D&D 5E With Respect to the Door and Expectations....The REAL Reason 5e Can't Unite the Base

pemerton · Jul 29, 2012

Nagol said:
The example hasn't changed. The player didn't use the local knowledge at all. The gorge appeared because of a failed Riding check.

The PC isn't privy to those details however. Attempting to cast character reaction from the POV of the PC -- who has an estimate of known skills and only knows that he hit a gorge fleeing as expertly as he could. The PC cannot associate the gorge's appearance from an unsuccessful Ride attempt and hence should not determine that improving Riding will in fact reduce the statistical chance of accidently fnding himself in front of a impassable gorge whilst fleeing on horseback. Should the character decide to improve his odds of success, it is more reasonable for the character to cast about for attributes that should naturally detect such obstacles in time to avoid them since that was the failure point in this instance.

It's the player, not the PC, who develops the character. Isn't it?

pemerton · Jul 29, 2012

Jester Canuck said:
I'm unsure what you mean by "fictional positioning".

That the way in which the PC is embedded in the fiction matters to action resolution. This is a general feature of an RPG that is absent from a board game.

billd91 · Jul 29, 2012

pemerton said:
It's the player, not the PC, who develops the character. Isn't it?

Unless, of course, you're role playing in which case the PC develops himself.

Manbearcat · Jul 29, 2012

pemerton said:
It's the player, not the PC, who develops the character. Isn't it?

Yes. That is the crux of this. Among other things, it appears that Nagol keeps conflating his own awareness at the table as he interfaces with the action resolution rules (and the resultant fiction) and his PC's "awareness" in general and awareness specifically that this meta-game component exists to inexorably drive the fiction onward.

- Nagol makes a ride check to perpetuate his pursuit evasion > it fails > adversity arises in the form of a gorge (which creates a decision-point.

- Nagol's PC rides hard at high speed, navigating treacherous terrain, possibly trying to avoid ranged fire, possibly trying to detect the few trailmarks of a small landbridge over the gorge (if you need post-hoc rationale)...he emerges over a rise only to find himself facing the gorge. He doesn't think "damn, I know I almost fell out of the saddle as my horse took a mis-step...but how did that create this gorge?" He probably thinks, while lungs are heaving for air, "I can't believe I missed the land bridge...I was concentrating so hard on controlling my horse and staying in the saddle that I've now backed myself into a corner...that's great." Or perhaps "Gorges...why did it have to be gorges? I hate gorges..."

Beyond that, every second of every game is not mapped out and does not exist in a "quantum state" between superpositions...its unrealized fiction waiting to be iterated. Further, every square inch of every region, micro and macro, is not cartographically fleshed out. Obsessing over a poor simulation's fidelity to a modeled system seems absurd when those two inputs aren't bounded or even quantified (that doesn't even include all of the other dubious math and abstractions which further exacerbate the infidelity).

Jester David · Jul 29, 2012

pemerton said:
That the way in which the PC is embedded in the fiction matters to action resolution. This is a general feature of an RPG that is absent from a board game.

I'm still unclear by what you mean. Could you elaborate more?

If you're referring to connections to the story (or back story) that's debatable. Many RPG plots involve very little PC connection to the story or world.
If you're referring to the background for the charaters in the board game that's also fixable. The Drizzt game featured many charaters with a background.

Remathilis · Jul 29, 2012

Jester Canuck said:
I'm still unclear by what you mean. Could you elaborate more?

If you're referring to connections to the story (or back story) that's debatable. Many RPG plots involve very little PC connection to the story or world.
If you're referring to the background for the charaters in the board game that's also fixable. The Drizzt game featured many charaters with a background.

Let me give this a try...

In a board game (lets say, Clue). I have a strict, if arbitrary set of rules I must follow in order to play. It doesn't matter which character I am (Prof Plumb or Ms. Scarlet) I follow the same rules. These rules include a.) being in a room to make an accusation b.) moving from room to room via random (d6) roll, and c.) the very real possibility that unbeknownst to me, the character I am playing might be the killer, right down to self-incrimination being the only way to win!

