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

[pemerton]

If that's the case - that the D&D system itself isn't doing any simulating and is instead getting out of the way so the DM and players can do the simulating themselves such that the players feel like they're acting in a real place - doesn't that in fact make it a very good system for simulation?

This argument was not widely accepted during the 4e era. It's slightly odd to see it being trotted out this late in the day.

 

[pemerton]

Let's think through how the environment relates to DCs, yeah? When the GM sets a DC, that sets certain information about the fiction--its a DC 15, so there are some weak rocks. A good climber can avoid them. A poor climber doesn't.

One way the good climber will discover the crumbling rock is by testing it, and discovering that it crumbles. Does the GM then narrate it?

I posit that, in most D&D games, the answer is no. When the check succeeds, the sort of thing that might cause failure - like crumbling rock - is not narrated. It never becomes salient.

I also posit that, in most D&D games, the GM does not systematically correlate (i) the number and location of the protuberances that will crumble under weight with (ii) the DC for the climb. Especially because most GMs are not experts in climbing, the DC will be some intuited reflection of grade, slipperiness, number of handholds, strength of those protuberances, etc.

Also, on your model the DC of the climb should get easier once it has been climbed by a poor climber, as that will have reduced the number of misleading protuberances that will crumble under weight. But I don't think I've heard of that happening very often in D&D play.

 

[pemerton]

The GM is filling in details all the time, adding a ridge or other minor detail is nothing unusual. I might describe a beautiful sunset just to add flavor.

<snip>

Once again, adding flavorful fluff. The fall wasn't caused by the crumbling rock, the fall was caused by a failed athletics check. The crumbling rock was just adding flair.

<snip>

The above is just filling in a bit of color, making the world come alive and had no impact at all on the actual game state.

So adding colour is fine, but adding a cook as a consequence is out of bounds? As I said, I don't see the ostensible contrast.

 

[Enrahim]

Well, no. Players don’t have the ability to change the fiction beyond what their characters may be able to do to change things in their world.

Yes, they do not have the ability to change the world themselves, but they are saints that has the ability to pray directly to the Lord.

Indeed the players do not even have the ability to change the world trough their character's action if you take this kind of logic to the extreme - all actions and their causal links are filtered trough the GM.

This isn't accurate at all. I ran a Stonetop campaign for two years. I’m not exactly sure what you mean by the “in character actions aren’t connecting with anything solid so they don’t really matter”… but I don’t feel it remotely describes the game I ran.

I agree that I do not like this formulation. I think I see the philosophical point @The Firebird is getting at with this, but it is too disconnected with how it actually feels in play. I think the point is better formulated in later posts.

<snip>
I ran a 5e game this weekend. The PCs had to climb a cliff to reach their goal. A ritual was being performed in that location, one which they hoped to stop.

One of the PCs failed his climb check. I didn’t narrate that he fell or was stuck halfway up or that he needed to make a saving throw or a new climb check or anything like that.

I ruled that the climb took longer than they hoped and so the ritual was further along toward completion.

This one is one I actually could very well have done myself, but I want to give an import addition: If I had been present of mind when this was happening, I would have explained before action was commited that the roll would be to determine how fast they manage to climb.

I also want to add that the above actually seem required in BW Revised edition (I have not checked gold, but probably there as well) There it is clearly said that it is the GMs job to inform what is at stake before any roll is made.

As an extra bonus - on a crit fail I would not have felt bound to slow speed being the only thing at stake. I have the impression that this is a case I as GM are given a wide mandate from my players to narrate things that are somewhat unexpected but related. Indeed they appear to prefer if the consequences of that feels a bit spectacular.

Okay. Then “rocks fall, everyone dies” is such a failure mode for trad GMing.

Yes, and this failure mode is so well known the entire mode has gotten it's own jargon! That indicate that this is indeed a failure mode that is very good to be aware of.

Pointing out this failure mode isn't a solid critisizm against trad as a concept, but rather good sound GM advice against the pitfalls. Similarly the current scrutiny of FF isn't a dismissal of the technique, but rather seeking to reveal how and when to best deploy it.

Yeah… I’m unconvinced that such mastery exists.

A cook in a kitchen shatters the whole illusion!

Oh. Yes, If you has grown so cynical that you have lost the ability to dream, I am afraid our art is not of much value to you.

However if it is just expressing that you haven't had the joy of experiencing a true illusionist, but rather just kids having gotten their hands on a "my first magic tricks" box and are clumsingly but proudly showing of what they can do, then thee might still be hope for you.

Avoiding the conjuration of the cook should be as easy as hiding a coin in the palm. Even amateur magicans do this routinely, and a failure to do so would indeed be a major slip-up. And even here it is pointed out repeatedly in the tread that the illusion is robust in most cases - it is first in the most extreme case of the want to be mage actually deliberately show their trick there is an immediate break of illusion.

Isn’t that one of the elements of OSR play? To try and eliminate the need to even make a roll or use a resource by prompting the GM with questions or specific action declarations?

This is a great point! Yes, yes, yes! This is one of the reasons I do not like the deadlines focus of the messaging. That is actively promoting this out of character defensiveness. Some OSR players like it, but for me it is a weak point in a play philosophy I otherwise think contain a wealth of good stuff for my tastes.

