D&D 5th Edition With Respect to the Door and Expectations....The REAL Reason 5e Can't Unite the Base - Page 12




What's on your mind?

  1. #111
    Pathfinder subscriber COPPER SUBSCRIBER
    Grandfather of Assassins (Lvl 19)

    billd91's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Verona, WI
    Posts
    8,859
    I Defended The Walls!

    Ignore billd91
    Quote Originally Posted by pemerton View Post
    Taking the view that consequence must be related to ingame, pre-established causal precursors puts a severe (I'm tempted to say fatal) limit on what can be done with non-combat resolution systems. Conversely, comparing such systems with a metagame component to Toon is a little unhelpful - the better comparisons, as far as D&D is concerned, are HeroWars/Quest, Burning Wheel and D&D 4e (the example skill challenge in the Rules Compendium clearly relies on metagame-adjudicated consequences, even though - given the absence of helpful advice - the technique is not expressly called out as such).
    I'd be more inclined to say that the opposite is closer to the truth. Consequences that aren't related to in-game, causal precursors (like failing a diplomacy check causing it to rain as the justification for why the attempt at diplomacy failed) are unnecessarily disruptive. If, as a player, I don't know what off the cuff and unrelated side effect may tag along with my success or failure with a task check, doesn't that undermine my ability to make rational and meaningful choices just so you can gild the lily?
    Bill D

    "There's a fine line between a superpower and a chronic medical condition."
    - Doctor Impossible

 

  • #112
    Steeliest of the dragons
    The Great Druid (Lvl 17)

    steeldragons's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Andorra
    Posts
    3,698
    Blog Entries
    32
    MystaraGoodman GamesNecromancer GamesOSRGoodman GamesOSRICEN PublishingGygax Memorial Fund

    Ignore steeldragons
    My communities:

    Well, this seems a good place for the use of that "tl;dr" thing. So apologies if any of this has been said before...

    But to the original title of the thread, my feeling is the "REAL reason 5e can't unite the base" (which I will maintain hope that it can/will, to a degree!) has nothing to do with which edition one prefers or generalist mages, specialist fighters, skills or feats, or lions and tigers and bears.

    It is a (or the) core perception each individual one has of Dungeons & Dragons. It goes to how one approaches the game. The "crunch v. fluff". The character "build v. create". Is the game a "mathematical one viewed as a series of numbers and equations and feat choices that makes me duh bestest to win!" or is it a game that's "creative and imaginative that makes me what I envisioned to exist in this world and grow the story?"

    There's no right or wrong here. There's only preference and perception. Yes, generational considerations may apply. Which edition you were introduced to D&D with may apply. Whether you are a more "left-brained" or "right-brained" person may apply. Whether you were a computer programmer or literature major may apply. But all of those considerations boil down to how you perceive/approach the game and what you expect out of the game experience...the why you want to play?

    The fluffernutters will never want the crunch to impede on their imaginations, disrupt their immersion or limit their options. The crunchybits will never want the fluff to interfere with their numbers or displace their immersion or limit their options. And BOTH sides will always aver that their preference(s) gives them MORE options, more versatility and an overall "better/kewler/bestest" experience...the problem there is that very few ever take into consideration that "better" is completely subjective...more appropriately stated as "more enjoyable for me."

    Compromise is certainly the way to go. It's a diplomatic nightmare, of course. lol. And as at least a few have noted, that means that not everyone gets everything they want. Again, this is a perceptional concern...an approach/view to the game. Some people (of any age/edition/preferences!) simply believe they are entitled to have everything the way they want...RIGHT NOW! Others believe they are entitled to everything the way they want...like/cuz it was always like that.

    People want D&D to be Burger King, I need to have it MY way, right away...and no one should tell me otherwise or take away my bacon double cheeseburger. (mmmm...bacon double cheeseburger...)

    In the end, however, D&D is McDonalds (or if you prefer, a Wendy's or KFC or whatever your fast food of choice is). They do what they do, whether you think it good or ill, and they are enjoyed by those looking for a McDonalds!

