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

[Campbell]

Hmm this sounds exactly like 'the rules elide' to me. The point of that phrase isn't that we don't care about things we have mechanics for. It's that the rules allow us to adjudicate things we don't want to do adjudicate via conversation. In this case, we want to do it via dice to add tension.

I mean we do not need mechanics to elide things. We just elide them, like Blades elides planning by just going to the score.

 

[The Firebird]

I mean we do not need mechanics to elide things. We just elide them, like Blades elides planning by just going to the score.

The engagement roll is such a mechanic. Or not, in your view?

 

[Campbell]

The engagement roll is such a mechanic. Or not, in your view?

The engagement roll is absolutely eliding, but not all mechanics are. Most action rolls actually encourage you to dig in pretty deeply to the details. Often too deep for my tastes.

 

[SableWyvern]

Hmm this sounds exactly like 'the rules elide' to me. The point of that phrase isn't that we don't care about things we have mechanics for. It's that the rules allow us to adjudicate things we don't want to do adjudicate via conversation. In this case, we want to do it via dice to add tension.

My initial instinct was to disagree with you here.

But when I tried to explain why, it started sounding to me like I actually agree.

Which leads me to feel you can call these things the same or call them different, and it's really just a matter of where you choose to draw a line.

 

[Campbell]

I'd also say that adjudicate implies judgement and evaluation. That's not what we are doing in Narrativist play. I'm not saying what should happen when I make a GM Move in Apocalypse Keys. I'm making a provocative move constrained by plausibility as well as the game's principles and agenda but not saying what should happen according to some mental model. If you want to call that adjudication you can, but I think you would be stretching the meaning of the word beyond the point of usefulness.

 

[The Firebird]

The engagement roll is absolutely eliding, but not all mechanics are. Most action rolls actually encourage you to dig in pretty deeply to the details. Often too deep for my tastes.

Again, I don't think that means they aren't eliding. Eliding doesn't mean that play isn't about that or that we can't do anything detailed. A very crunchy combat system is eliding certain specific details about combat (whatever it doesn't simulate) at the same time it is about combat.

In Blades, any action roll is eliding description of possible world states that could lead to complications. We don't know whether they exist or not, and we don't have to until the roll tells us.

 

[Old Fezziwig]

The most important idea I've seen in DitV (and I'm not saying it's the most important idea - just the one that has stood out to me) is to actively reveal the setting/situation in play.

I think a lot of the discussion in this thread about the bribing of guards, the climbing of cliffs, etc is really about whether the GM should be actively revealing the situation, or being more coy about it.

Dogs blew my mind when I read it the first time because of advice like this. And it's littered with stuff like this! I understand why Vincent Baker doesn't want to sell it any more, but I do hope he continues with his plans for the tech and a reframed re-release. His writing about the game and how to run it is brilliant.

 

[Pedantic]

To a point. But if one does what you just talked about, its producing what's avowedly a counterfactual in the setting (i.e. elevating hit points are not supposed to be something visible to characters as such). This is in contrast with Earthdawn, where the ability to improve your damage absorption dramatically is a known consequence of a common magical Talent.

I'm disagreeing with that premise. Watch what happens anytime anyone talks about jumping off a cliff because they know they can't help but survive it (this isn't helped by the fact that one of the things elevating hit points supposedly represents should be irrelevant there, but its not)

I've always just leaned in and assumed the mechanics do what they say they do. Fighters jump off cliffs. It's easier to reify the mechanic as a setting norm and move on.

I've said before that I consider most detailed RPGs underserve the mechanical support for things outside of combat. But that doesn't change my opinion that sort of decision making with what is not supposed to be an in-world element is unfortunate.

I don't disagree. I think a lot of the contention that they only work in limited environments (usually dungeon crawling) comes from here. I think that's mostly a self imposed limitation. You can just keep writing rules for things.

 

[The Firebird]

I've read DitV, but not as closely as HeroWars/Quest or Burning Wheel.

The most important idea I've seen in DitV (and I'm not saying it's the most important idea - just the one that has stood out to me) is to actively reveal the setting/situation in play.

I think a lot of the discussion in this thread about the bribing of guards, the climbing of cliffs, etc is really about whether the GM should be actively revealing the situation, or being more coy about it.

I missed this before but...I think this is not how I see this discussion. It's not about giving or withholding information from the players. It's about whether that information exists, whether it is true, prior to the players interacting with it.

 

[pemerton]

Dogs blew my mind when I read it the first time because of advice like this.

The GM being coy about the situation is closely related to the idea that I mentioned upthread, of framing things so that the players are prompted to low-stakes action declarations to try and work out what the situation is.

See, eg, this post from some years ago now:

So there are two approaches to framing, if the player has as a goal for his/her PC "I will find an item to help confront my balrog-possessed brother before leaving town":

(1) The GM tells the player "You're in a bazaar, with a peddler offering an angel feather for sale. What do you do?"

(2) The GM tells the player "You're in the town. What do you do?​

The content in (1) itself reflects player agency - it is the GM directly engaging the player's statement of dramatic need. The content in (2) does not.

The content in (1) reflects less player agency than the content in (2) does. In and of themselves they are equal statements - in each case the player is looking for an item for a specific reason but has (I must assume) no idea what that item may be or even if it can be found in this town, and in eac case the DM is trying to jumpstart that process. Both speak to the agency exercised by the player in setting that goal, to find an item to help his brother out. But (1) railroads the player straight to the (or a) possible solution, while (2) gives the player the agency of choice in how to approach the search for the item.

(1) certainly saves a lot of time if you-as-DM already know the feather is the key...but in theory you don't already know that, and in fact the feather turned out to be a false lead.

As a player, I know my answer to (1) would be "How did I get here, who is with me, why am I here, and what else is around me?" where for (2) it would be some version of "I look for information via rumours, sages, and bardic tales; and ask my erstwhile companions to please do likewise on my behalf".