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

[Faolyn]

It alters the thoughts of the character.

That is literally why someone complained, earlier in the thread, that forcing a character to feel fear is unacceptable.

I did read everything you wrote. I also read the original comment. You are literally inventing a new standard.

And thus we're done here.

<facepalm> Please read the actual blankity-blank condition. It does not alter the thoughts of the character at all, not even remotely. From Roll20:

Show me where thoughts are altered. Show me where a character is made unable to act at all for several turns because of it.

 

[Faolyn]

We-ell, does he, though?

I mean, sure he's convinced the Emperor but he hasn't convinced the sister yet.

Unfortunately, considering numerous other parts of the book, it seems unlikely she has much if any choice in the matter.

And a broken exploit in the rules, for thems as wants to use it as such. Keep finagling those Duels until you're the boss of the party.

Reminds me of a 1e D&D character I played: she was a Dryad (and thus had built-in charm ability by species) and a Bard (and thus had built-in charm ability by class; and our Bards weren't the 1e-as-written "prestige class" variety). Tack Charisma 19 on there and she could charm the birds out of the trees...or an entire village of over 500 Kobolds to do her bidding, which she did; we sent the Kobolds swarming into the dungeon to clean it out and all we had to do was mop up the bits they left over.

I later played her in a one-off gonzo game and decided going in that her goal would be to have the other PCs - all 12 of 'em - under her thrall by the end of the session, mostly to use as meat shields because I was a spindly little thing otherwise. I was halfway there when the meat shields failed her and she died.

Yeahhh, even by completely unbalanced 1e standards that's a bit too much.

 

[Old Fezziwig]

As for the bit with the Emperor's sister, yes, we only know from that one tiny block of text. All I'm going to say is that this is a great example of why, nowadays, paying for a sensitivity reader is a very good thing (yes, I know they weren't as much of a thing back when this edition came out). All it would take is a bit of rewording and it would very easily lose its ick factor. For example, the sister herself is there as well wants to marry the PC instead of entering a loveless politically-charged arranged marriage, and the PC has to prove his worth.

It's possible that they would change the text if they were releasing a new edition. It'd be worthwhile, and Crane's capable of change, if slowly (cf., the trait change we discussed previously). But the deprecation of postscript fonts means that the books are essentially stuck as they were in December 2022 until such a time as Crane decides he wants to re-do the layout, which seems unlikely based on his description of circumstances.

 

[robertsconley]

Did I misread this post in some way?

My comment wasn't about my versimilitude post. Since I wasn't clear, here is the clarification.

None of these reasons is bad… it’s all a matter of preference. But, without a set procedure, it’s all just the GM deciding what happens.

I invite you to illustrate precisely where I lack a set procedure by using my actual play breakdown linked below.

R

D&D General Post in thread '[rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.'

Yesterday at 10:13 PM

I understand that, I think one of the differences is that you predominantly maintain that sense of order at the table and in the fiction.

As promised, here’s a breakdown of the video in question, covering three situations that occurred at the start of the session, along with my commentary.

Video

Spoiler

Rob: Why don't you take the lead here and we can get started at your convenience.

Okay, so you folks made casters. I believe Adam, you made a third-level knight named Sir Broderick, correct?

Adam: Correct.

Rob: Brendon, you made a fourth-level...

• robertsconley

 

[Bedrockgames]

So: Your impression is the only impression that matters?

No. Everyone's impression matters.

Because unless you are taking that position, I don't understand why this is a productive response to what I said. Either both of our positions matter, or at least one of them doesn't--and the "you have to understand our position" reply, when I'm literally saying my position is "I don't understand, could you clarify?", communicates to me that the only impression that matters is yours, not mine.

Because you are saying we are doing X, and we are saying we don't think that is so. I think there has been a miscommunication

 

[Lanefan]

I think you are both rules lawyering AND nitpicking the question of granularity of action resolution. The rules say you "Hesitate" I don't think it says when this happens or how. The intent of the Steel rule is CLEARLY to allow the dice to adjudicate whether or not your mental state is overwhelmingly murderous or not. If you failed, then it isn't. A half-hearted murder attempt seems to me to be VERY MUCH IN THE SPIRIT of the game! Beyond that, I object to interpretations of rules which allow for only a very narrow set of possible outcomes from a vast range of fictional possibilities. I think it is a bad faith interpretation of the BW rules to demand that every failed Steel check must play out the same way.

