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

[FrogReaver]

Yeah--random tables do this, because random tables are a type of fixed content. And the DM should interpret the results of the table in the current fiction. If it just says "servants" and the roll happened in the kitchen, it's fine for the DM to interpret some servants as cooks.

Okay. So we are good with procedurally generating content from a preestablished table.

Is there an acceptable way to procedurally generate the table?

 

[Micah Sweet]

I mean, we've established that you really shouldn't use a lot of fail-forward if your focus of play is on navigating pre-established obstacles. This isn't new.

To me, it just sounds you like prefer trad-style games that are focused on solving the module. If that's your focus, of course you don't like fail-forward.

Mostly agree, but I'm not sure where "the module" comes into it.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I think if the conclusion here is "people dislike narrative games for well founded reasons about what they get out of play" rather than "D&D gamers are reflexively conservative in the mechanics they use and that is exhausting", I'd be satisfied.

Wouldn't that be nice? Like I said above, I still feel folks are treating this thread as an excuse to bash on traditional games and the people who like them, because they find folks who aren't interested in non-traditional techniques "exhausting". It's right there in the OP.

 

[Maxperson]

1: The classic locally deterministic quantum: Once the players commit to a path, the Ogre appears on that path.

This is illusionism, which is a form of railroading. It completely negates player choice. To me, it's the worst form of railroading as it is harder to see than the blatant, "No, you can't do that, you have to do this instead."

2: The local evenly random quantum: Once the players commit to the path, the GM flip a coin to see if the Ogre is on that path.
3: The global evenly random quantum: Once the players commit to the path, the GM flip a coin to see which path the Ogre is currently guarding.
4: The local uneven random quantum: Once the players commit to the path, the GM rolls D20. If the players chose path A the Ogre is there on a 5 or lower, if they chose path B the ogre is there on a 15 or lower.
5: The global uneven random quantum: Once the players commit to the path, the GM rolls D20. If the result is 5 or lower, the ogre is on path A, otherwise it is on path B.
6: The oversaturated local random quantum: Once the players commit to the path, the GM rolls D20. If they chose path A the Ogre is on the path on a 15 or lower. If they chose path B the ogre is on the path on a 10 or lower.

I don't like any method where the ogre's location is rolled after the players make their choice. If the path is random, because the ogre wanders and could be on either path, that roll should happen before the players get to the fork in the road and have to pick a path. That way their choice means something. Either they will 100% encounter the ogre or they will 100% avoid it, depending on the path picked.

7: The weirdly entangled local quantum: If a character is declared to “be alert” while moving through the forest, the player rolls a D20. On a 6 or higher the Ogre is on the path. If no one makes such a declaration it is not on the path.

I would never use this method, nor would I stay in a game that did. Encounters should not be present or not depending on whether a PC is alert.

8: The ultra local random quantum: While the party is traveling through the forest, roll D6 every hour. On a 1 they encounter the ogre.

This is only quantum to the DM who is effectively opening the box when he rolls the 1 and determines the encounter. To the players/PCs, it's not quantum.

This is clearly the wandering monster variant.

9: The even random stocking: Before the session the GM flip a coin to determine which path the Ogre is on.
10: The uneven random stocking: Before the session the GM roll D20. On a 5 or less the Ogre is on path A, otherwise it is on path B.
11: The deterministic stocking: Before the session the GM decides where the ogre is.
and as a bonus
12: The anticlimax: There is no Ogre to encounter, as the last party passing through already has slain it, and its remains have been consumed by forest beings.

All of these are quantum only the the DM. To the players, the location of the ogre and the fact that it is an ogre is pre-established and not quantum.

Which of these do you find acceptable? Which are unacceptable? Why?

For me, only the methods that are not quantum to the players are acceptable. If players encounter quantum situations, their agency is damaged to a greater or lesser degree, and that's not acceptable to me.

 

[TwoSix]

But "I like simulation and prep" is part of the preference. You have to accept the whole thing as a preference, not pick it apart because some parts are like your preference and other parts aren't.

The "Iike simulation and prep" is the part that's interesting. If I run a game where "the players drive the game forward and the GM just makes sure there's interesting stuff to interact with", but I don't prep, and you hate my game, why is that? What psychological desire isn't being satisfied? Is there some way to bridge that gap? Is there some minimum amount of prep that would be satisfying?

 

[TwoSix]

If I understand your position correctly, you are describing the attempt to translate a narrative table-top RPG into a computer game experience. Where all of the possible interactions (or most of the typical ones) are written as mathematical functions within a computer code. In other words, the DM narrative interpretation is being removed from the equations that determine outcomes.

That is roughly how I'm interpreting @Pedantic's posts, but I freely accept I could be misreading or lacking clarity and would love to gain more clarity on the subject.

 

[Yaarel]

Okay. So we are good with procedurally generating content from a preestablished table.

Is there an acceptable way to procedurally generate the table?

Heh. I hate tables. I am ok with 5e giving a list with the option of a random roll, because it can be helpful for inspiring ideas for the DM. But to actually roll and rely on the outcome, too often feels like a nonsequitur, plus too many likely outcomes unaccounted for.

 

[Micah Sweet]

View attachment 408202

Because the second statement is an outright insult to traditional-leaning gamers? It suggests that it's wrong to not be interested in non-traditional games and techniques, rather than just being a preference.

 

[TwoSix]

Mostly agree, but I'm not where "the module" comes into it.

I consider a "module" to be any sort of pre-scripted engagement space with a rough semblance of an expected set of outputs. ("You find the demonic statue in the Temple of Grazz't" or "You fail to retrieve the demonic statue from the Temple of Grazz't" or "You die in the attempt.") It doesn't have to be commercial to be a module IMO, you can write your own modules.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Nobody is saying or implying that from my side of things. And nobody has shown(or can show) the position my side is taking on encounters and die rolls to be without merit.

In fact, what you just said about our arguments being without merit is you saying that we over here are playing the game wrong. And that attitude has been shown by more than one person on your side of this playstyle debate.

We on this side aren't saying that what you guys do is without merit. We are just saying it doesn't work for us.

Honestly, that attitude from the non-traditional side is the whole reason I'm still here.