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

[Enrahim]

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.

I gave a quite extensive answer to this previously, but that is a bit dense, and relly on terminology I have since rejected. I'll link it at the bottom, with will try to reformulate the key points and shorten it to highlight your concern (Edit: I failed on the shortening attempt )

I guess you are familiar with theory crafting around what might have happened in tolkien's world that is only hinted at in tolkien's writing? We are not talking about fan-fiction, but serious research into what could have happened, combing trough unpublished material for clues. This is a relatively fringe activity, but those engaged in it appear to enjoy it a lot. They also appear to assume Tolkien himself did not resolve himself the questions they ponder, but that doesn't deter them in their activity.

This activity do not make sense without treating Tolkien's world as if having some sort of existence beyond the minds of the examiners and Tolkien himself. This notion of world independence is fundamental to the activity they enjoy.

A certain way of playing TTRPG is closely related to this activity. The key difference is that the players allow themselves to interact with the world in a very limited way. The players can affect the actions of a single character each within reason (no actions that would be clearly out of established characters). This is a breach of the independence of the world, but in such a limited way that most of the world still feels independent. And that is important, partly because curisity about seeing how this independent world reacts to the limited interactions are one of the big motivating factors for this kind of play.

Limiting these reactions to only be concerned with character actions likewise are clearly important for the purpose of the game. The stronger and wider the direct connection between the players and the world become, the less independent the world become. Similar if the characters are connected to what happens in the world more strongly than what fiction alone should suggest this corrupts the reactions that the players are curios about.

New perspective
Conway's game of life is a fameous simulation. This is in itself not a game, as it do not feature any interactivity. Still it is rich enough that many find studying the patterns that emerges from this simulation fascinating. However if you introduce limited interactivity and a prefered state to this simulation you suddently have something that could clearly be recognized as an interesting game.

The resulting game would not be possible or remotely as interesting without the rich underlying simulation creating a system that can evolve in facinating ways even without any input. Moreover if you allowed unlimited input the game would not be interesting at all as it would be trivial to get to your prefered state. The more input you allow the less prominent the independent rich simulation become. On the other hand you get quicker toward your prefered configuration.

And I think this illustrates very strongly the tradeof we are talking about. All TTRPGs have a fiction that creates a rich backdrop for play. For some just watching how this fiction unfolds with minimal interaction ability is just what they want. For others the challenge of trying to force that fiction toward some prefered state with limited means is what makes the game for them. For others it is all about exploring how the fantasy looks like around the preferred state that is interesting - so getting there should be as frictionless as possible.

For two of these groups limiting the level of direct interaction between player and world make perfect sense. For the last it doesn't really make much sense at all to limit it beyond what is needed to still make it feel like a game rather than an exersise in freeform storytelling.

Edit: And of course the standard caveat. These are not groups of players. These rather describe motivations, and all players have a mix of these motivations with different weightings.

I think it is important to understand why a result "feeling unrelated to" the check is a really bad thing in a certain style of play.

First, I am going to assume we are here talking about the weirdly entangled resolution style (7) as described in my taxonomy of quantum D&D General - [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

This resolution style is for course unproblematic if pursuing a nartivistic agenda - indeed it has some very nice properties allowing narrative to be formed around what the themes players find interesting enough to engage in.

I think a problem here is that for those that feels that this is a bit off the obvious way to formulate their concern is in a gamist way - that the entanglement break agency as it muddles what the consequences of an action could be. However this is not a fundamental issue with the process. As most games lay out the mechanism in play it is fully possible to reason around it for someone entering the with the right mindset and experience. I think this is where quite a bit of the accusations about ""conservatism" come from.

I believe the big issue with this approach lies on a metaphysical level that is very hard to both recognise and express. This is more similutionistic in nature. It is about how for players has the concept of a paralell fantasy world with a sort of "existence" outside of ours are central to their core enjoyment of the game.

When tolkien enthusiasts try to reason around what could have happened with the blue mages, they are (normally) not trying to make up anything as dramatic as possible. They are trying to use what is known to deduce what they think would have happened as if something actually did happen with them in this fictional space. I presume everyone involved in such activities are very aware they are talking about a fictional setting, and I guess most assume Tolkien himself had not settled on an answer to this. So we are talking about people exploring a fictional space that is in one way not in anyones head, but still is atributed a sort of independent "existence"

In TTRPG we allow ourselves to go visit one of these fictional worlds trough "inhabiting" one of the creatures in that world. We get to see trough their eyes, and to some extent control their actions. This is an inteference of our world with the fictional world that I believe all TTRPG players accept. But note I stated the player controls the character to some extent. In many groups, If a player has a character behave in a way that is inconsistent with what that character is believed to be in this seperate fictional world, that is a foul. That is the player overreaching their divine duties to not interfer directly with what is happening in this fantasy world. They are bringing aspects of the real world (player actions) into the fantasy world in a too overt maner, hence tainting the experience.

