"LOL, someone in my D&D group last night tried a stunt check on a soul coin powered motorcycle and rolled a nat 1, eating shit and almost killing a new player character that had literally appeared 30 seconds earlier." — https://x.com/thetrin/status/1822298892953596346
[AB]
This rubbed me the wrong way. "Someone in my D&D group" refers to the player, but the player—that is, the player's action—surely did not do the "almost killing."
It's a story. So the storyteller said, that almost kills X. Right?
It's not wrong, it's potentially indicative of a powerful/good suspension of disbelief, the sort of thing that actually... helps, when telling a story? But the D20 part hurts my brain. How do I feel about it? It's out-of-fiction. It's mixed...
Yeah, that "mixing" as I call it is what's bothering me. The cause and effect is obscured. I want to know what happened in each of the worlds presented. What happened between the players, whose idea was it, how did the creative process unfold? And, likewise, what in the story precipitated this event, what kind of character tried to pull a dangerous stunt, why did they do it, what transpired as a result?
But, what's given is too little of both worlds. The writer (the player) describes no compelling narrative, just celebrates their friends and a story they told which in the moment was compelling.
"I bought a sandwich, and I ate it, and dude... the sandwich tasted good."
Why the hell does this matter? I think it's applicable to a larger dissatisfaction I have with mechanically-inspired player narratives. "The mechanics said X, and we interpreted it as interesting event Y!" — only, that would be fine actually!? I like the dialogue that might inspire about creativity and creative decisions.
As phrased, the creative process gives way to the fictional narrative frictionlessly, without notice... without acknowledgement, perhaps? Well, I'm running in circles now. Maybe I'll AB this.