When did the players suggest something? They declare attempted actions. Are you equating an attempted action declaration with a suggestion?
An action declaration is a proposal that the fiction should include a certain content. For instance,
I [try and] climb the wall is a proposal as to the content of the shared fiction, namely, that it includes the PC climbing the wall.
I don't think that the GM always decides is controversial in D&D.
pemerton said:
But if acting is not roleplaying, then where does the roleplaying consist of in a game in which the GM decides all the outcomes? What are the players doing in such a game other than some improv acting?
Playing their character and seeing what happens.
I don't know what
playing their character means here other than some improv acting. If the GM is deciding everything that happens, what else are the players contributing to the game?
I've played games of D&D in which the players did more than improv acting, but that's because, in those games, the GM didn't decide everything that happens. This is why I regard it as controversial to assert that, in D&D,
the GM always decides. Because that doesn't describe all my D&D experiences.
So what actual reasons do you have for asserting that a 1000gp ruby can never be a success? (not that a 1000gp ruby with a major downside is not a success).
I didn't say it can never be a success. I said that it's not per se a success ie it can be a failure (which I took you to deny).
If the intent is
to find some treasure, then a ruby may well be a success. But the action declaration you described was
to find 1000 gp. If you meant
an intent to find 1000 gp worth of treasure then of course finding the ruby would be a success.
This is very similar to [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] upthread, who seemed to treat an intent
to find incriminating financial documents as equivalent to an intent
to find something that might be incrminating. If you're meaning the more general intent then I don't quite get why you're presenting your examples by reference to the narrower more specific intent.
Rolling a dice doesn't challenge a player.
No one asserts that it does. The challenge is putting the consequence of the die roll on the line.
you don't need dice to challenge the players conception of their character or the fictional world as the same narration that challenges the player can be achieved with no dice being rolled.
This claim hasn't been demonstrated.
For instance, how in AD&D, or 5e D&D, can a player put his/her PC's connection with a friend or a family member on the line, without this just being an invitation for the GM to make a decision about what that NPC does?
It's interesting to note that all the systems with good to have experiences are not D&D. It's almost as if all of this is just a subtle way to tell everyone that they are having badwrongfun, without actually needing to call it that.
But that aside, on an individual level I full agree that different systems can yield totally different experiences.
<snip>
My repeated theme this whole thread has been that has been that different game systems play differently and appeal to different people, but that most everything you claim my favored system can't handle, that it actually can and does. That it's rules light non-combat system offers greater opportunities in roleplaying than other more codified systems (not saying those other systems aren't fun).
But it seems that anything positive said about D&D is just crapped on here as if the OP suggesting that all RPG's have pros and cons really means all RPG's except D&D have pros and cons.
<snip>
What has been asserted for most of this thread is that the roleplaying is superior in these other games. That the roleplaying examples being mentioned aren't possible in D&D etc. That's where the disagreement lies.
I would just love once to hear their take on the pros of 5e in relation to roleplaying. What can it do that all these other systems can't?
I'm not sure whether you're agreeing with me that different systems produce different experiences, or are asserting that 5e D&D prodocuse the same experiences as any other system. I'm not sure that both claims can be true.
I don't play 5e D&D, so I can't tell you what its pros are in relation to roleplaying.
Classic D&D (inlcuding Moldvay Basic and Gygax's AD&D) is quite a good system if you want to play a dungeon crawl: it has a range of systems to support that including wandering monster systems, mapping conventions, rules for searching in dungeons, systems for retainer/hireling loyalty, etc.
The only other systems I personally know that aim to support this sort of play are T&T and Torchbearer - I've played a tiny bit of the former and none of the latter. But [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] knows Torchbearer.
4e D&D is a completely different game from classic D&D - it shares some subsystems but almost none of the broader framework of play. It's a game of epic, often gonzo, fantasy/cosmological adventure. It doesn't have the dungeon-crawling subsystems of classic D&D, but it does have systems to help it do what it does, including the skill challenge mechanic.
Someone else will have to post about 5e D&D.
