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

[EzekielRaiden]

Pretty much any procedure is fair game as long as the realism criteria is met. Imo. I like sharing DCs because I find they are a good way to make sure my description comes across to the players. I.e., I don't make it sound much easier than it is. But I play in games like @Micah Sweet where they are not given. Both are fine and both fit the fixed world sandbox idea.

Likewise, I'll give the GM a lot of leeway in how the decide. Some specific considerations have been mentioned. But it will ultimately depend a lot on style and judgment.

In any case the resulting play style is very different from a narrative one and does what I want.

Okay so...

If anything will do...

Why isn't this decision arbitrary?

Folks have repeatedly insisted that it is not, in any way shape or form, arbitrary. Yet now that we drill down to it, the answer is...a shrug? As I've said many times, with GM effort, nearly anything can be made "realistic", doubly so when that effort happens entirely behind the black box.

There are, in most cases, a superabundance of paths that are either already realistic purely based on what is already known, or which GM effort could make realistic, albeit with varying degrees of effort. (I imagine BMX Bandit managing to propel himself across a 40-foot gap totally unaided might stretch realism/plausibility too much without a lot of prior effort, for example, but most pathways don't require anywhere near that much work in a fantastical or science-fictional setting.) So...if we've already cleared that through-the-floor bar of "the GM put in some effort to make it realistic", anything goes. Which sure as heck looks arbitrary to me!

 

[EzekielRaiden]

First, lets be clear:

Commonly, "arbitrary" means without any reason, driven by sudden impulse and whim. I would hope that's more-or-less the way it's being used throughout the conversation. Under this definition, if the decisions being made were arbitrary, it might not be clear immediately, but it would soon become apparent that there is no real rhyme or reason to what's going on.

How? How can you distinguish arbitrary from non-arbitrary when the world is sealed behind the black box, other than the drip of information the GM feeds you?

(And, to be clear, this is fundamentally the case for all worlds created solely by the GM's hand--it's nothing about any specific style, other than "100% pure pre-authorship by GM". It is an inherent and unavoidable consequence of such a style that the only information the players have is what the GM deigns to give them. Everything else will forever remain hidden behind the black box. And that "everything" is a very, very big "everything"!)

"Arbitrary" can also be used to refer to the power of an individual person to make decisions with limited or no oversight, essentially a synonym for fiat power. Clearly, some of us are advocating something that does fairly closely match that description (albeit, I should clarify to avoid semantic quibbling, with the understanding that the GM only has this power for as long as the players allow it). I would assume no use of the arbitrary in this thread is referring to this definition, but in the past I have seen some confusion arise because of this possible use.

I mean, I don't personally see any difference between those two things.

Choices made without even the possibility of oversight, you cannot distinguish between the two senses of arbitrary. You literally cannot tell what is capricious and what isn't--because anything can be justified as "realistic" with enough effort, and we've already established that the GM is going to extensive prior effort!

With that out of the way, the first "something more" you need in order to make decisions under this system is, as I just explained in my last post, context.

That doesn't help. That's like saying "the thing you need is information". WHAT context? WHAT information? Something has to be actually relevant. Some characteristic or heuristic or property--or set thereof.

A choice can be arbitrary--capricious, spur-of-the-moment, etc.--and yet still accounting for context. Because, as has been said a dozen times or more now, in the literal exact same context, multiple paths can be equally valid. As I said above, with the "how difficult is this climb?" example, there are at least four distinct paths (PC just knows by superficial observation, no effort required; PC simply cannot know, regardless of observational effort until they try; PC doesn't know, but sufficient observation, e.g. a Perception check, can reveal it; PC cannot know even if they do try, they must simply attempt and what happens happens), all of which can be completely compatible with the exact same context.

 

[The Firebird]

Okay so...

If anything will do...

Why isn't this decision arbitrary?

Folks have repeatedly insisted that it is not, in any way shape or form, arbitrary. Yet now that we drill down to it, the answer is...a shrug? As I've said many times, with GM effort, nearly anything can be made "realistic", doubly so when that effort happens entirely behind the black box.

There are, in most cases, a superabundance of paths that are either already realistic purely based on what is already known, or which GM effort could make realistic, albeit with varying degrees of effort. (I imagine BMX Bandit managing to propel himself across a 40-foot gap totally unaided might stretch realism/plausibility too much without a lot of prior effort, for example, but most pathways don't require anywhere near that much work in a fantastical or science-fictional setting.) So...if we've already cleared that through-the-floor bar of "the GM put in some effort to make it realistic", anything goes. Which sure as heck looks arbitrary to me!

