impossible and/or meaningless engaging in that agenda will be. There's no one 'true' way, but certain procedures WILL be more effective in helping you achieve YOUR way.

No, you're crying. Because I was right, I should care why? I promise I don't.

"An intellectual is a man who takes more words than necessary to tell more than he knows." - Dwight D. Eisenhower

"If someone has the idea to add house rules or even none at all, gives motives to the game pieces, and plays out scenarios based on that idea, we have the essence of a role-playing game."

Benoist is right about this. I think the motives of the characters and the scenarios based around it are key for a roleplaying game. But there are people who play their characters just like a collection of skills. Like some sort of Swiss army knife without any personality. I think the rules should support the motives of the characters, but it shouldn't be the only thing that matters in a game.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;791572So is D&D a bluffing game?

Sometimes it is.

QuoteOnly when it comes to players bluffing other players. It's impossible for the players to bluff the GM because they can't keep relevant information hidden.

NOPE. Of course players can keep relevant information hidden hidden from the GM. It may not be the norm, but it is easily possible. It was a style of play used by some way back in the 1970s.

Three quick examples:

(1) Players can write down when and what protective spells they have activated. When combat, spells, or what have you could take effect, the player reveals his note or turns over his spell card and the GM learns what spells, if any, are in effect that may block, counter, or mitigate whatever the NPCs tried to do.

(2) Invisibility - use hidden movement pick your favorite from the dozens of two player games that use hidden movement. Now the GM (and hence the NPCs she controls) don't know where the invisible PC is. Of course neither do the other PCs. But see (3) below.

(3) Don't make final plans in front of the GM. That just helps the GM come up with counters to your plans. And whatever you do, don't tell the GM the goal of your strategy. Only reveal actions as you perform them. For example, the GM doesn't know why the PCs are setting up a meeting with the bad guy. The PCs may be attempting to meet with the bad guy to make a deal with him, trick him, toss some spell on him, capture him, or assassinate him. The GM doesn't know which until the PCs start doing or saying stuff.

Now most people don't (so far as I can tell) play in this adversarial style and most people never did play in this style. But some do and did. (I have.)

Hence bluffing the GM is neither theoretically nor practically impossible.

I have a friend who was using that 'hidden from GM' style as recently as 2000. I remember it kind of annoyed me, since I tend toward a cooperative style.

She is also a major optimizer type.


God. High level 3.5e with her playing a druid pretty much convinced me never to do high level 3e again.

Yeah, that smacks of treating the DM the enemy who cannot be trusted and must be defeated.

Quote from: Omega;792491Yeah, that smacks of treating the DM the enemy who cannot be trusted and must be defeated.

Sometimes the DM chooses to play things that way, so players have to deal with it.

If you openly plan to use a fireball spell and the chief villain just happens to have a ring of fire resistance, and next time you plan to use a cone of cold and the chief villain has a ring of frost resistance, you start to become suspicious. So you play your cards close to your chest. This then forces the DM to have his villains make plans without knowing exactly what the players will do.

That is, secretive players help ensure the DM roleplays NPCs better.

The ideal is that the DM just roleplays them properly in the first place. But game groups of made up of people, who are by definition rarely ideal. So we make do.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;792497That is, secretive players help ensure the DM roleplays NPCs better.

True, But its still treating the DM as the enemy. Someone who cannot be trusted right out the gate before you even know their style.

And it doesnt actually help any because the moment you cast fireball that ring of fire resistance can spring into existence.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;792497Sometimes the DM chooses to play things that way, so players have to deal with it.

If you openly plan to use a fireball spell and the chief villain just happens to have a ring of fire resistance, and next time you plan to use a cone of cold and the chief villain has a ring of frost resistance, you start to become suspicious. So you play your cards close to your chest.

No, you say "Not gaming is better than bad gaming," and you leave.

Or, you know, talk about it like grownups.  Naaaaah....

Yeah. Talk it over first. (If possible. There are cases where its not prudent to baulk) Worst thats going to happen is you end up leaving still.

Well ok, there is a worse than that scenario where the problem DM or player takes it personally and develops a vendetta against you. But that may be a problem that would have triggered no matter.

Quote from: Omega;792491Yeah, that smacks of treating the DM the enemy who cannot be trusted and must be defeated.

It's an adversarial style of play. Which is not for everyone.

Quote from: Bren;792580It's an adversarial style of play. Which is not for everyone.

The D&D 4e rules set and encounter design standards are very conducive to it. As a GM inexperienced with the fine points of the system, I was unable to play the monsters well enough to provide quite the challenge skilled players were accustomed to. In that game, I think the GM would probably do a disservice by getting distracted into consideration of "going easy" on the players; they are very well equipped to take care of themselves!

EDIT: The tactical combat and related rules are clear enough as well that fair adjudication seems hardly to call for an appointed referee. There's always the old wargamers' rule, "When you can't reach consensus, toss a die." Really, the GM is pretty much freed up to play the Opposing Force role.

I do think that bluffing and other psychological factors tend to break down in pc-npc interaction. If one holds that this should be a real test of player skill, one might reflect on how different the GM's position is from the npc's position - compared for instance with the Little Wars approach of resolving shooting with actual projectiles. In the latter case, the player can hit or miss regardless of what outcome the ref may prefer; in the psychological-influence context, such separation is less reliably attained.