D&D General Playstyle vs Mechanics

[pemerton]

The moment mechanics rear their ugly heads, players (and DMs) start skipping or downplaying the real-time speaking part in favour of just deferring to those mechanics.

This is an empirical conjecture. As it turns out, it's false. It depends on the details of the mechanics.

 

[soviet]

This is an empirical conjecture. As it turns out, it's false. It depends on the details of the mechanics.

And the players!

 

[pemerton]

Quite the opposite: it's placing importance on the fiction and how the mechanics reflect it in sequential time.

Person with Intuitive Dodge (our new hypothetical ability for the day) senses an attack coming and decides this would be a good time to use that ability. The attack then happens, and regardless of the roll (which is still made to allow for the possibility of fumbles etc.) it auto-misses. This all flows sequentially in time both in the fiction and at the table, and the mechanics directly match the fiction. Good.

Contrast this with our Intuitive Dodge person getting hit by an attack and only then deciding that would have been a good time to have used Intuitive Dodge; the ability is invoked, and a hit turns to a miss. This doesn't flow sequentially in time at the table, as time gets reversed such that what was a successful attack becomes a miss; nor does it flow sequentially in the fiction as the fiction is being retroactively changed.

How does a person sense an attack coming before the attack occurs? That makes no sense (unless they are a psychic or similar).

And obviously, in a game with an ability like "intuitive dodge" the narration of the successful attack roll is not "you're hit" but rather "this attack is about to hit you". And then it will hit unless the character has some last-ditch ability, like "intuitive dodge".

EDIT: @soviet made the same point not too far upthread.

 

[pemerton]

If there's mechanics in place to resolve social scenes then declaring "I try to persuade the Duke to finance our mission" is, technically, all that's required to invoke those mechanics.

Says who? Is this based on some comprehensive survey of RPG mechanics?

 

[pemerton]

If I'm rolling a die it's because the DM is uncertain of the outcome. The die roll and the modifiers to it represent how eloquent my character is. It's a result based entirely on the character's words and delivery in the fictional world.

And why is spending the point not a representation of how impassioned and moving your character's plea is?

 

[Lanefan]

You're assuming here that the dice roll represents the final part of resolving the fiction (sometimes known as 'Fortune at the End'). I'm not sure that's a safe assumption. Certainly in 2014 5e there are various things that can still affect the outcome after the dice roll has taken place, for example the Lucky feat.

Yes, and that's a feat that IMO simply should not exist, and for just this reason.

The 2014 Lucky feat represents a kind of Fortune in the Middle approach, which essentially has the result of the dice roll acting as a pending outcome that can still potentially be intercepted or changed. The player/character can think 'This enemy attack or spell looks like it's going to miss me or be easy to resist... I'll leave it [and not use the Lucky feat]' or 'This enemy attack or spell is coming straight at me... Yikes, I'll dive out the way! [uses the Lucky feat]'.

Nope. Once a roll is made, that's it. If you want to try to modify that roll, you gotta do it before the roll occurs. This also allows roll-modifying abilities to sometimes be used when in hindsight they weren't needed, which seems far more fiction-realistic to me.

I understand why people might not like such mechanics, but they don't have to be interpreted in a way that 'retroactively changes the fiction'.

They're also retroactively changing what happened at the table, which IMO is even worse.

EDIT: The example that just sprang to mind is Gothmog in Return of the King, when he sees the stone thrower fire at him, sizes it up on the approach to see where it will land, and steps out of the way at the last second.

As with a few things in those movies, that bit always struck me as considerably over-the-top; ditto a lot of what Legolas does.

 

[pemerton]

I certainly didn't use skill challenges that way.

So your objection is based on a thing that you didn't do? And it's a thing that I didn't do. How seriously, then, should I take the objection!

The obvious answer here does seem to be 'don't play bad games with bad players'.

This seems apposite to several strands of the conversation. I mean, I can make up bad mechanics all day long. That doesn't show that good mechanics aren't possible!

 

[pemerton]

Once a roll is made, that's it. If you want to try to modify that roll, you gotta do it before the roll occurs. This also allows roll-modifying abilities to sometimes be used when in hindsight they weren't needed, which seems far more fiction-realistic to me.

The roll of the die is not part of the fiction. So when it is modified has nothing to do with the fiction. Rather, that's all about the metagame!

 

[soviet]

So your objection is based on a thing that you didn't do? And it's a thing that I didn't do. How seriously, then, should I take the objection!

This seems apposite to several strands of the conversation. I mean, I can make up bad mechanics all day long. That doesn't show that good mechanics aren't possible!

RPGs with miniatures and floorplans don't work and are a health hazard. Every time I try to play in them, I eat all the lead figures and have to go to hospital. Checkmate, atheists!

 

[soviet]

Yes, and that's a feat that IMO simply should not exist, and for just this reason.

Nope. Once a roll is made, that's it. If you want to try to modify that roll, you gotta do it before the roll occurs. This also allows roll-modifying abilities to sometimes be used when in hindsight they weren't needed, which seems far more fiction-realistic to me.

They're also retroactively changing what happened at the table, which IMO is even worse.
.

All of this is an argument not to have Fortune in the Middle type effects in your game. This is a perfectly valid preference. There aren't a huge amount of them in 5e, and I imagine they can all be removed or altered fairly easily.

However, as printed, 2014 5e (and I assume 2024 5e) does include them. They are there. If you keep them in and use them, a Fortune in the Middle approach allows them to be used without doing the fiction-bending shenanigans you describe.

I'm not aware that 5e really addresses this one way or another, so I don't believe your comments about 'once a roll is made, that's it' are supported by the text. Given feats like Lucky, the strong implication is in fact that 'once a dice roll is made, that's not necessarily it'.