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

[Enrahim]

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.

Knowing that the ruby is SOMEWHERE in a given house, and that this safe is in the house, does not seem like enough justification to me.

The crux of the matter is what and who determines if there is "a good, well-founded reason to believe".

How does the first quote compare to the second quote. Who decide that the first represent an acceptable attempt while the second does not? How this this actually look like in play if a player states "I pick open the safe to find the Desert Rose ruby" and you think this is inappropriate, while the player thought it was justified? How do this compare to how play would be if someone was "picking a lock to get at the documents inside the safe"? (It clearly is not established in the fiction that there are documents in the safe, as "still there" is a success outcome for the check)

 

[pemerton]

I'm not really following this ruby discussion.

But to me it seems to be asking how would you resolve an arbitrary action declaration made in the context of arbitrary scene framing, using a methodology that is applicable to games based around very particular sorts of scene framing to support very particular sorts of action declaration.

To which the answer is, "You wouldn't!"

 

[pemerton]

How this this actually look like in play if a player states "I pick open the safe to find the Desert Rose ruby" and you think this is inappropriate, while the player thought it was justified?

First, you work out what the rules of the game are for permissible action declarations. Because at this stage, it appears that there is no agreement on that between the player and the GM.

 

[Enrahim]

First, you work out what the rules of the game are for permissible action declarations. Because at this stage, it appears that there is no agreement on that between the player and the GM.

So you are saying the group need to engage in basic game design in order to play this game?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

How does the first quote compare to the second quote. Who decide that the first represent an acceptable attempt while the second does not? How this this actually look like in play if a player states "I pick open the safe to find the Desert Rose ruby" and you think this is inappropriate, while the player thought it was justified? How do this compare to how play would be if someone was "picking a lock to get at the documents inside the safe"? (It clearly is not established in the fiction that there are documents in the safe, as "still there" is a success outcome for the check)

"Documents" is vague. Many entirely distinct things could all meet that description validly, e.g. receipts, letters, books, notes, pictures, all sorts of things.

"Documents" are fungible. Any copy of a document qualifies, so there could be duplicates.

"Documents" can be found piecemeal, where you find some but not all of what you wanted here, and more of it elsewhere.

"Documents" are a lot more likely to be found in specific places and not others, as a general rule, so simply knowing that they're documents gives you information on likely locations, which I had left out of that example for simplicity's sake. A desk is a lot more likely to hold documents than a liquor cabinet.

None of this is true of a singular, named ruby that is (I hope you'll grant, as it wasn't technically specified) specific, unique, singular (meaning, it's not "the Desert Roses", there's only one of them), and not particularly associated with any location or uses beyond "looking pretty", at least not anywhere near to the degree that "documents" would be.

Established fiction matters--and the fact that one has established the target as "the Desert Rose ruby", vs having established "the documents" as the target is part of that mattering. Different fiction, different expectations.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

So you are saying the group need to engage in basic game design in order to play this game?

No.

You need to say what system you're using.

Surely you'd agree that the question "how much do I harm an enemy when I strike them?" would require that we know more about the system being used, rather than accusing anyone of requiring that the players "need to engage in basic game design in order to play". Even if we assume that this is known to be a TTRPG with a pretty solid emphasis on combat, there are FAR too many answers to that question without specifying the system being used. And yet I still would think it ridiculous and inappropriate for my interlocutor to declare that "Oh so this game FORCES the players to invent their own damage rules?!?!"

 

[Enrahim]

"Documents" is vague. Many entirely distinct things could all meet that description validly, e.g. receipts, letters, books, notes, pictures, all sorts of things.

"Documents" are fungible. Any copy of a document qualifies, so there could be duplicates.

"Documents" can be found piecemeal, where you find some but not all of what you wanted here, and more of it elsewhere.

"Documents" are a lot more likely to be found in specific places and not others, as a general rule, so simply knowing that they're documents gives you information on likely locations, which I had left out of that example for simplicity's sake. A desk is a lot more likely to hold documents than a liquor cabinet.

None of this is true of a singular, named ruby that is (I hope you'll grant, as it wasn't technically specified) specific, unique, singular (meaning, it's not "the Desert Roses", there's only one of them), and not particularly associated with any location or uses beyond "looking pretty", at least not anywhere near to the degree that "documents" would be.

Established fiction matters--and the fact that one has established the target as "the Desert Rose ruby", vs having established "the documents" as the target is part of that mattering. Different fiction, different expectations.

Ok, so you have now answered that specificity is part of the what determines if an action is justifiable. I want to point out though that for this particular case this argument is void as we are clearly talking about "the documents" given "your hoped-for description when you succeed is that the documents are still there" (my emphasis). This sentence wouldn't make sense if they would be happy with any document that happened to be in the safe. But assuming you know better what you intended to write than me, and this was just a slight mistake in grammar, I can accept you have somewhat addressed my first and last question in the post I quoted. So let us get back to the meat of the conversation:

Who decide that the first represent an acceptable attempt while the second does not? How this this actually look like in play if a player states "I pick open the safe to find the Desert Rose ruby" and you think this is inappropriate, while the player thought it was justified?

 

[Enrahim]

No.

You need to say what system you're using.

Surely you'd agree that the question "how much do I harm an enemy when I strike them?" would require that we know more about the system being used, rather than accusing anyone of requiring that the players "need to engage in basic game design in order to play". Even if we assume that this is known to be a TTRPG with a pretty solid emphasis on combat, there are FAR too many answers to that question without specifying the system being used. And yet I still would think it ridiculous and inappropriate for my interlocutor to declare that "Oh so this game FORCES the players to invent their own damage rules?!?!"

As you are talking passionately of this technique, I expect you at least feel you have a deep understanding of at least one game where it is employed as part of the basic structure of the game. Also you were yourself introducing "picking a lock to get at the documents inside the safe" as a valid example for where this technique could come at play - ensuring that the docments will be still there on a full success. So pick your favorite game where this example would be a valid enforceable play.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

As you are talking passionately of this technique, I expect you at least feel you have a deep understanding of at least one game where it is employed as part of the basic structure of the game. Also you were yourself introducing "picking a lock to get at the documents inside the safe" as a valid example for where this technique could come at play - ensuring that the docments will be still there on a full success. So pick your favorite game where this example would be a valid enforceable play.

I thought you wanted answers regarding any possible such game, hence why I've avoided invoking any particular mechanics.

Now that you have, I can easily do the example, but I took my sleep meds like 45 minutes ago and they've really kicked in now, so I'm afraid I will have to actually do that in the morning. (It took three tries to get that sentence out right, so I definitely don't think now is a good time.)

 

[Enrahim]

I thought you wanted answers regarding any possible such game, hence why I've avoided invoking any particular mechanics.

Now that you have, I can easily do the example, but I took my sleep meds like 45 minutes ago and they've really kicked in now, so I'm afraid I will have to actually do that in the morning. (It took three tries to get that sentence out right, so I definitely don't think now is a good time.)

Thank you! I am looking forward to your reply Sleep well!