    It will give you their menu...not yours or mine or someone else's. 1) You can choose to eat there, or not, in the first place. 2) Pick something that you think you will like and 3) enjoy it for what it is (all the greasy saltiness of a McDonalds. mmmm. So good when that McDonalds craving hits).

    OR you can do 1 and 2 and then sit around saying "I wish we'd gone to KFC or I wanted Popeye's [Long John Silvers, Roy Rogers, whatever]. McDonald's sucks!" In which case, then I'd say, DON'T go to McDonalds in the first place!

    The arguments over this 3e mechanic or that 4e mechanic are completely justifiable preferences to have...but they are just that. A preference. A perceived "better" for your game. (all proclamations that Xor Y mechanic, playstyle, game system, design "evolution", etc. etc. is objectively "better" aside. Because saying it a million times STILL does not make it Truth..simply "True for me/from my perspective")

    The real reason we won't be united is because not everyone comes at the game from a mechanical perspective (or desire for certain mechanics at all!). Not everyone comes at it from an imaginative perspective. Not everyone wants to use pencil and paper in today's day and age. Not everyone wants to have to use a computer, either. Not everyone wants hairy-footed halflings or half-orcs. Not everyone wants dragonborn or eladrin (gods ANYthing but the eladrin! )...Etc. etc. ad infinitum.

    The real reason is how people approach (what they want out of) the table before they're ever even there or pulling out their dice (hells, some people don't even want to be bothered with dice!).

    And that is regrettable...but I feel, something of D&D's own making and all too accurate.

    STILL, I'll hold out hope for compromise and maturity and mutual enjoyment for all. But to get there, we have to let go of [at least some of] our personal perceptions of "Xe or Y mechanic [or class or race or skill or whatever] is the bestest!"...be able to recognize that [everything about] MY D&D is not the twue way.

    Cheers...now where's my bloody bacon double?...
    --SD
    Steel Dragons' "All Things Orea" Blog right here on EN world!
    http://www.enworld.org/forum/blog.ph...1-steeldragons
    Steel Dragons' "All Things Orea" Blog right here on EN world!

  • #113
    Registered User
    Lama (Lvl 13)

    TwoSix's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Lawrenceville, NJ
    Posts
    2,448

    Ignore TwoSix
    Quote Originally Posted by billd91 View Post
    Yes you can have all sorts of consequences that are caused by the dwarf fighter's poor attempt at diplomacy. That's what a good, creative set of players and DM do well. Although I would be pretty pissed off if my dwarf's low diplomacy roll made it rain. I'm playing D&D, not Toon. I don't think the consequences should be unrelated to the cause.
    I think that's a logical conclusion from assuming that the player has no control over anything that extends outside of the character. If the roll is bad, it's because the character wasn't able to summon the wherewithal to complete the task as needed.

    I just think the result delta of a d20 roll is too broad to actually model the possible range of results a single person skilled at a task can accomplish. People who know how to jump don't broad jump 6 ft., then 10 ft., then 4 ft.

    To my mind, it's more simulative to assume the roll also accounts for factors external to the character. Maybe the character slips on loose dirt he didn't see. When he's attempt to win over a mayor, the roll can model the mayor's receptiveness to a particular argument as much as it models the character's ability to make that argument.

  • #114
    Registered User
    Guide (Lvl 11)



    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    FL
    Posts
    2,216

    Ignore Manbearcat
    My communities:

