Guidance...

clearstream

Be just and fear not...
True, I suppose I mean more that I would prefer feedback from the OP on our stances and suggestions before I bother investing anymore time and effort into it. Also, I certainly didn't want this this to become a "what is significant and what is not" debate since it is ultimately a matter of opinion.
Well, what I see is that layered buffs readily push character checks above the range of difficulty classes. Above "nearly impossible" - which can become fairly likely. It feels like a design disconnect. A flat +1 shifts the range in an uninteresting way.

When it comes to stances and suggestions, any it's-fine-as-is responses are kind of unhelpful, seeing as they don't advance the discussion. Maybe it is fine for such posters, but not for me. So they add nothing to the discussion. Better is where someone says something like, it is fine if you do X, have you tried that?

I find it most valuable to see other people's takes on how they play it at their table, where they have tweaked the cantrip.
 

TheSword

Explorer
I posted this in the other thread but probably more appropriate here...

When the ranger is leading you through the jungle on an 8 hour journey and the cleric claims he can cast guidance 480 times to give said ranger +1d4 to his survival check to avoid getting lost, I would suggest doing one or more of the following things...

  • Have the cleric make a DC 20 charisma check to avoid the psychological impact of what is essentially the magical equivalent of Chinese water torture.
  • Have his god rebuke him for being flippant with divine miracles.
  • Have his god withdraw magic because of the prayer equivalent of “are we there yet?”
  • Apply disadvantage to the roll due to the distraction of the cleric mumbling in the ranger’s ear and flicking water at him continuously.
  • Play out the entire journey and ask the player to say I cast guidance, then ask them to say it a further 479. Ask what the other players are doing to be fair.
  • As DM decide the check be inconveniently required at the moment when the cleric is taking a dump and therefore is unable to cast guidance that minute. Unless the ranger stands next to him to have the spell cast (with concentration because of distracting circumstances, nobody likes to be watched)
  • Make the cleric player accurately estimate how long one minute is 480 times (this will take about 8 hours). You might be generous and just make the player do this for one hour and use that as a sample set. Then roll a d480 (or 60 if generous) and if the number is higher than the guesses he got right then the spell doesn’t work.
  • Set fire to your players handbook and go and play a simple, streamlined game like WFRP 4e or d&d 3.5e.
  • Bump the player.

All these are acceptable responses to Guidance Spam in my honest opinion.
 

Hriston

Adventurer
The construction I'm drawn to is that RPG rules model the game fiction. So for certain elements of the fiction, there is a counterpart in the model. When speaking at a mechanical level - i.e. rules - we're articulating play at that level.

So it is right to say "one willing creature" and address that creature as if it were going to roll a d4, because articulated on the model layer, that is what is happening. This could add a lot of words to the text if we had to acknowledge it each and every time... but we do not need to do that.

The target continues to be the creature, represented at the model layer.
I’m not sure if I understand what you mean by “model layer”. If the fictional creature is the one rolling the d4, what does the player represent at the model layer?
 

5ekyu

Adventurer
I posted this in the other thread but probably more appropriate here...

When the ranger is leading you through the jungle on an 8 hour journey and the cleric claims he can cast guidance 480 times to give said ranger +1d4 to his survival check to avoid getting lost, I would suggest doing one or more of the following things...

  • Have the cleric make a DC 20 charisma check to avoid the psychological impact of what is essentially the magical equivalent of Chinese water torture.
  • Have his god rebuke him for being flippant with divine miracles.
  • Have his god withdraw magic because of the prayer equivalent of “are we there yet?”
  • Apply disadvantage to the roll due to the distraction of the cleric mumbling in the ranger’s ear and flicking water at him continuously.
  • Play out the entire journey and ask the player to say I cast guidance, then ask them to say it a further 479. Ask what the other players are doing to be fair.
  • As DM decide the check be inconveniently required at the moment when the cleric is taking a dump and therefore is unable to cast guidance that minute. Unless the ranger stands next to him to have the spell cast (with concentration because of distracting circumstances, nobody likes to be watched)
  • Make the cleric player accurately estimate how long one minute is 480 times (this will take about 8 hours). You might be generous and just make the player do this for one hour and use that as a sample set. Then roll a d480 (or 60 if generous) and if the number is higher than the guesses he got right then the spell doesn’t work.
  • Set fire to your players handbook and go and play a simple, streamlined game like WFRP 4e or d&d 3.5e.
  • Bump the player.

