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

[pemerton]

No in-fiction reason for what before which rolling of the dice?
I thought the what here was "characters are surprised" and the "which" was the surprise roll. In witch case the in-fiction reason described is that there are someone trying to be stealthy? Even if ignoring the 5ed requirement we still need the in fiction reason that someone is in the vincity?

If the what is there are someone in the vincity, and the which is the wandering monster roll, then the in-fiction reason would presumably be that the characters have spent some time in an area that are commonly experiencing some traffic?

As I posted upthread, there is no requirement, in D&D, that a creature be invisible or camouflaged in order to surprise the PCs. It is possible simply to sneak up on them while they are distracted.

Consider, for instance, a situation where a group of 5 Orcs come around a dungeon corridor and surprises some PCs. Why did the PCs not notice the Orcs? If they had been listening, presumably they would have: the Orcs are (if typical instances) wearing armour and carrying kit. The obvious explanation is that the PCs were distracted, doing other things, or thinking about other things, perhaps talking among themselves, etc. The ability to avoid such distraction, and to focus intently on what is going on in the environs, is represented (in 5e D&D) by the passive WIS (Perception) score; in AD&D it is represented by the chance of not being surprised, which is better than the norm for rangers and monks.

But any such fact about the PCs being distracted and not paying attention to their surrounding is not established until the dice are rolled: in AD&D that is the surprise dice; in 5e D&D that is the DEX (Stealth) dice.

The point will even generalise to some cases of camouflage or similar. For instance, stealthy Orcs might try and match their movements, and the sounds they make, to other background noise with which they can blend in. But that sort of ambient background noise, which is something that makes Stealth possible, is also not established until the dice are rolled. If the DEX (Stealth) check succeeds, then the GM can narrate: "A group of 5 Orcs suddenly comes around the corner, catching you by surprise. You didn't hear them against the background noise of the dungeon." That background noise is established as a part of the fiction now to explain something that happened in the fiction back then.

 

[pemerton]

This is cool! The thing is that it is the prior state of the fiction that informs the GM's choice whether to use the tool or not

Edit: Or wait a second. Just to make sure: You are not trying to construct a determinism strawman, are you?

I don't know what a "determinism strawman" is.

But if the GM decides that the prior state of the fiction doesn't yield an outcome/event now, but an outcome/event is needed, and therefore the GM rolls on a table, that is not a case of the GM saying something because the logic of the fiction impressed itself upon them. It's the GM rolling some dice, looking at a table, and then introducing a <guard, cook, whatever> into the fiction.

 

[Enrahim]

I don't know what a "determinism strawman" is.

But if the GM decides that the prior state of the fiction doesn't yield an outcome/event now, but an outcome/event is needed, and therefore the GM rolls on a table, that is not a case of the GM saying something because the logic of the fiction impressed itself upon them. It's the GM rolling some dice, looking at a table, and then introducing a <guard, cook, whatever> into the fiction.

Doesn't seem like the determinism strawman Good.

Why is an outcome/event needed if this isn't "because the logic of the fiction impressed itself upon them"?

Edit: Answer - the player prompt. Next question:
Why did the GM decide to roll on that table rather than for instance go with the first thing that came to mind if it wasn't "because the logic of the fiction impressed itself upon them"? (In this case in a bit more subtle way, that the fiction inherently allow for several possible outcomes, and the least biased way to determine between them would be the randomness of a roll)

 

[Enrahim]

As I posted upthread, there is no requirement, in D&D, that a creature be invisible or camouflaged in order to surprise the PCs. It is possible simply to sneak up on them while they are distracted.

Consider, for instance, a situation where a group of 5 Orcs come around a dungeon corridor and surprises some PCs. Why did the PCs not notice the Orcs? If they had been listening, presumably they would have: the Orcs are (if typical instances) wearing armour and carrying kit. The obvious explanation is that the PCs were distracted, doing other things, or thinking about other things, perhaps talking among themselves, etc. The ability to avoid such distraction, and to focus intently on what is going on in the environs, is represented (in 5e D&D) by the passive WIS (Perception) score; in AD&D it is represented by the chance of not being surprised, which is better than the norm for rangers and monks.

But any such fact about the PCs being distracted and not paying attention to their surrounding is not established until the dice are rolled: in AD&D that is the surprise dice; in 5e D&D that is the DEX (Stealth) dice.

