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

[Campbell]

I think which sorts of fictional situations you choose to have rules for is an aesthetic choice, not built out of necessity. We can handle any situation solely through fictional positioning. In fact, we had a whole session last night in our Blades game where to dig into some character history in the runup to the last few scores of our game we simply talked things out without any fortune mechanics, violent conflicts, physical conflicts and social conflicts were all part of it.

At the end of a lot of the social conflicts in the games I play in have as little similarity to our real-life social circumstances as a fist fight between me and the GM would have to fighting a dragon. One of the conflicts in our last Final Fantasy session involved my character Vael trying to get an assassin that had been trailing us to give up details about the Red Vow cult they were part of. My character was leaning in, pressing his hand that was enveloped in flames against the assassin while whispering threats in his ear (there was dialogue). Now we could try to mimic this more fully in real life, but my character is much slighter than I am, has a very different physical presence, has different fight or flight responses than I do. So, we went to the dice.

I don't think not going to the dice would have been a wrong answer, but I don't think not going to the dice in the violent confrontation the 5 year old version of my Blades character had in last night's session was wrong either. That there's a need to have rules for that.

There's nothing special about any particular fictional situation where one needs rules for one or one does not need rules for another. I believe claims to the contrary are basically attempting to establish a default or "natural" RPG experience instead of simply seeing the way they do things as one possible way.

 

[Pedantic]

There is a pretty wide range of views. I think most living world people wouldn't use the word sim though. I have met some people who invoke the language of sim and usually those are people who are after crunchier systems. Most living world people mean realism as in within the boundaries of plausibility and causality.

I'm in favor of very strong rules procedures, especially including skill rules, that are primarily designed for players to deploy against GM generated content. I don't think the question of rules/rulings breaks down nearly on either side of this divide.

If anything, I'd argue difficulty setting and the focus on including a random element in tests is an element of both styles I could do without. I want players to be overwhelming or avoiding the RNG, by manipulating their action declarations and the situation. That requires a pretty detailed set of rules to start with, but "living world" is as solid a description as any for the basis of the GM's content generation job.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

In my experience the pixel bitching is greatly exaggerated. In my experience 1) most groups are not that restrained and 2) pixel bitching is often just another way of saying Q&A (which many people like). 3) Pixel bitching has a downside, which is time. If you are pressed for time (which you might be sometimes) it is hard to pixel bitch everything, and even if you aren't, not everyone wants to progress at that rate and so they will often be more calculated about it.

But this is a style of play. That is the kind that the OS Primer is talking about. There are people who like it. And while my campaigns aren't strictly in this style, I do like encouraging prudence. Sometimes my players will go in swords blazing, because not everyone is restrained as I mentioned, but I have also had groups do things like hire 30 miners to go in and clear the space out. That is totally fine by me as well. That just shifts the focus a bit but it still leads to interesting places in my experience. And of course you can do the ten foot pole thing or fret over every step.

Now if you don't like it, that is fine. But I think there is a genuine lack of curiosity about why people actually enjoy these approaches. Not everyone here on my side of the fence speaks in a unified voice, nor on the other side, but most of the conversation seems rather than being truly curious, people are just trying to disprove that the style is even possible or worthwhile (in which case you are never going to understand it). And I get some people may even have done that style and got sick of it. That is fine. But for whatever reason there are those who still enjoy it, or enjoy a variation of it. Maybe there is something to it you missed?

Well, I think I am not going out on a limb when I assert that most games eventually move on, as there is a definite limit to the variety of entertaining ways to depict this sort of activity. I think it CAN be a fun sort of challenge, or change of pace, but my guess is that there are, perhaps unspoken, conventions in place which let everyone know when it's OK to let up with the 10' poles.

This was simply a pretty simple example though, similar considerations pervade classic D&D play. Without conventions games rapidly become tedious and unfun. This is a good bit of what convinced me that 'realism' just wasn't.

 

[AlViking]

I'm in favor of very strong rules procedures, especially including skill rules, that are primarily designed for players to deploy against GM generated content. I don't think the question of rules/rulings breaks down nearly on either side of this divide.

If anything, I'd argue difficulty setting and the focus on including a random element in tests is an element of both styles I could do without. I want players to be overwhelming or avoiding the RNG, by manipulating their action declarations and the situation. That requires a pretty detailed set of rules to start with, but "living world" is as solid a description as any for the basis of the GM's content generation job.