All these are acceptable responses to Guidance Spam in my honest opinion.
From a divine's point of view, unless the ivine is opposed to the quest, why would the divine have an opposition to the cleric using his magic to helping them not get lost on the quest?

If the cleric uses some other spell to help, like say Enhanced ability or Aid that lasts for hour(s) do we get these same divine rebukes? If it was 8 castings of Light, then?

Seems like folks just get bent out of shape over using this cantrip to aid a task which can be assisted or replaced entirely by other magics.

Again, for me, even though I dont have these issues, I would rework it as task triggered, ongoingbthru thectask and an open expanded Help action.
 

5ekyu

Adventurer
BTW, from some games I have seen, not been in, I wonder how much of the Guidsnce issue comes from a lack of reactivity in scene management.

For example, it seems like there are more than a few who get bent out of shape knickers in a twist if someone wants to Guidance after a check is called for.

As in...

Player- I look thru the shelves
GM- roll int-investigate
Cleric I give guidance
Gm sorry check called...

But really what happened here was a lack of pause between the character being seen by other yo go search and the GM locking out the cleric guidance.

There was mo description by GM of the lead-into the act that really allowed the other player to jump in without interrupting the dialog.

Personally, in casual encounter time as opposed to combat time, I dont get into that kind of tick-tockery.

But again, maybe the solution is making Guidance a reaction.
 

TheSword

Explorer
From a divine's point of view, unless the ivine is opposed to the quest, why would the divine have an opposition to the cleric using his magic to helping them not get lost on the quest? [...]
I think you took my post too seriously.
 

clearstream

Be just and fear not...
I’m not sure if I understand what you mean by “model layer”. If the fictional creature is the one rolling the d4, what does the player represent at the model layer?
It arose out of the line that @iserith is taking. I agree with @iserith that there are notionally two layers 1) the fiction, in which creatures don't roll dice to accomplish tasks, but rather do work (or whatever) to do so, and 2) the model, in which the player the creature is mapped to applies the mechanics that the fictional act is mapped to. This is often shorthand, without a crisp distinction between the layers, and with participants moving fluidly back and forth between them... at times starting an act in the fiction layer, and completing it in the mechanics layer.

This means that a creature knows whatever it is in the fiction that equates with rolling the die, and that knowledge simultaneously exists at the model layer. I hadn't thought about it this way before.
 

Hriston

Adventurer
It arose out of the line that @iserith is taking. I agree with @iserith that there are notionally two layers 1) the fiction, in which creatures don't roll dice to accomplish tasks, but rather do work (or whatever) to do so, and 2) the model, in which the player the creature is mapped to applies the mechanics that the fictional act is mapped to. This is often shorthand, without a crisp distinction between the layers, and with participants moving fluidly back and forth between them... at times starting an act in the fiction layer, and completing it in the mechanics layer.

This means that a creature knows whatever it is in the fiction that equates with rolling the die, and that knowledge simultaneously exists at the model layer. I hadn't thought about it this way before.
I find it helpful to separate what happens in the fiction of the shared imaginative space from what happens at the gaming table, in the real world. I think what you’re calling “the model” is probably what I would call “the game”.
 

clearstream

Be just and fear not...
I find it helpful to separate what happens in the fiction of the shared imaginative space from what happens at the gaming table, in the real world. I think what you’re calling “the model” is probably what I would call “the game”.
A few people have said a similar thing, but I'd like to understand better what you mean by "separate"? For example, I think you cannot mean anything like the following

Model (the game)
Pete rolls d20 to see if his fighter hits the giant.

Imaginative space (the fiction)
Pete's bard is walking through a rose garden humming "Life on Mars"

I'm sure my examples has deficiencies. What I'm trying to illustrate is that we don't expect a separation between the game and the fiction. It's more like we expect a close mapping between them, such that they are tied together or connected.
 
