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

[Micah Sweet]

This makes Gygax's AD&D non-traditional, then, given that it expressly contemplates retrofitting fiction to explain surprise:

Not really interested in appeals to authority.

 

[Micah Sweet]

There are multiple posters on these boards who advocate "goal and approach" as a thing for resolving 5e D&D action declarations. I have seen it come up a lot on the 5e D&D boards.

I'm not sure who you're talking about. I've only ever heard that kind of jargon from Narrativist-leaning folks.

 

[Micah Sweet]

The cook is in the house, or perhaps lives in the house and is running an errand, or perhaps works at the house and is running early, or on time, or late, . . .

Yes, everyone reading this thread knows that.

The point that @hawkeyefan and I are making is that the cook is not more or less "fixed" or "quantum" because the roll used to determine their presence and response is the roll to open the lock, rather than some other roll that you or @Maxperson might make.

Yes, everyone reading the thread knows this. The point is that in both cases the narration follows the making of a roll. In neither case is the narration forced by the logic of the fiction without any intermediating process. And a roll is a roll - one roll is not more "quantum" than another roll.

You are welcome to have that opinion, but I simply disagree. Why the roll is being made specifically makes a large difference to me.

 

[Pedantic]

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.

But the output of the rule using the modifier is not an evaluation of the character's skill (necessarily, if it's color, it might be)?

That suggests the modifier is poorly labeled. Not labeling it as skill, and suggesting instead that skill is a potential color component of the evaluated outcome is clearer.

 

[AlViking]

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.

So I don't know how the game I play works. Gotcha.

I don't see any need to retrofit anything and while I owe Gygax a certain amount of gratitude for commercializing the game I disagree with a lot of what he said.

 

[Lanefan]

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

Far more fun would be a tarrasque made of ice cream.

I mean, if you're gonna go gonzo, why stop at half-measure?

 

[hawkeyefan]

Yes, I am pretty sure that is the case. The independence of the world is in conflict with the wish to have a good story strongly focused on specific characters and themes for instance. That is something a lot of people value a lot higher than the feel of independent world, so the trade-off is a trivial choice. I suspect you might be one of them?

Well, I don’t mean in regard to a story. And while yes there are many games that focus on premise and character goals and the like, I just mean that anything we do in play… and I mean any game for anyone… barring some rare cases or one offs… involves the characters and the world interacting.

So the idea of an independent world just seems weird.

 

[Lanefan]

This is a very interesting conversation, and let me see if I understood correctly by applying the monster encounter in the wild conversation to the cook behind the locked door situation.

(I didn't read every single post, so I apologize if this is something that already came up.)

I'm trying to describing the process in which a PC would run into a cook after picking the lock.

Trad Approach

• player succeeds a lock picking check.
• GM rolls for a random encounter, which says there should be an NPC behind the door. The GM decides a cook would make sense.

Narrative Approach

• player gets a mixed success for breaking into a building (which maybe a lock-picking move)
• player and GM discuss what the complication should be. They decide that a cook would make sense.

Does this seem correct?

I think for trad it's often more like:

--- player succeeds a lock picking check
--- DM checkes notes for the kitchen and its occupants, sees there's a cook there at this time of day, then determines how (or if) the cook reacts.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Okay. Let me try and explain.

So if a random encounter is successfully rolled, that monster is in that spot. Period. It was always going to be in that spot. When the party goes through that area, they will encounter that monster.

Isn’t the wandering monster roll only made once they enter the area? Or once they linger too long or spend time searching an area?

If the party decides before the time of the random encounter to say teleport back to town because they forgot Millhouse the Forgettable, that monster is still going to be in that location at the time the random encounter showed, even if the party isn't there. The roll doesn't decide where the party is. The players do.

But then why would you make a roll?

The PCs' location is set by the players. The NPCs' location is set by the GM's notes. If they happen to intersect somewhere then there's an encounter no matter what the dice say. If there's no free-roving NPCs or monsters then the GM wouldn't be using random encounter tables for that area.

Well, this is seemingly a different process from what @Maxperson said.

I am not worried about fixed encounters. I am only asking about random encounters or wandering monsters.

I would expect… unless someone deviates from standard random encounter rolls… I’d expect such rolls to be triggered by player action in some way. No? Like if they enter a hex on a wilderness map, then you might make a roll. Or if they’re in a dangerous location like a dungeon or other site, and decide to spend some time searching for secret doors… then a roll would be made to see if any monsters or NPCs come upon the PCs.

To me, this absolutely describes mobile creatures… and not a situation where the NPCs are in Location A regardless of the outcome of the random encounter roll.

 

[Faolyn]

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?

Sure. But to the point you're plotting out everyone's movements? Nah. It's much easier to figure out the NPCs' interests and then, if the PCs go somewhere that's related to that interest, figure out if it would be logical and fun to have them there or not.