D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

[pemerton]

I was talking about skill rolls in games that have them for social skills. I wasn’t talking comprehensively about all social interaction rolls.

The post that you replied to - which reply I then responded to - was from @TwoSix. And it talked about "put[ting] something into the game that's not changeable by the game's resolution method".

You then replied by characterising resolution methods other than the GM deciding as "mechanical widgets". So were you strawmanning TwoSix? Or something else?

I mean, if you're aware that good social resolution methods don't have the features you're criticising, why are you posting as if those good methods don't exist? It's confusing to me.

 

[pemerton]

@mamba is correct. In computational theory, it is well established that any simulation is necessarily a simplification; it cannot fully capture the complexity of the system it represents. This principle applies equally to games, tabletop roleplaying., and specific systems like Burning Wheel. Suggesting otherwise veers into absurdity.

Computational theory isn't relevant to understanding the Burning Wheel resolution system. One reason for that is that the BW resolution system doesn't purport to simulate anything.

 

[pemerton]

I think Bedrock has shown a pretty broad knowledge of social resolution systems so your assumption they had not was unmerited.

In which case, why make a post that implies the options are either free narration, or "mechanical widgets" that give no weight to what the players have their PCs say and do?

 

[pemerton]

But between "the players construct the world" and "the players act in a fixed world", having fixed DCs that the players interact with seems much more like the latter to me.

Both Burning Wheel and Torchbearer use fixed DCs, determined by the difficulty of the task.

But I assume both would also count as "the players construct the world". Or Burning Wheel, at least.

 

[pemerton]

Because @hawkeyefan mentioned rolls and I started talking about thinks like skill rolls for bluff. And so was explaining that while this isn’t a universal reaction I find such systems create a strong disconnect for me between what my character is saying and the outcomes. It impacts the weight of what I say and trips me up. This is why I mentioned 2E and 3E D&D because it is a similar core system except 3E has things like bluff and I found those had a very big impact on my sense of agency and immersion.

That is fine if you don’t like my wording and I wasn’t trying to impress anyone with my knowledge of social skill system. I was responding to something @Hawkeye was saying

I think @hawkeyefan was talking about 5e D&D. So the rolls would, presumably, be in the context of the DMG system for resolving social conflict. Which isn't a system that gives no weight to what players have their PCs say and do.

 

[Bedrockgames]

The post that you replied to - which reply I then responded to - was from @TwoSix. And it talked about "put[ting] something into the game that's not changeable by the game's resolution method".

You then replied by characterising resolution methods other than the GM deciding as "mechanical widgets". So were you strawmanning TwoSix? Or something else?

I am pretty sure it followed a sequence of posts where @Hawkeye had mentioned rolls having meaning when characters try to bribe. Either way, what I had in mind at the time was social skill rolls.

I think I just went for ungainly term widgets. Not sure why you think I would be trying to straw man TwoSix. I was responding to a lot of posts at the time. It is possible I got wires crossed on some of them.

I mean, if you're aware that good social resolution methods don't have the features you're criticising, why are you posting as if those good methods don't exist? It's confusing to me.

I don't think this is what I am doing. Sorry if you are confused Pemerton. I don't know what to tell you here

 

[robertsconley]

If, by "sandbox campaign", you mean what you do.; and then, in my reply to someone else, I talk about something that you think is not something you do; isn't the best inference that I'm not talking about you? That I'm responding to someone else's account of what a sandbox is, or can be, or may include?

Throughout this thread, multiple individuals, including myself, @Bedrockgames, and others, have offered detailed, well-reasoned accounts of our respective approaches to sandbox campaigns. In turn, you have persistently criticized and dismissed those views, often without acknowledging the differences between them.

Worse, your replies routinely conflate separate approaches, then pivot to rhetorical misdirection: reframing objections, invoking hypotheticals, or shifting focus mid-thread. These tactics do not clarify the conversation; they obscure it, and they make it difficult to have a discussion about sandbox campaigns.

The pattern so far reads less like an exchange of ideas and more like a campaign to undermine any viewpoint that doesn’t conform to your preferences.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I think @hawkeyefan was talking about 5e D&D. So the rolls would, presumably, be in the context of the DMG system for resolving social conflict. Which isn't a system that gives no weight to what players have their PCs say and do.

I don't know. I don't play 5E so I was taking about 3E skill rolls. Those also don't give no weight according to the book if you follow it, I still find it trips up the weight of what you say (because it is still very importnat) and I find most groups don't play it as written, so it ends up usually just functioning as a characters making rolls instead of saying things. But if you have different experiences with this stuff, that is totally fine. I wasn't saying my experiences with skill rolls were universal. I was talking about what I experienced going from 2E to 3E, and then back to 2E and back to 3E again. It was something I noticed across multiple game groups that my level of engagement with the setting and with NPCs felt different in 3E due to those rules. But I am not saying they are bad or anything.

 

[pemerton]

It has nothing to do with the 1977 Monster Manual.

OK. Maybe I read the wrong document? I'm talking about the one you linked to, that has a whole lot of stat blocks and some very brief backstories for bandits and brigands.

You provided a link to it in a reply to @hawkeyefan, and you seemed to think it illustrated something about culture and social organisation. But when I looked at it, what I saw was a whole lot of stuff that, in concept and content, was really very similar to the 1977 MM entry on Man, Bandit (Brigand). So I'm at a loss as to what point you intended to make by adducing it.

 

[pemerton]

As far as I've seen everyone believes there is good and bad GMing. There is just disagreement about the principles. For example, I disagree with you about the siege case.

I guess my question is, do you think it's possible (or not) to set out the principles, heuristics etc that a good GM would conform to?