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

[EzekielRaiden]

Like what? In the moment that they successfully pick the lock, what has changed other than the lock is now unlocked?

I don't know, maybe that you now have access to the thing you have a good, well-founded reason to believe is on the other side?

How is this difficult?

If you're picking a lock to break out of a prison cell, your hoped-for description when you succeed is that you're free and nobody has noticed that you picked the lock. If you're picking a lock to get at the documents inside the safe, your hoped-for description when you succeed is that the documents are still there and no one will immediately notice their absence. If you're picking a lock to break into the mansion, your hoped-for description when you succeed is that all is quiet and dark and the heist may proceed as planned. If you're picking a lock to free your friend from their fetters, your hoped-for description when you succeed is that they're now able to high-tail it out of there with you. Etc.

It is you folks--the people who self-professedly don't play games of this nature--who keep inserting this utterly ridiculous notion that the player is empowered to invent LITERALLY anything whatsoever, anything at all, completely untethered from any established fiction or sensibility. Maybe, instead of assuming that that's present when people keep telling you that it's not, it might be better to ask what the limits are?

Those things only change the game state once the characters open that safe, not when they successfully open the lock. When they succeed at opening the lock, nothing has changed other than, "The lock is now unlocked."

....

Are you seriously making a distinction between "the lock is open" and "the object that was locked is open"?

Like are you actually being for real right now? Because I genuinely cannot tell if you are serious or trolling.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

No. It means that there are at least three different discussions to be had. What is 5e, the core books. What is 5e with the added rules like Xanathar's, Tasha's, etc. And what is 5e at home with settings included. The latter would fit into the same category as home rules and homebrew stuff.

But the assertion was that "game" is ONLY that last thing.

Which means game discussion forums now do not and cannot have any merit. "Game" is ONLY what happens at each individual specific table, completely and totally disconnected from everything else.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Maybe they don't. The advantage of allowing the GM to predetermine its location, though, is that even if the fiction has said nothing about it to this point, they could stumble onto it anyway by sheer good luck - they thought to check the desk drawer, and there it was - or could miss it by sheer bad luck, they opened the safe just fine but never thought to check the desk.

Lanefan.

What people keep telling you--and what you keep stubbornly ignoring--is that if you don't have an established-by-fiction reason for something, you can't do it.

You cannot just declare that any hope you might have, no matter how ridiculous, is just...what happens. That's literally against the rules.

And remember--both sides, the GM and the players, are expected to follow the rules. "Begin and end with the fiction" is extraordinarily important.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

So far, I rather like the cut of this guy's jib.

And the cut of his mainsail, too.

He's bang-on right with this, and is saying the quiet part out loud: when we have to abstract things (and it's unavoidable that we will) we're in whole or in part turning roleplay into mechanics-play. And sure, there's those that are in it for that mechanics-play thus for them, in general the more abstraction the better; but those of us in it for the roleplay side would logically want to see less abstraction in those cases where there's a choice (usually, social encounters).

If it read like that, I think many tables would crash and burn in a hurry.

Why? Because the players usually outnumber the DM X-to-1, and come crunch time all but the most altruistic of players would naturally want to "fix the fiction" to their benefit. The DM would be outvoted, the fiction altered, and the game ultimately made poorer despite the players' short-term enjoyment right now.

Short-term gain is useless if it comes at the expense of long-term pain.

The fiction, and precedent set within it, has to rule in order to remove that short-term-gain temptation.

So, just to be absolutely clear...

Even if every single person at the table, including the GM, agrees that the "truth and veracity of the fictional world" actively and directly leads to an experience all of them genuinely dislike--not even in the "losing sucks but always winning sucks more" way, just genuinely not enjoyable--then everyone is bound by it?

I just want to be absolutely sure that that's what you're saying here. That the "truth and veracity of the fictional world" is legitimately more important than having a long-term good time (not just a short-term one). That the "truth and veracity of the fictional world" is more important than the people participating at the table.

 

[Micah Sweet]

So, just to be absolutely clear...

Even if every single person at the table, including the GM, agrees that the "truth and veracity of the fictional world" actively and directly leads to an experience all of them genuinely dislike--not even in the "losing sucks but always winning sucks more" way, just genuinely not enjoyable--then everyone is bound by it?

I just want to be absolutely sure that that's what you're saying here. That the "truth and veracity of the fictional world" is legitimately more important than having a long-term good time (not just a short-term one). That the "truth and veracity of the fictional world" is more important than the people participating at the table.

I've never been in a situation where I actively wanted the truth of the fiction to be less true, in the sense that I didn't find it fun.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I've never been in a situation where I actively wanted the truth of the fiction to be less true, in the sense that I didn't find it fun.

Which is not the same as saying it can't happen.

 

[Faolyn]

I figured the point of the countdown was to simulate a time-sensitive situation when the actual time remaining is unknown, but I'm glad it's good for drama too I suppose.

I honestly don't know how you could look at the examples given and not see that they were highly tense, drama-filled situations.

 

[Faolyn]

The cause of the people dying in the house is the fire. I do not cause someone to die because I failed to prevent their death.

You failed to rescue them. They are dead in large part because of your failure.

 

[Faolyn]

If I lock someone in a room when the building is on fire, then yes my action of locking the door leads to their death.

There is likely someone out there that I could donate bone marrow to that would save their life if I knew that I was a match. Am I responsible for their death if I do not donate? If I find out I am a match and want to donate but by the time the donation can be scheduled they've died am I responsible?

One of these things is not like the other.

Bad analogy. If you choose not to donate your marrow, you're not doing anything. If you're actively trying to get into the building, you are doing something. Your failure to open the door has lead to their deaths. If you want to say the blame is yours, or on whoever installed too good a lock or hinges that were too strong for you to kick down, whatever. The point is, because you could not get into the building, they are dead.

 

[Faolyn]

Not being able to unlock a door won't in and of itself change the fiction of the world or ongoing events if I'm running the game.

I don't care what you do in your game nor do I want to continue playing semantic games.

So if the PC unlocks the door and rushes in, the people inside still die, because you won't change the fiction to represent in-world events?