Beyond Old and New School - "The Secret That Was Lost"

[Manbearcat]

Well, there's a balance here. The human mind is only so creative. By your logic, would simply resolving all actions by rolling a d20 and having them succeed on a result of 10 or higher not encourage imagination? Ignore all those rules. Seems like it would.

Not "my logic". I didn't establish a premise nor did I pose an answer. Neither is it rhetorical device. I'm legitimately posing a question to focus the issue and refine the analysis of D&D mechanics and their relation to some quality of "imagination expansion/contraction. My rejoinder to the original premise was the "cognitive style" analysis well upthread. I'm just trying to get an evaluation of a singular mechanic within the confines of the proposition outlined in the OP (and expanded upon throughout).

First time I've ever heard D&D compared to surreal art.

Perhaps so. However, we have a metric here that we're evaluating (of which the OP invoked); "the quality of various D&D mechanics to expand or contract the imagination". I was just trying to pin down its boundaries. If someone posits that Fortune in the Middle mechanics (which require association to "game reality" due to their malleable nature) yields a net loss in the evaluation of "the quality of various D&D mechanics to expand or contract the imagination", I think a comparison to the work of Monet, Renoir, Dali is apt as their work is willfully malleable such that that association to reality by the audience is a requirement.

 

[TwoSix]

Well, it is invoking a rule (Rule Zero), so there's a contradiction there.

Or you can look at it another way and simply have the DM rationalize every move using the rules. After all, he has control over so many things that it's hard to imagine something that couldn't be done by the book. Who says the NPC didn't have Death Ward on him? Nothing prevents a DM from adding on things like that at the last minute. Contingent spells? Handy healing potions? A convenient +10 circumstance bonus for [insert made-up reason]? Is it any less "fiat-y" if the DM makes something up using mechanics than not using them? There's no reason why some deity watching over the situation couldn't just use his at-will wish spells to force any outcome the DM wants (the literal deus ex machina), while avoiding your literal definition. And that isn't even unreasonable for a some styles of campaign; one could argue that the mythological Hercules pretty much had this going on all the time.

Personally, I'd rather be a little more subtle.

I would say that if the DM decides that the NPC has spell X on after the PC chooses which ability to use, in order to specifically counteract it, than the DM is being overly, excessively fiat-y.

But yes, if you invoke Rule Zero as a real rule, then my definition needs work.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Not "my logic". I didn't establish a premise nor did I pose an answer.

Fair enough. May have overreached on that one.

I'm just trying to get an evaluation of a singular mechanic within the confines of the proposition outlined in the OP (and expanded upon throughout).

I don't think that particular mechanical paradigm works.

However, we have a metric here that we're evaluating (of which the OP invoked); "the quality of various D&D mechanics to expand or contract the imagination". I was just trying to pin down its boundaries. If someone posits that Fortune in the Middle mechanics (which require association to "game reality" due to their malleable nature) yields a net loss in the evaluation of "the quality of various D&D mechanics to expand or contract the imagination", I think a comparison to the work of Monet, Renoir, Dali is apt as their work is willfully malleable such that that association to reality by the audience is a requirement.

I do not understand this comparison (not my type of art).

 

[TwoSix]

Perhaps so. However, we have a metric here that we're evaluating (of which the OP invoked); "the quality of various D&D mechanics to expand or contract the imagination". I was just trying to pin down its boundaries. If someone posits that Fortune in the Middle mechanics (which require association to "game reality" due to their malleable nature) yields a net loss in the evaluation of "the quality of various D&D mechanics to expand or contract the imagination", I think a comparison to the work of Monet, Renoir, Dali is apt as their work is willfully malleable such that that association to reality by the audience is a requirement.

Excellent metaphor. And kudos as to the concise post, which I know can be an effort.

I would think, considering [MENTION=59082]Mercurius[/MENTION]'s own posts, that he would consider FitM mechanics to create more space for creativity, as they map less to a described reality and allow for greater imposition of one's own interpretation. I guess I'll invoke my standard of Wall of Thorns example. Go read that spell in the 3.5 SRD, and tell me whether you think its design ethos is imagination expanding or imagination contracting.

 

[TwoSix]

I do not understand this comparison (not my type of art).

Interesting. I wonder if that's illustrative. Not a judgment, just curiosity if there's a mapping between preferred style of play and other aesthetic preferences. I have a pet theory that simulationists also tend to be less forgiving of movie and TV plot holes, for example.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I would say that if the DM decides that the NPC has spell X on after the PC chooses which ability to use, in order to specifically counteract it, than the DM is being overly, excessively fiat-y.

When do you think a DM has to decide those types of things? Who's checking?

But yes, if you invoke Rule Zero as a real rule, then my definition needs work.

How else would one define it? It's "the" rule. How many D&D games have fighters? Most. How many games have fighters with +1/level BAB? Some. How many D&D games have a DM who is the final arbiter of all matters within the game? All of them.

 

[billd91]

Well yes, of course. But if he doesn't take the time to explain what makes it good or bad for him, how can I understand what he's talking about, and use it in a way to make my game better? I mean, shouldn't the goal of these discussion be to say "When I play X way, with players who like Y, this concept works and this one doesn't"? It has nothing to do with telling anyone how to play, it's how to find terms so that we discuss with a common language.

I'm not sure we are successfully settling on terms and we're certainly not settling on relatively quantities and metrics, which is what I got out of your difficulties understanding what Mercurius means with his fuzzy quantities. In fact, this whole thread (and message board) might go better if we did try to stick more to what practical things we do and how they work out for us and our groups rather than try to put them into overarching frameworks that always seem to have political overtones.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Interesting. I wonder if that's illustrative. Not a judgment, just curiosity if there's a mapping between preferred style of play and other aesthetic preferences.

When I said "not my type of art" I meant visual art in general rather than surrealism. I'm into music (playing as well as listening) and have a little bit of background in drama and in creative writing, but painting and its ilk are not my talent. So I don't know what makes Salvador Dali different from other artists.

I have a pet theory that simulationists also tend to be less forgiving of movie and TV plot holes, for example.

Wouldn't terribly surprise me.

 

[TwoSix]

How else would one define it? It's "the" rule. How many D&D games have fighters? Most. How many games have fighters with +1/level BAB? Some. How many D&D games have a DM who is the final arbiter of all matters within the game? All of them.

I'm glad to see we're going here again.

 

[TwoSix]

I'm not sure we are successfully settling on terms and we're certainly not settling on relatively quantities and metrics, which is what I got out of your difficulties understanding what Mercurius means with his fuzzy quantities. In fact, this whole thread (and message board) might go better if we did try to stick more to what practical things we do and how they work out for us and our groups rather than try to put them into overarching frameworks that always seem to have political overtones.

I totally agree. [MENTION=59082]Mercurius[/MENTION] seems to have some good ideas, which is why I would like him to flesh them out more than say "Well, this is too much, but this is just enough." So let's here some examples of where fiat was used, and where it wasn't, and why those worked.