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

[hawkeyefan]

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)

I'm not objecting to anything. I am just asking questions. The examples I used have been those that others have posed in this thread.

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

I'm not telling you what to do. You are complaining about repeating yourself and why I keep asking, so I'm explaining why.

You don't have to answer any questions I ask or any posts I make.

 

[SableWyvern]

I

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"!)


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.

If you consider the two different definitions of arbitrary to be indistinguishable, we have again reached an absolute impasse.

If you consider that any GM with the power to make decisions by fiat is definitionally the same as a GM making decisions on completely random whim, giving a GM the power to make decision by fiat will naturally result in an incoherent game. You seem to be saying that playing games the way some of us say we're playing the is impossible. As I mentioned quite some time ago, this makes discussion basically impossible.

I am also completely at a loss as to how I can help you understand what I mean when I say that making decisions about what happens in the game relies on the context of the situation. My usage seems essentially axiomatic to me; the amount of effort I would have to put into analysing and breaking down fundamental concepts is far, far beyond any value I could possibly obtain for the effort and, even if I did make that effort, I'm not remotely convinced I wouldn't just get the exact same response asking for yet more detail.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I'm not telling you what to do. You are complaining about repeating yourself and why I keep asking, so I'm explaining why.

I was complaining that these conversations feel like an inquisition. Because you guys ask endless series of questions. And I have said the whole time if you don’t like my answer to something that is fine. I don’t like the aggressive questioning though.

You don't have to answer any questions I ask or any posts I make.

I did answer your question in that response

 

[Lanefan]

So I think there are a couple things that we'd need to frame out here for this to be useful, so please bear with me.

Jocasta has three beliefs (all BW characters have at least three). There's been a lot of digital ink spilled about how to frame them, but one way to do it is as follows:

(1) a Fate mine. Fate's a type of meta-currency in BW that allows you to modify rolls and is a necessary resource for doing certain things in advancement, and you can acquire it by playing your Beliefs. We don't need to get into more detail than that; it's sufficient to say you want Fate, and you want a means of getting it. "I will be famous for my deeds!" is a pretty good Belief for this. You can hit it all day long in play.
(2) one about a long term goal that's pointed at the current situation. This is not the best belief, but it'll work for our purposes: "Lanefania needs heroes, and I'll start by ridding it of Old Fezziwig and his bandits."
(3) usually about one of the other characters and their goals, but it could be a separate goal, too. Perhaps this one puts different pressure on Jocasta to not stick around. "It's far away, but I must go across the sea to Nafenalia for the Grand Tournament next year!"

Let's say, that in the course of handling Old Fezziwig and his bandits, Jocasta meets the tavern keeper Johann, and they've got a real good rapport. He's energetic, handsome, competent, etc. Maybe he picks up a shield and a table leg and helps out in the fighting, maybe he's the one who leads the other villagers out of the Caves of Doom, past the baby animal pens, and back into the village while Jocasta gives Old Fezziwig what for.

I think I've said this before, but BW doesn't do idle distractions, and the system's going to come into play. So maybe because of a comment you've made out of character or something that happens in play after Old Fezziwig's demise (he's popped up in other scenes involving other players' goals and built some relationships) that indicates you're open to this, or maybe just because Jocasta has the Romantic trait, I frame a scene before Jocasta heads to the coast to get passage to Nafenalia where Johann says, "hey...stay."

Why does it have to be you framing the scene in order for it to be playable? Can players in BW not force GM-reactive scenes by their in-character actions (here it'd be you-as-GM having to react to Jocasta's pursuit of Johann)?

Jocasta really wants to knock some heads together at the Grand Tourney (it's her Belief!), and maybe I'm expecting you as her player to play up the conflict, we'll have a Duel of Wits in game, and see what happens. And maybe you expect that, too, as a player, and we have some back and forth about it (in character), but when I say, "Okay, we need to settle this. It's a Duel of Wits, Lanefan, and his statement of purpose is 'Stay with me,'" you give in and say, "okay." So Jocasta misses her boat, and she stays for the harvest. (We could do this as a Duel of Wits, too, but players can always give before we roll dice and just accept the terms proposed.)

Given the scenario I put forward she'd agree to stay with him the moment he asked, intentionally putting her other Beliefs on hold for the time being and getting back to them later.

Also, there's the other players and PCs to consider - maybe they want to involve themselves somehow, be it by trying to obstruct my chase, or trying to assist my chase, or getting fed up with this lovesick little puppy and hauling me off to the Grand Tourney in a wheelbarrow, or whatever.

