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

[Maxperson]

Except that it's pretty close most of the time. That's why we have fairly flat bonuses. Most of the d20 tests that you make in 5e D&D will be roughly in the neighbourhood of 60%.

No. For just about every roll someone in the group will have a high stat + proficiency(often expertise) which gives them greater than 60% and all it takes is one most of the time for a party success.

 

[Maxperson]

In my view, "If we roll to populate a hex the players just entered" then it is obvious that "everything is being made up for the PCs." The player saying "My PC enters this hex" and the player saying "I only rolled 1 success" are both the players doing things, that are then prompting the GM to author something. Neither is independent of the player; though, if what the GM is prompted to do is roll on a table, then the particular table result is independent.

No. That's wrong. The hex had whatever was there the entire time. The DM just doesn't have the time or energy to detail out the billions of things the world would have, so leaves the vast majority of things to be determined later if needed. That doesn't make it made up for the PCs.

 

[Maxperson]

I'll not speak for @Hussar here, but I think the point here is that there are many circumstances whereby, in D&D (let's use 3.5 for this, as it's probably where the effect is most pronounced) if you want to succeed at a task, you are better off using a spell rather than a skill.

It was very rarely better in 3.5 or 5e to use a spell than a skill. You could generally take 10 or 20 and just succeed at the skill check, where the spell used up a valuable spell slot. In 5e where you can pretty much just retry forever and DCs are almost always 20 or less, and casters have far fewer spell slots, it's even worse to use up the spell.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

Disposition is far from the only consideration and those other factors mean that in identical circumstances, sometimes the person will do it and sometimes not.

 

[Maxperson]

Incorrect. It will also stop if/when people choose to stop.

Have you met this group?

 

[Maxperson]

Power is in your hands too though, if you stop responding to them, then conversation will also stop. To @hawkeyefan point though it does feel that people on both sides are keen to point out perceived inaccuracies of the systems they like, while not wanting their own inaccuracies pointed out as such, and for conversation / argument to end it only needs one side to stop responding.

 

[Maxperson]

High grass would be unusual in a dungeon, I think.

Then take your pick of already narrated features that would work. Nothing has to retroactively happen.

 

[The Firebird]

I think it's the character's ability rating that evaluates their ability to do something. I'm not quite sure what you see the roll of the dice as evaluating - but in circumstances where luck might play a part (does someone enter the room just as I get the door open? does a guard come and harass me just as I'm trying to find some peace?), to me the dice seem as good a tool as any to resolve that question of luck.

That's fine. I disagree, and I think there is a clear difference with bundling that roll into the player's roll--and your language, 'let the dice decide', hides that difference.

I have been asked repeatedly about what would have happened, in the Burning Wheel game, had I succeeded on my roll for Aedhros's Sing ability. Had I succeeded, I would have achieved intent and task: Aedhros would have sung, and would have achieved some degree of peace/inner resolve/reduction in self-loathing, and hence gained an advantage die on his next test involving standing up to Thoth.

Great, thank you.

@Campbell has made a couple of recent posts about scene-framing. If I had succeeded, and hence Aedhros was feeling better about himself and readier to stand up to Thoth, what would the GM have said next? Would it have involved a guard? I don't know.

This doesn't resolve the quantum guard issue, because in any case the GM is not making decisions based on the fixed content of the world. Maybe they conjure a guard on a success too--and maybe it is a different guard than on failure. For me, at least.

Does the PC encounter the plumber? Relative to the established and plausible fiction, this seems to involve a degree of luck. One way to settle the luck question: the GM makes a roll, with a 50% chance of the plumber and PC crossing paths. Another way to settle the luck question: we bundle it into the player's roll of the dice.

There are differences of process there, about who makes the roll, even before we look at questions like what determines what dice are rolled and how the roll might be modified. But the nature of the fiction, and the contingency of its details on dice rolls, are not different.

I disagree. I think the contingency of the details on the dice rolls are very different, because in one case PC advancement directly modifies the odds of getting lucky, and in the other case it does not. To me, the bundling system is more vibes based--my character is super cool, the vibes are good, sure thing there are no guards! The nonbundling system feels like my character is separate from the world in a way that makes my actions feel more meaningful. To me.

 

[Enrahim]

In my view, "If we roll to populate a hex the players just entered" then it is obvious that "everything is being made up for the PCs." The player saying "My PC enters this hex" and the player saying "I only rolled 1 success" are both the players doing things, that are then prompting the GM to author something. Neither is independent of the player; though, if what the GM is prompted to do is roll on a table, then the particular table result is independent.

There is a difference of process between disclaiming decision-making (eg by rolling) and not (eg by doing the job that a GM has to do in Burning Wheel). But the fiction has the same metaphysical status.

So I don't see the difference that you assert is there. And if it just a matter of feelings I think that is enough to show that it is not a metaphysical difference.

I think you are purposfully twisting "made up for the pc" here. While it technically is true in the everyday meaning of these words, this collection of words has a very spesific meaning in RPG talk for decades. I think it is obvious that @The Firebird meant it in that sense, and given your extensive experience with RPG discurse I absolutely refuse to believe you are not aware of this meaning.

To give a hint: It has to do with what the content is, not when the content is created.

(Edit, I at first let it pass as the rest of the post aproperiately clarifies your position in a way that matches my understanding, but as it seemed someone else latched on to this formulation I thought it might be good to call out this detail)

 

[Enrahim]

Well, I recall earlier in the thread where I described sandbox play as being GM focused. And that opinion was met with resistance. Not this “ah well we all have preferences and opinions and we should just accept that” attitude.

Strange.

Especially since my comments have at least been about a style of play with which I’m familiar.

I suppose if I was unfamiliar with the game I was playing, that would make my comments more acceptable?

So what you say is that this won't stop until trad players are accurately describing nar play, and nar players are accurately describing trad play?

Man, this thread is going to become EPIC!!