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

[Enrahim]

You’re making the same mistake as @AlViking above. You’re assuming you know what would have happened on a successful check. You don’t.

This misses the point of the example. I thought everyone at this point was aware that the problem situation at hand require the cook to be there because failure. So, yes, it is an underlying assumption that we know what would happen on a success. So if your "you don't" claim that the example do not specify the successfully check, that is you misunderstanding the context.

If you "you don't" refer to that the player in the hypotetical game wouldn't know that is also an interesting but ultimately not relevant point. It is true this would not be a problem for the player if they are left in the dark, but that is not guaranteed. The mechanism for how the player get to know about it is unspecified, but it is clearly not impossible. For instance the GM should have a pretty good idea of what we planned to do on a success, and they might "confess" this to the players. Maybe more likely might be the player sensing a certain pattern emerging based on what happen when they succeed and fail rolls.

<snip>
All kinds of things in play only get established in the moment as needed. It’s perfectly normal for this to happen.

I just want to second @Maxperson reply to this, how things is established in play is important. Even the GM taking inspiration from skill checks when determining content carries the risk of producing weird correlations that over time can build up to something hard for the brain to accept. The brain is very good at detecting patterns.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yes, I have done that just to drive home the idea of events being related and how we’d view them outside of a game. I’ve asked for people to answer specific questions outside of the context of RPGs.

But I only speak for myself. There’s no reason for you to interact with other people that way. I think we’d all do better if people try to engage with each other individually rather than as sides.

The "like" system makes that tricky, to be fair.

 

[Maxperson]

I didn't say things go badly with a success.

I said that it's possible the cook is still there. She may be in the kitchen, unaware that anyone has just broken in. She may be near the kitchen, in her quarters sleeping, unperturbed by the break in attempt.

The same sound occurs whether successful or failure. If one alerts the cook, the other should as well.

But that's the thing... only one thing happens. The lockpick attempt either fails or succeeds, the cook is either there or not. We don't know what the situation would be if the opposite happened because the opposite didn't happen.

This is one of the major differences between the two styles. Things don't change between success and failure. The cook is there or not no matter what. The sound is loud enough for the cook to hear or not(perception check) no matter what.

@AlViking is making the same mistake with his take on @pemerton 's example about the singing attracting the guard. He wants to know if the guard would have shown up if the roll for the singing had been a success. Who can say? That's not what happened, so we don't know how it would have gone.

It's not a mistake. It's a difference between the two styles.

But no one claimed to know the cook wasn't there. A kitchen in a noble's manor certainly implies a cook... just as much as a town implies a farrier (maybe even more so?). She's not "made to exist" either... she's "always there", just as the farrier is.

Unless you roll a success, and then she might be in her quarters instead of the kitchen. So she is not always there(in the kitchen at that moment). Her location is not fixed.

Another difference between the two styles is that there is even more granularity with our style. Even if you successfully pick the lock and the cook doesn't hear it due to a failed perception check, she will get another chance when you open the door and make a new noise, and when you enter the room(possibly in opposition to stealth), and possibly if the PCs collide with pots or dishes in the dark. One check isn't going to cover everything.

 

[clearstream]

Yes, there are supposed to be reasons in the imagined world. But those reasons don't affect the roll; and the game can be played without ever actually settling on what those reasons are.

In "new-simulationism" setting design precedes abstraction design. Outside of play when the abstractions are formed an earnest attempt is made to ensure that the roll will represent setting at the point of play. The abstraction that "dim light" can make surprise more likely in D&D is one example.

And of course every RPG supposes that there are reasons in the fiction to explain whatever is imagined by the participants. So this can't be enough to satisfy the manifesto's demands.

But there are no representations. The roll for surprise in D&D is not a representation of anything. It is a process for randomly deciding whether to narrate <this> - a fiction where the characters are aware of their surroundings - or <that> - a fiction where, for some reason that the process doesn't itself determine, the characters are distracted.

I reiterate that this is true of all resolution systems in all RPGs. So if this satisfies the manifesto, then all RPGs satisfy the manifesto. But clearly that's not what its author intended.