I'm not talking about every failed Steel check, I'm talking about this one in particular.

And what you call rules lawyering and nitpicking I call advocating for my character.

And there are all sorts of levels of action resolution granularity in RPGs. Even in D&D combat we don't resolve every movement of each character's blade, or strike and counter strike. AD&D has 1 minute combat rounds! Even 10 second or so rounds as might be the assumption of 5e allow for a lot to happen. Go back and read Gygax's description of the combat system as a gamist construct. It is perfectly acceptable for a GM to adjudicate as I suggested. I mean, I will defer to @Old Fezziwig and/or @pemerton , who are BW experts, as to if I've run roughshod over some other part of the rules, though I doubt it.

Honestly, this kind of argument at a table I was GMing, would not get you far, at all. I would respond by welcoming you to suggest some alternate fiction, if you were unhappy with my effort, but you aren't getting to just roll again 5 seconds later to do the same old thing you just failed at, that's not how this works. As with most intent-adjudicating style games, I am pretty sure BW operates on the concept that once a check is resolved that the fiction has moved on, and repeating the same check again is no longer an option.

The fiction moves on, sure, but how far? Your narration skips over a whole bunch of places where it could move to and then on one roll or another (e.g. does his attempt to disarm me succeed) go in different directions than the one you narrated by fiat.

Even in D&D you can't keep rolling 'Pick Locks' again and again, can you?

In 3e (and 4e? not sure) the "Take 20" rule assumes you're doing exactly this; the basis behind that rule is that not only can you keep trying over and over again if nothing's going to interrupt you, but that sooner or later your roll will come up 20.

And don't get me wrong. I personally think take-20 is an awful rule, my standard is that your one roll represents your best attempt until-unless something materially changes.

But here, your narration that my target disarms me (and thus engages me in combat) is in my view already enough of a material change to allow me another roll to attack and (maybe) at least hurt him if not kill him outright. And now I'm attacking both to kill AND in self-defense. Further, I think the target should have to roll to successfully disarm me.

 

[zakael19]

The comparison of plausibility is grounded in what makes sense from the perspective of the world and the people in it. I look at what each faction or NPC knows, what resources they have, what their goals are, and how recent events appear from their point of view. From the character’s side, how they act depends on:

• What they know – A duke may not know the emperor is dead, or might assume someone else already took the throne. He’s acting on what he knows, not what I know.
• What they want – Is he ambitious? Loyal? Trying to keep order? His motivations shape what makes sense.
• What’s around them – Are his troops intact? Are rival lords mobilizing? Is there famine or calm? This affects his risk tolerance.
• What’s normal for them – If succession usually ends in civil war, that leans one way. If past crises led to strong central authority, that leans another.

So say the empire just collapsed. The players want to know what their home province’s duke is going to do. I consider the situation and ask:

• Is he likely to declare independence?
• Will he try to join a confederacy?
• Could he make a claim to the throne?

If none of these stands out as the clear favorite, I’ll assign weights based on what the duke values and how he views the current state of things:

• Join a confederacy: 3 in 6 (he’s risk-averse and has trusted allies)
• Go it alone: 2 in 6 (he’s confident in his troops but wary)
• Claim the throne: 1 in 6 (it’s bold, risky, and out of character)

Then I roll.

But if I think a die roll isn’t enough on its own, especially when the players’ goals, backgrounds, or actions make one outcome more compelling, I may pick. Still, I’m only picking from within the plausible range. I’m not authoring a twist. I’m choosing between outcomes that already make sense, based on what we know about the NPC and the world.

The choice to pick isn’t arbitrary. I weigh:

• How often I’ve rolled vs. picked lately (so I don’t drift into invisible bias)
• How each option fits with what the players are invested in right now

Here’s another example:

The party has been working with Lady Merrowyn, a mid-tier noble who’s been quietly backing their expeditions. Word spreads: someone tried to assassinate the Duke, and rumor has it House Durn is involved.

So what does Lady Merrowyn do?

