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

[pemerton]

The difference between this kind of trad and the BitD described is that in trad "what happens" is deduced from how the world was chosen to be. In BitD "what happens" is chosen and how the world was has to be deduced from that.

In the first the initial world state is an input independent of mechanics. In the later the initial world state is an illusion (partly) determined by the output of the mechanics.

But this can't literally be true, once we get beyond the most austere sort of map-and-key resolution.

For instance, suppose that you're playing a fairly conventional D&D game, and the player declares that their PC wanders through the town at night, singing. The town is a typical fantasy one like Waterdeep or Greyhawk or Hardby or whatever. No GM actually has a map and key and related system for tracking (i) exactly where the PC walks, and (ii) where each guard is at each moment, and (iii) the disposition of each guard towards singers, such that from an initial world state there can be inferred an answer to the question does any guard harass the singing PC?

This is why, upthread, I posted that this is not simply the logic of the setting impressing itself upon the GM. Some decision must be made about what happens, if anything, to the night-strolling singer.

The most traditional way to do this that I know of is a combination of an encounter roll (tells us if a guard, or anyone else, is near the PC) and a reaction roll (tells us how any NPC who is near the PC reacts to them). Those rolls generate how the world is (ie what people with what dispositions it contains at what particular places). The state of the world is the output of these game-mechanical processes.

Does this mean that the initial state of the world is an "illusion"? That's not a description I've ever heard, outside the context of threads like these. The process of encounter rolls and reaction rolls is basically as old as the hobby itself.

I'm not going to comment on BitD, which I don't know well enough; but in Burning Wheel, there are no encounter rolls and reaction rolls. Rather, the Sing roll has been used to perform the same function, namely, on its failure as interpreted by the GM, to determine that the night-strolling singing PC has been harassed by a guard.

This process centres the player (via their decision to make the Sing roll, the stakes that establishes both expressly and implicitly, the general rules for consequence-narration and scene (re)framing etc) in a way that differs from the system of encounter rolls and reaction rolls. That's not an accident: it's a key way in which Burning Wheel is deliberately different from more traditional and classic approaches to FRPGing.

But trying to articulate that difference not by reference to at-the-table processes, but rather in terms of the metaphysics of the fiction ("inorganic", "unconnected", "unfixed", "illusory", etc) is hopeless.

 

[Maxperson]

Correct. That's why the punch, as I said, is not a sufficient condition. It is an INUS condition. As I also posted, the sufficient condition, of which it is one necessary but insufficient component, is the fact of the punch together with the disposition of the tackler.

What I am saying is that if you have 10 people with similar dispositions to the tackler, not all of them will do it. The tackle is not in any way inevitable. It happened that time, but might not happen the next time even with the same person seeing a second punch.

 

[pemerton]

They're surprised because the other side was trying to be stealthy and surprise them. Nothing gets retrofitted. They snuck up. You failed to see them. Surprise!

But why did the PCs fail to see them?

There's no rule in D&D that you can only surprise someone if you are invisible or camouflaged. As Gygax noticed, surprise can result simply from someone not paying attention, eg because they were fixing their armour or checking their gear or relieving themselves.

When the PCs in your game are surprised by non-invisible, non-camouflaged enemies, why were those PCs distracted? What were they doing such that they were not paying attention?

 

[pemerton]

What I am saying is that if you have 10 people with similar dispositions to the tackler, not all of them will do it. The tackle is not in any way inevitable. It happened that time, but might not happen the next time even with the same person seeing a second punch.

If the dispositions are identical than, by definition, they will.

@hawkeyefan and I are not making any assertion about how common such dispositions are. We are saying that if someone has a disposition such that they tackle the puncher, then the puncher throwing their punch was a cause - an INUS condition - of being tackled.

 

[pemerton]

Sure, if you take it out of context and ignore all the things the players did to drive it to that point and make the decision to pick the lock. DM reaction to players driving things =/= DM driven.

But all those prior things were done the same way.

