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

[Eric V]

In-fiction logic.

If the secret admirer is a common barmaid at the local tavern then she might not hear about the imprisonment until (if ever) the rest of the party return to town and tell their tale; and may very likely be unable to do anything about it in any case.

No chance someone who works at the prison gets drunk at the tavern and mentions it?

 

[Micah Sweet]

But it was said we only roll if there are stakes. What are the stakes? What does it mean to unsuccessfully climb a wall?




But not something bad that doesn’t fit the situation.

Good grief.

You could fail to climb it. You could conceivably injure yourself (I've certainly done that trying to climb a wall). It is inherently an at least moderately dangerous activity. There's a reason right there. The stakes don't have to be unconnected to physically climbing the wall, and they don't have to be dramatic.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I didn't realise that combat - one of the most quintessential D&D-ish things, and the thing that I mostly see talked about whenever I open a random thread about D&D - counts as some exceptional departure from a general principle.

That seems a little disingenuous, given how different from most other kinds of resolution combat is in almost all trad games. This is not exactly the only place.

(Note that this does not mean I have much sympathy for the other side's position on the herb-gathering issue, but this seems a poor counterargument).

 

[Micah Sweet]

I fully accept your preferences. What personally bothers me is the way you leap to conclusions about how these techniques are used in play. In particular you often assume that the techniques used in other playstyles will used in the most inartful way possible.

If I tried to use them, they definitely would be. In every Narrativist I've ever played in, they were used in an inartful way, playing up the parts of those mechanic I dislike.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I'll point out people have heart attacks and die, but we don't normally do that in a game. So its not a question of "does it happen" but "does it serve the purposes of the game to pay attention to that incidence." And with proper climbing gear and preparation, the frequency of one, while many times that of the other, is likely well below the resolution probability of the game system.

Not the way I play. I guess I have different "purposes of the game" than you do. For me "does it happen?" is always worth considering.

 

[pemerton]

That seems a little disingenuous, given how different from most other kinds of resolution combat is in almost all trad games. This is not exactly the only place.

(Note that this does not mean I have much sympathy for the other side's position on the herb-gathering issue, but this seems a poor counterargument).

This is the post that I was responding to:

almost no game deviates heavily from forward facing causality with most moves/abilities.

Given that most moves/abilities in 5e D&D pertain to combat, and that combat in 5e D&D departs heavily from forward-facing causality, I think the post is mistaken.

 

[FrogReaver]

I didn't realise that combat - one of the most quintessential D&D-ish things, and the thing that I mostly see talked about whenever I open a random thread about D&D - counts as some exceptional departure from a general principle.

Then maybe you should play it more

 

[Micah Sweet]

This has nothing to do with actor vs author stance, which describe different ways a player goes about making decisions for their PC. "Author stance" describes a player making decisions for their PC because of things the player cares about rather than things the PC cares about - such as, in this case, making sure the GM's adventure gets played.

There is no such definition. Stance is a way of describing player decision-making.

I made a post, not addressed to any particular poster, about the reference in the 2024 D&D rules to players making decisions from the point of view of the player - ie choosing to follow the GM's hook - rather than the point of view of the character; which is called "author stance" in a terminology that was introduced into this thread by another poster at [https://www.enworld.org/threads/ran...d-fans-is-exhausting.712674/post-9664372]post 7739[/url].

@AlViking asked what the point of my post was. I replied. Then AlViking replied in a rather dismissive way, when all I had done was answer the question asked. If someone doesn't care "how the Forge would define anything", then why ask me about my post which used the phrase "author stance"?

Maybe they thought of that as a Pemerton phrase, not a Forge phrase.

 

[pemerton]

No chance someone who works at the prison gets drunk at the tavern and mentions it?

I think that would be pretty unrealistic. Everyone knows that pseudo-mediaeval prison guards never drink to excess!

 

[Micah Sweet]

I fully accept your preferences. What personally bothers me is the way you leap to conclusions about how these techniques are used in play. In particular you often assume that the techniques used in other playstyles will used in the most inartful way possible.

Are you saying the quantum cook wouldn't happen? It's right there in the example.