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

[pemerton]

You are trying to support your point by referencing the words of a prominent figure in the hobby whose stated views in this circumstance align with your rhetoric. How is that not appeal to authority?

In the same way that critical discussion of Hamlet often begins with a consideration of Shakespeare's text, so my critical discussion of surprise rules in D&D begins with a consideration of one of the pre-eminent D&D texts.

I didn't know that discussion of rules and texts is now considered a fallacious appeal to authority!

 

[pemerton]

You really seem to enjoy beating the undead horse of hit points. Or rather, the 100% verisimilitude straw man likes to do that.

It's nothing to do with a straw man. I'm simply pointing out that, as many RPGers in the late 70s and early 80s noticed, that D&D is replete with resolution systems that do not simulate anything.

 

[pemerton]

A lockpicking check doesn't necessarily involve any other people. A pickpocket check does.

But a burglary check clearly does involve other people - all the people who are in, or might be in, the place being burgled.

As I posted upthread, if your RPG system can't distinguish between a skilled burglar and a skilled locksmith, that's a limitation of your system. But it doesn't generalise to all RPGing.

 

[pemerton]

Best I can tell, @pemerton views GM-created as synonymous with GM-driven

No. White Plume Mountain is GM-created. (Or analogous to.)

But play in WPM using classic D&D need not be GM-driven/GM-centred play. It's a type of puzzle-solving play (with some light wargame-y combat interspersed).

I think it's fairly easy for the play of WPM to derail, because the adjudication framework for interacting with the tricks and traps is pretty ad hoc. One possible outcome of that could be a collapse into GM-driven/GM-centred play. (That tended to happen in my games when I was young, and did not know how to GM classic tricks and traps.) Another is that the game just falls apart altogether. (That happened to me too!)

But it's possible for WPM-type play to not derail, and to produce non-GM-driven/GM-centred play.

 

[pemerton]

I don’t think that’s nearly nuanced enough.

For what?

I'm talking about the role of the GM in creating, guiding, etc the fiction. It captures that well enough.

 

[pemerton]

Or because the ambusher moved against the wind

Schroedinger's wind?

was wearing a color that didn't blend in, or the sun glinted off the metal of their drawn weapon, or even something on the silly side like the ambusher sneezed.

There's plenty of ways to do this without having magically height-altering grass.

Instead there is quantum colour-blending; quantum sun-reflecting; and quantum sneezing.

 

[pemerton]

The thing is, I'm pretty sure most people here would rather hear your view than the view of some guy (since you've quoted a lot of guys) who created a game ages ago.

I stated my view: that D&D surprise rules, from AD&D and from 5e, involve retrofitting a fictional explanation of a situation whose narration is prompted purely mechanically (ie by the outcome of dice rolls).

 

[FrogReaver]

For what?

Fair enough. I assumed more nuance to you position than exists. That wasn’t on my bingo card.

I'm talking about the role of the GM in creating, guiding, etc the fiction. It captures that well enough.

So what would you call a style where the GM creates the fictional world but doesn’t guide the fiction? Half GM driven?

 

[FrogReaver]

I stated my view: that D&D surprise rules, from AD&D and from 5e, involve retrofitting a fictional explanation of a situation whose narration is prompted purely mechanically (ie by the outcome of dice rolls).

5e surprise is determined purely fictionally???

 

[Maxperson]

None of this speaks to my point.

Hit-point based combat is (i) quite granular, and (ii) not a simulation of anything. It's a way of turning a weighted coin-toss (this being is tougher than this other being, so more likely to win) into a more protracted, intricate race between countdown clocks.

In the context of a 3-round fight between two PCs and two Orcs, let's pause at the end of round 2. Each Orc has lost 4 of 8 hp. Each PC has lost 5 of 10 hp. The table has been playing this out for, let's say, 5 minutes. What have they simulated? Nothing at all! They're part way through finding out who lives and who dies, and that's it.

This is incorrect. Hit points simulate durability in combat.

Let's say that I am in a fist fight with someone. I might throw a punch, but slip a little and just miss connecting with his jaw. He is hit and takes 2 points of luck hit point damage. Then he throws a punch which I narrowly dodge. He hit me for 1 point of skill hit point damage. This goes on until I finally clock him in the jaw and knock him out because he is reduced to 0 hit points.

Hit points specifically represent skill, luck, physicality, etc. as a measure of how hard you are to take out. Just like skilled real world opponents.

A specific hit point is nailed down to being just one thing. Someone with 15 hit points doesn't have 4 luck hit points, 7 skill hit points, and 4 physical hit points. But collectively that's what those hit points are simulating in combat and the DM narrates that out.