At this point, I'd expect you to rewrite your beliefs to reflect the new situation, definitely a revision to #3 but maybe to #2, too. BW doesn't do no conflict, but we can do different conflict. Is Jocasta going to stay in town with Johann? Will she go to Nafenalia next year? Does anything change about Lanefania needing heroes? And subsequent scenes would put pressure on the new beliefs. Maybe word of Jocasta's heroic dispatch of Old Fezziwig has reached the Duke, and he sends his men to town. You know, "Lanefania needs heroes, and you're the woman for us. The kobolds are dying, come save them!" Maybe she refuses, but the Duke's a tyrant, and now the village is under threat again.

I could go on, but I think this is enough?

OK. Got it.

What I didn't realize was that Beliefs could be changed - I thought they were somewhat locked-in until their story was fully played out to whatever resolution arises.

The bit that leaps out to me of what you wrote, however, is "BW doesn't do idle distractions". To me that's a flaw for two reasons: one, idle distractions can in and of themselves be loads of fun to play out so why deny them; and two, sometimes those idle distractions turn themselves into major unexpected story beats when let run long enough.

The Jocasta-Johann piece would more likely be one of the former; the only ways I could see it having any lasting impact is if it led to Jocasta's retirement, or if it led to Johann coming along as Jocasta's hench, or if Johann turned out to be someone much more relevant than it first appeared.

 

[hawkeyefan]

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.

Stakes is a very interesting answer... and one of the reasons I was asking. Something more about the game than just about the fiction.

I would likely approach it this way, too. What's at stake in this situation? You're describing ways to handle it in Stonetop, so I won't go into that.

With something more like 5e D&D... it depends on context for sure. But this kind of thing is generally about what it may cost the PC. In old school D&D, the attrition of mundane resources and even others like hit points. But in 5e, gear matters less, and certainly things like rations and the like are not often tracked. Hit points are trivially regained.

So given all that, is this situation with the cliff meaningful to play in any way? Like if whatever impact it has isn't lasting at all, then what's the point? Why bother with it?

If the cliff is just part of some larger encounter or situation, then okay, it may make more sense.

In an OSR type game, if the PC takes a tumble and loses 6 hit points, that may be meaningful because it could take days to heal, or force someone to use a spell or a potion. But in 5e? It means next to nothing unless you're heading right into another situation or encounter.

 

[AnotherGuy]

@Lanefan, somewhere upthread you mentioned you're not interested so much in introspection and the personal development of the characters. Granted D&D (even 5e) does not have the mechanics and reward systems of games built with these goals in mind but the little way in which our table has incorporated the traits/ideals/bonds/flaws system is as follows - I'll list two easy enough examples you may find it useful (or not):

Character was trying to shield their mind from a Detect Thoughts spell to some pertinent information.
One of his Flaws being I can barely keep a secret.
So I offered him an XP (valuable in our game) if he leaned into the flaw and let the Detect Thoughts spell glean the information he was trying to hide.

Character was meant to attend a rather important meeting with certain influential persons to discuss the attack on Tiamat and her forces. His absence to such a meeting would put his party on the back foot with social rolls (mechanics) and would also incur difficulty with him persuading them on items in the immediate future.
He decided to skip the meeting and lean into his Flaw Unlocking an ancient mystery is worth the price of a civilisation (earning the 1 XP) to gain access to information (in Elminster's abode) that would take a step closer to realise his personal desires. The window of opportunity for obtaining that information was during the same time as the meeting as Elminster was attending the meeting, and it was Elminster's ward who was secretly giving him access to that information.

In our games PCs start with the base 4 (1 x Trait, Bond, Flaw, Ideal) and may gain an additional 1 every 2 levels. They are also welcome to change them due to in-game fiction which affects their character. The table, not the DM, is allowed to make a judgment call if they feel something done is NOT worthy of the XP. It is shared fiction afterall and XPs are a big deal. I trust the table to make the best decision for our campaign.

There are other creative ways I have incorporated TBIF but they're not pertinent to character development.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I was complaining that these conversations feel like an inquisition. Because you guys ask endless series of questions. And I have said the whole time if you don’t like my answer to something that is fine. I don’t like the aggressive questioning though.

I wasn't being aggressive, I was trying to explain what I was looking for since after many back and forths you still were not following, and then saying I wasn't following you.

I did answer your question in that response

I was letting you know that you never have to answer any of my questions or my posts, just so that you know I'm not trying to interrogate you.

 

[thefutilist]

I think basing your choices on artistic expression is something different than most of what's being discussed in this thread.

I would imagine if that's the primary focus of play, then playability may not be a top priority.

Would you say that's accurate? Or am I way off?

