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

[Micah Sweet]

I’m still failing to see how successful lock picking would go undetected by potential observers. That would absolutely seem to be part of the lock picker’s skill.



Sure, I see that distinction. It seems a very pointless one to make, though. It’s still a roll of dice that determines the presence of the NPCs. That’s the process.

As has been said to you many times before, while you clearly don't care about the difference, others do. I'd argue it's the crux of the style difference. If you can't accept that it matters to others, we are at an impasse.

 

[The Firebird]

I’m still failing to see how successful lock picking would go undetected by potential observers. That would absolutely seem to be part of the lock picker’s skill.

Yeah, the scenario "on a 7 to 9, you pick the lock but the door squeaks and the cook who was in the next room the whole time hears you" is fine--as long as the cook actually was in the next room the whole time. But based on our discussion of these systems I don't think that would be the case.

One of the oddest jargon phrases we hear now and then is IIRC "In order to do something, do it." Which, without the detailed explanation is completely and totally meaningless. As a player I am not doing anything other than saying what my character does and rolling some dice. Yet we see people toss that phrase out like it means something to someone who has never played that particular game.

I'd say "play to find out what happens" is the worst offender.

Sure, I see that distinction. It seems a very pointless one to make, though. It’s still a roll of dice that determines the presence of the NPCs. That’s the process.

The distinction is massively important, in my eyes.

 

[Micah Sweet]

One of the oddest jargon phrases we hear now and then is IIRC "In order to do something, do it." Which, without the detailed explanation is completely and totally meaningless. As a player I am not doing anything other than saying what my character does and rolling some dice. Yet we see people toss that phrase out like it means something to someone who has never played that particular game.

Every game has that issue to a certain degree, and while most words in D&D at least have some association to what they're talking about, we do talk a lot in abbreviations. If you don't know what "The orc attacks AC 20 doing 7 HP damage, make a DC 13 con check or be poisoned" it's pretty incomprehensible.

The cute jargon in a lot of these games really rubs me the wrong way, to be honest. Probably a me thing, but I feel how I feel.

 

[Enrahim]

Sure, I see that distinction. It seems a very pointless one to make, though. It’s still a roll of dice that determines the presence of the NPCs. That’s the process.

Yay! We are getting somewhere! You see the distinction. And of course it is pointless to make for you as you are not interested in playing a game where the world feels independent apparently. However it has been pointed out that this distinction is far from pointless to make for those that indeed do want a strong illusion of independence

 

[hawkeyefan]

As has been said to you many times before, while you clearly don't care about the difference, others do. I'd argue it's the crux of the style difference. If you can't accept that it matters to others, we are at an impasse.

Oh I can accept that because people are saying it… I don’t think anyone is lying.

But I also expect that most folks would say that, per the rules of procedures of 5e, the GM can simply introduce an NPC whenever they want.

So using a player roll that fails to take the opportunity to do so doesn’t seem any kind of violation to the rules. It seems, to me, to be largely a stance taken simply to disagree with that’s perceived as “narrative mechanics”.

 

[AlViking]

But we're back to the question I has several million posts ago: what do you do if the PCs decided to break into a house as a whim, not as part of a plan? Unless you are a world-class railroader, the PCs are sometimes going to want to do things you didn't plan for--and that sometimes may be a lot of the time. And that requires improvisation.


There's no reason for there to be Godzilla in a closet, though, because there's nothing in the fiction that would allow Godzilla to exist there at all (assuming that closet-sized kaiju are not a thing in your world). That's what people keep forgetting--the fiction. Does it make sense, considering the time, location, and other factors, that this thing exists here? Yes or no?

I'll take a few moments to come up with the details before they do the break-in. Before they actually take any action I'll have an outline of what is there. If it's a commercial district in a middle class neighborhood it's probably a shop on the lower level with living quarters above. I may roll to see if they keep a dog and if they do if the dog is going to be an issue.

