D&D General Alternate thought - rule of cool is bad for gaming

[pemerton]

Sometimes there's immersive value in the ritual of rolling and consulting the table.

This earns you a pemerton shocked face!

Go into thread on "immersion", tell the assembled posters that what really immerses you is rolling the dice and consulting a table, and watch them tell you the hundred ways in which you are wrong!

 

[pemerton]

Okay. Then I would say that D&D's rules also govern the resolution of any declared action. It's just not handled the way that AW would do it.

OK. I think what you say is controversial.

For instance, suppose that it is established that my PC is in a large, relatively smooth-floored cavern with a crevasse. And the crevasse is wider, in feet, than my PC's STR score. And my PC is not under the effects of a Jump spell or similar magic.

I declare, speaking as my PC, "I jump over the crevasse." How is this resolved in 5e D&D?

 

[pemerton]

Do DW and Monster of the Week (to name two other PbtA I'm familiar with) do this differently? They seem pretty similar to me at least on a surface level.

I don't know Monster of the Week other than by reputation. I understand that, unlike AW, it relies heavily on GM pre-plotting of events. I don't know how that GM prep relates to the way moves are made.

Dungeon World is probably closer to Apocalypse World, but it uses maps more. I also don't know if I fully understand how Defy Danger is supposed to work in DW. And it has spell-casting sub-systems for more than one class. So the answer might be that it is the same as AW in respect of having rules that tell us how to resolve any declared action, but I'm not confident to say that it does.

 

[pemerton]

My goal of play is to create and adjudicate a realistic seeming imaginary world with verisimilitude, that the players can explore through their characters.

It's not crystal clear to me how random wilderness encounter tables interact with this goal. They don't seem essential to it. Do they facilitate it?

 

[pemerton]

Sure page 11 says that....but then a DM can just do whatever they want anyway.

How much Burning Wheel, or Apocalypse World, or Marvel Heroic RP, have you GMed?

My character can only to the seven actions listed on page 11. So the player has the character do nothing.

What RPG are you imagining here?

 

[Oofta]

OK. I think what you say is controversial.

For instance, suppose that it is established that my PC is in a large, relatively smooth-floored cavern with a crevasse. And the crevasse is wider, in feet, than my PC's STR score. And my PC is not under the effects of a Jump spell or similar magic.

I declare, speaking as my PC, "I jump over the crevasse." How is this resolved in 5e D&D?

The DM makes a call. It's not an exact, detailed rule, but you've sworn that that's not necessary to have a system that handles it. You can't have it both ways.

 

[pemerton]

The reaction roll determines the monster's starting attitude towards the PCs. You then talk it out under those parameters, and call for a roll to see how well the PC communicates the player's intent.

In Moldvay's example of play, initial reaction dice are rolled, then the player has their PC make an advance, then the dice are rolled again to determine the Hobgoblins' response to that.

 

[pemerton]

If the PC can't jump farther in feet than its STR score and the chasm is wider than that, doesn't the resolution then immediately turn to falling-damage mechanics?

The problem is that 5e says that you can use the athletics skill to jump farther that your strength score, but gives zero guidance on how to do it. Every DM has to come up with their own method of enacting that "rule."

The DM makes a call. It's not an exact, detailed rule, but you've sworn that that's not necessary to have a system that handles it. You can't have it both ways.

So is it really any surprise that I put forward this scenario as an example of an action declaration which has no clear resolution procedure under the 5e rules?

 

[Oofta]

So is it really any surprise that I put forward this scenario as an example of an action declaration which has no clear resolution procedure under the 5e rules?

You clearly stated that you were not saying other games have clear rules for all things. Correct? I mean I could go back a few pages, but you stated DW just had a procedure, a way of resolving things. Of course it didn't provide details for everything.

Now your saying that D&D doesn’t have a procedure because it doesn't provide details?

Which is it? Do we need details or not?

 

[Maxperson]

sure it does. The jump just needs to be classified as easy medium hard very hard or nearly impossible by the GM for someone the GM decides to use as the model of some level the GM chooses completely unguided using some guess the GM comes up with lol

That's one way a DM can go, but there is no guidance there. Is 1 more foot easy? Is 5 more feet easy? Or is it moderate or hard? No one knows. DCs are also no just in multiples of 5, so is 1 foot an easy 5? An easy 4? An Easy 6? No one knows. Is the farthest extra amount you can go with a nearly impossible DC 25 more feet? 10 more feet? 50 more feet? No one knows.

There is no guidance for how to set the DCs or the length of extra footage. All we get for guidance is "unusually far."