    Quote Originally Posted by billd91 View Post
    I'd be more inclined to say that the opposite is closer to the truth. Consequences that aren't related to in-game, causal precursors (like failing a diplomacy check causing it to rain as the justification for why the attempt at diplomacy failed) are unnecessarily disruptive. If, as a player, I don't know what off the cuff and unrelated side effect may tag along with my success or failure with a task check, doesn't that undermine my ability to make rational and meaningful choices just so you can gild the lily?
    And this should be illuminating (even though it was postulated beforehand - see pemerton's thread on SCs) and illustrative of the disconnect between those that feel Skill Challenges are nothing more than Complex Skill Checks. This is because there is a presupposition (and a demand for rigid adherence to) of simulatory, binary (due to the nature of d20 pass/fail skill mechanics) outcomes of singular skill checks. If this is your presupposition (and more - your demand of rigid adherence to), then naturally you're going to say Skill Challenges are nothing more than Complex Skill checks. But then when people say: "No, they are not, they are closed-systems with "fiction first" philosophy to broaden the scope of outcomes, from check to check, which should (in practice) lead to interesting decision-points and dynamic results (rather than the predictable...time and again...results of linear flow from binary skill check to binary skill check...where the ultimate result is a linear response to the last skill check in the series). Most unfortunately, I'm in agreement with Crazy Jerome below. This illuminating piece above is going to be lost in the ether, never to be heard from again, and we're going to have this same worthless exchange over...and over...and over again.


    Quote Originally Posted by Crazy Jerome View Post
    I had all kinds of things to say to this, some of them even typed. I'm just going to leave it here: I don't think you and several others have heard a word we've said, because you are too busy thinking about what you are going to say while we are talking. It's called engaging with the arguments, instead of playing debating games. We aren't even to a point where compromise is possible, and the evidence in front of me says we aren't going to get there.

    I give up. You win. Hope you are happy with the victory.
    I feel you're right. I was going to write a post with some simple mathematics and engineering tenets to easily show how perturbing a balanced, predictable system to up the standard deviation from the mean response (thus making the system now - unbalanced or "swingy") is considerably easier than post-hoc quantifying each element of an unbalanced system (mandatory) and then measuring each first order function (and then second order function as you move deeper into the framework) response of a perturbance for every system integrated into it in order to narrow the standard deviation from the mean response. But honestly, I'm not sure it would matter given that I would expect it would be lost in the ether or get swallowed up by the signal:noise ratio.

    And finally, I'm glad to entertain you Libramarian. I was hoping for some serious engagement but if you can derive some measure of entertainment from my posts, of the "American Comedy" genre of entertainment, then good on ya. I suppose one could be worse things than a clown.

  • #115
    Registered User
    Lama (Lvl 13)

    Imaro's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    5,101

    Ignore Imaro
    My communities:

    Quote Originally Posted by TwoSix View Post
    I think that's a logical conclusion from assuming that the player has no control over anything that extends outside of the character. If the roll is bad, it's because the character wasn't able to summon the wherewithal to complete the task as needed.

    I just think the result delta of a d20 roll is too broad to actually model the possible range of results a single person skilled at a task can accomplish. People who know how to jump don't broad jump 6 ft., then 10 ft., then 4 ft.

    To my mind, it's more simulative to assume the roll also accounts for factors external to the character. Maybe the character slips on loose dirt he didn't see. When he's attempt to win over a mayor, the roll can model the mayor's receptiveness to a particular argument as much as it models the character's ability to make that argument.

    Your statement seems to be addressing the cause though... not consequence. Now I could be wrong, but I don't think billd91 is speaking to what caused the Dwarf to fail the diplomacy check... instead he's speaking to the consequences that arose when the check is failed. He is saying the consequences of that failed check should in some way be connected to the action that failed. In other words, if I fail a diplomacy check to convince the king... the consequences should involve the king saying no, or perhaps he becomes less receptive, or orders the particular character out of his sight, etc. as opposed to the castle collapsing around me or a monster appearing to disrupt the proceedings or numerous other unrelated consequences.
    Nobody built like me, I designed myself ...as an

    http://www.wizards.com/dnd/class/ima...rs/Avenger.jpg

  • #116
    Registered User
    Lama (Lvl 13)

    thedungeondelver's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,594

    Ignore thedungeondelver
    My communities:

    Original DUNGEONS & DRAGONS = Led Zeppelin
    ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS = Black Sabbath
    ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS 2nd EDITION = Hair Metal
    DUNGEONS & DRAGONS, 3rd EDITION = nu-Metal
    DUNGEONS & DRAGONS, 4th EDITION = lmfao

    Seriously? And you didn't get the faintest idea this is edition warring?

