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

[hawkeyefan]

I see it as a matter of priorities. My priority is setting logic and verisimilitude. How things play as a game is important, but secondary to my first concerns. This is why balance is less important to me, because I first want to make sure something is a reasonably accurate simulation before I wonder about its balance against other things.

Sure, that's fine! I absolutely understand that. I probably consider the game more important, but it's not like I'm setting up nonsensical things, or contradicting what's been established.

I think setting logic and verisimilitude are pretty mutable... like there's a whole range of what's acceptable in most cases. But making sure a situation works as a game? That requires a bit more precision, I think.

And just to clarify... it's not about balance in the sense of balanced encounters and the like. Just in creating interesting scenarios that function for gameplay as well as for the make believe of the game world.

If the characters are low level and they decide to try to fight an ancient red dragon I'd probably narrate the battle because they're going to lose. Meanwhile in social encounters there is value in the content of the encounter whether or not the characters are successful. That, and of course, the outcome of social encounters is not automatically predetermined just like every other encounter.

But good luck with the continued use of the extremes fallacy.

People defended the extreme, including you.

Here you are below talking about how you don't even understand what the issue is.

There are guards in real life that could not realistically be bribed. I don't understand why this is even a contentious possibility. That, and being able to bribe any random guard or bureaucrat with a known cost would be boring and unrealistic to me. Perhaps you can't bribe so maybe try deception, intimidation, blackmail, illusion, subterfuge or ... I don't know ... any number of creative options.

The issue is that while yes not every guard in real life can be bribed, we are playing a game. That we want to portray a seemingly real world that is consistent and plausible is a part of that game... but there are choices the GM makes when doing so that may make playing the game more difficult for the players.

There are both other methods to determine these things than having the GM determine them ahead of play, and there are also other ways to maintain playability in these moments.

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.

I think that players "deploying against GM generated content" is actually a way to say what play is without it being player vs. GM. it means competing against the dungeon or the encounter rather than competing against the GM.

 

[hawkeyefan]

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.

This is exactly right.

"But we're able to converse so that's the same as a social encounter" simplifies things so much. It eradicates the gap in expertise between the average RPGer and a person who can negotiate incredibly complex and fraught situations (surrender of a hostile force, hostage release, peace treaty, trade agreemens, military alliance, etc.).

 

[Lanefan]

I don't think this is a fair assessment of the OSR. First off, there are lots of schools of thought in the OSR. We have talked about the Old School Primer, and its take on rulings over rules (which is a common sentiment), but that isnt' the only approach. There are OSR games that have skills, that have trap disarm rules, etc. The idea of rulings over rules, is an important one for creating focus on the players engaging the environment, and the approach generally is more about the GM facilitating things. But I don't think most OSR people would say rules being useful is a thought for fools. Many also play crunchy games with rules for everything. It can however be refreshing to strip things down and take a rulings over rules approach. I myself do both and don't see any conflict. Sometimes I like robust rulesets. Sometimes I want to go back to that experience I had with OD&D (which can be very fun and immersive).

Now rulings over rules doesn't work for everyone. No one is saying you have to be on board with it. I think I have two games that include rulings over rules sections in the GM chapter. For some people rulings over rules opens up the experience of the game and makes it work, and I hear from those folks, but I also hear from people who need every feature of a rule or system spelled out (for whatever reason), and I don't see either preference as better. There is a cost to spelling everything out, but there is also a cost to not spelling everything out. And there is a gain to spelling everything out, and there is a gain to not spelling everything out.

My preference is that rulings become rules.

The original rule-set isn't going to cover everything no matter how hard it tries, you have to slowly pad it out with rulings that (in your game) become rules going forward until eventually you've got something much more complete.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

Except you kind of have to, don't you? If it's the Ranger, who has all kinds of outdoor climbing skills, asking about a climbable-for-him cliff then my answer "should be fairly easy for you" is going to be a lot different than the "good luck with that" answer the spindly Wizard would get to the same question.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I am willing to share what I think they would be able to access through observation or interaction. But I am also fine with them going blind sometimes. I think that is more lifelike and it helps emphasize the hazards of adventuring in the world. This is just a difference of view which is fine

Yes, of course it is fine. It's a preference and all preferences are fine.

I think where we run into an issue, or difference of opinion, is how this impacts player agency.

You wouldn't want the to be able to miss something (it is a different style of play but a game like Gumshoe sort of takes this approach with clues: that is one way and it works, but adventures where clues can be missed and you can fail are another approach---these are just preferences). Old School play I don't think is particularly miserly, and will generally give you what you see. But also allows for things being missed (the fear of missing something is I find an important part of play on the player side).

Gumshoe is an interesting example because I'm not a fan. The reason for that is it's the meaningful events that don't require a roll. If you go to the location, you will get the clue that's there. I don't see the game in that.

What I've been talking about is not removing doubt or the chance for failure. What I've been talking about is maintaining player agency by creating decision spaces for players to navigate. Climbing the cliff, bribing the guard, whatever else... these are hopefully parts of interesting decision spaces for play.

Gumshoe kind of does the opposite of that.

And that is fine. I don't question your preference. But try to understand, this isn't a universal thing. Some people like approaching things the way I am describing (and there isn't anything wrong with it, nor is there anything wrong with games being designed this way or GM advice that encourages this).

I get you don't like the ten foot pole. That stuff doesn't bother me if people are enjoying themselves. As a player I like a bit of caution and as a GM I am cool with players trying to manage their risks (I don't usually see a literal 10 foot pole but I certainly see these kinds of approaches if they are worried about traps and that is fair)

Yes, I was stating my preference. As either GM or player, that kind of play doesn't interest me.

Poh-tae-toe poh-tah-toe. If the GM is the one generating the content then it's GM vs player. I've never needed nor wanted that kind of control, even if I had a GM or two over the years that I decided to cease playing with.

So what is it you would say your players are opposing? What are they trying to overcome?

 

[Lanefan]

I'd add, for example, the very Old School way.....not really in favor of many in the modern day....of rolling for everything on extreme tables with extreme results and always keeping every roll no matter what: no DM or player interference.

Agree with this as long as the extreme results are just that - extreme - and the odds of their occurring are correspondingly very low.

 

[Lanefan]

Which leads to 'pixel bitching' everything.

Which, if it's what the characters would end up doing in the fiction, is a perfectly justifiable result.

 

[Pedantic]

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.

To be clear, I'm not a PC vs. GM guy, I don't view that relationship as antagonistic. The GM is simply responsible for the board state the PCs are acting on.

My concern is agency; I want players to have tools they can deploy to get what they want, and not in a weak "had an influence on the outcome" sense. I am not interested in a player "trying" to climb something, I want them to decide to use a Climb check, with full knowledge of the outcome and/or risks in preference to some other strategy. Mechanics are for players to use to do things, and they should get what the mechanics say they are owed when they activate them; I want the game to specify how interaction works before the GM creates an object to interact with.

 

[payn]

Which, if it's what the characters would end up doing in the fiction, is a perfectly justifiable result.

Lets skip right to the end tho...

 

[bloodtide]

Agree with this as long as the extreme results are just that - extreme - and the odds of their occurring are correspondingly very low.

Well, I'm talking about such things being common. Not the "once a year" idea......maybe every game.

With truly random rolls anything can happen. In general, wacky results won't happen often.....but they can.