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

[Maxperson]

I'll be honest, if my character is climbing a cliff, I 100% expect to get enough information to know the odds. "You failed a Perception check, so you have a secret -10 penalty to successfully climb the cliff because you didn't notice the rock is crumbling" is play that can get right out of here.

Speaking for how I run things, you will not know the exact number you need, but you will know if it's easy, moderate, challenging, treacherous, etc. I might if you roll a 1 and fail badly use the crumbling rock you didn't notice as the narrative for why you just fell on your behind(or worse), but it wouldn't be there as a secret penalty.

 

[Umbran]

That sounds like my son.

Yep. Kids show this behavior pretty frequently.

 

[The Firebird]

So what's the basis for consistency here? That there only be 6 guards instead of 12. Is it the GM's initial prep? Is it the likelihood that the location in question would only have 6 guards and not 12?

It seems like it's the GM's prep, but I just want to make sure I'm following you.

Yeah, either directly or indirectly. If they wrote "6 guards on duty" then there should be 6. If they didn't, but they wrote down the faction's resources in advance, and they think through how important the location is and decide on 6, that's ok too. If they didn't know and decided to roll 3d4 and got 6, that's ok too.

But once they've stated it was 6, they shouldn't decide it was 12, halfway through the combat, because 6 is too easy.

Yes, number 2 is far more my concern. I don't even know we have to categorize it as "not doing a great job", although that may be the case, but even just "doing it differently than players would expect or prefer".

Yes, discussion is key. But I think one of the possible solutions is to be generous with information as a GM.

No disagreement there. Communicate with the GM. The GM should provide the players with information they'd reasonably know. All good.

 

[The Firebird]

Honestly, stepping back from any of the usual debating points, the difference seems to me to be in the content and intent of the adjudication. Taking Dungeon World as the easiest to look at, what is the difference in GMing DW vs GMing B/X D&D (as a fairly elemental example of classic/trad design)?

DW simply makes it the job of the GM to focus their scene framing and prep on concerns articulated by the players through their characters. The milieu/genre of the two games is effectively identical. In B/X the GM concerns center on presenting prepared material which embodies challenges the GM has imagined and devised in order to entertain the players.

It is the what, in general terms, the nature of the question "why this?"; and the resulting technical aspects of play which varies. None of this has to do with 'realism' or 'character autonomy' or whatever in any direct way AFAICT.

I haven't played DW. But I'll say that the main justification in my eyes for fixed world gameplay has to do with the fixed nature of the world enhancing the feeling of verisimilitude the player has.

 

[Micah Sweet]

There are lots of players whose fun seems to come from solving. What I find interesting is when it doesn't and how impactful that is.

There's this guy called 'The angry GM' and he bashes Narrativist games a lot and dispenses a lot of a certain strain of trad advice. There was one interesting essay I read by him where he describes a moment of play. I can't remember the exact details but one of his players characters had to make a huge thematic decision and the group was there for it. He describes this as one of the best moments of play. One that's stuck in his memory.

So is this guy actually longing after Narrativist play but unable to comprehend what he's doing. If he did find a way to make thos moments come more reliably, without feeling contrived, would he find his play a lot better? Is it so significant 'because' it's a once in a blue moon kind of thing. Like if his play was more orientated around it he'd be like, ah screw this, I want more solving. It's hard to say.

Can we maybe not assume that people who publicly feel a certain way actually unconsciously agree with your views and don't realize it? That's just another way to denigrate stated preferences.

 

[TwoSix]

I take it you haven't climbed a lot of rocks? Because unless you have information about a rockface there are plenty of times you don't know if it's solid granite or shale that will break off or an unpredictable aggregate. I don't see a reason it should be any different in a game. I'll let people know if they can't tell how easy the climb is and then it's up to them. No guts no glory.

Again, I have zero concern about the "realism". I find "play to notice" annoying.

 

[TwoSix]

Speaking for how I run things, you will not know the exact number you need, but you will know if it's easy, moderate, challenging, treacherous, etc. I might if you roll a 1 and fail badly use the crumbling rock you didn't notice as the narrative for why you just fell on your behind(or worse), but it wouldn't be there as a secret penalty.

That's generally how I would do it as well. Whether I use approximate odds (easy, moderate, etc.) or exact odds ("You need a 12 or better) really just comes down to what the players prefer for me.

 

[Bedrockgames]

No, I think your comments here and what you've been arguing for reveal a misunderstanding of what those things are about. It is about freely giving information. It is about sharing information with them as much as possible. If there's even a way they know it, just tell them and the like. It also says "Don't mind the fourth wall"... meaning don't worry about separating what the players know and what the characters know.

Well I do think we are interpreting things differently, but I don't think I misunderstand the Old School primer. I can't speak as well to PA (though when I looked through it the other night it looked mostly in line with what I am talking about. But old school primer is definitely about giving players information that they would have from their character's vantage point. It disregards fourth wall in terms of stuff like challenging the player versus their character, because the goal is skilled play and immersion in a setting. OS Primer is about forcing players to think AND interact with the environment by not relying on things like Spot checks or information gathering rolls.

OS Primer is about: rulings, not rules. Engaging player skill rather than character skills. Forgetting about game balance. Etc. This is an example out of Old School primer explaining the difference between the 'modern' approach of using search skills and the old school approach it is advocating for:

The purpose of Principia Apocrypha is about focusing on the game. Not on the setting, not on inhabiting character or immersion... it's about players playing a game, and how to focus on that while GMing.

I think some of what you've argued for in this thread goes against the principles in the PA.

I am not as familiar with PA. But when I read it, which I did quickly the other night, a lot of it looked like stuff Rob and I were talking about. Please feel free to point to other sections I may have missed or sentences I may have missed. I am not invested in PA. I am talking about OS Primer, which is a much better reflection of OSR play. But my point was even PA seems to be saying something similar about POV here and information.

The OS Primer even raises the example of bluffing guards:

Now perhaps PA is more generous with information. But I wouldn't personally describe OSR play as being built around giving players information their characters don't have. Much of the point is challenging the player by putting them in the POV of their character. This is why things like interacting with a dungeon environment are so important.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It can difficult to disentangle the difference between "don't know" and "I know, but don't like it". Especially because, let's face it, if you don't like it, you're not going to be as familiar with the terms and concepts associated with the thing as someone who likes it!

Which will nearly inevitably devolve into a conversation of "Do you actually not like it, or did you simply not get it?" because the "unliker" may not have the language available to explain their dislike, because it simply isn't a priority for them.

(This is also a summary of about 90% of the contentious threads here, BTW.)

Personally, when someone tells me what they enjoy (or don't), I believe them. I don't assume their opinion is uninformed because it doesn't match mine.

 

[TwoSix]

Can we maybe not assume that people who publicly feel a certain way actually unconsciously agree with your views and don't realize it? That's just another way to denigrate stated preferences.

We don't have to assume it, but we should consider it, especially since exposure to non-trad play isn't particularly common, as I said in an earlier post.