I can justify Godzilla because the owner of the house has been playing around with a Manual of Monsters that he doesn't really understand; it opens up doors to alternate dimensions where terrible beasts were trapped long ago. One of the closet doors leads into Godzilla's dimension. The owner just started reading it and doesn't realize yet what he's done or what damage it could cause. If this is ad-hoc I'd probably also decide something dumb like the book was just stolen and now it's a whole side-quest that I hadn't at all planned for. It's not logical per se, but magic often isn't logical.

 

[Enrahim]

Oh I can accept that because people are saying it… I don’t think anyone is lying.

But I also expect that most folks would say that, per the rules of procedures of 5e, the GM can simply introduce an NPC whenever they want.

So using a player roll that fails to take the opportunity to do so doesn’t seem any kind of violation to the rules. It seems, to me, to be largely a stance taken simply to disagree with that’s perceived as “narrative mechanics”.

Yes, in 5ed a GM can introduce a flying tarasque throwing icream around while singing born to be wild. That doesn't mean that it is good idea if you want to have players feeling like they navigate a consistent believable independent world. And that is the motivation we have identified as the prime feature of common trad play that would clash with "narrative mechanics"

 

[Pedantic]

Yay! We are getting somewhere! You see the distinction. And of course it is pointless to make for you as you are not interested in playing a game where the world feels independent apparently. However it has been pointed out that this distinction is far from pointless to make for those that indeed do want a strong illusion of independence

I'd push for clarity on what is meant by "illusion" here. To my eye, this is "illusory" only the same sense that the entire enterprise is. We're obviously engaging in fiction; striving to generate the fiction independently of the players within some parameters makes the output no more or less unreal.

 

[AlViking]

Oh I can accept that because people are saying it… I don’t think anyone is lying.

But I also expect that most folks would say that, per the rules of procedures of 5e, the GM can simply introduce an NPC whenever they want.

So using a player roll that fails to take the opportunity to do so doesn’t seem any kind of violation to the rules. It seems, to me, to be largely a stance taken simply to disagree with that’s perceived as “narrative mechanics”.

It's not to simply disagree with a narrative approach, it's a stance that I've had for a long time. I run games with a simulation approach and try to be as neutral a referee as possible. For example I don't add things in to make a challenge more difficult just because the characters are being more successful than I had anticipated, what I had decided ahead of time stands. If they bulldoze my BBEG so be it.

 

[hawkeyefan]

eah, the scenario "on a 7 to 9, you pick the lock but the door squeaks and the cook who was in the next room the whole time hears you" is fine--as long as the cook actually was in the next room the whole time. But based on our discussion of these systems I don't think that would be the case.

Well, it depends. If I’m actually playing a PbtA game like Stonetop… one I’ve recently played a long campaign of… then no, I wouldn’t have a map and key style inventory of who’s exactly where at what times. Instead i’d have a general idea of the kinds of people or creatures that might be present, and would proceed with that in mind.

If I was running 5e D&D, I would still personally take this kind of approach because it works for me. I don’t really think that there’s anything being done that is contrary to the established rules and procedures of 5e, however. The DM can introduce any NPC pretty much whenever they want.

Yay! We are getting somewhere! You see the distinction. And of course it is pointless to make for you as you are not interested in playing a game where the world feels independent apparently. However it has been pointed out that this distinction is far from pointless to make for those that indeed do want a strong illusion of independence

Sure, but my issue is when there are plenty of other processes that do the same thing and no one blinks an eye at them. When that’s the case, the criticism doesn’t really ring true.

Yes, in 5ed a GM can introduce a flying tarasque throwing icream around while singing born to be wild. That doesn't mean that it is good idea if you want to have players feeling like they navigate a consistent believable independent world. And that is the motivation we have identified as the prime feature of common trad play that would clash with "narrative mechanics"

But we’re not talking about a tarrasque with ice cream… we’re talking about perfectly sensible things.

As others have already said, it’s not the elements of what’s being introduced, it’s the method. But the same method is used in so many other ways.