It's not like these games are mysterious to me. I've played them. I know how they work. I know that I regard them as GM driven.

 

[Maxperson]

But why did the PCs fail to see them?

The other part was stealthy and they missed their perception check.

There's no rule in D&D that you can only surprise someone if you are invisible or camouflaged. As Gygax noticed, surprise can result simply from someone not paying attention, eg because they were fixing their armour or checking their gear or relieving themselves.

Gygax is irrelevant to the 5e rules you are talking about. Personally, I agree with Gygax and think the 5e surprise rules are deficient, but they are what we have currently.

When the PCs in your game are surprised by non-invisible, non-camouflaged enemies, why were those PCs distracted? What were they doing such that they were not paying attention?

They missed the other party because the other party was using stealth. Here's the rule.

"The DM determines who might be surprised. If neither side tries to be stealthy, they automatically notice each other."

Surprise only happens if at least one side is being stealthy.

 

[Maxperson]

But all those prior things were done the same way.

What do you mean? Player driven is player driven is player driven. The DM is in the passenger seat reacting to the player decisions.

It's not like these games are mysterious to me. I've played them. I know how they work. I know that I regard them as GM driven.

How you regard them is not how they are. There are people who regard the Earth as flat. That doesn't make them right.

 

[clearstream]

But this can't literally be true, once we get beyond the most austere sort of map-and-key resolution.

For instance, suppose that you're playing a fairly conventional D&D game, and the player declares that their PC wanders through the town at night, singing. The town is a typical fantasy one like Waterdeep or Greyhawk or Hardby or whatever. No GM actually has a map and key and related system for tracking (i) exactly where the PC walks, and (ii) where each guard is at each moment, and (iii) the disposition of each guard towards singers, such that from an initial world state there can be inferred an answer to the question does any guard harass the singing PC?

This is why, upthread, I posted that this is not simply the logic of the setting impressing itself upon the GM. Some decision must be made about what happens, if anything, to the night-strolling singer.

The most traditional way to do this that I know of is a combination of an encounter roll (tells us if a guard, or anyone else, is near the PC) and a reaction roll (tells us how any NPC who is near the PC reacts to them). Those rolls generate how the world is (ie what people with what dispositions it contains at what particular places). The state of the world is the output of these game-mechanical processes.

Does this mean that the initial state of the world is an "illusion"? That's not a description I've ever heard, outside the context of threads like these. The process of encounter rolls and reaction rolls is basically as old as the hobby itself.

I'm not going to comment on BitD, which I don't know well enough; but in Burning Wheel, there are no encounter rolls and reaction rolls. Rather, the Sing roll has been used to perform the same function, namely, on its failure as interpreted by the GM, to determine that the night-strolling singing PC has been harassed by a guard.

This process centres the player (via their decision to make the Sing roll, the stakes that establishes both expressly and implicitly, the general rules for consequence-narration and scene (re)framing etc) in a way that differs from the system of encounter rolls and reaction rolls. That's not an accident: it's a key way in which Burning Wheel is deliberately different from more traditional and classic approaches to FRPGing.

But trying to articulate that difference not by reference to at-the-table processes, but rather in terms of the metaphysics of the fiction ("inorganic", "unconnected", "unfixed", "illusory", etc) is hopeless.

That's explained well, but... why a guard? The Sing test failure introduces a complication, but why and even how does that add a guard to the fiction? Contrast with an encounter table listing "d3 guards".

This can be answered only through what I think you are calling "the metaphysics of fiction" which I would characterise as philosophy of fiction. We're able to readily choose the more probable of equally false things to pretend is true. Is it a guard or an octopus, on these city streets? More probably a guard. Could Sherlock Holmes have taken passage to Wellington, New Zealand or Neptune? Probably Wellington. Both are equally false, but one seems more in keeping with the fiction.

This implies that as well as everything that has been entered into our fiction we have in mind additional references. The logic of the setting impresses itself on GM to make the complication a guard. Where "the logic" refers to experience of reference worlds (including the real one, and implying that it's more important for prep to capture exceptions than norms.)