Not only can game mechanics differ significantly from the version of events that occur in the player's imagination, every player (including the DM) has their own unique version of what is happening in "imaginative space". It's the role of the rules and the DM to try and avoid direct conflicts between all the different "imaginative spaces", but most players have quite flexible imaginations that can flex their personal reality to accommodate what the DM tells them.

Since players can't actually see what is happening inside each other heads, it doesn't matter that they each have a different version.
 

clearstream

Be just and fear not...
Not only can game mechanics differ significantly from the version of events that occur in the player's imagination, every player (including the DM) has their own unique version of what is happening in "imaginative space". It's the role of the rules and the DM to try and avoid direct conflicts between all the different "imaginative spaces", but most players have quite flexible imaginations that can flex their personal reality to accommodate what the DM tells them.
Can you narrate what you mean, i.e. provide an example?
 
Im honestly having a hard time seeing what, if anything, is good about this spell. What justifies its existance? In what way is it not just a pet gerbil sized deus ex machina that you keep in your pocket?

If i knew what was good about it i might have an easier time knowing what to do with it and giving ideas. But tbh, right now it just looks like magispam.
 

Hriston

Adventurer
A few people have said a similar thing, but I'd like to understand better what you mean by "separate"? For example, I think you cannot mean anything like the following

Model (the game)
Pete rolls d20 to see if his fighter hits the giant.

Imaginative space (the fiction)
Pete's bard is walking through a rose garden humming "Life on Mars"

I'm sure my examples has deficiencies. What I'm trying to illustrate is that we don't expect a separation between the game and the fiction. It's more like we expect a close mapping between them, such that they are tied together or connected.
I mean literally separating out the events and putting each one in its proper place, so following your example:

At the table
Pete rolls a d20 and compares the result to the giant’s AC.

In the fiction
Pete’s fighter either hits or does not hit the giant.

OR

At the table
Pete describes his bard walking through a rose garden singing “Life on Mars”.

In the fiction
Pete’s bard walks through a rose garden singing “Life on Mars”.

I think this puts a focus on what actually happens in the real world as primary, the fiction following from that. Whereas regarding what happens at the table as a model seems, to me, to reverse the order, with the fiction being regarded as the primary thing that is then “modeled” at the table. Semantics aside, however, I just find it’s helpful to be clear about which is which.
 
Can you narrate what you mean, i.e. provide an example?
" The ogre advances towards you along the dungeon corridor"

How tall is the ogre? What colour is it's skin? Is it left handed or right handed? What does it smell like? What is it wearing? What is the floor like? What colour is the stone? Are there chains on the dungeon walls?
 

ccs

39th lv DM
Please don't derail this thread. If you'd like to talk about sheriffs and deputies I urge you to start a thread on that.

Please don't derail my thread. If you don't want to post responsively, could you start your own thread?
Oh I wasn't joking or derailing, i was answering the question.
When Guidance became annoying I killed the caster.
And everyone around him.

Hasn't been a problem since. :)
 

clearstream

Be just and fear not...
" The ogre advances towards you along the dungeon corridor"

How tall is the ogre? What colour is it's skin? Is it left handed or right handed? What does it smell like? What is it wearing? What is the floor like? What colour is the stone? Are there chains on the dungeon walls?
A couple of observations that I find interesting relating to that. The first of course is that a model should contain less information than the thing it is simulating. The choice of what to include depends on goals: RPGs have converged around attack chances, hit points and such like. So as you point out handedness is excluded.

Intriguingly, unless someone at the table added left or right handedness to the fiction, that literally doesn't exist. It's not in the model, and it's not in the fiction. The ogre only exists to the extent to which it is articulated... because we don't need a real ogre to have a fiction about an ogre. Therefore the ogre handedness can't possibly exist unless we describe it. I don't claim we couldn't describe it, or even that it's not part of our ideas about ogres, but it does not exist in our fiction at the table until we call it out. Smell likewise, and so on.

Getting back to the main theme - there is a mapping between your model description "the ogre advances" - represented perhaps by a figurine pushed forward on a gridded, laminated map - and your fiction that is 1:1 until you add details that the model doesn't include. At which point there is still a mapping, because there is still an ogre and it is still positioned thus and so, but you have articulated details deliberately omitted from the model.
 

Advertisement

Top