The over-productivity you identify looks thorny to address. My first thought was that analyzing principles in isolation doesn't seem right: they should be read together as a whole. Setting precedes abstraction precedes play. The abstractions have setting as their target reference and per 9. that cannot be perfectly simulated. At the point of play, principle 3. demands that GM fill in needed details faithful to the same reference. So that first line of principle 4. works together with other principles and should be assessed on that basis.

The surprise abstraction represents that creatures in the imagined setting can be caught flat-footed, especially in dim light, and when they are they are often slower to act. GM has the job of evoking the rule when circumstances in the fiction match circumstances of the right sort in the imagined setting, including reasons felt significant enough in the setting that the abstraction captures them, such as dim light, with consequences of the sort imagined to be typically seen in the setting.

But what you say makes it very noticeable that principle 4. and "new-simulationism" overall isn't prescriptive as to available forms and methods of abstraction. For example, it doesn't differentiate between simple-fail and fail-forward: either is fine, just so long as they can be used to represent setting. It only rules out abstractions that represent anything other than the reference setting that precedes them. To my reading, principles like 6. even lean it toward an FKR appreciation of how that should work out.

That notwithstanding, Sorensen's principle appears to rule out some other RPGs through exclusion of the things that they want to do. As is reinforced by "and nothing more." It's not the job of "new-simulationism" abstractions to introduce the unwelcome and unwanted to the fiction so if the thing an RPG wants to do is that, it's ruled out. It's not their job to ensure the fitness of characters, put them in conflict, drive passionate reactions, so if the thing an RPG wants to do is "narrativism", that's excluded. It's not their job to hide information and demand players make commitments before seeing the outcome, so "guess and script" is ruled out.

It's only their job to make the imagined details and dynamics of the imagined world available to play. That leaves open another route to over-productivity, which is what happens if the world I settle on is one where passionate, fit characters conflict? Couldn't the tools for anything that some RPG could do, be built into the world itself. I suspect that has to be accepted so long as it is that world and no other that the abstractions represent.

 

[clearstream]

The "like" system makes that tricky, to be fair.

It's the one feature I wish Enworld would deprecate. I very much agree with you that the "like" system leads to sides. It also leads to dog-piling and is sometimes used to mock. Perhaps someone knows of some strong arguments for keeping it?

 

[hawkeyefan]

The same sound occurs whether successful or failure. If one alerts the cook, the other should as well.

What? Says who?

I don’t think there’s only one way to handle that in D&D. There’s certainly not only one way to handle it in RPGs.

This is one of the major differences between the two styles. Things don't change between success and failure. The cook is there or not no matter what. The sound is loud enough for the cook to hear or not(perception check) no matter what.

Again, this is not true for all D&D. Certainly there are methods and means used to create dynamic environments where NPCs will move about or can be found in different locations.

It's not a mistake. It's a difference between the two styles.

Asking @pemerton what happened if the player succeeded on their roll to sing is a mistake. The player didn’t succeed… so it didn’t happen. There’s no way to say what would have happened except to guess.

Unless you roll a success, and then she might be in her quarters instead of the kitchen. So she is not always there(in the kitchen at that moment). Her location is not fixed.

It may be or it may bot be. It depends on how the GM preps or handles this type of situation. Even if it is fixed, the failed roll may just mean that she’s aware of the break in, and a successful roll means she is not.

Another difference between the two styles is that there is even more granularity with our style. Even if you successfully pick the lock and the cook doesn't hear it due to a failed perception check, she will get another chance when you open the door and make a new noise, and when you enter the room(possibly in opposition to stealth), and possibly if the PCs collide with pots or dishes in the dark. One check isn't going to cover everything.

Oh I don’t think that’s in doubt at all. Though I think there’s likely plenty of variance from table to table, I would say that generally speaking a trad approach is going to involve more rolls than other approaches.

It’s not necessary to do it that way, but I expect most trad GMs lean that way.

 

[clearstream]

Obviously the rules of the game tell the GM to do do something and the GM chose something that was plausible for the fiction of the world. I'm referring to fictional world logic, not game rule logic.