She’s loyal to the Duke, but her sister is married into House Durn. She’s political, risk-averse, and cares more about reputation than wealth. She’s backed the PCs but isn’t close to them personally.

The players may ask what she’ll do, or they may just wait to see if she pulls support or changes direction.

I consider what’s been established and weigh her options:

• She keeps quiet, asks the PCs to discreetly investigate – 3 in 6
• She suspends support entirely, avoids entanglement – 2 in 6
• She tips off House Durn out of family loyalty or fear – 1 in 6

If none of these jumps out, I roll. But again, I might pick, say she chooses to use the PCs as intermediaries to quietly pass word to House Durn, because that’s the most interesting given what the players are trying to do. Still, it has to be consistent with what we know about her. I’m not inventing drama. I’m resolving uncertainty in a way that respects character logic and builds off the established situation.

That’s how I handle even NPCs in the PCs’ immediate circle. It’s not about crafting a better scene. It’s about figuring out what they would actually do, and letting the world move forward from there.

This is a super interesting post! Thanks for describing your process and the tools you're using in detail like this. I can see you've put a lot of work into your game/setting to create this web you can assess and use easily in play, and the "most interesting given what the players are trying to do" heuristic within the confines of your existing consistent world state resonates.

Do you think this might be still similar to how BITD has you run its factions and NPCs to portray an accurate and believable world state though? It strikes me as very similar now that I see the fullness of your decision making:

"Let everything flow from the fiction. The game's starting situations and your opening scene will put things in motion. Ask how the characters react and see what happens next. NPCs react according to their goals and methods. Events snowball. You don't need to “manage” the game. Action, reaction, and consequences will drive everything."

and

" Advocate for the interests and capabilities of the NPCs. Your job is to convey the fictional world accurately, remember? Believable NPCs with interests and capabilities make for a more compelling fictional world. Don't be a push over. When the PCs take action against an NPC, remind the players of their interests and capabilities. When the PCs act in alignment with the interests of NPCs, remind the players of their support and friendship"

 

[Lanefan]

Resetting to status quo completely violates the rules for BW. If the intent is "I murder the innkeeper" (that bastard!) with a task of "stabbing him" (take that!), returning to the same scene four seconds later with no change in circumstance is a misplay. Things must be complicated by the failure. The good news is (for some sets of good news, I suppose), BW encourages discussion of stakes up front. So you should be hearing what's going to happen on failure, at least roughly, before the roll.


RAW, you did not take a stab at him, you hesitated and missed your window.

The narration given was that I did take a stab at him but my heart wasn't in it, hence I missed.

This could happen next. Depending on the character and their traits, I might be inclined to make it a Vs Test at penalty or have the situation pick up in a desperate struggle for the knife.


If he could disarm you, such that I ellided the roll, I'd let you go after him to get the weapon back.


We could absolutely come around to him reaching for the club under the bar and go to Fight!


Maybe not, but it's just four seconds -- you could chase him out the door and then we'd have a foot chase.


It's four seconds, how far can an innkeeper run? Assuming he's not a professional athlete and can't run in a straight line (because of circumstances, not some sort of other issue), it'd be well less than 40 yards.

Yes, it's all unresolved, but that's what we're playing for.

Except the narration given resolved all of these things by fiat; and from that post and others I get a general sense that it's supposed to work this way, at a rather low granularity level.

We're playing to find out what happens! (In this situation, at least. I thank you for your cooperation!)

See, now that's more like the level of detail I'd prefer to see in resolving a scene like this! Every one of those steps is a point at which the fiction could go this way, or that way, or maybe even some other way; we don't and can't know until dice are rolled and things happen.

 

[Lanefan]

When the whole point is discussing why one set of things is (allegedly) a Huge Problem while the other thing(/set of things) is Totally Fine,

Did I for a second say or even imply that broken rules exploits in D&D are "Totally Fine"? They're not.

pointing out that the first has a broken rules exploit as though it were a contributing problematic factor very much is a double standard.

I'll point those exploits out in D&D too when I see them; though 99+% of the time someone else has got there first and my input - if any - consists of suggesting a possible fix.

 

[pemerton]

Cromulent prose, nicely evocative.

Thanks!