Interfere with what? The rules of the game shape play. What are they interfering with?

Rules shape play. Some times this shape helps the game flow faster, better, stronger. Some times the shape bends play in ways that feel awkward and slows things down. It is the latter that is what I refer to as actively interfering in my post. This might not mach perfectly common parlance, but that post wasn't intended to be a precise statement anyway.

And you think that most GMs have the fiction they need to share with the players constructed ahead of time to this extent, always?

I don’t buy that at all.

Agreed. Poor example. That shouldn't be used as an argument to flat out dismiss the point they failed to properly illustrate tough.

What cause the fall in the fiction? The character wouldn’t say “I failed my athletics check”. There would be a reason of some sort.

That is the thing, who cares? In a lot of situations action is tight and there are more interesting things to be concerned about.

Player: I climb the tree to get at the sniper (Rolls d20) ouch, 6.
DM: (Rolls 1d6) ok, 2 damage and you are prone. Player 2, you are up.

I think this is a very typical example of flow in a D&D game. The group has built up a common understanding about how the flow of play should be in such situations. Noone care about why the character fell. The GMs decission to roll 1d6 is commonly understood to mean the character managed to get 10-20 feet up before falling. This allow play to effectively revolve around the core question of the situation: "How do we get an upper hand in this ambush?" rather than spending time of establishing things like "Was it a branch that couldn't carry my weight?" Into the shared fiction.

Each player is free to color these details in themselves, and that can actually provide a richer image than what you would have gotten if you tried to align on the details rather than just the big structure.

 

[Enrahim]

Huh? No one would describe rolling an attack in D&D as petitioning the creator. It's just applying the action resolution rules.

Creating an Asset in MRHP/Cortex+ Heroic is just applying the rules too.

Notice how, in D&D combat, you don't resolve the action declaration "I attack the NPC" by having the GM look up their notes and tell you what happens to the NPC. (Unless you're playing Dragonlance and the GM's notes tell you that the NPC can't die yet at this point in the story.)

So likewise, in Cortex+ Heroic, you don't resolve the action declaration "I decipher the strange runes to see if they show me the way out of the dungeon" by having the GM look up their notes to see what the runes say.

Describing it as "petitioning the creator" is just silly.

Of course. Rolling the ability check in BW is of course not petioning the creator! Describing it as such would be just silly!

The act of stating the intent on the other hand...

 

[Enrahim]

This argument was not widely accepted during the 4e era. It's slightly odd to see it being trotted out this late in the day.

It was sort of true for 4ed, but it was not accepted as it only applied to the out of combat segment. In the in combat segment the rules were very opiniated regarding what could/should be narrated in terms of player actions.

 

[Micah Sweet]

That doesn't fix the issue I'm talking about. Skill specialization only increases the chances in one narrow aspect, so the PC in question could be even better at climbing because he is specialized, but he still couldn't be bad at swimming because he has athletics proficiency and a 16 strength.

In my version you can get skill specializations in skills with which you aren't proficient. So you are proficient in the specialty, but not the whole skill.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Huh? No one would describe rolling an attack in D&D as petitioning the creator. It's just applying the action resolution rules.

Creating an Asset in MRHP/Cortex+ Heroic is just applying the rules too.

Notice how, in D&D combat, you don't resolve the action declaration "I attack the NPC" by having the GM look up their notes and tell you what happens to the NPC. (Unless you're playing Dragonlance and the GM's notes tell you that the NPC can't die yet at this point in the story.)

So likewise, in Cortex+ Heroic, you don't resolve the action declaration "I decipher the strange runes to see if they show me the way out of the dungeon" by having the GM look up their notes to see what the runes say.

Describing it as "petitioning the creator" is just silly.

This is why we play different games. The one would feel like the other to me.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Close. The players typically roll to determine how the PC affects the fictional world. The PC is the buffer in-between the two. Players don't often roll to affect the fictional world. The narrative method is skipping that buffer at least some of the time.

I don’t know if that’s true. Most rolls in the games I’m thinking of are made by a player and are about their character affecting the world. They often may also indicate some consequence to the character in response to their action.

What rolls are you thinking of that “skip that buffer”? And what do you think it is that makes this buffer important?

 

[hawkeyefan]

One way the good climber will discover the crumbling rock is by testing it, and discovering that it crumbles. Does the GM then narrate it?

I posit that, in most D&D games, the answer is no. When the check succeeds, the sort of thing that might cause failure - like crumbling rock - is not narrated. It never becomes salient.

I also posit that, in most D&D games, the GM does not systematically correlate (i) the number and location of the protuberances that will crumble under weight with (ii) the DC for the climb. Especially because most GMs are not experts in climbing, the DC will be some intuited reflection of grade, slipperiness, number of handholds, strength of those protuberances, etc.

Also, on your model the DC of the climb should get easier once it has been climbed by a poor climber, as that will have reduced the number of misleading protuberances that will crumble under weight. But I don't think I've heard of that happening very often in D&D play.

These sound like some quantum crumbling rocks to me!