D&D General Supposing D&D is gamist, what does that mean?

[AbdulAlhazred]

Modern intrusion and security system specialists get pretty close. They aren't strongly separated from just dealing with locks in some cases, but they recognizably deal with designing and setting alarm systems and getting by same, which is probably indistinguishable from doing the same to traps, accounting for technological level differences.

Sure, and I am pretty sure 99.9% of GMs are not going to have an idea of how actual real-world alarm systems work such that they can judge the effectiveness of a narrative attempt at bypassing one, or even describe its components in any detail. I mean, I purchased the pieces and put together my own alarm system at home, and even I wouldn't be able to describe the system which a bank vault would employ in the real world with much fidelity. I can guess, based on reading a bunch of manuals and such, overall how its likely to work, but I'd still need to rely on the equivalent of 'F/RT' as mechanics when dealing with it in a game.

Well, at some point I always think the swimming case (and jumping and climbing to a large extent) are pretty stark here; just how does one describe doing those in a way that tells you anything about success or failure except in the most extreme cases? I'm an experienced swimmer of many, many years, and I don't even have a clue how I'd describe how to deal with rough waters or know from listening to someone's description if they were going to be successful. You could just pull a number out of your behind of course, but this writes off any difference based on condition, let alone experience.

Right, I mean, once I jumped into a lake, and I can swim pretty well and learned at like age 3, and within 90 seconds I was drowning. It was very not obvious that was going to happen! Well, I was near shore and made my swim check and got out, lol. I don't think things like that CAN be broken down to specific actions, its some weird combination of skill, determination, luck (If I'd sucked in a lung full of water in the first seconds I'd probably have bought it), etc.

Its not a coincidence that even a game as early as Traveler at least gave you some idea of how to look at attributes and factor those in, and it was pretty primitive when it came to some of these things itself.

Honestly though, for straight up skill systems even Traveller, or Bunnies and Burrows (which has the absolute Ur of skill systems AFAIK) is really not materially different or inferior to most modern mainstream RPGs. Heck, read Numenera, I don't see much difference and that's pretty much a 'state of the art' mainstream RPG of fairly recent vintage.

 

[MichaelSomething]

That we go, "That person is a good game designer; they should work at WOTC" instead of "That person explores deep underground caves; they should work at WOTC."

 

[Thomas Shey]

“You” meaning who? The player or the character?

For the people concerned about such things, its a meaningless distinction.

I don’t even know who the “he” is that you’re talking about. Since I posted yesterday, I think you and @Cadence have replied to me. I’m not trying to convince @Cadence of anything, I’m just offering a different take. I don’t think either of us have had any problems with what the other has said.

I'm using a generic "he"; I probably should have used "they".

So I don’t really know who you’re telling me to stop talking to.

You can talk to whoever you want about whatever you want. Similarly, I can say when I think its counterproductive.

I doubt that there’s one way such things happen. My own path was different than you describe.

I had accepted many things in gaming as given due to lack of exposure to other ways. Hearing other people offer differing views, whether aimed at convincing me or not, spurred my thinking on the matter.

Plus, let’s not act like the dominant way of doing things is in danger because some folks find another way to do it.

I'd be interested to know where I said there was a "danger" in this to anything.

I’m not trying to convince you of anything. Agree with me or disagree with me, that’s fine either way.

But don’t tell me not to speak my mind. That seems not only presumptuous but also rude.

And don't tell my not to critique your approach when you do. I have the same right to do that.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I see -and my experience indicates there is none- no reason to think that it is less contradictory not to know what my PC knows ahead of time before I make any decisions!

I think that's a problem too, but I disagree that its the same problem.

There's nothing wrong with asking WHY people have these, to me odd, 'cutouts' in their acceptance of temporal or factual matters where only very specific ones are problematic! Its not at all the same as condemning people's preferences.

It very much comes across as setting up a "gotcha".

Well, I think its just not tenable to claim that some of these really illogical positions are driven by some sort of logic, sometimes they are simply illogical preferences. Human beings are not at all required to work on logic. In fact I suspect it is much less common than people would like to think.