I don't think that bar is so low. The majority of the DMs I've played with don't place a premium on realism. The majority of systems either. They're more concerned with balance or drama or stakes or what have you.

Then, the decision isn't just arbitrary. But a lot of different approaches are ok and it will differ somewhat from table to table. As long as each GM is consistent, that's fine with me.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I don't think that bar is so low. The majority of the DMs I've played with don't place a premium on realism. The majority of systems either. They're more concerned with balance or drama or stakes or what have you.

Then, the decision isn't just arbitrary. But a lot of different approaches are ok and it will differ somewhat from table to table. As long as each GM is consistent, that's fine with me.

Okay.

How can you determine consistency, when the vast majority of the information--the context--is permanently inaccessible to you?

 

[zakael19]

How? How can you distinguish arbitrary from non-arbitrary when the world is sealed behind the black box, other than the drip of information the GM feeds you?


I mean, I don't personally see any difference between those two things.

Choices made without even the possibility of oversight, you cannot distinguish between the two senses of arbitrary. You literally cannot tell what is capricious and what isn't--because anything can be justified as "realistic" with enough effort, and we've already established that the GM is going to extensive prior effort!


That doesn't help. That's like saying "the thing you need is information". WHAT context? WHAT information? Something has to be actually relevant. Some characteristic or heuristic or property--or set thereof.

A choice can be arbitrary--capricious, spur-of-the-moment, etc.--and yet still accounting for context. Because, as has been said a dozen times or more now, in the literal exact same context, multiple paths can be equally valid. As I said above, with the "how difficult is this climb?" example, there are at least four distinct paths (PC just knows by superficial observation, no effort required; PC simply cannot know, regardless of observational effort until they try; PC doesn't know, but sufficient observation, e.g. a Perception check, can reveal it; PC cannot know even if they do try, they must simply attempt and what happens happens), all of which can be completely compatible with the exact same context.

I mean, I know how I run Stonetop - whatever pops into my brain that doesn’t conflict with my Agenda flows out. I’m not going to say it’s arbitrary per se (it flows from the previously established fiction, usually using a soft move to provoke tension), but I’m definitely making a choice about what comes next - something that I hope is interesting for play & explores the world. Now until the player reacts to what’s been stated and sets some goals we don’t have to check to see if like Defy Danger or anything has been triggered.

 

[Bedrockgames]

But the PC could know that it's an easy climb (narrated accordingly, and any DC or TN set accordingly, etc.) or they could know it's a difficult climb (narrated accordingly, and any DC or TN set accordingly, etc.). The PC will know whatever the GM has decided.

Again, you are going to base it on what seems most likely based on the cliff and how they go there

Oh, I agree that Q&A is essential. For me, ideally, I'd like to have already provided any detail that they'd have asked about. But, yeah, any questions they ask are important for sure.

I am only going to provide details I think they would sense: which could be quite a lot. But I think Q&A is something you can't sidestep because the GM can overlook things and Q&A can feed into examination of their surroundings.

Well, here's the thing... I am assuming that you don't have every cliff in your world described adequately and that you'll rely on simply narrating things as needed... is that an accurate assessment?

I wouldn't use the word narrating but no, I wouldn't have cliff figured out. Many would be and the surrounding areas would be. And if it were a key location, that location would be pretty fleshed out. But I usually deal with this through 'pinning it down'. I produce the information in my notes before the players would need to start making decisions (so once I have a sense players are going towards a canyon say, I will start fleshing out those details with the facts in my notes). In some campaigns, especially ones where environmental exploration isn't as important, I might leave these details to something like a survival roll and riff of of that. But once something is happening, I am going to do the pinning it down thing.

Because you don't provide any specific examples. All of the bolded phrases are vague.

You are the one raising the objection so I am just going off your example. If you want to challenge the style you need to supply the examples here. And I think however vague you think that is, the meaning is pretty clear and understandable. But I explain more in an example (of course provided the example isn't loaded, as I think many of your examples have been loaded)

@Micah Sweet offered the skill of the climber as a factor... that's specific.

What about a scene would make you choose option (2) as what to share instead of option (1)?

It would be what I know about the cliff (i.e. IS IT DANGEROUS), and what I know about the player's position (is it reasonable they would have a good enough vantage point to see how dangers the cliff is). I think as long as they have a clear view, I would then describe cliff clearly to them so they get a sense of the danger. I don't remember which one option 2 and 1 were as that was some posts back, but I think if they had approached the cliff through terrain with a lot of obstructions, it would be reasonable for the GM to tell them, they wouldn't have a clear view. But that said, every GM is different. Another GM might reach a different conclusion and that is totally fine. I think in this style you aren't worrying about that too much. As long as you know what the GM decides, you work with that. So if the GM decides you can't tell from where you are for whatever reason, you just ask if there is a place to get a better vantage point. Unless there is a very good reason, I can't imagine why it would be hard to assess (for example maybe the GM has decided the cliff looks deceptively easy to climb, but is in fact very slick).