The point will even generalise to some cases of camouflage or similar. For instance, stealthy Orcs might try and match their movements, and the sounds they make, to other background noise with which they can blend in. But that sort of ambient background noise, which is something that makes Stealth possible, is also not established until the dice are rolled. If the DEX (Stealth) check succeeds, then the GM can narrate: "A group of 5 Orcs suddenly comes around the corner, catching you by surprise. You didn't hear them against the background noise of the dungeon." That background noise is established as a part of the fiction now to explain something that happened in the fiction back then.

Yes, I am sorry. I didn't realize before it was too late. I edited my previous post but clearly after you already had started writing your reply.

Short story: The problem you describe is the problem of granularity. It is always possible to narrate things on a higher granularity level than what the resolution process in the game take into account. I believe this common process of coloring fiction to a higher granularity than what the resolution mechanism of the game in question are working on is a very distinct activity from the act of introducing new low granularity justifications for an outcome.

 

[thefutilist]

Yes, I am sorry. I didn't realize before it was too late. I edited my previous post but clearly after you already had started writing your reply.

Short story: The problem you describe is the problem of granularity. It is always possible to narrate things on a higher granularity level than what the resolution process in the game take into account. I believe this common process of coloring fiction to a higher granularity than what the resolution mechanism of the game in question are working on is a very distinct activity from the act of introducing new low granularity justifications for an outcome.

Entities operate at different granularities and this allows color to become situation whilst still being a resolution procedure rather than a generative procedure. Let me try and turn this word salad into an illustrative example.

So the game is Sorcerer, which operates in many respects like some 'trad' games.


My Thief is trying to get to the safe containing the Ruby. The safe is inside the Mansion. It's late at night. Thief decides to sneak in to steal the Ruby.

In Sorcerer, for the resolution mechanics to kick in, their needs to be established opposition. In this case I abstract and make that opposition, the guards and staff of the mansion.


So will the Thief get to the Ruby unseen or will they be spotted?


We roll the dice and the Mansion staff win. So I then frame a scene with the Thief sneaking through the kitchen and a Chef suddenly coming in and spotting them.

The chef exists in the scene because of the roll but they also kind of exist in a very abstract way as part of the already established opposition (the mansion staff).

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Different player groups and types, perhaps. I've seen (and played in) adventuring parties that hared off into the field with far less info to go on than that. Doesn't mean they all succeeded in what they were trying to do, of course, but some players are simply averse to info-gathering for whatever reason and don't mind mission failure as a consequence.

If their goal is to find the Desert Rose ruby, IME their knowing ahead of time which house it's in is remarkably precise.

Okay. As is rather often the case, your experience has...some pretty dramatic differences from mine, to the point that your examples based on that experience genuinely sound so extreme as to be made up, rather than factual. That doesn't mean you are making them up, mind, but it means it's frustratingly hard to have any kind of conversation.

As a general rule, in any "Story Now" kind of game--I feel relatively comfortable even saying this of ones I haven't interacted with much, if at all--the way play works, you really do need most players to be relatively well-informed with at least the loose details of the scene. That doesn't mean they're omniscient, otherwise there wouldn't be need for things like Dungeon World's (ridiculously-named) "Discern Realities" move. There are circumstances where this might be different (e.g. a freshly-started group is a common example), but by and large if the table's focus is turning to Chateau d'Ys because that's where the Desert Rose is...it's because the Desert Rose really matters (as a trophy, as a mark, as a restoration of status, any of a million reasons), or at least acquiring it matters, and the players have taken actions in that direction: asking questions and acting on the answers. So like...it would be the players casing the joint, finding a copacetic fence,

Payday 2 is a...video game? Not familiar with it.

Yes. One of the very few multiplayer video games that supports stealth. Most jobs have only a few places guards can be--but they move around, and even when you've dealt with one, that doesn't mean the others don't or won't change their behavior afterward. Likewise, you may (or may not) know precisely where your primary target is located, but knowing this may not make the heist particularly easy at all. Some heists have perfectly fixed locations for the top prize, yet the heist can still be quite a challenge.

Point being: even in a video game where it's at least theoretically possible to have genuinely perfect knowledge, there's still plenty of challenge. Surely, in a tabletop game where knowledge is a lot harder to acquire and many (many, many) more variables can come into play, simply knowing the guards' patrol routes and the location of your primary target isn't the fun-killer you've claimed it to be.

Indeed.

Just as often, though, it's no plan survives contact with its own intended execution because someone goes off-plan before the enemy are even encountered.

Okay? I'm...not really sure what this caveat changes about what I said? This is just further evidence that even if the players have high knowledge, and thus a superior plan, that doesn't really change much of anything about the fun nor the challenge of the heist (or whatever they happen to be doing).

 

[clearstream]

I don't know how you and @clearstream are using the phrase "metaphysics of fiction".