 

[Enrahim]

But this can't literally be true, once we get beyond the most austere sort of map-and-key resolution.

The difference between this kind of trad and the BitD described is that in trad "what happens" is deduced from how the world was chosen to be. In BitD "what happens" is chosen and how the world was has to be deduced from that.

Where how I read the kind of trad @Faolyn appeared to want to discuss in this reply chain being exactly what you describe as "the most austere sort of map-and-key resolution."

This invalidates the rest of your post as a relevant reply to my post. I already covered the spontaneous content creation case you discuss here to some extent in a seperate branch on the same topic:

Seperate point from the previous, which was relevant for the situation you proposed where a planned test actually can have wide reaching consequences. Most tests in trad is as spontaneous as in the alternative, and the key difference between those is scope. A test in a fail forward system binds the GM to more than just what the result of the task at hand is. Trad only resolves the task, and most of the time in a way that is not open for interpretation at all.

And more importantly in my observations about GM freedom in being able to create the content without being required to follow a bias produced by the rules

I pondered this a bit, and I think I have an answer for you. The critical notion is the commonality you express: "in each case the GM narrates something not because they considered the fiction and its logic impressed itself upon them but rather because something happened at the game table that prompted them to narrate the presence of a NPC/creature."

I think the crucial difference is the degree of freedom the GM has in their narration. In the farrier case they are completely free - they could just as well have narrated that there was no farrier without anyone calling foul. There is an outside compell, and that is when the decission need to be made, but a neutral referee with is the ideal for a living world would not feel any pressure toward the content of the answer.

In the fail/succeed roll case the GM is not free to narrate. They are bound by the result. On a fail they are not only forced to make an answer, they need to make sure that answer is interesting, and negative for the characters.

The wandering monster is interesting because that come in both flavors. You have games with hard player-facing rules for when wandering monster checks needs to be made, and modules often come with predefined tables. This situation is even more extreme than the fail succeed roll. Here the GM isn't only bound to when to make decission, they are fully bound to what content to introduce. This is what gives random monsters a really bad reputation for breaking immersion.

But wait a second! Wandering monsters and random tables is a hallmark of living world sandbox play! How can this possibly be if wandering monsters are even worse than forced fail forward? That is that when used in such play, the criterion of player side rules for their use is not present. Rather than being a game mechanics, they are a tool for the GM to help them stay neutral. These are usually made by the GM and tailored to the GM vision of how population dense the location is, and only populated by things they expect might make sense. They are only bound by timings they create, and if they find the fiction is critically different than what they expected when they made the tables, they are fully free to skip rols, alter frequency of rolls, or alter table results if that make more sense in the new situation. So they are actually not bound to time or content. The use of the structure and the random roll is to further eliminate the bias that might come in if they would have introduced things only on "feel", hence producing an even more authentic feeling world than they would have managed with full freedom.

In particular this claim:

The most traditional way to do this that I know of is a combination of an encounter roll (tells us if a guard, or anyone else, is near the PC) and a reaction roll (tells us how any NPC who is near the PC reacts to them). Those rolls generate how the world is (ie what people with what dispositions it contains at what particular places). The state of the world is the output of these game-mechanical processes.

Is missing the key distinction I made between game-mechanics and GM tool. If the encounter roll and reaction roll is indeed game mechanics then I acknowledged it indeed is even worse than BW resolution with regard to living world considerations. However this analysis do not work out if these are tools the GM choses to use to resolve the situation.

 

[Lanefan]

How far in advance does it need to be made up? Weeks? Days? Hours?

It's not a question of how far in advance it has to be made up, it's a question of what's made up remaining the same regardless of what the players roll and-or how they interact with it.

If you place a cook in the kitchen between 2 am and 6 am then there's a cook in the kitchen at that time no matter whether the PCs unlock the kitchen door, fail to unlock the door, or decide to go in through an upstairs bedroom instead.