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

[AlViking]

It's quite common. Rather than,

Player: "Can I roll to make a raft?"

It's goal and approach,

"I'm going to try and make a raft to get across the bay. I'll go into the forest to look for dead trees that I can lash together with my rope. I also have some pitons that I can use with my hammer to peg some of the logs together so they are easier to tie."

That's the goal, and the approach DMs generally talk about with regard to D&D. The DM then uses that information to say "You succeed," "You fail," or "Go ahead and give me a roll." He also assign bonuses, advantage or disadvantage, etc. based on what the player described as their approach to the goal. It's not anything narrative. Just a preference that allows the DM to better adjudicate what is happening.

Here I thought that was just telling me what they were doing.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Whoever made the table it controls the result. Especially if it's not just straight numbers--if there's any sort of curve, then the results are stacked by what the creator felt was more or less likely.

The point is that there are multiple possibilities, and the GM is not choosing which when they roll, so the ultimate decision at the table is not up to them if they're using the rules correctly.

 

[definiteFreakyFishGuy]

Yea, I think you are on to something. Framing narrativist games skills as a characters skill at being lucky in some subset of situations makes everything make so much more sense. It may even be acceptable if framed that way to quite a few sim oriented people.

Heh, I drafted and deleted some version of this comment over-and-over because I couldn't get the wording quite right. But that is the impression I am getting based on the conversations in this thread.

It seems like the rolls players make in trad games are about how well a PC performs a certain task. It doesn't necessarily inform how well things go for the PC in the fiction. In contrast, rolls players make in narrative games are about how well things go for the PC in the fiction. It's not really about how well the PC performs a task. I saw this come up over and over again in the Lock Picker and the Cook scenario.

Based on this understanding of how rolls work in narrative games, it makes sense to me that a PC's stats in narrative games is more about how well things turn out for them when they engage in a particular type of activity, and less about their actual abilities. Like in Monster of the Week, there is a stat called "Tough." Having a high Tough score doesn't mean that your character is particularly brawny, athletic or agile—it just means that things turn out well for the PC when there is a fight.

As someone who has primarily played DND 5e, this interpretation is very satisfactory for me.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Heh, I drafted and deleted some version of this comment over-and-over because I couldn't get the wording quite right. But that is the impression I am getting based on the conversations in this thread.

It seems like the rolls players make in trad games are about how well a PC performs a certain task. It doesn't necessarily inform how well things go for the PC in the fiction. In contrast, rolls players make in narrative games are about how well things go for the PC in the fiction. It's not really about how well the PC performs a task. I saw this come up over and over again in the Lock Picker and the Cook scenario.

Based on this understanding of how rolls work in narrative games, it makes sense to me that a PC's stats in narrative games is more about how well things turn out for them when they engage in a particular type of activity, and less about their actual abilities. Like in Monster of the Week, there is a stat called "Tough." Having a high Tough score doesn't mean that your character is particularly brawny, athletic or agile—it just means that things turn out well for the PC when there is a fight.

As someone who has primarily played DND 5e, this interpretation is very satisfactory for me.

Satisfactory in the sense that it is a logical explanation for narrative game rolls, or in the sense that it suits your preference for such things?

 

[Maxperson]

Here I thought that was just telling me what they were doing.

It is, but folks like to call it goal and approach. Gotta have terms for everything you know. At least they aren't calling it GAP and making it an acronym.

 

[AlViking]

Why not just decide if they have a dog? How does a roll make it better, more real, more honest, or whatever other term you're going to use? It's not impartial; it's just random.

If I'm uncertain sometimes I roll for it. It's just an example that sometimes I let the dice decide because they're more impartial.

Does it make sense with the fiction? OK then. If not, then don't. Your players will let you know how it feels to them.

It has to make sense to me as well.

 

[hawkeyefan]

It's generally X number of times per day, varying based on terrain or location(dungeon, temple, etc.). If they linger, there will be more rolls in that area.

Going back several hundred pages now, I roll in advance so that I can make the random encounter more fun. Rolling in advance, though, doesn't change the timing or location of the encounter. I do have to assume where they will be, but 19 times out of 20 I am correct, since I know where they are going and how fast they travel. Every once in a while, though, they zig or zag pretty hard and I'm wrong. Then I end up with some wasted prep.

Okay, so the roll isn’t what triggers the encounter, but rather the PCs being in the area triggers it?

But then how can you claim that the NPCs are still in the same location whether the roll says encounter or no encounter? If they were, and the trigger is the PCs also being there… then how could there be no encounter?

And how in advance do you make these rolls? If it’s three a day and maybe more, when do you make them? And how do you know which locations the PCs will be for each roll?

The process as you’re describing it doesn’t seem to align with your earlier comments.

Also, typical practice is to make the roll when the trigger happens, and I expect more people do it that way.

 

[kayakingpoodle]

It is, but folks like to call it goal and approach. Gotta have terms for everything you know. At least they aren't calling it GAP and making it an acronym.

Now I'm hungry for a GAP THAC0!

 

[The Firebird]

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.

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.

Agree with Micah that these read identically to me. The GM decides, based on what the roll says and how they interpret it, suggests that the cook could be there or could be somewhere else...hence, both there and not there.

Based on this understanding of how rolls work in narrative games, it makes sense to me that a PC's stats in narrative games is more about how well things turn out for them when they engage in a particular type of activity, and less about their actual abilities. Like in Monster of the Week, there is a stat called "Tough." Having a high Tough score doesn't mean that your character is particularly brawny, athletic or agile—it just means that things turn out well for the PC when there is a fight.

Yes, this is how I read it, and I'm ok with the narrative rules given this framing. I still don't like them as much but they don't cause any cognitive dissonance.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Agree with Micah that these read identically to me. The GM decides, based on what the roll says and how they interpret it, suggests that the cook could be there or could be somewhere else...hence, both there and not there.

See I would read @pemerton post as either there or not there. Which seems different from both there and not there.