The fact that you think you need rules to "deploy against GM generated content" tells me that you're approach to gaming is pretty much antithetical to mine whether I'm the GM or player. It's not GM vs Player in games I run or play.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Anything taken to an extreme can become unplayable. But there's a big difference between always broadcasting every threat, always revealing helpful information whether the characters would know it or not and old school killer dungeons where everyone is tapping the floor with 10 foot poles. Some people enjoy the old school skilled play but I think there's a spectrum between "step on the wrong square and die" and "always know the odds". Personally I let players know what their characters would realistically know which occasionally means they can fall into the metaphorical pit trap if they aren't careful.

Totally agree! To me, IMHO so to say, this is THE driving force in terms of structure of classic 'trad' adventure play. These conventions have to exist, and the attendant stereotypes and world building patterns are necessary. Traps, for example, might exist anywhere in a dungeon, but never appear untelegraphed outside that context, though fiction may be used to elaborate that (IE, the Thieves Guild is definitely filled with traps, but also probably has a fairly dungeon-like structure).

Note that there are even meta-tropes which constructively subvert the standard conventions. Tucker's Kobolds is perhaps the most famous, so much so I am assured 90% of the readers of this post know it well.

But it extends much further, permeating the structure of most RPGs. Again, subversion is illustrative. The RPG Paranoia is ENTIRELY built around subverting and even mocking typical convention.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Well, I think I am not going out on a limb when I assert that most games eventually move on, as there is a definite limit to the variety of entertaining ways to depict this sort of activity. I think it CAN be a fun sort of challenge, or change of pace, but my guess is that there are, perhaps unspoken, conventions in place which let everyone know when it's OK to let up with the 10' poles.

I don't know the numbers. I dont think it is a predominant play style or anything. But I mean the OSR exists for a reason. Granted not all OSR games follow this approach. But it is certainly one you encounter if you are looking at OSR games and playing with people who like that sort of thing

I mean, I just mentioned a number of things that I find naturally limit some of the pixel bitching. But I also think people make a bigger deal of it than is really the case in most games. But if players are engaging a game in that way and like it, there really isn't a problem. Like I said, I've had players hire miners to do the dungeon crawling for them and that is totally fine by me

This was simply a pretty simple example though, similar considerations pervade classic D&D play. Without conventions games rapidly become tedious and unfun. This is a good bit of what convinced me that 'realism' just wasn't.

I mean, like the other poster said, this is subjective. I think you would be surprised how many people like naturalistic playstyles. I am more on the genre convention side. But I have had whole campaigns where players want to do trade empire stuff, so that is what they did. The key I think is for the GM to be responsive to how engaged the players are and how much fun they are having. It is very easy for the GM to think "Oh there should be something adventurous happening right now" when the players are actually perfectly content to plan an assault on the keep for hours. I've learned to be mindful of what they seem to be enjoying and let that dictate things more than any need for the game to be a certain way. And this style of play lends itself very well to that

 

[AnotherGuy]

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.

I respect your reasoning and understand it completely (for both examples). Like I said you're being consistent in your ruling.

 

[hawkeyefan]

It depends on the system I think. For me combat rules allow for a (admittedly abstracted) simulation of a combat situation not easily and fairly handled via any other method. I suppose uncertainty is a factor too and, for those who want it, a way to systemize narrative excitement and drama.

Well, I think that most combat mechanics can indeed produce excitement and drama. I'm sure we've all felt that thrill as a die is tumbling across a table, hoping we roll as high as we need to!

That combat is not easily and fairly handled seems to be about uncertainty, no? Like, we can't say how it will turn out... the outcome is uncertain... so we use rules to help us

They can. It's perhaps a less interesting choice than others but there isn't any issue with the GM deciding this. It certainly isn't railroading.

Whether or not there's an issue with it is, based on this thread, clearly a matter of opinion. I didn't say it was railroading.

What I think the issue with this kind of absolute is how it affects play. An absolute like that isn't a railroad in and of itself... but it can certainly contribute to one by blocking off an avenue available to the players. Combined with a couple of other similar design choices of the GM?

I don’t think uncertainty is the sole reason. It is also because it can be hotly contested (it is classic: ‘bang bang you’re dead’ versus ‘no I am not’.

Isn't that uncertainty?

And the fact that it is a physical action, which is hard to adjudicate, though not impossible, without those kinds of mechanics. It is also harder to make combat rules that are as 1-1 as other aspects of play like exploration or conversation

I don't know why it's harder. You can make it as simple as "The GM gets to say who wins" and we can rely on consistency. Maybe one side has the high ground and more combatants, and so they win.

You can go one small step further and make it a coin flip. Or just higher level/HD wins.

And clearly, you can make it more complex than that.