Now, take the basic premise of Clue and put it in an RPG. First off, there would be no rule on the movement of characters, they could move from room to room as they chose (assuming reasonable walking time to get there.) They would not be limited mere guessing of cards, but would attempt to locate clues (follow tracks, search for prints, question other characters into making a slip) as well as do things the game doesn't account for (the killer may try to murder another character too close to the truth, the characters may form alliances, call the cops, or simply flee). Furthermore, assuming no mind-control or evil-twin scenario, the killer would be aware of his status and attempt to thwart attempts at discovery, perhaps by misleading clues.

In short, they behave as rational people would in such a scenario using the boundaries of imagination and the assumed laws of such a world (mirroring ours).

In fact, it'd play out a bit more like this:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFCoESGS-7E]Clue the movie trailer - YouTube[/ame]

than this:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MaP8vzLxWx8]Clue Classic gameplay PC part 1 - YouTube[/ame]

Nagol · Jul 29, 2012

pemerton said:
It's the player, not the PC, who develops the character. Isn't it?

You asked how PC agency is harmed. That's how.

The PC cannot make reasonable decisions that match with player reasonable decisions even when their interests align because the player is privy to information hidden from the PC.

Nagol · Jul 29, 2012

Manbearcat said:
Yes. That is the crux of this. Among other things, it appears that Nagol keeps conflating his own awareness at the table as he interfaces with the action resolution rules (and the resultant fiction) and his PC's "awareness" in general and awareness specifically that this meta-game component exists to inexorably drive the fiction onward.

- Nagol makes a ride check to perpetuate his pursuit evasion > it fails > adversity arises in the form of a gorge (which creates a decision-point.

- Nagol's PC rides hard at high speed, navigating treacherous terrain, possibly trying to avoid ranged fire, possibly trying to detect the few trailmarks of a small landbridge over the gorge (if you need post-hoc rationale)...he emerges over a rise only to find himself facing the gorge. He doesn't think "damn, I know I almost fell out of the saddle as my horse took a mis-step...but how did that create this gorge?" He probably thinks, while lungs are heaving for air, "I can't believe I missed the land bridge...I was concentrating so hard on controlling my horse and staying in the saddle that I've now backed myself into a corner...that's great." Or perhaps "Gorges...why did it have to be gorges? I hate gorges..."

Beyond that, every second of every game is not mapped out and does not exist in a "quantum state" between superpositions...its unrealized fiction waiting to be iterated. Further, every square inch of every region, micro and macro, is not cartographically fleshed out. Obsessing over a poor simulation's fidelity to a modeled system seems absurd when those two inputs aren't bounded or even quantified (that doesn't even include all of the other dubious math and abstractions which further exacerbate the infidelity).

Exactly the opposite of conflation. I strictly separate my perspective as a player from the character's perspective.

My character's thoughts would go similar to what you have, but further into how the character is reacting and what the character is learning:

"I can't believe I missed the land bridge...I was concentrating so hard on controlling my horse and staying in the saddle that I've now backed myself into a corner...that's great. I've got to learn to pay more attention and if I'm going to stay in this area any longer I better understand the layout better. That is, if I manage to live thorugh this mistake..."

As a character, I think my perception ability and/or my geographical knowledge are at fault. I rode fine; the horse is unharmed, I am keeping a decent speed, and haven't faulted. But an obstruction is blocking my escape.

As a player, I know that if I want to avoid failures like this in the future, I should improve Riding.

So what happens if the player wants to reduce the failure chance? He buys something to improve his Riding.

If the player stays in character and tries to develop as the character should desire for his situation he has a quandary. He knows game information that says he should buy the character improved Riding. The contextual information provided in game is suggesting he should improve in other ways.

