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

[pemerton]

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).

To me - and with the caveat that I don't know Sorcerer all that well - this seems fairly similar to my Apocalypse World example upthread with Pattycakes the cook in Dremmer's storeroom. Pattycakes has probably not been mentioned before, but insofar as the PC is sneaking into Dremmer's hardhold via the storeroom, the existence of staff (perhaps as part of a prepped threat, whether that's a gang of some sort, or a landscape) is implicit. And they create the adversity that necessitates a throw to Act Under Fire. (Without the staff, there would be no "fire".)

 

[pemerton]

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?

I mean the ontological character/properties of fictional entities, and the various relations that obtain between them.

 

[AlViking]

True, I've never played in your game, but, by your admission, they are failing fairly often. The idea that there is only challenge in failure is one that is so incredibly ingrained in the hobby that it's almost a truism. And it's incredibly toxic. It permeates so much of play and is the primary reason why the magic system in D&D has become the default means of solving every problem.

How do you go from "they are not guaranteed to succeed " to failing fairly often and it's toxic or that magic solves all or even a significant percentage of problems in my game? Magic is the answer once in a while because it should be useful. But some of the most fun, tense and memorable moments in our games have come from failure and no, magic is not always the answer.

Same with your "every plan should work". I recently had a game where the group had some stuff work really well, they had avoided a fight, found out a secret, stealthily found the McGuffin through clever play. They had a plan that involved a distraction, the rogue sneaking in the back just after the cleric cast silence and the sorcerer casting stinking cloud as cover*. The idea was to have most of the guards come to the front while the rogue could sneak in unseen, he would not be affected by the stinking cloud because he wouldn't start or end his turn in the cloud.

It was a good plan, if a bit overcomplicated. Except the rogue never double checked to see if the back door was unlocked which meant he would have had to spend an action picking the lock and he didn't have enough movement to get the McGuffin and get out. There were a lot of groans and laughs around the table, it was a memorable moment and a lot of fun.

The point is that failure can be fun as long as it's not catastrophic. If you never fail, succeeding doesn't mean as much. Just like I don't want to play a game using god mode or on easy, I don't want to be guaranteed success. My players, and I've run for many, many groups, agree. I am in no way a killer GM and they succeed far more often than they fail. But sometimes failure just makes the game more fun and engaging.

*I allow the "delay" action from previous edition where you can wait until after someone else's turn, you just can't interrupt a turn like a reaction.

 

[AlViking]

No. The only confusion is yours. I informed you a few posts up what he meant by that, and he liked my post indicating that I was correct. I suggest you follow the chain up until you see it, because this repeated fixation on @pemerton's game is starting to feel disingenuous.

To be clear you were correct. I'm just done with answering the same pointless accusation.

 

[FrogReaver]

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).

I think earlier we teased this apart as if the theif broke in at dinner time there’s probably a chef around so no issue. If the thief broke in at 2am then there’s probably no chef around. In your mansion as opposed to a house though, there’s probably guards.

But yea. Depending on the specifics even in sim play we can justify a cook. It just has to really flow from the fiction. Not in a oh this is possible kind of way, but in a this is very plausible kind of way.

Note: here prep counts as fiction.

It on the other hand is impossible to make the argument that Daggerheart does stop-motion as opposed to dramatic and chaotic combat. The initiative system is "whoever wants to go goes" with the GM getting a go when the players miss or roll with fear or the GM spends a fear point.

But there’s still turns?

 

[AlViking]

Here is the approach I was posting about:
At step 2, the GM thinks about the scenario and decides what will happen. That is why I regard it as GM-driven.

As DM I have an established world, established scenario. I know if there's someone or something on the other side of the door or not. So if there is someone on the other side of the door, I have to decide what chance there is that they'll hear it.

As far as GM-driven I have no clue what you mean other than the GM acts as referee to determine the direct results of a character's actions. Which yes, I do. If you're saying that I control the flow of play or what decisions the players have made to get to that point, that's a big-ass strawman and a gigantic leap of logic.

 

[AlViking]

I will guarantee that that is not true. I know that for a fact. In any situation which calls for multiple skill checks in your games, your players fail far more often than they succeed. I know that without even sitting at your table, and, I guarantee that if you were to track it for the next several sessions, you would see that your players fail far more often whenever multiple checks are called for. The only time they succeed is when they use the magic system to bypass checks.

I have zero doubt in that assessment.

Then you are really bad at making assessments. If multiple people are making checks, a single success means success for the group. Other times failure just means they don't get a bonus of some sort. A single failed check does not necessarily mean failure.

edit -typo

 

[AlViking]

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?

So have you never been surprised? Does it matter what you were doing other than not hearing something or not looking in a specific direction? No one ever perceives 100% of the world around them, we constantly filter out what is important, our brains interpret all of the different inputs, none of it is guaranteed to be accurate. We don't have to establish specifically why someone didn't notice the ninja sneaking up behind them any more than we need to describe every blade of grass.

Always knowing everything happening around is impossible. Some people are slightly better at paying attention to detail and sometimes people get lucky. Passive perception and rolling for it are one way of abstracting that uncertainty.

 

[AlViking]

I meant narrative games.


But the same is true of all games--the GM probably shouldn't put stuff in the players don't know about yet, except, perhaps, foreshadowing (or maybe infodumps). But at the same time, the GM, even when writing a trad game adventure ahead of time, is going to know what the adventure's goal is, and thus could possibly be influenced by it when writing the earlier parts of the adventure. They know who the BBEG is, what sort of obstacles lie in wait, and so forth.

That being said it's usually considered a good thing to hint at what's to come in both types of games. In narrative games, that's usually a GM move ("hint at future badness") and in tradgames, so it doesn't feel like an @$$-pull or like all the clues were nothing but red herrings.


But at the same time, the GM, even when writing a trad game adventure ahead of time, is going to know what the adventure's goal is, and thus could possibly be influenced by it when writing the earlier parts of the adventure. They know who the BBEG is, what sort of obstacles lie in wait, and so forth.

This is not a narrative game problem. It's a GM problem. I've had a few occasions where my current D&D DM--great at intricate plots and making NPCs feel real, and who to the best of my knowledge has only run D&D5e and has minimal experience with narrative games--has admitted they'd pulled their punches to keep from a TPK, which yes, highly annoyed me.

(Meanwhile, I was once jokingly berated for not doing the same thing: "You know who else ran traps exactly as they're written in the adventure? The nazis, that's who. ...I'm a cleric, I can Godwin if I want to." Nobody actually died due to the traps, but they took a bunch of damage.)

@The Firebird's problem, I'd wager, was not because he was running a narrative game but because he was inexperienced with running narrative games. A GM that is experienced in a particular game will know how to run it. He wasn't, so he didn't know what to do with those ideas and thoughts.

So let me get this straight. The only reason @The Firebird didn't like your preferred game was because of ignorance? Are we not allowed to have our own opinions on things? It is not butter brickle ice cream's fault that I don't like it nor is it mine. Some people also don't like pineapple on their pizza, I enjoy it sometimes.

We all have different preferences and I will never tell you that if you don't play my way it's just because you don't know any better. Saying they didn't like it because they weren't used to it is the same as saying that your way is better and anyone who disagrees is just wrong.

 

[pemerton]

As DM I have an established world, established scenario. I know if there's someone or something on the other side of the door or not. So if there is someone on the other side of the door, I have to decide what chance there is that they'll hear it.

As far as GM-driven I have no clue what you mean

I mean all the stuff in this quote.