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

[The Firebird]

Huh? Competence is all about what a person says and does.

You seem to think that an amateur burglar is just as likely to blunder into a situation unprepared and unawares as a competent one. I don't agree.

It's really getting tiresome to see this example mangled the same way. I looked at these in more detail before--

Yes, I agree. But this isn't what the roll is doing. Compare three cases:

1) A master thief with fixed world abilities would get a perception check, see the obstacle, and get a chance to proceed anyway or to try a different route. They could choose to wait 20 minutes and see if the cook cleared out. A poor thief would blunder in.

2) The player tries to pick the lock, succeeds--and because there is no failure, they achieve their intent in the way they wanted. They go in, no cook. Their high lock picking skill directly influences the odds of the cook being there. That's not representing character skill--it's not showing them being a master thief--it's them getting lucky.

3) Or, we bundle the rolls while maintaining a fixed world. The thief rolls to pick the lock and gets a success. The GM says--hey, you succeed, but there is a cook here. Being a master thief, you can tell they'll clear out shortly. You wait 20 minutes until it is clear, then enter.

I'd be fine with cases (1) or (3). But ime narrative games run more like (2)--and that seems more in line with your Pattycakes example. Am I wrong?

But it seems rather than respond to them, we are just misinterpreting when people are specifying (2) or (3).

Always present where? In the kitchen specifically? Or just in the house? Couldn’t the cook’s location depend on different factors? Is a GM really not able to decide that a failed lock pick brings the cook to the kitchen?

In the kitchen specifically. We talked some about random rolls, and how they are fixed, but I think they are distracting. Let's take the edge case:

Suppose I want a "nailed down" fixed world game, where everything is specified with no probability involved. The module says the cook is present from 9-8pm. From 8-10 pm they are in the adjoining room and hear anyone trying to pick the lock. Otherwise, they are off site.

Do you see how this is different from "on a failure the cook is alerted, and a success they are not present"?

 

[pemerton]

I don’t see how people can push against the idea of the player’s roll being connected to the outcome for hundreds of pages and then try to claim that play is player driven.

100% this!

 

[Thomas Shey]

Right, which is I think why we did see early attempts to make what the mechanics represented fictionally more transparent (We can disagree about how effective they were, but it's a commonly stated influence for the development of RM and so on)

Well, I moved on to RuneQuest pretty early on, so obviously I think they were at least moderately effective.

My general point is that the split we saw on this topic is more a quirk of D&Ds history rather than anything specific to do with the style and objectives of play or relationship (directly) to either the input or output fiction. The original comment was in response to someone suggesting that roll-under had a different relationship to the objectivity of the world than roll-over to their perception, which they admit is illogical. I can certainly see where they are coming from - as I mentioned in another response by rolling the die it might make you feel more immersed as the actor rather than the subject (and I suspect this is where the concept of "players roll all the dice" in the 3e UA comes from rather than the 4e "attackers roll all the dice). You could easily imagine a world where in the early development of D&D all spells and attacks are handled by opposed rolls for example, as they are in some other games.

Speaking of RuneQuest...

(Not actually true. Weapon attacks are all resisted by another skill roll, but most spell attacks don't work that way at least until the time of Mythras).

 

[Maxperson]

My understanding of the situation, as described, was that the check was to pick the lock so as to successfully gain ingress. If you want to break that down into every separate thing - first a Perception check to see no one is about, then a check to insert the lockpicks into the lock, then another Perception check to confirm that no one is coming, then a check to jiggle the picks in the lock, then another Perception check to confirm that it's still the case that no one's coming, etc - well that's your prerogative.

It's also a Strawman as nobody has said or even implied that many rolls would be necessary, especially the ridiculous ones you tossed in for good measure.

The ability of the thief to approach innocuously, to reassuringly pat the arm as they lift the purse, to not make the attempt while the target has their eyes directly on their pocket, etc, is built into the skill.

