D&D 5E A case where the 'can try everything' dogma could be a problem

pemerton said:

I only know it from your posts about it. Your reminder here reinforces that it's quite a bit less traditional than the games I mentioned - BW and HQ revised.

What I was picking up on in your post was the idea that "dice matter" is consistent with story/roleplaying. Which seemed relevant to the discussion on this thread about the old "roll-play" vs "roleplay" debate.

Click to expand...

Indeed.

One of the principles of BW is "Only go to the dice when there are two or more interesting outcomes to pick from."

Another thought inspired by [MENTION=6779310]aramis erak[/MENTION]'s posts, and relevant to the OP:

In the Wick games he mentions, the dice are rolled to allocate narrative power. (If I've understood correctly.)

BW is a bit more trad, but in some ways it resembles this: once the context of the check is framed, if the player succeeds on the roll his/her declared intent for his/her PC is achieved; if not, the GM's declared failure result is achieved. You could say that the negotiations around framing determine the two possible outcomes, and the check then determines whose narration - player's or GM's - becomes "actual" within the fiction.

One of the issues around knowledge checks which has come out over the course of the thread is a lack of clarity in framing over what the competing narrations/outcomes are that are being diced for.

pemerton said:

Another thought inspired by [MENTION=6779310]aramis erak[/MENTION]'s posts, and relevant to the OP:

In the Wick games he mentions, the dice are rolled to allocate narrative power. (If I've understood correctly.)

Click to expand...

You have.

pemerton said:

BW is a bit more trad, but in some ways it resembles this: once the context of the check is framed, if the player succeeds on the roll his/her declared intent for his/her PC is achieved; if not, the GM's declared failure result is achieved. You could say that the negotiations around framing determine the two possible outcomes, and the check then determines whose narration - player's or GM's - becomes "actual" within the fiction.

Click to expand...

In BW, no roll* is to be made without seeing both forks of the story. (In some rare cases, multiple forks - 3 or even 4 outcomes, each championed by participant's players, all hashed out before rolling, and high roller's version is what happens.)

* exception being in one of the extended resolutions: Fight, Range & Cover, or Duel of Wits.

pemerton said:

One of the issues around knowledge checks which has come out over the course of the thread is a lack of clarity in framing over what the competing narrations/outcomes are that are being diced for.

Click to expand...

The BW/MG method is for the player to state what he thinks should be there, the GM to set a difficulty (or another player oppose it with an alternate), everyone to agree to the terms, and then the dice get rolled.

So, the GM says, "There's something out there moving"
Joe says, "It's orcs"
GM says, "Perception, Ob 3, otherwise it's 3 trolls"
Joe rolls his 4 dice, and only gets 2 successes, and everyone else goes "Oh, S***!"
Fred pipes up, "At least, one of them is blind"
GM says, "Ob 7" (that's pretty near impossible.)
Fred looks at his Troll Lore of 3, Forks in "Tropical diseases" for another die, pops a persona for one more, and is loaned one each from Joe and Sam with their assorted lores. Amazingly, he gets 3 6's and 2 5's, pops a fate point, rerolls the 6's, and gets 2 more... that's 7 ...
GM says, "Ok, it's two trolls leading a blind third troll."

In HotBlooded....
GM: "Something is moving out there".
Joe: "Sounds like orks"
GM: "Wisdom rolls to define it"
Joe pulls together 6 dice, rolls 3.
Fred pulls 4 dice, rolls 2
Sam has 5 dice, rolls 2
GM pulls together 5 dice, rolls 4.
Joe rolled 9 - loses his 3 "wagers"
Fred rolls 10 - 2 wagers from unrolled dice
Sam rolls a 11, 3 wagers from unrolled dice.
GM rolls a 15. Has one wager. the others lose half their wagers, leaveing Fred 1 and Sam 1, GM 1, and Joe none.
GM starts, having earned the privilege of deciding it Joe was right. "No, it's not orks." Puts away the wager die, saying, "It's trolls"
Sam, next higher roller, says, "There's three of them"
Fred and Joe groan.
Fred says, "But one is blinded."

In D&D, typically:
GM: "SOmething is out there. Roll perception"
Joe: "I hope it's orcs." rolls, gets a 15.
Sam rolls, gets a 15, as well
Fred gets a 17 total.
GM: "It's three trolls!"
Fred: "but that's more than double lethal for us! Is maybe something wrong with one?"
GM (backpedalling, as he notes the CR): "Uh, yeah, sure... One's blinded."

The marketing speak around RPGs often emphasises player freedom. "You can be anyone! Do anything!"

In practice I find this is often misleading, depending on the system used and the style the referee encourages/imposes. Depending on how dangerous the game is to PCs, how much the referee thinks success should be "earned" many PC concepts either aren't available or have short lifespans, and the vast majority of of actions are either pointless or incur unnecessary risk that could get your PC killed.

I believe myself to be more risk adverse than the average player, but still I think one of the worst things a game system or a referee can do is discourage players from engaging with the system or the game itself.

Sometimes its a communications failure between the referee and one or more of the players, which causes the referee's attempts to make the game more difficult go to far and make it frustrating and bewildering. Prohibitions against metagaming can make this significantly worse, particularly with a wide ranging definition of metagaming. Reluctance or refusal to discuss these issues out of character even after the game doesn't help either.