D&D 1E 5e Play, 1e Play, and the Immersive Experience

Lanefan · Dec 21, 2018

Bawylie said:
Except paladins. They don’t need calculus because they’re blessed by their deities.

Yes they do.

I'd like you to meet Calculus, my +5 Holy Avenger.....

Lanefan · Dec 21, 2018

Saelorn said:
I'm not talking about exact percentages. I'm talking about trends. If wearing armor is not a factor when swimming, then the character would know that, because they live in that world and they've had some bare minimum of experience around water (notwithstanding exceptional backgrounds where it wouldn't be the case).

If the DM says no, that the swimming rules in the book are dumb and it's impossible to swim while wearing full plate, then the character would be tangentially aware of whatever procedure the DM is actually using to adjudicate those circumstances. Any observation that the character makes must necessarily be consistent with the true reality of the game world.

Of course, and it's on the DM to make this clear at some point before it becomes relevant. (and by the way, if the rules allow swimming in full plate that's pretty dumb)

That being said, if the DM does tell you the exact percentages involved, that shouldn't really break immersion either; because the first thing people do, when hearing a percentage, is to convert that to a gut chance of likely or unlikely (which is exactly where the character was to begin with, sizing up a wall and getting a general sense of possibility). If the DM tells you that you have a 70% chance of climbing a wall, and you fail (which will happen three times out of ten), then you might feel betrayed by your gut because people are bad at understanding probabilities; knowing the exact number does not really change anything.

The problem here is that telling people the numeretic odds precludes any situation where mis-perception or poor judgment cause the PC (and-or the player) to blow the call and either a) do something rash because they think it'll be simple or b) not do something simple because for whatever reason they think it'll be too difficult, or impossible.

Climbing is a good example. Two (let's say game-mechanically-similar) people might be standing at the bottom of a steep rocky bank. One says "Piece of cake, up I go, I can't possibly fall - there's too many handholds". The other says "No way in hell am I ever going to make it up that, it's too steep. I'll find a way around it." Both have misjudged: the bank is in fact quite climbable with care but lack of care (which the first guy's words kind of imply) can result in a painful fall.

Putting numeretic odds to this is what DMs do, but telling those odds to the players ruins the fun.

The Crimson Binome · Dec 21, 2018

Lanefan said:
The problem here is that telling people the numeretic odds precludes any situation where mis-perception or poor judgment cause the PC (and-or the player) to blow the call and either a) do something rash because they think it'll be simple or b) not do something simple because for whatever reason they think it'll be too difficult, or impossible.

As for (a), if you want that to be part of your game, then you could handle that by having the DM roll behind a screen to see how well the character evaluates the circumstances at hand. Personally, I've had more issues with the DM not describing the situation well enough for the player to understand clearly, so I'd err on the side of skipping that step.

As for (b), you can still get that from providing exact numbers. If the DM tells you that you have an 80% chance of success, then one player might think that it's a sure thing, while another player thinks that it's too risky. And honestly, telling me that I have an 80% chance of climbing it gives me a far more accurate picture of the situation at hand, than any amount of description regarding handholds would.

Lanefan said:
Putting numeretic odds to this is what DMs do, but telling those odds to the players ruins the fun.

YMMV, obviously, but I have more fun with managing known odds, than I do with estimating what those odds are in the first place based on someone else's description.

TheCosmicKid · Dec 21, 2018

Lanefan said:
Yes they do.

I'd like you to meet Calculus, my +5 Holy Avenger.....

You put the +5 holy avenger enchantment on a small rock?

TheCosmicKid · Dec 21, 2018

Saelorn said:
You can enjoy them, sure, but that's a far cry from taking one seriously in a role-playing setting. Picking a random cartoon, there's no way that anyone would buy into the world of Spongebob as a consistent and believable world that just happens to have different physical laws. It pretty much just runs on Rule of Funny, like some other settings work on Rule of Drama, or Rule of Allegory.

So what? You have argued that consistent physical law is "the minimum consideration for any fictional world, whether in a game or novel". My point here is that this is manifestly not the case. There are numerous fictional worlds which do not follow consistent physical laws, and that's okay. You now seem to be acknowledging this.

The Crimson Binome · Dec 21, 2018

TheCosmicKid said:
So what? You have argued that consistent physical law is "the minimum consideration for any fictional world, whether in a game or novel". My point here is that this is manifestly not the case. There are numerous fictional worlds which do not follow consistent physical laws, and that's okay. You now seem to be acknowledging this.

I guess I should have finished the sentence. It's the minimum consideration for any fictional world, whether in a game or novel, in order for it to be taken seriously.

Bawylie · Dec 21, 2018

TheCosmicKid said:
You put the +5 holy avenger enchantment on a small rock?

Traditionally you pull it OUT of some kind of stone.

TheCosmicKid · Dec 22, 2018

Bawylie said:
Traditionally you pull it OUT of some kind of stone.

Excalibur = e(x) calculo liberatus.

Maybe.

TheCosmicKid · Dec 22, 2018

Saelorn said:
I guess I should have finished the sentence. It's the minimum consideration for any fictional world, whether in a game or novel, in order for it to be taken seriously.

You're letting the passive voice do your dirty work. Who is or isn't taking the world seriously?

The Crimson Binome · Dec 22, 2018

TheCosmicKid said:
You're letting the passive voice do your dirty work. Who is or isn't taking the world seriously?

Everyone. Anyone worth consideration. I don't believe for half a second that anyone could take cartoon physics seriously, barring serious delusion on their part.