Logic is dependent on a set of premises. Someone who has a different set of premises is going to come to different conclusions. That has nothing to do with the logic applied to either.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Sure, and I am pretty sure 99.9% of GMs are not going to have an idea of how actual real-world alarm systems work such that they can judge the effectiveness of a narrative attempt at bypassing one, or even describe its components in any detail. I mean, I purchased the pieces and put together my own alarm system at home, and even I wouldn't be able to describe the system which a bank vault would employ in the real world with much fidelity. I can guess, based on reading a bunch of manuals and such, overall how its likely to work, but I'd still need to rely on the equivalent of 'F/RT' as mechanics when dealing with it in a game.

Sure. I was just noting that there is something at least vaguely analogous to something like "trapsmith".

Right, I mean, once I jumped into a lake, and I can swim pretty well and learned at like age 3, and within 90 seconds I was drowning. It was very not obvious that was going to happen! Well, I was near shore and made my swim check and got out, lol. I don't think things like that CAN be broken down to specific actions, its some weird combination of skill, determination, luck (If I'd sucked in a lung full of water in the first seconds I'd probably have bought it), etc.

Well, one of the reasons for having dice rolls, as I've suggested in the past, is to deal with things below the level of description, that can still impact things. If you're not going for a purely narrative sort of approach, its why I view entirely diceless/non-randomizer resolution with more than a little dubiousness.

Honestly though, for straight up skill systems even Traveller, or Bunnies and Burrows (which has the absolute Ur of skill systems AFAIK) is really not materially different or inferior to most modern mainstream RPGs. Heck, read Numenera, I don't see much difference and that's pretty much a 'state of the art' mainstream RPG of fairly recent vintage.

Eh. I'd argue Numenera, like they other Cypher system games is in some ways pretty deconstructionist. I don't think I'd call it state of the art by any means in terms of the mainstream.

 

[Malmuria]

Things like (b) and (c) just disrupt the feel of fantasy RPGs for me - I have to step out of just thinking about my character in the here and now and start narrating other people in the world and maybe even the past. Even after playing it quite a bit, I still don't like 13th Age's montages and similar things.

I totally understand this sentiment, but on the other hand it can significantly increase the cognitive load for the dm. That is, the standard seems to be that the DM convincingly improvises everything without letting the players know what is prepared and what is improvised.

Of course I can't pre-kill the person I'm currently talking to, but I could put have broken in and replaced their bullets with blanks. So it might not be the kind of time travel that let's you go kill the genocidal monster as a baby and change the present, but is it distinguishable from one of the time travel types where anything you do in the past was already done there?

So, in BitD, when you do a flashback, you still have to play out the scene. So you describe how you sneak into the person’s house and change out their bullets. The GM will decide what kind of position you are in and what kind of effect you might have, and then you roll. Really, to pull it off, you’ll have to be both clever and lucky, so it’s not a gimme by any means. And you have to take stress, sometimes a significant amount of stress. But if you do pull it off, that’s where Blades gets really fun and cinematic, because you can jump back into the present scene and have your character play it out with the knowledge that there are blanks in the other person’s gun.

 

[hawkeyefan]

For the people concerned about such things, its a meaningless distinction.

Who are these people? Why are you only commenting about what you think some hypothetical segment of people may think?

What do you think about it? Do you Thomas Shey think it’s a meaningless distinction?

I'm using a generic "he"; I probably should have used "they".

Who? You said that there is one poster in this thread whose mind I should not try to be changing. I’m not trying to change anyone’s mind.

You can talk to whoever you want about whatever you want. Similarly, I can say when I think its counterproductive.

Sure you can. And you shared your anecdote about why it wouldn’t work for you. Great.

What I’m not getting is this angle where I’ve somehow attacked the opinions of others… vague unnamed others…and so my points are not productive.

Just speak for yourself.

I'd be interested to know where I said there was a "danger" in this to anything.

It was your need to defend people who may disagree with me because they hold the most common and majority opinion on the matter.

And don't tell my not to critique your approach when you do. I have the same right to do that.

I didn’t do that. Critique my posts all you want.

 

[Cadence]

I totally understand this sentiment, but on the other hand it can significantly increase the cognitive load for the dm. That is, the standard seems to be that the DM convincingly improvises everything without letting the players know what is prepared and what is improvised.


So, in BitD, when you do a flashback, you still have to play out the scene. So you describe how you sneak into the person’s house and change out their bullets. The GM will decide what kind of position you are in and what kind of effect you might have, and then you roll. Really, to pull it off, you’ll have to be both clever and lucky, so it’s not a gimme by any means. And you have to take stress, sometimes a significant amount of stress. But if you do pull it off, that’s where Blades gets really fun and cinematic, because you can jump back into the present scene and have your character play it out with the knowledge that there are blanks in the other person’s gun.