I've already quoted what the skill consists of, per the 1e rules. It's a light touch and sleight of hand. Page 27 of the 1e PHB.

 

[pemerton]

Suppose I want a "nailed down" fixed world game, where everything is specified with no probability involved. The module says the cook is present from 9-8pm. From 8-10 pm they are in the adjoining room and hear anyone trying to pick the lock. Otherwise, they are off site.

Do you see how this is different from "on a failure the cook is alerted, and a success they are not present"?

If the GM has decided that the cook is not there, then presumably they will not narrate that they are there.

If the GM has decided where every possibly salient being is at every time, then presumably they won't use the presence or absence of any being as part of their way of narrating failure. They might still look at how those creatures react.

If the module stipulates that the cook always hears anyone trying to pick the lock, though, that seems pretty weird. What if the lock-picker is really quiet? Or somehow contrives to draw the cook's attention (eg they release a mouse under the door to run into the kitchen and distract the cook)?

It's really getting tiresome to see this example mangled the same way. I looked at these in more detail before--

<snip>

But it seems rather than respond to them, we are just misinterpreting when people are specifying (2) or (3).

I don't think your (1), (2) and (3) draw clear distinctions in resolution. For instance, what is the "20 minutes waiting" other than colour?

 

[Lanefan]

In AD&D, a thief has a chance to pick pockets, that goes up with level but goes down with the level of their target.

Clearly this doesn't just reflect the thief's ability to move their fingers. It also reflects the thief's ability to judge well, to hold back at the moment where acting would be rash, etc. The game doesn't call for the attempt to be broken down in a granular fashion into each footstep, each reach of the hand, each disarming pat on the arm or shoulder, etc.

In fairness, though, there really should be two rolls here (though by design there's only one) - one to determine the success of the pocket-pick and another to determine whether anyone noticed it whether successful or not; because these things are largely independent of each other. There's four possible outcomes, from two discrete rolls:

--- pocket picked, nobody noticed (i.e. full success for the thief)
--- pocket picked, somebody noticed
--- pocket not picked, nobody noticed (i.e. nothing happens)
--- pocket not picked, somebody noticed

On a "sombeody noticed" outcome, you then have to determine who did the noticing and then what that person (or those people) decide to do about it, if anything.

It's a matter of resolving independent things independently.

 

[The Firebird]

If the GM has decided that the cook is not there, then presumably they will not narrate that they are there.

If the GM has decided where every possibly salient being is at every time, then presumably they won't use the presence or absence of any being as part of their way of narrating failure. They might still look at how those creatures react.

If the module stipulates that the cook always hears anyone trying to pick the lock, though, that seems pretty weird. What if the lock-picker is really quiet? Or somehow contrives to draw the cook's attention (eg they release a mouse under the door to run into the kitchen and distract the cook)?

I'm not asking for you to nitpick the example. I notice you are doing that rather than answering the question. I know no one runs things exactly like this.

But suppose they did. Do you see how it differs, in that the cook's presence is fixed regardless of success or failure?

I don't think your (1), (2) and (3) draw clear distinctions in resolution. For instance, what is the "20 minutes waiting" other than colour?

I don't think color exists. But for your edification, would making it 1 hour help? What about 4 hours? Suppose time matters.

 

[Lanefan]

Or because the ambusher moved against the wind, or 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.

I misread the last bit as "...magically mind-altering grass", which might make the odds of being ambushed somewhat higher.

 

[Lanefan]

The reason I ask is because I find roll under systems feel subjective to PCs, like if in D&D a GM changed the DC based on who was attempting the action. I was curious as to where people found the dividing line on the objectivity of the world.

Depends on what it's being used for.

Roll-under intelligence to remember something obscure really is subjective to the PC as the root task is the same for everyone, thus roll-under works well for this. I use it all the time.

Roll-under dexterity to pick a lock doesn't work nearly as well, as it doesn't give the relative difficulty of the lock itself enough say in the matter nor does it allow for any specific lock-picking skill the character might have.