Don't say "other factors" or "what can be seen"... think of something specific.

With kindness, please don't tell me what to do. Again this isn't an interrogation. I am not your student. Do not talk to me this way. It is condescending. I don;'t put you up against a wall asking you to defend what you do

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I mean, I know how I run Stonetop - whatever pops into my brain that doesn’t conflict with my Agenda flows out. I’m not going to say it’s arbitrary per se (it flows from the previously established fiction, usually using a soft move to provoke tension), but I’m definitely making a choice about what comes next - something that I hope is interesting for play & explores the world. Now until the player reacts to what’s been stated and sets some goals we don’t have to check to see if like Defy Danger or anything has been triggered.

Certainly. Interestingness is a valid thing to use--but it is both subjective and, more importantly, relative to the players. Which is something that has been consistently nixed as an unacceptable no-no in this thread. The process being described by others (not Stonetop's) needs to be independent, needs to continuously preserve the independence of the world from the PCs, so interestingness has already been forbidden as a decision-making tool.

 

[zakael19]

Again, you are going to base it on what seems most likely based on the cliff and how they go there



I am only going to provide details I think they would sense: which could be quite a lot. But I think Q&A is something you can't sidestep because the GM can overlook things and Q&A can feed into examination of their surroundings.



I wouldn't use the word narrating but no, I wouldn't have cliff figured out. Many would be and the surrounding areas would be. And if it were a key location, that location would be pretty fleshed out. But I usually deal with this through 'pinning it down'. I produce the information in my notes before the players would need to start making decisions (so once I have a sense players are going towards a canyon say, I will start fleshing out those details with the facts in my notes). In some campaigns, especially ones where environmental exploration isn't as important, I might leave these details to something like a survival roll and riff of of that. But once something is happening, I am going to do the pinning it down thing.





You are the one raising the objection so I am just going off your example. If you want to challenge the style you need to supply the examples here. And I think however vague you think that is, the meaning is pretty clear and understandable. But I explain more in an example (of course provided the example isn't loaded, as I think many of your examples have been loaded)


It would be what I know about the cliff (i.e. IS IT DANGEROUS), and what I know about the player's position (is it reasonable they would have a good enough vantage point to see how dangers the cliff is). I think as long as they have a clear view, I would then describe cliff clearly to them so they get a sense of the danger. I don't remember which one option 2 and 1 were as that was some posts back, but I think if they had approached the cliff through terrain with a lot of obstructions, it would be reasonable for the GM to tell them, they wouldn't have a clear view. But that said, every GM is different. Another GM might reach a different conclusion and that is totally fine. I think in this style you aren't worrying about that too much. As long as you know what the GM decides, you work with that. So if the GM decides you can't tell from where you are for whatever reason, you just ask if there is a place to get a better vantage point. Unless there is a very good reason, I can't imagine why it would be hard to assess (for example maybe the GM has decided the cliff looks deceptively easy to climb, but is in fact very slick).



With kindness, please don't tell me what to do. Again this isn't an interrogation. I am not your student. Do not talk to me this way. It is condescending. I don;'t put you up against a wall asking you to defend what you do

@hawkeyefan is being explicit about his request because each time you’ve responded previously it’s been generic phrases. @pemerton has provided detailed (perhaps overly so ) examples of handling situations in a pretty concrete manner; as has many others here. We’re asking for the same sort of courtesy.

For my case, I’d ask if there was something at stake here. If not, and they’re all competent adventurers then we maybe use up some supplies or denote we have rope or move on. If they’re not all competent adventurers (multiple Stonetop playbooks are not), we’d probably do a Struggle as One if working as a group to see if anybody has a real hard time; or a singular Defy Danger with the stakes maybe being as simple as “you get to the top vs you lose your grasp and fall” or something.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

With kindness, please don't tell me what to do. Again this isn't an interrogation. I am not your student. Do not talk to me this way. It is condescending. I don;'t put you up against a wall asking you to defend what you do

It is also condescending to answer a question with synonyms for "stuff" when folks have consistently asked for specificity.

 

[Bedrockgames]

It is also condescending to answer a question with synonyms for "stuff" when folks have consistently asked for specificity.

I have provided clear answers ezekiel. If my answers are not adequate for you that isn't condescension on my part