Since a flashback can't change what's been revealed so far (you can't go back and kill the person you're talking to), does that make flashbacks harder to do* because you greatly limit what kinds of failure are possible? (The character obviously didn't get detained for half a day or beaten or maybe even get recognized). Would a failure be something like something caused the target to notice the gun had been messed with, for example?


* Edit: I mean, "make them harder to run than the things happening in the present"

 

[pemerton]

Consider some different DM responses to a D&D player asking if his character knows any contacts in the bar he just entered (in the city he lives in and has streetwise for but hasn't RP'd much in yet ):
(a) The DM says "sure, you know <makes up name> over in the corner from some past work and found him helpful before" and then lets the character go ask questions about the current circumstances
vs.
(b) The DM says "sure, you know <makes up name> over in the corner from some past work and found him helpful before" and then asks the player to RP some small talk with them about this shared past you need to make-up on the spot before asking the questions
vs.
(c) The DM says "sure, tell me who they are and how you know them" and then letting them ask the questions.
vs.
(d) The DM saying "Sure, we're near the end of the session and will get to it next time. This week, send me who you meet there and what you did with them in the past. Unless it's bonkerballs we'll run with that."

Things like (b) and (c) just disrupt the feel of fantasy RPGs for me - I have to step out of just thinking about my character in the here and now and start narrating other people in the world and maybe even the past.

you look around and see who is there. And whoever is there is not there by your will or decision. Asking the DM if anyone I know is there mentally fills the roll of my looking around.

Really? When I walk into a pub, I'll know myself if I'm familiar with anyone there. I don't need to turn to anyone else and ask "do I know anyone here?"

As I read @hawkeyefan's post, it wasn't that the GM mentally fills the role of looking around but that the GM tells you who/what you recognise - that is, someone else is relating your memories to you.

To me, that's an immersion breaker.

I've suffered amnesia, and so have been in a situation where others have had to tell me what I know/remember. It's very much not the same as remembering it oneself.

Some degree of being told what it is that you as your PC know is probably inevitable in RPGing - even if all the backstory is worked out consensually/collaboratively, it's still external in a way that actual recollection is not - but the idea that this is a pathway to immersion is not one that I personally can credit.

 

[pemerton]

Also, I think it's time for an obligatory self-quote of my suggested flashback in the context of an imagined 4e skill challenge. This is from nearly 14 years ago, explaining how one might use Diplomacy in a skill challenge to open a magically locked door a la the west gate of Moria:

The players, who presumably are posed the challenge by the GM, will be given all the scene-setting and narrative support required. They will then "pick the correct skill" (as you put it) by thinking of a way his/her PC can use his/her skills to meet the challenge.

<snip>

The skill checks have to be using appropriate skills. This is a roleplaying issue.

But which of Diplomacy, Acrobatics or Arcana is the correct skill? You (the player) tell me (another player, or the GM).

Using Diplomacy: "Remember that time we were visiting the Wizards' Guild in Greyhawk? And I was buttering up that Burglomancer specialist? She told me a heap of old magical passwords - I try them all." The player rolls Diplomacy (probably at a hard DC - it's a pretty far-fetched story!) to see if this is true.

Using Acrobatics: "As the Watcher in the Water writhes about with its tentacles, I dodge at the last minute so it smashes into the door and breaks it." That might be a hard DC as well.

Using Arcana: "I speak a spell of opening". Medium DC. Or "I speak a spell of recall, to remember all the passwords and riddles I've learned over the years". That's more interesting and more clever- let's say a Medium DC with a +2 circumstance modifier.

So, as @hawkeyefan already knows, I've long agreed that "flashbacks" and "knowledge checks" have the same basic structure in gameplay: they are rolls made at the table, to determine whether or not a player is able to make it true that in the past their PC had some useful experience (meeting someone, learning something, stashing a hidden object, whatever it might be).

We might have reasons for permitting knowledge checks but not Diplomacy-based flashbacks of the sort I suggest in my post, but those reasons can't be reasons to do with the temporal relationship between the fiction's "past" and its "present", given that both examples are identical in this particular respect.