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

[AlViking]

I thought you play D&D?

Yes. Do you have a point or are you just going to tell me that I don't know how to play the game?

 

[Micah Sweet]

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”.

...yeah, because preferences differ.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Honestly… I think maybe the core bit of disagreement is that I don’t think the world should be independent.

Well, there you go. Mission Accomplished?

 

[pemerton]

I think maybe the core bit of disagreement is that I don’t think the world should be independent.

I've never tried to run a RPG where the setting was designed literally independently of the goals of play.

I've played classic D&D with dungeons that I've created, or dungeon modules. The PCs in these games tend to be ciphers to various degrees, but the dungeons are created for the point of being played.

I've played games where the setting is intended to generate adventure and to interplay with the themes of the PCs: 4e D&D is the stand-out in this respect (for me; not necessarily in general); and Agon is kind-of intermediate between this and the sort of game I describe in the previous paragraph.

I've played character-focused games. And some games that are kind-of intermediate between character-focused and the previous two paragraphs, like Torchbearer, and my fantasy hack of MHRP.

But the closest I can think of to a setting that is independent of play is some moments of RM play, where the module is a semi-realistic castle or tomb or whatever, and there is nothing interesting about it, and play resembles the playing out of an archaeological expedition. (And not of the Indiana Jones variety.) When that happened, I generally tried to find a way to get things back on track, by introducing some element of motivation or connection or whatever.

 

[Pedantic]

No. The GM decides if the cook is there, or not, based on whether the rules tell us that the burglar's attempt to break in went well or badly.

You know, if it was clear that the modifier wasn't representative of skill, perhaps even going so far as to primarily explain modifiers as a function of luck, I imagine this would be an easier sell. If you demote character skill to color explicitly, the underlying change in system is much clearer.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I'm not even a big fan of heroic inspiration. I understand it as a game mechanic and I see why they do it but meta currency always reminds me of what my wife and I call "The script demands it" in certain TV shows. It's where a main character says or does doesn't really fit the fiction but the authors of the series want the story to go a certain way. So the hero survives something that should have outright killed them with no explanation of how they survived or a main character does something really stupid and out of character to add "drama". Another example is letting the antagonist escape when they could have easily stopped them but don't.

Meta currency strikes me the same way, it feels "artificial" is the best term I can think of. An outside influence changing things to serve some story oriented goal and not just what should logically follow.

That is exactly how I feel. I really don't care for the entire concept of metacurrency. By definition it takes things that are out of the PCs control and out them in the hands of the players, generally to serve a narrative purpose.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

Of course it does, and in those instances you do the best you can and hope it's enough.

But when you can see something coming a mile away, such as the house you've placed the McGuffin in, why not prep it fully ahead of time and thus make it easier to run in the moment?

 

[pemerton]

Yes. Do you have a point or are you just going to tell me that I don't know how to play the game?

My point is that D&D is not a very "simulationist" game: it has lots of mechanics that don't take much input from the fiction, and that produce results that then need the fiction to be retrofitted in: its to hit rules, its damage rules, its action economy, its saving throws, its surprise rules, etc.

Gygax's DMG is full of mini-essays justifying these as elements of game design, against the widespread criticism of them from those who wanted more "simulationist" RPGing. And there a whole slew of games intended to improve on D&D as far as simulation is concerned: some of the main ones from the late 70s and early 80s are C&S, RQ and my personal favourite RM.

 

[pemerton]

You know, if it was clear that the modifier wasn't representative of skill, perhaps even going so far as to primarily explain modifiers as a function of luck, I imagine this would be an easier sell. If you demote character skill to color explicitly, the underlying change in system is much clearer.

The modifier in (say) Burning Wheel or 4e D&D does represent the character's skill. That's why it's called a skill rating or a skill bonus.

 

[Micah Sweet]

No. The GM decides if the cook is there, or not, based on whether the rules tell us that the burglar's attempt to break in went well or badly.

I don't see how what you said is different from what they said. Please explain.