So far as I recall you introduced the term "metaphysics of fiction" to this thread, to which my immediate response was "I don't think metaphysics comes into it."

So what did you have in mind?

 

[clearstream]

The chef exists in the scene because of the roll but they also kind of exist in a very abstract way as part of the already established opposition (the mansion staff).

And that in turn because of prior notions about mansions and the sorts of people found within them, e.g. "staff". It could be that the chief flaw in Sorensen's neosim manifesto is that world always precedes play, even if it exists only as notions formed from our experience of life. A job of the design and a playful activity is to innovate it in satisfying directions.

That's why I put forward that one of the most important jobs that an RPG's approaches to establishing world can do is to create the unusual and unexpected in the game's fiction.

In this light, RuneQuest could be counted a great neosim game because of the breadth and coherence with which it delineates the ways in which Glorantha is different from our world. (And why that matters.)

EDITED @pemerton taken together with your breakdown of play just up thread, this might help see through the "dead-end". It seems like I haven't yet properly grasped your thought, and I wonder if you have quite yet grasped mine?

 

[pemerton]

Why did the GM decide to roll on that table rather than for instance go with the first thing that came to mind if it wasn't "because the logic of the fiction impressed itself upon them"? (In this case in a bit more subtle way, that the fiction inherently allow for several possible outcomes, and the least biased way to determine between them would be the randomness of a roll)

The fiction always allows for several possible outcomes, as far as I can see.

Eg the player has their PC sneak into a house via the kitchen. Maybe there is a cook in the kitchen; maybe there isn't. Maybe there are windchimes on the door; maybe there aren't. Maybe the fire in the kitchen is up high, because someone asked for a midnight bah; maybe it's down low, mostly embers until it gets restoked not long before dawn.

Maybe the GM thinks one is compelling, for whatever reason. Or maybe the GM decides to roll. Perhaps to avoid bias? Though I think the notion, from AW, of "disclaiming decision-making" is more accurate, at least to my own experience.

Of course, in a lot of RPGs the GM is not supposed to avoid bias in deciding consequences and in (re)framing scenes. The impartiality is handed to the dice; but when the time comes for the GM to decide, that GM is expected to be partial. I've explained in some detail how this is the case in Burning Wheel. In Apocalypse World, it begins with the principle that the GM is to be a fan of the players' characters (though it doesn't end there). And in DW, disclaiming decision-making is just one possibility open to the GM, but not an overriding consideration.

 

[pemerton]

The problem you describe is the problem of granularity. It is always possible to narrate things on a higher granularity level than what the resolution process in the game take into account.

I don't think it's just granularity. Because if players were expected to declare their actions at the level of detail that would establish whether they are paying attention, keeping their mind on the immediate situation, etc, then of course they always would! The surprise roll, or in 5e D&D the DEX (Stealth) roll, also has the function of forcing us (ie the game participants) to imagine the PCs doing things that their controllers (ie the players) would not describe them as doing if given the opportunity.

In that respect it's much like the dreaded Steel test in Burning Wheel that was discussed at such great length some way upthread.

And to the extent that there is a granularity aspect to it, o RPG I can conceive of is going to avoid the issue. It is not feasible to expect the players to establish what their PC is doing to the level of detail that would enable working out whether or not they are distracted, or notice an approaching person, via mere extrapolation from the established fiction.

I believe this common process of coloring fiction to a higher granularity than what the resolution mechanism of the game in question are working on is a very distinct activity from the act of introducing new low granularity justifications for an outcome.

I don't know what you have in mind in referring to "new low granularity justifications for an outcome". But obviously in the fiction there must be some or other reason that the PCs are surprised. Gygax realised this, and addressed it in his DMG (p 62):

When one side or another is surprised, this general term can represent a number of possible circumstances. In the first place it simply represents actual surprise - that is, the opponent was unprepared for the appearance/attack. The reason for this could be eating, sleeping, waste elimination, attention elsewhere, no weapon ready, etc. While each possible cause of surprise could be detailed, with a matrix and factors of time for recovery from the condition calculated to a nicety, the overall result would
not materially add to the game - in fact, the undue complication would detract from the smooth flow of play.​

The tone of this passage is very similar to the passages that explain and justify hit points and saving throws. And that's no surprise: what all those passages try and do is to explain and justify departures from purely representational mechanics of the "mechanical simulationist" variety discussed by Eero Tuovinen (two decades earlier Edwards called this purist-for-system simulationism).

My reason for mentioning surprise is simply to point out this feature of it, which brings it into conflict with injunctions such as that found in the New Simulationism manifesto that @clearstream referred to.