And this lead me to the critisism against the weirdly entangled quantum that I do not think can be easily brushed off as conservatism or misunderstanding the entire deal: This is clearly a more overt case of something happening in the real world affecting the fictional space, than a player acting a bit out of character. Indeed it is so bad it is seriously threatening the entire integrity of the fantasy as having any sort of independence from the group that is playing.

It might be argued that this entire independence is an illusion, and that might be right. But that is completely missing the point, and might even be a bit cruel. For many this illusion is essential to what they find enjoyable with the activity.

 

[definiteFreakyFishGuy]

...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...

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?

I don't know if my take is actually logical or even accepted interpretation.

But it's satisfactory to me because it is an interpretation of the narrative game mechanics that I feel like I can work with. This framing helps me really see that PbTA isn't just DND with 3 grades of success instead of 2, and why "fiction first game" doesn't just mean you add some fancy narration for your rolls.

 

[clearstream]

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

The most pronounced cases would be where setting precedes RPG altogether. The One Ring or Middle Earth Roleplaying. Bushido. Land of the Rising Sun. Call of Cthulhu. Alien the Roleplaying Game. Stormbringer. Any FKR adopting a canonical world (e.g. Earthsea.)

Because the things it says are very similar to some FKR manifestos, and there is also some overlap with "blorb" principles.

Upthread I noted the leanings to FKR also, but Sorensen's "new simulationism" is distinctly more tolerant of rules than FKR. The encouragement to achieve total simulation together with "many abstractions are justified." FKR can fit within it, but it's not FKR.

To me it seems fairly clear what sort of play the manifesto has in mind. I don't think it does an especially good job of describing it, particularly when it gets to talking about "diegesis", "abstractions" and "rules".

It skirts self-contradiction in some places, but those three concepts seem essential to the manifesto. It needs to consider game structures that are not rules. It wants game structures to be abstracted from setting. And it needs to allow the world to be changed through play without allowing that to be done through any non-world means. It has to entertain the utter annihilation or total transformation of the world by players.

I don't know that it is practically possible to design and play in exactly the way it admonishes, but I take the manifesto to set goals to be attempted rather than achieved, not least due to the "ideal of total simulation". Where the attempt itself will be productive of the intended mode of play.

 

[Maxperson]

And there we have it perfectly laid out.

The encounter is rolled FIRST. THEN the scene is created to make the encounter flow in the fiction of the game.

The ONLY reason that this area has tall grass is so the DM can justify the ambush. Or, the ground will be soft enough to dig holes to ambush from. It is 100% retroactive. You have the encounter, the encounter you want to run needs a specific type of terrain and poof, that terrain is added to the encounter.

Thank you for illustrating exactly how it works.

For him. You can't apply that to any of the rest of us who haven't said we do it like that. I don't.

 

[thefutilist]

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.

Things can get weird because a lot of Narrativist best practices aren't actually best practices and what gets ported between games is obviously reliant on the group.

The three most influential games on Narrativism used to be Sorcerer, Burning Wheel and Inspectres. They all had different approaches and it's only Inspectres that is full on Narrativist in the way people often imagine.


The InSpectres system is both incredibly easy to learn and incredibly challenging to
use. The basic gist of the system is this: roll your skill dice when you want to use a
skill, compare the result to a chart, and carry out the instructions on the chart.

To do this, roll a number of six-sided dice equal to the number listed beside the skill
you’re going to use. So if you need to make an Academics roll and you have an
Academics of 3, you’d roll three dice. That’s all there is to it.

After you make this roll; you’re going to have a handful of dice with numbers ranging
from 1 to 6. Find the highest number shown and compare it to the Skill Roll Chart.

Skill Roll Chart

6: Amazing! Describe the result and gain 2 franchise dice.

5: Good. Describe the result and gain a franchise die.

4: Fair. Describe the mostly positive result of your action but you must also include a
negative or humorous effect.

3: Not Great. The GM decides your fate but you may be given a chance to suggest a
single positive (albeit minor) effect.

2: Bad. The GM decides your fate or you may suggest something suitably negative.

1: Terrible! The GM gets to hose you with a truly dire situation resulting from your
incompetence.

This might seem a bit strange if you’re an experienced role-playing gamer. Yes, you
read it right. You get to call the shots if you’re successful. The idea is not that a high
roll results in a successful use of the skill. A high roll simply means that you, as a
player, can take over the game for a bit and describe the situation however you like.
It stands to reason that with this amount of power, you’ll use it to your advantage,
right? Or maybe not! Nothing is more fun than hosing your own character…

And even if you don’t roll well, it doesn’t mean that you failed! It just means that you
have to put your character in a tough or tense or comical situation. Your character
doesn’t miss the vampire with the stake, you hit it in the stomach instead…or it’s not
the kind of vampire that is killed when it’s staked…or anything else you can think of.
It’s okay to “lose,” because the game is not about “winning” (besides, a failed roll is
just a temporary setback and not a carved-in-stone result of, “OH MY GOD, WE’RE
TOTALLY SCREWED NOW!”).


