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

[Lanefan]

A more « living world » stance may be not to remind them and let the chips fall where they may, but such a stance would not be realistic: from the perspective of the characters, it doesn’t make sense that they would forget what they were doing in the Feywild after 3 days.

Depending on how one runs the Feywild they might forget what they're doing within 3 minutes.

 

[Old Fezziwig]

Well, ask @AbdulAlhazred why a roll to determine if one sort of autonomic reflex functions is silly but not a roll to determine why a different type of reflex isn't.

Because that's not how the game works. BW rolls happen because a player (not the GM) declares an action with an intent and a task. I don't know what task a player would declare to accomplish the intent of "I fall in love with them" such that I'd have them make a roll to see what happens. In the rules of the game, it's just not analogous to cold-blooded murder. There may be games where this would be, but it's not BW.

 

[Maxperson]

Ok, but I still don't see how you can make your friends like playing different games.

Food. Serve only really, really good food during different games. Pavlov the heck out of them!

 

[Micah Sweet]

I’m not. I’m pointing out that there are other reasons and those are the ones worth examining.



They matter to everyone. So, let’s talk about other factors.

No one has responded to this yet so please look at the two descriptions below.

(1) A character faces a cliff that he needs to climb. The GM checks his notes and sees that the cliff is not very detailed other than a basic description and a climb DC. He has to make a ruling! He decides that the character could conceivably and plausibly determine how difficult the climb may be, and the GM then shares all the relevant game information with the player.

(2) A character faces a cliff that he needs to climb. The GM checks his notes and sees that the cliff is not very detailed other than a basic description and a climb DC. He has to make a ruling! He decides that the character would not be able to determine the difficulty of the climb just by surveying it from his vantage point. He does not share the relevant game information with the player.

Given that each of these approaches has considered the plausibility of a climber knowing how tough a climb will be, what other reasons might there be for choosing option (2) over option (1)?



But they are the author of what the character would know from their vantage point.

That’s what no one is admitting. Everyone is acting like the world actually exists and is independent and exerting actual cause and effect. But the world is a bunch of decisions made by the GM. The GM makes the decision if it’s plausible for the climber to know how tough the climb will be… he can rationalize it as realistic or plausible either way he decides.

So what else should he be considering?

Does the PC have any training in climbing? Any particular in-fiction reason why they would be able to make an accurate assessment? If yes, I would likely give them the information. If no, probably not, or more vaguely (not a big fan of giving out DC numbers).

That's what I base these sorts of decision on: the fictional situation, to the best of my understanding. If I really can't use that information to help with my ruling at all (a pretty rare situation), I would likely either give the info or request a roll of some kind, but the fiction is always my top priority and almost always applies.

 

[AlViking]

Food. Serve only really, really good food during different games. Pavlov the heck out of them!

You figured out my secret weapon, a wife who likes to cook. Don't tell anyone but I think that's most of the reason they put up with my DMing.

 

[The Firebird]

Does the PC have any training in climbing? Any particular in-fiction reason why they would be able to make an accurate assessment? If yes, I would likely give them the information. If no, probably not, or more vaguely (not a big fan of giving out DC numbers).

That's what I base these sorts of decision on: the fictional situation, to the best of my understanding. If I really can't use that information to help with my ruling at all (a pretty rare situation), I would likely either give the info or request a roll of some kind, but the fiction is always my top priority and almost always applies.

+1. I'll add how much time they have to study as a factor. I think that is covered in this post.

 

[Lanefan]

If I'm going to an RPG night, I'm going to want to know what game ahead of time. And I don't think that's a strange attitude.

If I'm going to an RPG night, as in a one-off single-session game, I'm not going to worry overmuch about what system it'll be run in.

If I'm being asked if I want to sign on to a long campaign, however, I'll be asking a lot of questions about system as that will likely be a make-or-break for me.

 

[Bedrockgames]

They matter to everyone. So, let’s talk about other factors.

No one has responded to this yet so please look at the two descriptions below.

(1) A character faces a cliff that he needs to climb. The GM checks his notes and sees that the cliff is not very detailed other than a basic description and a climb DC. He has to make a ruling! He decides that the character could conceivably and plausibly determine how difficult the climb may be, and the GM then shares all the relevant game information with the player.