Part of the skill is not rushing blindly when there is no visible sign of danger. If you are always telegraphing, play becomes too easy. You want to make it more life like. So you could say you are measuring their prudence or caution. But it isn’t purely just about skill. It is also about play where bad things can happen to characters because there are dangerous environments. Character death is a real possibility and it can happen with the luck of the draw sometimes. A lot of what players are doing is hedging their bets

It depends on the situation but if you don’t telegraph, they have to go by whatever else remains or cautiously Q&A some more. if it is the cliff face example, and there is a coating making it slick that isn’t instantly visible. The players may need to do something like closely examine the cliff face or even touch it to get that info. And there may even be situations where they still can’t get information about the danger (i.e. perhaps there is a magical effect and they don’t have detect magic). Still it is on the player to understand even a safe looking cliff, could he dangerous. Part of what makes this style of play fun is the potential lethality. And that can arise from hidden dangers

Well, "if you don't telegraph you have to go by whatever else remains" kind of gets to my point because whatever else remains is up to the GM. Now, it sounds like to me you're willing to share this information if the players ask via Q&A. I like getting the players to ask about the environment, but I don't really like the idea that they may miss something that a character in that actual situation wouldn't be likely to miss.

This is why I just default to sharing as much information as possible. Give them the details they need to make a play and then we see what happens. This slow meticulous approach is not one I'm crazy about. And yeah, if the 10' poles come out, then I'm gonna smash my head against the table.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Well, I think that most combat mechanics can indeed produce excitement and drama. I'm sure we've all felt that thrill as a die is tumbling across a table, hoping we roll as high as we need to!

That combat is not easily and fairly handled seems to be about uncertainty, no? Like, we can't say how it will turn out... the outcome is uncertain... so we use rules to help us



Whether or not there's an issue with it is, based on this thread, clearly a matter of opinion. I didn't say it was railroading.

What I think the issue with this kind of absolute is how it affects play. An absolute like that isn't a railroad in and of itself... but it can certainly contribute to one by blocking off an avenue available to the players. Combined with a couple of other similar design choices of the GM?



Isn't that uncertainty?

The point is it is contentious. There are uncertain things that aren't contentious (I don't know if Iron God Meng likes cobras until I ask him, but it isn't something I need the GM has to roll for like if I swing my sword at him). Again I also think it being a physical action is pretty important. I am not saying uncertainty isn't a factor. But it is one of those things you can't really model well without mechanics (at least in my experience it is hard to do so without them).

I don't know why it's harder. You can make it as simple as "The GM gets to say who wins" and we can rely on consistency. Maybe one side has the high ground and more combatants, and so they win.

It is harder to do to peoples satisfaction. I can role-play an NPC with no mechanics and that generally works in most groups I am in. If I just start declaring who wins a fight, that generally is more contentious. YMMV

And by the way, I am not opposed to diceless combat. I think this could work with the right group and play style. But I do think it is a bigger problem for people.

You can go one small step further and make it a coin flip. Or just higher level/HD wins.

Sure I am not denying any of this. But those are generally not satisfying I think for most gamers.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I don't know the numbers. I dont think it is a predominant play style or anything. But I mean the OSR exists for a reason. Granted not all OSR games follow this approach. But it is certainly one you encounter if you are looking at OSR games and playing with people who like that sort of thing

I mean, I just mentioned a number of things that I find naturally limit some of the pixel bitching. But I also think people make a bigger deal of it than is really the case in most games. But if players are engaging a game in that way and like it, there really isn't a problem. Like I said, I've had players hire miners to do the dungeon crawling for them and that is totally fine by me


I mean, like the other poster said, this is subjective. I think you would be surprised how many people like naturalistic playstyles. I am more on the genre convention side. But I have had whole campaigns where players want to do trade empire stuff, so that is what they did. The key I think is for the GM to be responsive to how engaged the players are and how much fun they are having. It is very easy for the GM to think "Oh there should be something adventurous happening right now" when the players are actually perfectly content to plan an assault on the keep for hours. I've learned to be mindful of what they seem to be enjoying and let that dictate things more than any need for the game to be a certain way. And this style of play lends itself very well to that

Right, you can go in the 'do mundane stuff' direction. Traveller is famous for this, or maybe infamous. The trade rules in the original edition of CT were very generous, a PC with a 200 ton Free Trader (you can get it as a mustering out benefit) can simply buy and sell stuff, making a vast fortune eventually. Marc clearly saw the issue this creates for game play and tweaked the numbers in the first supplement. GMs also simply adopted the expedient of making every customs officer corrupt and every passenger a hijacker, etc. But, obviously it was a, not very challenging, little mini-game that could be sprinkled with other stuff.