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

[Thomas Shey]

Then my statement stand still stands as well. Don't plan out a dead end. That should be pretty fundamental to design in any game and doesn't require any other technique.

Again, you're reading me saying things I'm not. I'm not talking about the main thrust of this thread (as its evolved) and am not sure I ever have been (if I did, it was probably a hundred pages ago).

 

[Thomas Shey]

Yes. My statement is one that was intended to be taken with a solid handfull of salt (a grain won't cut it). But I think there is an important seed of truth in that statement. Indeed what can a rule hope to do when you have a really competent GM running the show?

Function as an enabler. That's all most tools ever do.

(Though I think you're eliding the fact that even the most competent can use safety devices. No one bats 1000).

I think the key answer here lies in that the ideal rules are ones that do not come in the way of the GM as they are doing exactly what the GM would have ruled in their absence. As such the rules themselves doesn't help themselves as restrictions on the game but rather they can be helpful as a communication tool effectively getting the players on board with the GM vision for how the game should be played, and what is the player's options and responsibilities in the game look like, without the GM having to figure out how to communicate their thinking themselves.

I also think, as might be averred from above, they can help the GM keep consistent himself.

The idea here is that a GM that know their stuff understands that structures are needed to make for a good gaming experience, and hence even if put in a situation that were advertised as pure freeform they would introduce structures strongly corresponding with well established patterns of game design.

So as the ideal system in this case would be the one the GM designed themselves, and in such a system no rule would be in the way. However most GMs don't have the luxury of having time to write, the gift of words to express their insights, and players willing to read trough their homebrew tome. Hence the need to pick an off the shelf system. And it is in this sense I think the best those rules can hope for is to not be in the GMs way. Any that actually is in the GMs way are likely providing a lesser experience for the players than what we would have got if the GM could have reigned free from it.

I find the latter unlikely, because I find it unlikely even the best GM will be consistent with his expectations and execution every time.

 

[Thomas Shey]

The clear implication and the obvious answer given the nature of the arguments on this thread if you're so concerned about bad module design that the rules should change. You don't really expect anyone else to believe otherwise, do you?

Since I've mentioned about every other time I've posted I'm largely uninterested in the debate about the desirability of sim versus narr oriented rules, yes, actually I do. I realize conflating people together is easy to do, but its also a necessity to avoid if you don't want to read into statements what aren't there. I've made arguments regarding the desirability of rules in the past in this thread, but they very much haven't had anything to do with what most other people have, and in this particular case they weren't relevant at all.

 

[Thomas Shey]

What's that line about the best weapon being the weapon you never have to fire?

Only works when you assume a weapon only exists for defense. As a hunter how useful a weapon he doesn't use is.

 

[AlViking]

I don't think "simulationism" is the best term for what people are looking for in fixed world play. People didn't like "verisimilitudinous" either. So I'll stick with fixed world. I've used it throughout and no one has complained yet

I'm looking for a game world that feels real, like my character is in a fantasy novel or movie. The game can do that, simulate that fiction, for me.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Fair enough, but you know how little I concern myself with any majority.

And you know its usually what I'm talking about.

 

[Thomas Shey]

No, but it can make it not a bad tool, and no game is all or nothing in every aspect of it anyway.

I think I got the first part of that (though that gets back to what I said is a low bar) but I'm not sure I understand the second.

 

[AlViking]

Again, you're reading me saying things I'm not. I'm not talking about the main thrust of this thread (as its evolved) and am not sure I ever have been (if I did, it was probably a hundred pages ago).

Then I guess I don't know what you're saying.

 

[pemerton]

Succeed with complication has been found to not be relevant for trad play as it breaks the social contract of task resolution in those games.

This claim seems false to me.

In a "trad" game in which it is known that something dramatic is happening right now at the top of a wall/cliff/whatever, so that getting to the top ASAP is important, it would not break any "social contract" for a failure on a climb check to be narrated as the check taking more time than is typical.

It would probably be helpful for the GM to be prospective in their narration: eg the player rolls, and fails, and so the GM says 'You will be able to get to the top, but you can see it's going to take longer than you hoped - it's obvious that a lot of the holds are likely to crumble under your weight, and so you'll have to proceed extra cautiously." This gives the player a chance to change their mind - eg spend a charge from their Wand of Flight if they really want to get to the top in a hurry.

 

[Maxperson]

This makes no sense. Surprise depends on whether or not a modified roll beats a target number. Thus it is the relationship between the roll, the modifier and the target number that determine surprise. This is no different to any other resolution/determination process in a RPG.

Surprise depends on passive perception beating the DC of the roll of the stealth. So passive perception is the king here.

If you are saying that the roll doesn't determine surprise, you are also committed to saying that the roll doesn't determine whether or not a PC's attack hits a monster - it is the monster's AC that does that! Given that I've never heard you or anyone else say this sort of thing about attack rolls, I'm not taking it seriously in the context of surprise.

Let me ask you this. What if there is no stealth roll? Passive numbers are used to represent the average of an act that is constantly being performed. If a group is trying to be stealthy the entire day as it travels, the rules allow the DM to just use passive stealth. In fact, the way the rules are written, there should be no roll and it should be treated passively like perception.

Does surprise depend on a stealth roll then?

"A passive check is a special kind of ability check that doesn't involve any die rolls. Such a check can represent the average result for a task done repeatedly, such as searching for secret doors over and over again, or can be used when the DM wants to secretly determine whether the characters succeed at something without rolling dice, such as noticing a hidden monster."