I'm not sure I see them as being in conflict but if they do come into conflict then expression wins. Although I consider this pretty standard Narrativism. At it's core a group of people build up fiction and are using the (imagined) constraints of the fiction as a medium for expression. The hard hitting meta-currency stuff (stats and fortune mechanics and all that, are optional).

Really I think Burning Wheel has an outsized influence, as in people bring assumptions from BW into games that don't necessarily support them. Although even in BW one of the core rewards occurs exactly like I say. Changing a belief is a statement about the situation through the medium of character. They now prioritise one thing over another. If the group isn't all going wtf and high fiving when you change a belief, I'd find that play totally alien.

 

[hawkeyefan]

So in the case of 5e you're saying Insight and Perception are not a good mechanic for the game.
Just to explore this idea further...

Would that remove trap noticing since a Dexterity Save etc can deal with the narration of a failed check to spot the trap in time?
Would that remove the Insight check for obtaining say the ideals/bonds/traits/flaws of a person the PCs are engaged with in dialogue? Just give that info to the PCs since its considered low stakes, right?
What about using Perception to notice an invisible creature - or can that be rolled into disADV for initiative/attack rolls etc? Or is this not the kinda info you're referring to in the above post?

In the PbtA games they have Discern Reality moves right? How does that compare to 5e's Perception/Insight?

I think this is a really interesting post.

I really can't stand Perception as it applies to modern D&D and similar applications. Perception is so broad that people tend to overuse it... they call for rolls when they instead should just provide the information to the players.

I think I'd prefer another way of handling detecting traps. I mean, that could be the skill. Or perhaps to make it a little more broadly applicable, maybe detect danger? Maybe even just changing the name of the skill to Spot Hidden may help? At least in that case, it makes it a little clearer that it shouldn't be used just to see and hear what is around you... that something has to be hidden in some way to call for the skill. This may also work for invisible foes.

Regarding Insight and NPC BIFTs... I quite like that application of the skill, which is the pretty much the only thing I use it for. Occasionally, I'll use it for requests from players to tell if an NPC is lying... but that's a rather boring way to handle that, so I'm not crazy about it.

Discern Realities is different, because it allows you to ask questions whose answers would not already be known. Here's the list:

• What happened here recently?
• What is about to happen?
• What should I be on the lookout for?
• What here is useful or valuable to me?
• Who’s really in control here?
• What here is not what it appears to be?

These are pretty leading questions, so it's definitely different from "Did I notice the small switch on the wall?" type of stuff that Perception is often used for. It gives the player something that they can use. And it also gives them a bonus when acting on the information.

 

[AnotherGuy]

I really can't stand Perception as it applies to modern D&D and similar applications. Perception is so broad that people tend to overuse it... they call for rolls when they instead should just provide the information to the players.

I remember I was not a huge fan of it in 3e because if you were not selecting it you seemingly became quite bad at something you should automatically be good it. So it became a tax.
Whereas in 5e because of the bounded accuracy, degrees of success, fail forward etc it doesn't seem so much of a gulf between people that are proficient and not proficient in the skill.

I think I'd prefer another way of handling detecting traps. I mean, that could be the skill. Or perhaps to make it a little more broadly applicable, maybe detect danger? Maybe even just changing the name of the skill to Spot Hidden may help? At least in that case, it makes it a little clearer that it shouldn't be used just to see and hear what is around you... that something has to be hidden in some way to call for the skill. This may also work for invisible foes.

Will mull over this.

Regarding Insight and NPC BIFTs... I quite like that application of the skill, which is the pretty much the only thing I use it for. Occasionally, I'll use it for requests from players to tell if an NPC is lying... but that's a rather boring way to handle that, so I'm not crazy about it.

This was one of the many great @Manbearcat ideas that I have stolen.

Discern Realities is different, because it allows you to ask questions whose answers would not already be known. Here's the list:

• What happened here recently?
• What is about to happen?
• What should I be on the lookout for?
• What here is useful or valuable to me?
• Who’s really in control here?
• What here is not what it appears to be?

These are pretty leading questions, so it's definitely different from "Did I notice the small switch on the wall?" type of stuff that Perception is often used for. It gives the player something that they can use. And it also gives them a bonus when acting on the information.

I love this laundry list of questions. Honestly I do not think it is too different to what someone may use Perception/Insight for but presented like this I agree with you on the assessment of them being leading questions and certainly helps the DM communicate more effectively and for the players to be able to check the DM when the fictional details are scant. And when I mean check, I mean get them to elaborate more. We (I) make mistakes.
Very handy list to give to the players. Thanks!