Realistic Consequences vs Gameplay

[Fenris-77]

I don't see the case for retroactive justification anywhere there. Weaving a success into the fiction properly and well isn't that at all, and that's all that was ever on the table, as @Campbell actually pointed out above. Anyway...

 

[FrogReaver]

As far I can tell @Ovinomancer is not suggesting that the successful roll would override established fiction. He was suggesting that a GM might establish additional fictional details that correspond with the successful roll.

Sure but I don't think it's difficult to see how those words translated through a 5e framework could easily lead to that other conclusion.

 

[Maxperson]

I don't see the case for retroactive justification anywhere there. Weaving a success into the fiction properly and well isn't that at all, and that's all that was ever on the table, as @Campbell actually pointed out above. Anyway...

Whatever the reason for the success, that reason will now have been present from the first time the PCs met the Captain and before. It's retroactive back to whenever the reason would have started all the way up to when the success happens.

 

[FrogReaver]

Whatever the reason for the success, that reason will now have been present from the first time the PCs met the Captain and before. It's retroactive back to whenever the reason would have started all the way up to when the success happens.

If that's what you mean by retroactive justification then I'm all for it and I think most here are.

 

[Maxperson]

If that's what you mean by retroactive justification then I'm all for it and I think most here are.

It can lead to issues. I've seen it. Due to time constraints I have to improv a lot when I DM. When you come up with a reason that suddenly dates back to when the PCs first met the NPC and before, it can create a situation where if you had known that reason the first time the PCs encountered that NPC, it would have colored how you portrayed that NPC and how the PCs would have interacted with it.

It's not enough to simply come up with a reason for the success. You have to come up with one that won't have changed anything that came before it, which can be hard in some situations.

 

[FrogReaver]

I'm going to reiterate that a declared action must be rooted in the fiction and genre appropriate.

You've said this a few times so let's explore what it actually means.

If I am saying my characters does X how is that action not rooted in the fiction? I'm also not quite sure what a non-genre appropriate PC action looks like. Now I think you mean something more specific or nuanced by that statement but I can't tell what it is.

 

[Ovinomancer]

You've said this a few times so let's explore what it actually means.

If I am saying my characters does X how is that action not rooted in the fiction? I'm also not quite sure what a non-genre appropriate PC action looks like. Now I think you mean something more specific or nuanced by that statement but I can't tell what it is.

Without knowing what the established fiction in your example or what action X is, I can't blanket answer your question. This isn't being coy -- what's grounded in the fiction for a given action is directly related to what's currently going on in the scene and what's already been established.

For instance, if it's been established in the fiction that Bob the NPC is blind, and a PC declares they show Bob a picture, then the outcome is that Bob can't see the picture. No roll is available for that action for which any outcome is possible -- showing a blind man a picture cannot make the blind man see the picture. However, if the PC leverages some means that fits the fiction to cure the blindness so they can show the picture, presumably using magic or medicine, then that action is grounded in the fiction in that it acknowledges the blind NPC as part of it's declaration.

I'm going to carry this last example into genre appropriateness. If we're playing a D&D game, then the action to cure Bob with magic is genre appropriate. An action to cure Bob with medicine is not (it's not in the genre understanding of non-magical medicine to be able to cure blindness). However, if we're playing a sci-fi game, then magic is not genre appropriate, but medicine may be (depending on tech levels and whatnot). If the sci-fi setting includes magic via 'sciency' powers, well, then, magic is back on the table as genre appropriate, couched in the proper terminology (psionics, nanites, whatever).

These aren't things that I would consider terribly difficult to grasp. They're not an attempt to carve out anything special. Grounded in the fiction simply means honors established fiction. Genre appropriate simply means that the action makes sense in the genre of game you're playing. These aren't high bars for most players, who are going to do this normally without prompting. I keep bringing them up in these discussions to forestall people from outlandish examples they think match the adjudication methods I'm discussing.

 

[prabe]

You've said this a few times so let's explore what it actually means.

If I am saying my characters does X how is that action not rooted in the fiction? I'm also not quite sure what a non-genre appropriate PC action looks like. Now I think you mean something more specific or nuanced by that statement but I can't tell what it is.

A possible example of a non-genre-appropriate behavior could be, in a setting where characters are expected to life by a code of honor (such as Arthurian stuff, Old West) a character who not only declined a duel (or equivalent) but hunted down, ambushed, and killed the person who had challenged him. It might be realistic--especially in the Old West, where there was much less honor than popular fiction would have you believe--but it would violate the expectations of the kind of fiction the TRPG is attempting to emulate.

 

[Umbran]

Way to dodge the proof that you said you can retroactively justify rolls.

Mod Note:

So, rhetorical questions: If one of the mods went through, and read all your restatements of Ovinomancer's position... do you figure we'd feel you did a good job of it? Or do you think we'd find you've been twisting things to score points?

Going forward, you should stop making this personal, and if you have so little respect for someone as you are showing here, you just stop arguing with them.

 

[Ovinomancer]

A possible example of a non-genre-appropriate behavior could be, in a setting where characters are expected to life by a code of honor (such as Arthurian stuff, Old West) a character who not only declined a duel (or equivalent) but hunted down, ambushed, and killed the person who had challenged him. It might be realistic--especially in the Old West, where there was much less honor than popular fiction would have you believe--but it would violate the expectations of the kind of fiction the TRPG is attempting to emulate.

Yes, unless the character was meant to be a villain, in which case violating the accepted norms is genre appropriate for that character. But, yeah, in a game like Pendragon where the premise is that you're playing knights in Arthurian legend, such action declarations are very much genre-inappropriate.