Inspectres has exactly the problem you mention. How does the skill relate to the results? Well it doesn't.


Sorcerer was the game that coined conflict resolution. The stats in Sorcerer are Will, Stamina, Humanity, Lore and Cover.

The dice are rolled when someone does something that prevents/conflicts with what someone else is doing.

So Elric the thief has alerted the guards and is trying to get away from them by picking a lock to this heavy door. He wants to get through and slam it behind him. The guards are trying to get to him first.

Whether he can pick the lock at all is determined by his cover. If he can, then the fictional results are really about the guards speed V his speed at picking the lock. So skill kind of plays into it but skill is conceived of as a mix of keeping cool, speed, knowledge, whatever else might be in play in a given conflict.



Later on we have Apocalyse World and Blades in the Dark. A lot of how Apocalypse World is played was influenced by Inspectres for a variety of reasons (Narrativists have a habit of trying to play every game like it's Inspectres). I play it more like Sorcerer.

So Midnight is trying to get to the safe but the staff of the house might find her. That's an act under fire roll with the fire being 'she's spotted'. Why is she spotted, well it says right there in the text 'it would mean she hesitated, wasn't quiet fast enough, and so on.'

So on a success it's not that there isn't a cook but that we probably wouldn't describe the kitchen scene but instead go straight to her arriving at the safe. If we were resolving at a lower level of granularity then we'd have to decide if the cook is there. Like I could frame the scene:

You're sneaking through the kitchen and you hear someone coming (I'm thinking the cook). Midnights players says she's hiding behind whatever. We roll. failure means she fails to hide because she either wasn't fast enough, didn't find somewhere to hide, something like that.

Let me bring up this part didn't find somewhere to hide. We can interpret that two ways. One is that the dice roll failed to conjure a place for her to hide, the other is that she wasn't quick enough in her evaluations to find a good hiding place.

What about in D&D, what would a hide roll look like? I mean if we're being ultra strict there is either a place to hide or there isn't. I think it would probably work the same way in a lot of D&D games as it would in Sorcerer or Apocalypse World, it's simply not that relevant. In all three games the GM can flat out say 'there's no place to hide.' SO A ROLL ISN'T POSSIBLE.


But what about Burning Wheel? Well there's what the texts says, what Narrativist culture has passed on, and how a given group plays. This create a weird mix.

IF we take 'say yes or roll the dice' in a very literal sense. Then the GM isn't allowed to say I can't hide, they must say yes, so there IS a hiding space. Unless they make me roll.

Do you see how Burning Wheel now becomes Inspectres and how if you port this advice, all Narrativist games start becoming about who has content authority?

 

[clearstream]

What the fudge does this even mean? IN THE FICTION there either is or is not a cook in the kitchen. The GM says "there is a cook in the kitchen" for <insert real world reason here> and it is so! It strikes me that many posters here, who have all been arguing about this cook for, IIRC at least 400 pages now, are going pretty far out into some very strange places. Come back to Earth!

To me it's clear that some folk dislike making a skill roll to pick a lock the prompt that results in adding a cook to the fiction. For them that has the feeling of misattributed causality.

Conversely, rolling to see whether there is a cook on a table that says "roll on me to see if there is a cook" is tolerable given it represents features believed true of the imagined world. (With potential to leverage my contention that game mechanics can be diegetic to counter some objections.)

The distinction isn't hard to understand. What I wonder is whether fault lines split along the lines of how the imagined world is grasped?

 

[Paul Farquhar]

The cook was probably hiding in the long grass.

 

[kayakingpoodle]

The cook was probably hiding in the long grass.

How suddenly did it become long grass?

 

[clearstream]

the idea of an independent world just seems weird.

It's starting to stand out as a fault line. It can seem weird to picture play in which at every moment players have at forefront of mind that the imagined world has no independence. Or to read Sanderson's Stormlight Archive while at every moment consciously refusing to imagine Roshar's independent existence. Refusing to suspend disbelief, in other words.

One thing a game could do is demand players pretend the world independently exists. One thing a manifesto for design could do is demand designers address the world as if it were independent.

For everyone but Sanderson, Roshar really does independently exist in some significant ways, just as furnished with L5R's The Emerald Empire, there are fictional facts about Rokugan that are independent of a given group of players. But I am thinking here as much about the mental models folk might be using to inform their assessments and preferences. While being very aware of the great advances in understanding that came from seeing what players were really doing rather than muddling that up with what they're pretending to do.

What seems also weird is that notions about fiction first shouldn't be reconcilable with notions of setting precedence.

 

[CreamCloud0]

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.

your assertions that they are 'equally quantum' are untrue when for one roll the chances of the location of the cook has modifiers derived from the skill of the person performing the check.

it matters that it is an independent roll.