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

[Bedrockgames]

A player who gets outright upset because of something so mild as "it's worryingly close to the line"--necessarily an emotional description, but descriptive nonetheless--would be extremely tedious to actually interact with at the DMing table.

You can't describe anything as beautiful, frightening, awe-inspiring, freaky, enraging, unsettling, revolting, pleasant, etc., because that's ascribing a mental-emotional state to the observer, which means you're describing what they're thinking.

I would agree with you if someone is being a jerk about it, it is annoying. I am fine with people not liking a GM telling them what they think. And I think there are reasonable ways to address it during a game if it is becoming a problem. But a GM also speaks the way they speak and some might use language that feels like it is trodding on what characters think and feel. If so, that can be a hard habit to check, and as a player I find few things as annoying as "Don't tell me what my character thinks" said in an irritated manner over a well intentioned descriptions. So I don't necessarily disagree if I understand your meaning. I do think though when you are GMing things in this POV way, you are going to refrain from using langue like that assumes to much about what the characters feel because your role is presenting what they sense

 

[Maxperson]

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.

This is also incorrect. Interesting and realistic are not mutually exclusive things. You can have something that is both. It's when interesting would be unrealistic that it's a no no to go with it in our playstyle.

 

[Maxperson]

So, I can respect that, that is consistency!
I play it the other way -
The PC would know if the Shield would work or not so I give that data.
The PC would know how difficult they would find the climb (personally) so I give the data.
I use the word personally because someone's moderate may be another one's difficult.

I don't do the personal thing, because DCs have a definition. 5 is very easy, 10 is easy, etc. Now I don't always use those words. You might find something to be simple(very easy) or not very challenging(easy), but I try to approximate the terms used. This isn't telling the player the number, either, because I don't just use DCs in multiples of 5. A DC could be a 7 or 12, because often the circumstances in the game tell me that easy(10) seems low, but medium(15) seems high, so I pick the number in-between that is closes to what I think the number would be based on those circumstances.

Were I to try and personalize the terms to the PC, it would throw everything off.

As for the PC knowing that the shield would work, I don't agree with that myself. The PC has a split second to determine that the sword is coming for his shoulder, but won't necessarily know if the sword is magical, the exact amount of force being used, or if the enemy has more strength and leverage that can be supplied to push through the shield. To my mind, that means that you can tell if you would be hit without the shield, but not if the shield will stop the attack if used.

 

[Wolfram stout]

I should know better than to ever give a specific scenario because no matter what it will be nit-picked to death. In any case sorry for the long post but I thought I'd clarify what I was thinking. I don't think climbing a cliff is really all that important, I was just using it as an example of something that could happen in my game. In any case here goes.

I suspect that most people who think that you can just look at a cliff and always know how easy it is to climb have never actually gone rock climbing. If you're at the bottom of a cliff that could potentially be a difficult climb there are many times you can't just look at the rock. You may have to interact with it and start climbing to know what type of rock it is. I remember an article about a pair of rock climbers who went to Antarctica to climb some mountains no one had ever scaled. People had seen the mountains from a plane but once the pair got there and started to climb realized that the rock just crumbled as they climbed. They had spent thousands of dollars and wasted tremendous effort to realize the mountains could not be scaled. Even if you are at a cliff face the rock at the bottom can be completely different from the rock 50 feet up, the type of rock in one layer may be easy to climb but the next may not support your weight.

Then there's simply the possibility of there being no handholds, the cliff face may be too smooth to climb or a much higher DC than anticipated unless you're Spider-Man. If you're looking at tall enough cliff, if it's relatively smooth and steep you have no idea if there are handholds all the way to the top.

So a scenario I could potentially do this? A crumbling castle at the top of a butte (a steep spire with a flat top, a small mesa). For some reason there's a ticking clock and you really want to stop something before the sun sets. You're at the base of the butte and there's a path up, but it's visible from the castle and going up could raise the alarm and you may be attacked from on high. The butte is a bit over a 200 foot tall and steep on the side opposite the path. From the bottom it looks okay but there's no way to tell, it's just too far to see detail. Do you send the barbarian up so he can drop a rope from the top? There's enough time to do it before sunset which might give you enough time to get the drop on the enemy but it could also be the barbarian that drops. Both approaches have uncertainty and risk. Take a risk climbing but have almost guaranteed surprise or the safer path but risk attack and no surprise. What do you do?

Why would I do this? Maybe the players will think of clever alternatives like have the barbarian start the climb and then send an illusion up the path to see if they get attacked. Maybe the wizard's player whips out the scroll of spider climb I forgot they had and they feel cool and awesome for having the right tool handy for bypassing an obstacle. Maybe the barbarian gets to a certain point, can't find any more handholds and now it's a mad dash up the path to the castle. Does the barbarian try to join them? Jump down even though I don't cap damage? Do they go up without the barbarian?

Sometimes making decisions without full knowledge of the risks adds to the tension of the game which makes scenarios like this memorable.

