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

[AlViking]

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.



People defended the extreme, including you.

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



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.



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.

I dont think that it makes sense that any and all guards can be bribed. It's just an odd assumption to me. I'm also not "competing" anything or anyone.

It's just a very different approach that just isn't what I want out of an RPG. Not good, not bad, just not for me. It's too gamist for lack of a better term.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

You're more or less correct as to what the 6 or less means--you fail to produce the desired results. The reason why, however, would be up to the player to decide (there's no set event that happens on a failed roll). This happens to be a game where you mark conditions when you're hurt in some way. One of the conditions is Doubt, which gives you a -2 to Rough 'Em Up (but a bonus to a different move), and I can very easily say that a miss when Doubt is marked means I couldn't bring myself to actually punch. I could even see making that decision when Doubt isn't marked, if the situation calls for it.

Since the game is also a Belonging Outside Belonging game, it's GMless. So while there's no GM to require certain responses, there would be other players who can make the suggestion, which I understand is what happens in BW. But the other players can't require it.

Interesting. I guess questions of player authority over characters mental state is a bit different in this sort of game, but it seems like it still resembles more AW-like PBTAs.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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.

The result being turtling behavior. If every time you act in any way that's not totally safe there's a 1% chance of being completely hosed, most players will rapidly, and correctly, conclude that sitting tight is the best policy. After all, rolling up Snardly XII is not that exciting...

 

[Maxperson]

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.

Sometimes if the skill is so far above the others I might say something like, "It's a fairly difficult climb, but YOU shouldn't have much trouble with it." Usually, though, since the players can approximate the DC, the player can translate that into "Easy for me" and I don't have to.

 

[AlViking]

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.

We just have very different views on what agency means and what is required. I feel that I can have agency in real life without full knowledge so I don't need it in game.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I dont think that it makes sense that any and all guards can be bribed.

I'm not saying all guards can be bribed. I'm saying there are other ways to make that work.

One... make a roll (Persuade, Bribe, whatever is applicable). If you fail the roll, then it turns out this guard can't be bribed.

Two... telegraph that the guard cannot be bribed so that the players can make informed decisions.

Three... set a couple of DCs. The first can be where the guard says no, but takes no action against you. The second and higher one can be where he is bribed. Fail, and he is going to take some action.

There are likely many more we can come up with. My whole point has been to maintain playability of the scenario instead of denying the players relevant information for what seemed to often be minor reasons.

It's just an odd assumption to me. I'm also not "competing" anything or anyone.

It's just a very different approach that just isn't what I want out of an RPG. Not good, not bad, just not for me. It's too gamist for lack of a better term.

Well, I would think in most games of D&D, that the PCs are being opposed in some way.

 

[Thomas Shey]

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.

Bluntly, you're reading this in as negative a fashion as is possible. Like I said, there's no hostility involved in that, its just taking the game part of the process seriously. If you're hostile to that, you are, but reading it into hostility toward the GM is a big reach.

 

[Thomas Shey]

To be fair, from prior posts it seems Ezekiel doesn't play with an in-person group; his play is (entirely?) online with people he hasn't met in real life, which is a rather different situation than playing in-person with friends.

On the other hand, as I've noted "trust" is a matter of degree and kind. I trust everyone I play with's intentions. I don't always trust their judgment, and that includes people I've played with for (in a couple of cases) a half a century.

Ezekiel's position seems a bit more extreme than mine, but I'll just say I find the demand for unlimited trust here a little odd.

 

[Pedantic]

We just have very different views on what agency means and what is required. I feel that I can have agency in real life without full knowledge so I don't need it in game.

Right, I'm definitely diverging, mostly I want to point out this isn't a discussion with binary poles. That being said I think it is important to clarify a difference in orientation here. I need the PCs to have complete knowledge of their own abilities, not of the situations they're in. It could be perfectly reasonable for the DC to climb a specific wall to be obscured by situational factors, but not for the process of determining climb DCs to be unknown.

Without rules clarity, I find it basically impossible to engage earnestly with the setting as a character, because as a player I cannot accurately know my character's capabilities. The rules often end up breaking down into negotiation between the player and GM, which I generally think is a repetitive, boring and base form of gameplay.

 

[zakael19]

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.

I just wanted to note that I really like this example of hypothetical play, thanks for laying it out. I think that this scenario sounds super cool, and love the idea of an ascent as puzzle.