    Just don't. - Lwaxy

    Last edited by Lwaxy; Thursday, 26th July, 2012 at 08:01 PM.
    BIG COLLABORATIVE DUNGEON PROJECT! SIGN UP AND ADD A ROOM!

    http://www.thedelversdungeon.com/images/tdd1.gif

    Parenthetically, photostat copies of the manuscript rules were made, and when the commercial game was published, fans not willing or financially unable to expend the princely sum of $10 for the product did likewise, copying the material on school (mainly college/university) machines. We were well aware of this, and many gamers who had spent their hard-earned money to buy the game were more irate than we were. In all, though, the 'pirate' material was more helpful that not. Many new fans were made by DMs who were using such copies to run their games. - Gary Gygax

  • #117
    Registered User
    Lama (Lvl 13)

    Imaro's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    5,101

    Ignore Imaro
    My communities:

    Quote Originally Posted by Manbearcat View Post
    And this should be illuminating (even though it was postulated beforehand - see pemerton's thread on SCs) and illustrative of the disconnect between those that feel Skill Challenges are nothing more than Complex Skill Checks. This is because there is a presupposition (and a demand for rigid adherence to) of simulatory, binary (due to the nature of d20 pass/fail skill mechanics) outcomes of singular skill checks.
    I'm confused here... each check in a skill challenge is binary... you pass or fail it. A skill challenge is binary... you pass or fail it. what exactly is the difference?

    Quote Originally Posted by Manbearcat View Post
    If this is your presupposition (and more - your demand of rigid adherence to), then naturally you're going to say Skill Challenges are nothing more than Complex Skill checks. But then when people say: "No, they are not, they are closed-systems with "fiction first" philosophy to broaden the scope of outcomes, from check to check, which should (in practice) lead to interesting decision-points and dynamic results (rather than the predictable...time and again...results of linear flow from binary skill check to binary skill check...where the ultimate result is a linear response to the last skill check in the series). Most unfortunately, I'm in agreement with Crazy Jerome below. This illuminating piece above is going to be lost in the ether, never to be heard from again, and we're going to have this same worthless exchange over...and over...and over again.

    This argument would be so much more convincing if it was in fact supported by the examples, advice or almost anything else in the actual DMG... but it's not. Even posters such as pemerton, who seem to argue for a similar interpretation of SC's as yours above, readily admit the DMG does not really support their claims and that most of their style of running SC's is drawn from a library of other games such as HQ and BW. So what we have here are a group of players claiming SC's are and do a certain thing and then the very people who developed, designed and wrote examples seeming to, if not contradict them, not actively support their interpretation of what a SC is and how it should be run. That is the biggest problem I have with this argument, it's based on other roleplaying games as well as a ton of advice, assumptions, etc. that just aren't in the 4e DMG.
    Nobody built like me, I designed myself ...as an

    http://www.wizards.com/dnd/class/ima...rs/Avenger.jpg

  • #118
    Registered User
    The Great Druid (Lvl 17)



    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    4,407
    Cortex+ZEITGEISTWotBSI Defended The Walls!

    Ignore Neonchameleon
    My communities:

    Quote Originally Posted by Imaro View Post
    I'm confused here... each check in a skill challenge is binary... you pass or fail it. A skill challenge is binary... you pass or fail it. what exactly is the difference?
    The difference is in the fiction. Each skill check in the skill challenge was binary. But each skill check was used to do something. And each successful outcome in the skill challenge (and for that matter each failure) changes the gameworld. Those don't go away just because what you were trying to do overall failed.

    To pick an example, imagine a skill challenge for a jail break that requires six successes before three failures. Your first success or two will take you all out of your cells before they sound the alarm. Your fifth will probably take you to the main gates - six and you can get out without fighting (the XP value will be about the same either way). Depends how it unfolds.

    Fail the skill challenge with two successes and you're downstairs in the prison and out of your cells - but for weapons have the one truncheon you grabbed off the guard who sounded the alarm. Fail at five and you're probably in the main courtyard having collected your own weapons and can either fight the guards head on - or try forcing the gate open under fire and running like buggery.