One of my kids is doing modernist literature in her English Lit class, and as an assignment has to write a short story that responds to The Great Gatsby. A good chunk of time yesterday was spent discussing this task at various levels of detail and abstraction, which had put me in the mood to write something in the context of illustrating my point.

There's just not enough detail in any practical fantasy world description to create any significant constraints.

While you might state that it is likely that the Beggar's Guild sends an assassin after you, I argue it is equally just as likely that they don't, or that they offer you a payment to go away, or whatever.

Yes, I agree with this.

An issue that I experienced playing RM was closely related: tables and charts (for events, weather, consequences, etc) that are meant to support a realist/plausible world may tend towards the mundane. But in RPG play one typically doesn't want to centre the mundane! The charts can be distorted in response to this - so instead of being "world representing" charts they become "interesting event representing" charts. But the fairly natural next step from there is to replace the charts with the idea of just coming up with something interesting that fits the characters and follows from the established fiction.

I've put my point above in terms of charts, but as I experienced it, it tended to generalise across the whole approach to working out what happens next. Once the idea of "fidelity to the mundane because that's what's most likely" is relaxed, the floodgates are open!

When I first started to realise what was going on here, I felt a sort of guilt or inappropriateness - because all the "how to GM" material that I was familiar with (Gygax's stuff on setting creation in his DMG; all the RM advice; general prevailing sense of "seriousness'" in RPGing) told me that I should be doing "objective" world creation rather than "spontaneous" situation framing. A concrete example is the following; this is the one that really started to crystallise it for me, I'm guessing around 1995 or thereabouts:

According to my world/event timelines, the Scarlet Brotherhood were going to launch a naval assault by opening a portal (analogous to the 4e D&D 10th level wizard spell Arcane Gate, but much bigger and with a longer duration) that would permit their fleet to cross a long south-stretching peninsular well north of its point, which would permit their vessels to attack with surprise on the less-protected flank of the target region. In my mind, this was visually epic - the huge portal, roiling waters, a fleet of galleys with their weather wizards and war wizards at the prow, etc. I'd talked about it with my housemate who (at that time) was not a RPGer, but liked to follow our game in general terms (I actually got him into a game a few years later, and he is now my BW co-conspirator).

But the focus of actual play, for various reasons including a PC death, had shifted away from the Scarlet Brotherhood and the fate of the southern lands. And so the event was never going to happen "on screen", in a way that would make the PCs part of it. I also became pretty conscious of the fact that, while the visual might be epic, the resolution would be challenging - to do it properly within the confines of RM's system I would have to stat up a lot of NPCs and vessels, and there would still be so much that was arbitrary and/or would need to be specified on the spot that the actual play would risk either tedium or "GM decides" (and I was already burned in that latter respect by the NPC faction revenge scenario that I've posted about already upthread).

And so I just never operationalised that bit of my timeline. The focus shifted to things further north that the PCs were engaged in. At the time I felt "bad" about this - I was breaking the rule that said that a rich, objective world means sticking to your timeline unless PC action derails it. But it turned out that it didn't hurt anything; the world was just as rich with factions and everything else (the fact that I don't spend table time narrating the Scarlet Brotherhood stuff to the players doesn't mean that I don't spend table time narrating something else to them); and although that particular campaign came to a somewhat ignoble end after 8 years (due to my inability to mange the increasingly unwieldy fiction using the resources that RM offered me), the failure to follow through on my Scarlet Brotherhood timeline wasn't one of the causes.

The next big RM campaign ran for 11 years, and finished much more successfully. The backstory was sprawling in scope, the factions and their interrelationships as complex as you like, and the relationship of the players and their characters to those factions established at all sorts of levels, from the romantic and intimate, to political and ideological opposition, to being champions in great cosmological struggles. (I've attached the chart that one of the players drew up to track all this: the black entries are factions/groups that the PCs have defeated/killed.) I needed notes of my backstory to keep track of it; but I didn't need world timelines. I just followed the PCs, and brought things onto the "stage" as they made sense.

My next game after this was 4e D&D (starting in early 2009), and for that I used a pretty similar approach to what I've described in the previous paragraph, but with a more robust mechanical framework. And the world of our 4e game was as rich and plausible as anyone else's, I reckon.