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

Jester David · Jul 28, 2012

pemerton said:
Unless I'm badly misinformed, the board game is a board game. It doesn't have a shared imaginary space, nor PCs with a life in the fiction, nor a GM providing narratively meaningful adversity.

It's bascially a version of Talisman, isn't it?

Board game isn't that far away from tabletop role-paying game.
There's totally a shared imaginary space. You're not really in Candyand or a real estate mogol or exploring the undead filled crypts of Castle Ravenloft. The players share that fantasy.
The PCs having a life in the fiction isn't bound to the game. You can have shallow PCs in D&D and treat it like multiplayer Dungeon Command or you can role-play though a board game like Clue or Risk. BTW try RPing through a game of Clue next time a D&D session falls through. Great fun.

So the only real absence is the DM. So is that all that seperates D&D from its board game counterparts? The lack of a DM?

Manbearcat · Jul 28, 2012

Johnny3D3D said:
I believe those could all be explained by a roll of the dice. Sometimes the dice fall where they are expected to, and the numbers on the character sheet produce more-or-less the results expected. However -even in systems with a bell curve- I've seen the dice go on a hot or cold streak for someone.

There is also the 'human element.' Sometimes, somebody does something which seems at odds with what is logical given the situation. Sometimes, this leads to die rolls which wouldn't otherwise need to be made. Whether that leads to success or failure, the fact is that that element of choice -the human element- created a situation which wouldn't have been there otherwise.

Then, in some circumstances, those two things happen at the same time.

In the abstraction, this seems a reasonable interpretation of the model and its inputs (minus the fact that the math doesn't match up - which is rather important to a simulation if it is to have any fidelity to reality or the phenomena it is attempting to model). However, I would include a third, and equally as important, input that is firmly outside the internal locus of control of the character:

Entropy and its proliferation.

This could be your gorge (either the inception of the entropy or its proliferation), if you wish it.

Of course, again, this all presupposes that:

1) Your design aim is to model the micro-phenomena, and its accompanying minutiae, at play.

2) That you're willing to disregard the staggering lack of fidelity to the phenomena you're modeling due to the dubious math and the numerous built-in kludges/abstractions in the system (but you're somehow able to take a hard line on mechanics working outside of the model, skill challenges, due to their lack of interfacing with the (already) infidelity of your kludged simulation?).

I, and many others, do not care for 1 or 2 within our games (or at least within the framework of our out of combat scene resolution mechanics).

Remathilis · Jul 28, 2012

Tony Vargas said:
Imagine them going through it in the reverse order. They start out with every class fun, playable and balanced. Then the wizard and cleric get tons of very powerful spells, while the fighter loses almost everything, then the caster's get slightly fewer spells and more restrictions as they go on and the fighter loses his feats, then his weapon specialization, all the while the rules getting weirder.

Thankfully, we evolve in a certain order, or else people would be wierded out when their children were born looking more ape-like.

Every edition built on the last. Every edition kept the good and fixed the bad. Even 3e, with its radical change in saves and AC still kept the same general notion of both rules in tact, if changing how they are computed (and making each save category more broad). In the end, each edition added additional choices and refined the ones previously allowed.

And then 4e comes in and re-invents the wheel. There is NO class that plays like its predecessor. Each feels different; crammed into its role (rather than organically filling it) and bound by its choices of powers, the ADEU structure, and its +1/2 to everything per level advancement. Was it fun? Was it balanced? Most people have their own opinions on those two questions. Was it the next logical refinement to each class? No. It was a brand new system using some borrowed terms and IP, loosely based on the previous games.

It was just too radical a change, and I think that was its failing. Not that it wasn't fun or whatever, it just wasn't the next step.

Fifth Element · Jul 28, 2012

And around we go.

JamesonCourage · Jul 29, 2012

Fifth Element said:
And around we go.

Yep. Been staying away from this one for the most part for a reason.

pemerton · 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).

What system are we using here? Did the player use his/her local knowledge as an augment to the ride check? Did the player make a local knowledge check (with ride as an augment) rather than a ride check? Did the GM follow the rules and take the augment into account in narrating the consequence of the check?

I guess that until I've got a better handle on the PC build system, the resolutin system, the way it handles augments, and how this all feeds into scene framing and resolution, I can't really parse your example.

pemerton · Jul 29, 2012

Jester Canuck said:
There's totally a shared imaginary space. You're not really in Candyand or a real estate mogol or exploring the undead filled crypts of Castle Ravenloft. The players share that fantasy.
The PCs having a life in the fiction isn't bound to the game.

<snip>

So the only real absence is the DM. So is that all that seperates D&D from its board game counterparts? The lack of a DM?

Fictional positioning is pretty central to an RPG, isn't it. And a boardgame doesn't have any.

Manbearcat · Jul 29, 2012

Fifth Element said:
And around we go.

JamesonCourage said:
Yep. Been staying away from this one for the most part for a reason.

I don't know. I think some of this has been modestly constructive even if primarily an exercise in futility (that seems to be the case of most of internet threads about dogmatic positions though, doesn't it?). There have been a smattering of "edition warry" posts (including the one preceding your posts) but its been relatively tame compared to many others.

Jester David · Jul 29, 2012

pemerton said:
Fictional positioning is pretty central to an RPG, isn't it. And a boardgame doesn't have any.

I'm unsure what you mean by "fictional positioning".

Nagol · Jul 29, 2012

pemerton said:
What system are we using here? Did the player use his/her local knowledge as an augment to the ride check? Did the player make a local knowledge check (with ride as an augment) rather than a ride check? Did the GM follow the rules and take the augment into account in narrating the consequence of the check?

I guess that until I've got a better handle on the PC build system, the resolutin system, the way it handles augments, and how this all feeds into scene framing and resolution, I can't really parse your example.

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.