Cheating, Action Points, and Second Wind

[shilsen]

I prefer to let D&D be itself and use a different game when I want a different playstyle.

I prefer to be the one to decide what D&D is when I play it, and to play it in whatever playstyle I want. And to not give a damn how other people are playing it.

Saves me a lot of aggravation. Especially the second sentence.

 

[marune]

I prefer to be the one to decide what D&D is.

Sorry but that is already done by the designers up to EGG.

Of course you can feel free do to whatever you want with the books you purchased, but that doesn't change what the D&D game is or is not.

I mean, you can roleplay over a chess or monopoly board, that will not make chess or monopoly RPG.

 

[Professor Phobos]

Sorry but that is already done by the designers up to EGG.

Of course you can feel free do to whatever you want with the books you purchased, but that doesn't change what the D&D is or is not.

Just like a cookware manufacture gets to decide what you make with their pots and pans...?

 

[marune]

Just like a cookware manufacture gets to decide what you make with their pots and pans...?

Well they can say : if you do otherwise than X and Y, you warranty is void.

However, I'm not even sure I want to play around with that metaphore.

 

[Professor Phobos]

Well they can say : if you do otherwise than X and Y, you waranty is void.

True, true. And it's tough to wear the Player's Handbook as a hat.

However, I'm not even sure I want to play around with that metaphore.

Basically, D&D isn't a recipe for a specific dish, it's a set of tools for creating a wide variety of dishes.

 

[marune]

Basically, D&D isn't a recipe for a specific dish, it's a set of tools for creating a wide variety of dishes.

I think we disagree on the size of the variety.

And, that is IMHO one of the main reason why we see so much cheating in D&D.

What is outside D&D and often done with more or less success depending on the specific group :

- Using it to simulate a fictional fantasy world.

- Using it for collaborative story building.

What D&D is really good at ? Provide a rich and deep fantasy background to set up challenges that players are asked to overcome using teamwork, strategies, taking guts descision, etc.

 

[Hussar]

Because in the d20 task resolution system, failure and sometimes success aren't always meaningful and can lead to dead-ends.




You are right, but usually "story-driven" RPG uses a conflict resolution system.

In other words, it's not surprising that players & DM who want to have a story-driven RPG cheats when playing D&D.

Skeptic - I'm interested in what you are saying here. Could you further define what you mean by task vs conflict resolution systems?

 

[marune]

Skeptic - I'm interested in what you are saying here. Could you further define what you mean by task vs conflict resolution systems?

The terms come from The Forge.

The basic idea is that conflict resolution is much more abstract than task resolution.

In conflict resolution, the main concept is the intent, i.e. what the player wants to happen in the shared imagined space, while the task is how he does it.

Then, if the player gets a success (using dices or whatever) the GM must fulfil the intent. Usually, the consequences of failure are also stated.

It is really more powerful than for example D&D 3.x Move Silently where you have to do a check every time you move your full round movement.

I could say more, but I would have to talk about a specific implementation, for example how Burning Wheel does it.

For example, you could have a player saying : I want to sneak in the house and grab the X I need without being noticed. It could be all resolved doing a "Sneak" skill test, where failure is for example a witness that may come back at him later (but he gets the X anyway).

With such a system, fudging is a thing of the past.

 

[Victim]

The terms come from The Forge.

The basic idea is that conflict resolution is much more abstract than task resolution.

In conflict resolution, the main concept is the intent, i.e. what the player wants to happen in the shared imagined universe, while the task is how he does it.

Then, if the player gets a success (using dices or whatever) the GM must fulfil the intent. Usually, the consequences of failure are also stated.

It is really more powerful than for example D&D 3.x Move Silently where you have to do a check every time you move your full round movement.

I could say more, but I would have to talk about a specific implementation, for example how Burning Wheel does it.

For example, you could have a player saying : I want to sneak in the house and grab the X I need without being noticed. It could be all resolved doing a "Sneak" skill test, where failure is for example a witness that may come back at him later (but he gets the X anyway).

With such a system, fudging is a thing of the past.

That's both conflict resolution and stake setting. Pure conflict resolution wouldn't necessarily have failure get X but with some complication.

 

[marune]

That's both conflict resolution and stake setting. Pure conflict resolution wouldn't necessarily have failure get X but with some complication.

Right.

Two other interesting "variants" :

1- Say "yes" : If both players and DM agree that the intent should be fulfilled, there is no need to roll anything.

2- Let it ride : Once something have been tried, the result stay until major changes to the condition. (No retry, but also no check until failure). For example... We want to go over the mountains to reach the elven lands. "Climbing" test fail = Try the secret route that goes under the moutains instead.