Roll-under dexterity to avoid falling off while crossing a gap on a narrow beam, however, is once again kind of the same for everyone (unless your game has a specific 'acrobat' class or ability), meaning roll-under works well for it.

 

[pemerton]

I still really do not get what you are trying to say.

Map and key task resolution also works very well on larger scales. Hex crawl is as map and key as you get. And the standard dungeon turn is 10 minutes. It is not like moment to moment play is what this style of play was originally designed for. Your court scene could trivially be resolved by a 3 way diplomacy check representing 2 days of heavy negotiation. And it can be easily broken down to any granularity desired by the group within the task based framework.

What is the "easy break down" actually going to look like?

A dungeon map-and-key creates a framework for the triggering/activating of scenes - by default, these happen when the players have their PCs open a door. Wandering monster rolls intersperse unplanned scenes that tend to disrupt the players' control over the pacing of events. Locked doors, traps and the like complicate the process, for players, of exercising control over what scenes are activated.

As @Campbell said, the assumption for this play is that the "world" is largely static until provoked by the PCs (as the players have them open doors, or go into places, etc):

Task resolution is much more well suited to the sorts of fictional situation where player characters are outside actors, where the setting is not actively acting upon them in the here and now. Where changes in the environment mostly happen in response to the player characters' actions.

It's not obvious to me at all how this sort of technique can be applied in a social context of the sort that Campbell described.

But then you advertise "Active scene framing". I do not know what you put in that word? Does it differ significantly from:
Players: We want to stay awake outside the assassin cell hoping they might talk in sleep and reveal some hints.
DM: OK, do you want to get the prisson chief to let you in, or do you maybe want a more sneaky approach?
Players: Let us try the chief first
DM: You enter a sparsly furnished office...

And if so, can you explain how it helps for this more complex situation?

(My Google found only examples consistent with the above exchange, like Scene Based Play | blogs and The Art of Pacing – Part 2: Scene-Framing and maybe most relevantly

Scene Framing

Scene Framing

indie-rpgs.com

I absolutely fail to see how this require a lot of context, how this is superior with active NPCs, and most importantly how this differs in any way from all out of dungeon D&D play I have ever experienced since I started in the mid 90s? EDIT: Oh, I sort of did a minor hex crawl once, but that also was almost reduced to fast travel between scenes or dungeons)

Your example is not active scene-framing. The players are trying to take an action - a low-stakes one ("stay awake outside the cell hoping the assassin might talk in their sleep) - so that the GM can give them more information about the backstory the GM has prepared. It's basically the anithesis of active scene-framing.

Here's a thread about scene-framing techniques used in D&D: D&D 4E - Pemertonian Scene-Framing; A Good Approach to D&D 4e

Conflict resolution and scene framing is much more suited to the sorts of fiction where the environment is constantly changing, and the player characters are being acted upon. The processes of a game like Apocalypse World are tuned to are all about how to make this sort of situation feel visceral and immediate. We move the spotlight around, force players to react and most importantly telegraph how their actions could change the dynamic situation. It provides a mental framework to make this sort of fiction both fair and immediate and makes it something we can all fit inside our heads without zooming out to some abstract faction stuff or domain management system where we are taking turns. Real visceral conflict that makes you feel like you are there as your character.

That's what Apocalypse World is all about. Immediacy of potentially violent situations and how do you all pull together and fall apart within them.

I'll say something about some of the episodes of play that I've talked about upthread:

When resolving Aedhros's night-time activities in Hardby, or Thurgon's reunion with Rufus, my goal as a player is not to learn how the guards in Hardby (as imagined by the GM) treat nocturnal singers or to have the GM tell me about Rufus. These are not puzzles to be solved, or challenges that I will solve via choosing an optimal set of maneouvres. As you say, it's about visceral experiences that make me feel like I'm there as my character, experiencing hopes and failures.