Search results

Consider this, would all those players like a game with no negotiation given they don’t even gravitate toward the no negotiation mechanics they have?

Right? How does one cunningly interpret runes? Though overall I don’t find this line of inquiry that interesting.

I think there’s a lot that can be said about why the dislike. My proposal is that such likes and dislikes go quite a bit deeper into the preferred structures of the activity itself and as such we can suss out the why’s and why nots there.

So I agree with the basic premise, negotiation can lead to degenerate gameplay and yet in practice I observe most 5e play doesn’t degenerate to being decided by negotiation with little meaning on actions outside that, unless you mean something far more all encompassing by negotiation than I do.

Prompting the dm to consider whether there is a cleric there that wasn’t pre authored by him still has nothing to do with the persuasion check in dnd or player authoring. That’s a separate resolution process. Dm usually either decides based on existing fiction and the likelihood of such a thing...

Well I believe it, but it’s hard for me to understand why.

I mean, it’s the entire point of doing it that way. It gives players more agency over the fiction. It makes player driven either possible or easier depending on your definition. Like there’s merits to having the player do such authoring. In can help immersion by avoiding 20 questions with the...

I’m in disbelief that I’m even having to point out that a d&d persuasion check involving an established cleric that can cast remove curse doesn’t require the player to author anything outside his character, but that a player deciding what runes mean does require the player to author precisely...

They do this not by authoring the cleric exists and has the spell they want him to cast but by persuading an already established cleric that’s already established to have the spell to cast it. Contrast that to the runes where nothing of this sort is already established. There’s some steps...

When I propose a difference you say it’s not. So if you aren’t denying differences altogether, then what differences in your cleric persuasion and the runes do you see?

It’s not clear what you see established about the cleric before the persuasion check. If it’s just that this is a level 5 cleric that can cast remove curse and then the persuasion check determines whether he does then I’d say that’s significantly different than the runes. The character has the...

I don’t pretend those activities are the same decision space for player and character. They are clearly not. I can’t tell if your counterpoint is, the decision space for player and character is the same in the runes example or if it’s that I have separate player and character decision spaces...

Yep. It’s one reason I view d&d combat as more of a fun minigame. It’s also why I don’t give much weight to critiques relying on combat mechanics.

If you go reread the original runes example just posted this looks to be exactly what happened there. The player was lost and wanted the runes to provide the exit, ie solve the characters problem.

Contributing to the shared fiction is not sufficient to call something an rpg, else pass the conch would be an rpg. An RPG is about contributing to the shared fiction via a player controlled character. Just so it’s clear I believe all your games have tons of this, but I believe these games...

Knowledge checks would be a better Rolling dice and adding bonuses is not a decision space. It is certainly things a character isn’t doing that a player is, but there’s no decision there. It’s also the part where the simulation discussion starts to matter. Additionally the player knew that if...

If the player really isn’t authoring the runes meaning, why wasn’t this pointed out from the begginning? That’s been a huge part of the underlying assumptions since the example was brought up? If he is authoring the meaning of the runes, then I’m not sure why any of this new info would matter.

isn’t the whole point that on a success the player gets to author (create) the runes meaning? The character certainly isn’t authoring or creating the runes meaning. The character is simply interpreting runes that have been there for centuries. Authoring/creating the meaning of is not...

I mean don’t attack rolls determine fiction not yet settled? Or is fiction not yet settled intended to be more narrow in scope?

IMO, I shouldn’t be having to deal with new mechanical information regarding an example you introduced 10000 posts ago and I’m not going to. If it was actually relevant it should have came up before now.