(2) A character faces a cliff that he needs to climb. The GM checks his notes and sees that the cliff is not very detailed other than a basic description and a climb DC. He has to make a ruling! He decides that the character would not be able to determine the difficulty of the climb just by surveying it from his vantage point. He does not share the relevant game information with the player.

What relevant game information? This is pretty important to the example

If I am playing OSR I am fine with the GM giving me or not giving me the information so long as they are basing it on what I would see. If the GM says, it is hard to tell from here how difficult it is, I would follow up with further questions and maybe try to get a better vantage point. I wouldn't expect him to give me the information simply to be generous with info.

And while I don't base everything I do on it, the OS Primer mentions because it is a very common idea in the OSR: "Fourth Zen Moment: Forget about "Game Balance". You are expected to give them whatever information they would rightfully have. You aren't expected to give them information you don't think they would have.

The baseline assumption though in a situation like this should be it could be very challenging. A lot of OSR systems don't even have Climb skills. They are just going to be attribute rolls or something. And these are usually high lethality games.

That said, if the player can see the cliff face, they should have some idea of how difficult it looks to climb. If there is a good reason why they wouldn't be able to discern that, fair, but this example feels off for this reason to me

Given that each of these approaches has considered the plausibility of a climber knowing how tough a climb will be, what other reasons might there be for choosing option (2) over option (1)?

Again in an old school, the GM should base it on what they think the PC should know. And if the issue is the cliff hasn't been thoroughly set up in the notes, the GM should decide on the spot how hard it is, or roll to figure it out. And if the player is looking right at the cliff, they probably should be able to give them a description of it. I don't think I would tell teh player "It looks hard". I would tell them about what the cliff looks like and describe features that play a role in how challenging it is

But they are the author of what the character would know from their vantage point.

Not entirely. Because the players have been interacting with the environment the whole time. The player is is going to have a lot of say on how the cliff is approached, they are going to have a good sense of the overall layout of the area they are exploring. And again, while balance isn't a big consideration, the aim is also not to screw the players. This is why Q&A are so crucial. The players are going to be asking lots of questions as they approach so they have some say in what kind of vantage point they end up getting. Ultimately the GM will have final say, but this isn't like the GM is just decreeing everything from on high with no player input

That’s what no one is admitting. Everyone is acting like the world actually exists and is independent and exerting actual cause and effect. But the world is a bunch of decisions made by the GM. The GM makes the decision if it’s plausible for the climber to know how tough the climb will be… he can rationalize it as realistic or plausible either way he decides.

Again, we have had this conversation too many times to count. And if you won't buy one of the fundamental premises of Old school play, fair. You don't have to. But the idea is you are modeling an environment for the players to explore as if it is an objective place. The GM is not just deciding things arbitrarily. And the Q&A is a very important part of helping this process along.

So what else should he be considering?

I don;t know why you keep going back to this. He should be considering what he thinks the player can see and giving them the information they would have. And this should be open to Q&A. There can be other considerations as well. There is nothing wrong with doing this, and trying to do other things. But the GM doesn't have to do anything beyond tell them what he thinks they would see

 

[Micah Sweet]

If I'm going to an RPG night, as in a one-off single-session game, I'm not going to worry overmuch about what system it'll be run in.

If I'm being asked if I want to sign on to a long campaign, however, I'll be asking a lot of questions about system as that will likely be a make-or-break for me.

That's true. I'm definitely more willing to try something out once, especially if I'm unfamiliar with it. If it's a game I already know I don't like, however, then there needs to be some other factor influencing my decision (usually something social).

 

[zakael19]

Does the PC have any training in climbing? Any particular in-fiction reason why they would be able to make an accurate assessment? If yes, I would likely give them the information. If no, probably not, or more vaguely (not a big fan of giving out DC numbers).

That's what I base these sorts of decision on: the fictional situation, to the best of my understanding. If I really can't use that information to help with my ruling at all (a pretty rare situation), I would likely either give the info or request a roll of some kind, but the fiction is always my top priority and almost always applies.

Now we’re getting into the “all PCs could ride until the Ride skill was introduced” level of stuff. Most TTRPGs about adventuring say something like “assume the characters are competent adventurers” in there. I generally prefer the take that stuff like this is warranted when it’s like near-supernatural levels of scaling impossible surfaces. If anything, we’re testing Time (or ability to climb fast enough to get away from danger).

Add environmental factors in and maybe we have a different scenario (rain, ice, etc).