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

[pemerton]

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.

Can you provide an example of a RPG that doesn't satisfy your principles? I can't think of one.

I think that the intention of the author of the manifesto is to specify a much more narrow range of games.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

If the only info we-as-players have to go on* is that the ruby is in the house somewhere, and the GM hasn't determined its location ahead of time because the system says she's not supposed to do that, then by what mechanism is its actual location determined?

The conversation that is play. Like....that's literally how the game works. It is NOT simply "success on a search roll"--whatever that might be in a given system.

I gave @Enrahim a breakdown of how it works in Dungeon World.

Also? In nearly every possible game of this kind, this WOULDN'T be the only information. I'm only specifying that because that's what YOU told ME to do. I wouldn't have gone with that! Such a paucity of information is, frankly, not very conducive to good or interesting play.

 

[AnotherGuy]

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?

Like many things it can be used for good and bad
Besides sharing in joy (laugh) it is an indicator for like-minded persons to enjoy a well written post or perspective.
You can also use the thumbs up as a thank you.
But otherwise yes it can be used to denote and cement tribal mentality

 

[AnotherGuy]

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.

I propose a name for this approach, the staggered skill challenge

 

[clearstream]

Can you provide an example of a RPG that doesn't satisfy your principles? I can't think of one.

I think that the intention of the author of the manifesto is to specify a much more narrow range of games.

To confirm understanding, do you mean the terms I've bolded to refer to RPG-as-artifact? Also, did you see my earlier reply to you?

I do have some answers in mind but it'll help to make sure of this first.

 

[Neonchameleon]

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.

Like I said game rules don't prevent you using loaded dice for your rules. And how is anyone going to know to ban them afterwards? Are you going to boast of it.

But any reasonable person would consider it taking the piss and you would almost certainly be kicked from the table for using loaded dice.

Then how is the location of the ruby determined?

It depends on the game. There are literally dozens of ways to do this. Why do we want the ruby? Why is it even vaguely interesting to us. And if it's a ruby we want the odds are it's been in full view all along; in certain styles of game it will be on a necklace round the duchess's neck dangling between her breasts.

You show me the game you are playing that (a) sets up the quest objective as the ruby and (b) lets the players determine where the ruby is in mid-mission as that is an inherently badly designed game (or one designed round characters with reality warping powers). Until you can show such a game we aren't discussing an actual RPG; we are discussing an out and out strawman you have set up. "Hey! If you set up a game stupidly so it isn't a game and set up objectives that don't fit with the game you will have a bad game!" Well, yes.

This doesn't mean that there's no time I wouldn't let a player say there was Desert Rose in a safe they'd just opened. If the players in ... just about any game have opened a safe full of jewels and I'd pictured emeralds and sapphires but someone pulls out a ruby or one especially interested in gems want to recognise one as the famous ruby Desert Rose that's fine; it adds to the setting and Desert Rose is just a named ruby. But if Desert Rose is the McGuffin we are doing this whole adventure for or otherwise has magical powers then no.

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.

And what it is will depend on the game. In general if it is a mission objective it will be in the hands of the GM. It might be in the hands of the dice or other randomiser. The mechanism will never be "the players get to declare when they win".

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.

That "almost" is doing a huge amount of work.

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

Pulp Fiction has a continual plot device of a briefcase that when it's opened sheds golden light on whoever opened it. It drives the entire story and the characters all want it. But what it actually is is meaningless (and it literally is a briefcase with a lightbulb in it, but you never see inside).

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!).

And this is a part of why most people don't play old school games. If we wanted to play a game of accountancy and inventory management most people find computer games do it better. Wanting to play burglars stripping the mansion down to the studs description by tedious description is a niche kink. But it's one encouraged by old school games (with XP for GP rules). If you look at the new darling Daggerheart it is so uninterested in money that it measures it in handfuls, bags, and a chest.

 

[Hussar]

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.

Unfortunately, in practice, what this means is that the PC's will nearly always fail. Because the DM simply piles on check after check until the PC's fail, and that failure will almost always be catastrophic.

You call it granular, I call it punishing for no reason. Having seen this in play so many times, I have zero interest in this kind of play anymore. The fact that most DM's simply cannot understand the math behind the checks means that it rarely, if ever, actually works.

 

[pemerton]

did you see my earlier reply to you?

No, not until now:

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.

What if the guessing represents the "fog of war"? Some versions of D&D uses blind declaration (eg spell casting in AD&D), and it's not obvious to me that the manifesto is meant to exclude them.

It's also not clear to me that, and how, the manifesto rules out "vanilla narrativism". Because the only principle it states for evolving the ingame situation is "be diegetic". But, as has often been discussed, that does not uniquely determine what happens next.

Whereas Eero Tuovinen's various categories of simulationism actually identify useful, practical ways of supporting play, I don't think that the manifesto does. Ruling out some metagame mechanics (which I think is what is intended by the "diegesis" stuff) is not sufficient.

do you mean the terms I've bolded to refer to RPG-as-artifact?

I don't know what "RPG as artifact" is, so no.

 

[pemerton]

Unfortunately, in practice, what this means is that the PC's will nearly always fail. Because the DM simply piles on check after check until the PC's fail, and that failure will almost always be catastrophic.

You call it granular, I call it punishing for no reason. Having seen this in play so many times, I have zero interest in this kind of play anymore. The fact that most DM's simply cannot understand the math behind the checks means that it rarely, if ever, actually works.

I'd add to this - if the probabilities are adjusted so that the overall outcome is not punishing, then each individual roll becomes pretty anticlimactic, even tedious - for instance, 10 rolls with a 2% chance of failure are simply not as exciting as 1 roll with a 20% chance of failure.

And this is even moreso if the GM is not reframing after each roll, which - on a resolutely "simulationist" approach - they will not be.

 

[Gimby]

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.

I'm interested how you determine how many checks you need for this more granular style - we all know that the more checks are made, the lower probability of success is.

Consider a simpler example - let's assume 5.14 and the character attempting to sneak up on a target at the end of a long city alley at night. The target is relying on passive perception to detect the approaching character.

The GM narrates that there is a decent amount of cover (boxes, refuse and so on) and is 150 feet long. It is plausible that there are animals or even maybe a passed out drunk or similar in the passageway that isn't immediately visible to the character as they are completely obscured. The character approaching the target has a Stealth (Dexterity) bonus of +10 and the target has a passive perception of 15.

We can treat this in a number of ways - perhaps we make a single roll to approach. Perhaps we make rolls depending on the movement rate of the character (so for this, a reasonable number is 5 checks, once per 30 ft of normal movement). Perhaps we decide instead to make a number of checks based on the number of major obstacles in the path (let's say for the sake of argument there are three)

In the first case we get a success probability of 80%, for the second about 33% and for the third about 50%. I'll note we can quibble about disadvantage, but the pattern remains the same - we'd get the same idea in 3.x even if the exact values change.

I'd argue that the largest determinator of success is therefore not the skills of the characters or even the fictional situation (as above, all three approaches are congruent with the fiction) but how many rolls the GM decides are needed before success. It risks a kind of "soft" railroading, whereby failure can be enforced by simply requiring more rolls - I've certainly experienced this and done it, albeit inadvertently.

It's useful therefore to come up with a heuristic for how many tests are needed that's beyond the fictional situation (as demonstrated above, the same fiction can reasonably deliver multiple possible values)