Going back to Sorensen, the section about abstraction should apply to most games and is just setting a baseline. I don't read any more into than that. The relevant part of what he wrote is that if you are running a simulationist game, the GM is beholden to the world's fiction just as much as the players. So cause and effect means that the guard just doesn't pop into existence because of a failed check which was what I was comparing and contrasting. Perfectly fine in a narrative game, not so much for the simulationist GM.

I'd like to draw attention to principles 4., 6. and 9. here. So far as I can make out, neosim is agnostic about the forms abstractions take, and leaves open that GM and players may narrate things faithful to setting and not yet authored (including by the abstractions.) Meaning that they might indeed narrate a guard if prompted by an abstraction to "contribute a consequence that matters" just so long as saying so was faithful to setting.

Thus I do not believe we can rule RPGs in or out of neosim on the basis of whether they use simple-fail, fail-forward or any other method of resolution. We can only rule RPGs in (or exclude them) on the basis that

Setting preceded abstraction preceded play; so that setting indeed serves as reference.​

​

Abstractions exist only to make the details and dynamics of setting available to play; knowing that this will be incomplete.​

​

At every moment of play, players contribute to the fiction only that which is faithful to setting; where "GM is a player."​

​

These three might not be sufficient -- they're not intended to replace the manifesto -- but they roughly summarise some recognisable features that ought to be common to neosim RPGs.

 

[Lanefan]

And I am saying that you are clearly using the social contract of any game that allows player authorship for toilet paper. And if you are using the social contract for toilet paper you are being a jerk.

In case it's not already clear, when it comes to games I'm not big on the whole "social contract" thing. If the game rules don't prohibit me from doing something - particularly in an RPG, a game type where the rules are in theory prohibitive rather than permissive - then it's within my purview as player to try it.

What you can author is generally what you can know in character in advance. You clearly do not know what is in the safe in character and what you have done is no more interesting or clever than reach in and say "I pull it out of my ear by magic".

Then how is the location of the ruby determined? Someone (you?) said earlier that it's through the GM prepping the scenario, which is fine but argues hard against what we keep getting told: that map-and-key play is doubleplusungood and that the GM is supposed to find this sort of thing out at the same time the players do.

We know the ruby's in the house; something has to determine its exact location in there. So either we ARE playing map-and-key or there has to be some other mechanism that allows us to find the ruby somewhere - preferably in a considerably more granular fashion than a simple "We search the house for the ruby" declaration.

There is a huge difference between a puzzle and a problem. The entire campaign is about problem solving both in character and out. The entire campaign only is a puzzle if there is one right answer with one right way to do it

I see them as almost synonymous, the only difference being - as you say - the number of possible solutions. Then again, when I see the word "problem" in terms of something solvable my mind immediately goes to grade-school math "problems", to which there's also only one solution.

Indeed. It's a "one solution" thing. It's only interesting as a McGuffin for motivation. It's essentially the briefcase with a light in it in Pulp Fiction.

Never seen Pulp Fiction so the reference is lost on me, sorry.

The interesting thing isn't the ruby, it's what we find exploring the house.

And you, being a jerk by declaring the ruby that way (and reaching beyond your power but never mind) have just declared that there's no point exploring this house any further because we have what we came here for so everyone should just stop.

This doesn't follow.

My declaration, if successful, merely gets us the ruby. Unless we're in a real time crunch, that doesn't mean we have to stop exploring the rest of the place and scooping whatever else we can find (and most parties IME would strip the place to the studs if they could!).

 

[pemerton]

Okay, cool. So what was the point of bringing them up in a discussion about cause and effect?

I didn't. @AlViking did. In my reply to AlViking, I pointed out that necessary conditions aren't causes, whereas the causes that @hawkeyfan and I had pointed to are INUS conditions.

 

[pemerton]

At some point prior to the PC encountering the situation or making a roll, if the logic of the setting indicates such a person should be there.

It's a pulp-y fantasy city, of the sort that is fairly common in REH stories. How does the logic of the setting not indicate that a guard might be there?

Or if we're talking about a kitchen, how does the logic of the setting not indicate that a guard might be there?

Now if you insist that might must be replaced by should, you're setting a standard that (i) can't be satisfied, and (ii) will in application produce stilted, unrealistic fiction. (Because the only things that happen are the ones the GM thinks are the most likely.)