    Now both cases are failures. But I'm pretty sure you'd agree that in the two success case the party is up a creek, but in the five success case the party is in a relatively nice position. Because that's where they got to in the fluff before all hell broke loose.

  • #119
    Registered User
    Guide (Lvl 11)



    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    FL
    Posts
    2,216

    Ignore Manbearcat
    My communities:

    Quote Originally Posted by Imaro View Post
    I'm confused here... each check in a skill challenge is binary... you pass or fail it. A skill challenge is binary... you pass or fail it. what exactly is the difference?




    This argument would be so much more convincing if it was in fact supported by the examples, advice or almost anything else in the actual DMG... but it's not. Even posters such as pemerton, who seem to argue for a similar interpretation of SC's as yours above, readily admit the DMG does not really support their claims and that most of their style of running SC's is drawn from a library of other games such as HQ and BW. So what we have here are a group of players claiming SC's are and do a certain thing and then the very people who developed, designed and wrote examples seeming to, if not contradict them, not actively support their interpretation of what a SC is and how it should be run. That is the biggest problem I have with this argument, it's based on other roleplaying games as well as a ton of advice, assumptions, etc. that just aren't in the 4e DMG.
    Pass/Fail as mechanical resolution. Pass/fail mapping to the fiction (unless you're rigidly adhering to process simulation) can mean any number of interesting complications when resolving a chase, etc (see my post in Pemerton's thread). Failing a ride check to elude pursuit doesn't have to mean you fall off the horse. It could mean that a nigh impassable canyon manifests over the next ridge, your horse goes lame due to tearing a tendon, and on and on. Please see that thread for reference on resolving this. Only if you adhere to bild's rigid process simulation of binary results and have the fiction follow them (climb the tree or fall out of it) does the scope of the fiction and the corresponding decision-points narrow. I understand that this is jarring and badwrongfun for strict process simulationist gamers. But just because it is jarring and isn't fun for them doesn't mean that other's don't enjoy it and it doesn't mean that their fiction isn't rendered dynamic through this out of combat resolution framework.

    Yes, I absolutely agree on your second paragraph. 100 %. And have said as such. 4e editorializing and editing was bad in many, many ways. The system works despite it....not because of it.

  • #120
    Registered User
    Magsman (Lvl 14)



    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    3,564

    Ignore Herschel
    My communities:

    Quote Originally Posted by thedungeondelver View Post
    Original DUNGEONS & DRAGONS = Led Zeppelin
    ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS = Black Sabbath
    ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS 2nd EDITION = Hair Metal
    DUNGEONS & DRAGONS, 3rd EDITION = nu-Metal
    DUNGEONS & DRAGONS, 4th EDITION = lmfao
    If you wanted to make that comparison without being a total git then you could write it:

    OD&D = Jefferson Airplane/Moody Blues
    AD&D = Yes/King Crimson
    AD&D Second Edition = Rush/Iron Maiden
    AD&D Third Edition = Queensryche/Savatage
    AD&D Fourth Edition = Primus/System of a Down

  • + Log in or register to post
    Page 12 of 150 FirstFirst ... 234567891011121314151617181920212262112 ... LastLast

    Similar Threads

    1. Replies: 575
      Last Post: Monday, 30th July, 2012, 09:26 AM
    2. What happens if 5E fails to unite the base?
      By Bedrockgames in forum D&D 5th Edition
      Replies: 67
      Last Post: Tuesday, 31st January, 2012, 01:52 AM
    3. The Real Reason(s) Behind the PDF Debacle
      By Roman in forum General RPG Discussion
      Replies: 50
      Last Post: Sunday, 12th April, 2009, 08:56 PM
    4. What's the real reason we RP?
      By Velira Evangeline in forum ISRP General Chit Chat
      Replies: 37
      Last Post: Sunday, 9th September, 2007, 02:37 PM
    5. 3.5 is the REAL reason everyone is angry
      By Gargauth in forum Older D&D Editions and OSR Gaming
      Replies: 201
      Last Post: Saturday, 25th August, 2007, 04:13 AM

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts
    •