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

[Thomas Shey]

A satisfying conclusion to the story being told.

Yeah, but that's still a win condition for them, so...

 

[Hussar]

Cliff - DC 15, unstable rocks. Fixed.

On a 1-in-6 chance, a guard is present. Fixed.

A cook may or may not be present, depending on whether the player hits a 10+. Not fixed. Modified by the PCs skill.

Really? 1 in 6 chance is "fixed" world? How? The presence of the guard is totally arbitrary. It's a 16 percent chance. Doesn't matter what the players do or what's going on in the world. It's totally arbitrary. So, how is it that any different than the percentage chance of a failed check?

See, the problem is, you think that the die roll is actually tied to the game world. That the die roll results are somehow changing the world after the fact. But, they aren't. The fiction hasn't been established yet, so, the presence of the guard or the cook is unknown until the DM uses some method to determine it. The DM could use a random 1 in X chance. Could use a failed (or successful) check. Could trigger the first time someone uses a Monty Python quote around the table. It's all 100% arbitrary and has nothing to do with anything in the game. There is no fixed world.

Note, the unstable rocks you added after the fact. The DC wasn't set by the presence of unstable rocks. The rocks became unstable as a result of the failed check. Please stop trying to rewrite examples.

 

[Hussar]

The direct cause was a failed climb check. The crumbling rock was just fluff on why the climb check failed.

That's my point. The "fluff" is 100% generated by the DM. The Dm could easily not mention the crumbling rock and it would make no difference. In other words, the system is not informing the narrative at all. Thus, not a simulation.

 

[Thomas Shey]

On the crumbling rocks…

Consider what’s been established. The pc is climbing a rocky cliff. A failed climb check need not mean you fall off the cliff. So I’m already a bit puzzled with why the result of the failed check is falling.

Now suppose we had fictionally established the detail that some of the rocks looked loose/crumbly. Now the fall result works! But the example is no longer adding crumbly rocks after the roll.

If a dm has you fall on a failed climb check (athletics in 5e) and those specific details aren’t present I think it’s a problem. Albeit a different class of one than the cook though.

The degree of detail GMs describe can, however, vary considerably. I wouldn't be in the least surprised to hear a GM say "The cliff looks like a rough climb" without going into more detail, especially if the climb is incidental.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yeah, but that's still a win condition for them, so...

My point is that I can understand the perspective that games that follow a Narrativist agenda can feel more like storytelling exercises than games to some people.

 

[Thomas Shey]

That's my point. The "fluff" is 100% generated by the DM. The Dm could easily not mention the crumbling rock and it would make no difference. In other words, the system is not informing the narrative at all. Thus, not a simulation.

Eh. That's more an issue of detail; if you've described it as a rough climb, and used a higher than normal DC, I'd say that's informing the narrative, its just not getting into the weeds before it matters.

 

[Thomas Shey]

My point is that I can understand the perspective that games that follow a Narrativist agenda can feel more like storytelling exercises than games to some people.

I'm not saying otherwise. I'm just explaining why it still feels like a game to others; because their "win" conditions are different.

 

[FrogReaver]

The degree of detail GMs describe can, however, vary considerably. I wouldn't be in the least surprised to hear a GM say "The cliff looks like a rough climb" without going into more detail, especially if the climb is incidental.

Sure, but in that case he probably isn’t having you fall on a failed athletics check either.

 

[Maxperson]

Sure, but there isn't even a Lock Picking skill... it's a subset of Tool Proficiency with Thieves Tools.

Holy semantical nonsense Batman! There's no lock picking skill, there's only proficiency with thieves tools whose only purpose is to pick locks and disarm traps!

 

[Thomas Shey]

Sure, but in that case he probably isn’t having you fall on a failed athletics check either.

You'd like to think, but that seems to be the first place a lot of people's brains go on a failed climb check unless the system explicitly spells it out otherwise.