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

[hawkeyefan]

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!!

I don’t know. I’ve accurately described both. There are those of us who don’t require that every game we play work a specific way.

For like the umpteenth time, there is no teleportation or quantum involved with wandering monsters. None. These are all monsters that live in the habitat they are encountered in and the party is traveling through.

Like the cook!

If no one in the party asks about it's length, of investigates it, it is just grass, same for bushes, rocks rubble et al.

You know what I’ve never had to do when I see a patch of grass? I’ve never had to ask anyone else how tall it was. I could just see it for myself.

So here we are, arguing over quantum cooks and that random encounters are exactly the same thing as being harassed by a guard because you failed a sing check along with things like "nothing happens" on a failed check is bad.

As you said, you asked for examples that can be used in D&D. You can use fail forward in D&D. You can use rolls to resolve conflicts rather than tasks. These things can be done in D&D.

That you don’t want to use them or don’t like them doesn’t mean that they cannot be used. Your request was granted.

 

[FrogReaver]

One of the stark contrasts with "Moves" is that they're typically about the intended goal (i.e. what/why), whereas in a trad/sim RPG the actions are about the approach (i.e. how).

As an example: ‘Acting under fire’ is a name for an approach not for an intended goal. As I said, Terribly named.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I don’t know. I’ve accurately described both. There are those of us who don’t require that every game we play work a specific way.



Like the cook!



You know what I’ve never had to do when I see a patch of grass? I’ve never had to ask anyone else how tall it was. I could just see it for myself.



As you said, you asked for examples that can be used in D&D. You can use fail forward in D&D. You can use rolls to resolve conflicts rather than tasks. These things can be done in D&D.

That you don’t want to use them or don’t like them doesn’t mean that they cannot be used. Your request was granted.

What type of rolls would you use to resolve conflicts in D&D? I assume you're not just talking about combat. Opposed skill rolls? What changes would you need to make mechanically to do what you're talking about?

 

[FrogReaver]

I haven't said that Circles is compatible with any "sim" agenda. I don't even know what your "sim" agenda is.

I’m tired of answering questions I believe you know the answer to, or at least enough of the answer to meaningfully converse on the subject.

 

[Thomas Shey]

One of the stark contrasts with "Moves" is that they're typically about the intended goal (i.e. what/why), whereas in a trad/sim RPG the actions are about the approach (i.e. how).

I've always felt they leaned much more into task, rather than action resolution, too (though the ones I'm familiar don't fully commit to that).

 

[Maxperson]

You're hiking in the mountains in Alaska. There are wolves and grizzly bears in the area. What are the odds of you encountering one if you aren't specifically looking for them? Do you know ahead of time if there are any mountain lions in the area? The odds of encountering a dangerous animal are never guaranteed because you aren't going to the zoo but in this scenario they aren't zero either.

Several years ago my mother and a bunch of her girlfriends(about 10 in total) went on a women's retreat to a ranch in Central California that one of them owned. Towards the end of the retreat, they took a group photo along the ranch fence along one of the local roads. It wasn't until the photograph was developed that anyone noticed the mountain lion behind them staring at the backs of 10 elderly women. If they hadn't had those numbers, that situation might have gone very badly.

 

[Maxperson]

This is treating wish as reality.

The GM might wish to have everything detailed. But they don't. When the player has their PC enter the hex, the GM makes something up (or rolls on a table, or whatever).

Yes. He makes up what was there all along that existed independently of the PCs. Nothing is made up FOR THE PCs.

There is no teleportation or quantum involved with the cook, either.

The cook is both there and not there based on the skill of the person opening the lock combined with the result of the roll.

You roll your dice, and then narrate your monster. But had the players never had their PCs walk through that hex, the dice would never have been rolled and no monster would ever have been established as being there. Likewise, if the encounter dice came up differently. Or the % in lair dice came up differently.

In this case there is 1) no situation where the monster is both there and not there. It was there the entire time and the party is what is there or not there, 2) PC skill has no bearing on whether they encounter the monster that was already there, and 3) the roll has direct relation to the encounter and is not something completely unrelated like failing a roll to tie a knot.

 

[Maxperson]

I didn't say it was likely, just that would end the argument.

Like, if you stand up in a room with several Spanish chefs in it, and say, "I understand Spanish cuisine. But I don't like paella, because of all the cheese in it," you're going to get chefs telling you there usually isn't chees in paella.

Sticking to your guns about the cheese isn't a good way to end that argument. And goodness knows you won't get the chefs to grant you understand the cuisine that way.

Sure, but to complete the analogy. The Spanish chefs then follow with, "And we also don't like American grilled cheese because of the anchovies in it."

Both sides are claiming understanding the other side's style while misstating the style that they claim to understand.

 

[Maxperson]

Didn't someone already post this upthread?

That person posted an incorrect assertion about the surprise mechanics and tried to equate two very different methods of introducing an NPC(farrier vs cook or guards) when they weren't the same.

 

[Maxperson]

But there's always background noise - dripping water, the breathing of the hirelings, the clank of the paladin's armour, whatever it is. And smells, and shadows, and . . .

It can't all be narrated.

It doesn't have to be. Nor is anything retroactively added. If the DM has only narrated a few things, then one of those few things will be what is used for the ambush.

In the traditional game, no retroactive additions are happening unless the DM doesn't know what he is doing. Retroactive additions are a mistake, not a feature.