That's awesome and up to a couple of years ago I was doing it the same way. But after watching some great COC live plays I have changed my approach. Watching the keeper tell someone "Sure you can try, give me an extreme success" and see the tension when the player realizes that is a 12%chance is just fun to see.

As a player either way works for me. But giving the info seems smoother and (again for me) doesn't lessen the tension.

 

[AlViking]

That's awesome and up to a couple of years ago I was doing it the same way. But after watching some great COC live plays I have changed my approach. Watching the keeper tell someone "Sure you can try, give me an extreme success" and see the tension when the player realizes that is a 12%chance is just fun to see.

As a player either way works for me. But giving the info seems smoother and (again for me) doesn't lessen the tension.

It just depends on the scenario at hand. I don't give exact DCs but I do give out "looks easy, don't roll a 1" to "might be possible but it's going to be really difficult".

 

[Old Fezziwig]

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)?

We could enter into this situation through player action declarations, too, but I thought it was easier for the purposes of discussion for it to start as GM scene framing. If it started with Jocasta saying she wanted to stay, the scene may be mostly color and RP until we find out where conflict is and what beliefs are being staked. And you've anticipated me about other ways that could go here:

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.

Right, yes to all of this. My example assumed a solo game because it's easier, but these could all be possible. It's likely other characters have beliefs that would not be paid off by staying behind to spend time with Johann or indulging Jocasta's love life. I'd be surprised if there wasn't some sort of player/player Duel of Wits in many of these circumstances.

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.

This is something that the game doesn't explain well (or didn't when I first encountered it twenty-ish years ago), but, yeah, players should be revising their character's beliefs relatively frequently. It's one of the reasons that I suggested the compound structure in Jocasta's second belief: it provides flexibility around adjusting it in response to the fiction and can be rewritten in its entirety or just fine-tuned.

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.

This is all true or at the very least can be true, but -- there are lots of games that have the space for idle distractions. BW isn't one of them: it's about fighting for what your character believes in. If we're not playing our characters' beliefs and the GM isn't putting them under pressure, then we're not playing the game. We can shift our focus and write new beliefs -- this is what my character's concerned with now, this is what the game is about now -- but we can never ignore them.

 

[The Firebird]

One some approaches to RPGing, in the blacksmith scenario I know that - if the GM doesn't just decide to have the blacksmith acquiesce - then I am entitled to make some sort of roll (say, a Persuasion check) - so I can bring my resources to bear to influence the outcome.

If the GM is just deciding, though, then it doesn't seem to me that I as a player am exercising much control over this particular moment of shared fiction creation.

This is hardly a mantra for player-driven RPGing, though. It's GM-control in the moment of play followed by an explanation from the GM after the event!

It's the opposite imo. If I'm just rolling, then it doesn't matter much what I say or how I interact with the scene; I just roll and find out. If the DM rules consistently, then I can make a persuasive argument or take advantage of the blacksmith's personality to succeed. That gives me more agency.

 

[Maxperson]

I am not saying they are the same.

I am saying there is no way for the player to ever, even in principle, figure out whether or not they are different, when 95%+ of the inputs are permanently concealed from them.

Your assumption is wrong. The players have the majority of information, not 5% or less.

 

[The Firebird]

Okay.

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

We did this one already. You can't know. You can see things that look odd. Typically your best bet is to ask the GM if they are trying to rule consistently.

If they are and things seem off, you can ask for specifics and let them know it doesn't seem consistent to you, and that that bothers you. In that case they may change their approach or explain a bit of their thought process.

 

[Maxperson]

But you would screw them over if they cast it and it turned out the opponent hit them by more than +4, almost entirely wasting the spell slot? One would think a spellcaster using the spell would have a pretty good idea whether it would work or not, but your statements point in the other direction.

Because that's the thing here. If they hit you by 5 or more, then shield is pointless and using it is almost entirely wasteful. If they hit you by anything less than 5 (e.g. anything between exactly hitting your AC and hitting 4 more than your AC), then shield makes the attack miss, making it very valuable.

In a world where you cannot ever know whether the margin is close enough or not, shield is...not quite worthless, but definitely has gotten an ENORMOUS nerf. Given it doesn't scale at all and is basically just a way to make use of your lower-level spell slots, that might not quite kill it, but it would definitely be far less useful.

You don't have to tell the players what the creature's attack bonus is. You can just say whether shield would be worthwhile or not. Again, I would think a spellcaster who prepares that spell would be pretty good at knowing whether it's useful or not!

That's white room thinking. In real world 5e where attack bonuses are pretty low, shield is useful more often than not even without knowing the end attack number or whether it would 100% work. You can also assess the monster you are fighting against and get an idea of the likeliness of being hit.

Shield is a 1st level spell. If it could negate an attack with every casting, it would be 2nd or 3rd level. That variability is what makes it 1st level.

What you're asking for the equivalent of removing saving throws from every spell that is fully negated on a successful save. After all, if you cast such a spell and the enemy saves, it was a wasted spell slot. But that's not how the game works. Shield can fail. Spells with saves can fail. You the caster need to assess whether you think it's likely to work and/or if you really need this attack to miss and want to cast Shield anyway.