Crazy Jerome · Jul 29, 2012

Nagol said:
And the PC is thinking "If I ride well enough, fast enough, I can escape! Oh wait I failed to go the right way! If only I knew the terrain of my home town better / was more perceptive / <better at whatever other excuse can be provided as to how a gorge is a reasonable failure for a riding check> I wouldn't be at risk to get caught! If I live, I better improve my ability to spot gorges!!!"

So, where's the character feedback? The agency of the PC is continuous not scene framed.

Fast forward 5 levels, the character is much more perceptive, area knowledgable and being chased through the same area. He's improved all sorts of skills relating to "spotting gorges", but has only minimally improved Riding. He fails a Ride check and ends back up at an impassable gorge again (the GM thought a full-circle moment was appropriate).

Where was the PC agency again? How was the PC allowed to react and adapt to the world around him? The PC reacted to the failure to the best of its ability and that reaction was wrong because the game feedback was wrong -- the gorge wouln't be avoided because "spotting gorge" skills were improved; it'd be avoided because Riding improved.

This is all an argument basically about timing on its surface. When can the gorge be placed? When can it not? In D&D, even with skill challenges, I'm going to tend towards not placing the gorge after a failed riding roll, because I happen to like the idea that all the pieces are in place, if only in my head, before any rolls hit the table.

Which means that from the player's perspective, there may not be much difference. I mean, if the player states that he wants his PC to escape by riding away, and I say go ahead, without any thought of a gorge, then if he fails the roll, I'll not include a gorge. OTOH, as he is picking up his dice, I'm already thinking about failure conditions. If a gorge fits logically into the world and pacing and feel of the story as it is rolling, then that's what I've already decided upon for failure.

I'll grant that I'm completely quirky about this compared to most people, as this mainly only directly affects the fiction as imagined in my head, not the players. Maybe it's vanity.

But I do think that for me it's a self-imposed limit that leads, indirectly, to a greater consistency in the imagined game world for the players.

Whereas, in BW, the constant harping on known stakes and intents, even if you must explicitly state them, means that this kind of problem doesn't arise. Either the gorge is a piece of color, narrated by DM or player, due to a crucial roll--or series of rolls--or the gorge is implied by the stakes, intents, and skills brought to bear. Namely, the objection that local knowledge is not considered wouldn't come up, because a BW character trying to get away is going to use Riding and (This Local Area)-Wise and anything else that pertains, stated clearly before any rolls are attempted.

Since I've ported that mentality to skill challenges, as I don't think they work as well without it, I can safely say that the quantum gorge would not arise in play for me. Anything could be in place, if only in my head, before the dice hit the table. But any skill that is relevant will also be in the discussion. That's for a given round of a skill challenge. The next round is a chance for everyone to react to circumstances and the flow of the story. So a gorge appearing in the next round is no different than anything else I spin out of the known, consistent world reacting to the players' actions.

I don't pretend that my way is the only way to deal with this issue. I do think that to the extent you worry about continuity issues, you'll get driven to some form of pure process simulation OR something very much like stakes and intents. I was already 3/4s there to stakes and intents when I first encountered the terms. So that was an easy choice for me.

Tony Vargas · Jul 29, 2012

Nagol said:
The PC cannot make reasonable decisions that match with player reasonable decisions even when their interests align because the player is privy to information hidden from the PC.

So you don't care for meta-gaming. Understandable. But it's not always a bad thing. In more troupe-style or collective storytelling styles of play, for instance, you make decisions for your character based on the story or on his story arc rather than trying to deduce what the character, in the situation, knowing only what it knows, would deterministically decide. Characters in fiction make leaps of faith, deduction, or act based on inexplicable 'hunches' all the time. I certainly agree that mechanics-inspired meta-gaming is undesirable, though, as it gets in the way of both, giving the player mechanical incentives to have the character act in ways that are neither consistent with it, nor good for its story, and perhaps not even conducive to the enjoyment of the rest of the table..