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

[Micah Sweet]

I think it’s a little different than that.

1. The runes were undefined.
2. The player had his character express a hope for what the runes might be.
3. The player rolled and received a positive result.
4. In light of the roll, and that the suggested purpose of the runes seemed feasible and didn’t contradict anything that was established, the GM decided that the hope was realized.



But it doesn’t actually require author stance by the player, and ultimately it’s the GM who makes the decision.




Yeah, I’m not suggesting you pick up any of the 5.5 books. I haven’t yet, and am unsure if I will. No intention at this point.

But the Warden’s Manual? That book was a lot more useful to a GM at like 64 pages than most GM guides that go on for hundreds of pages.



No, you insisted that this is author stance. But at no point must the player leave actor stance for things to go this way.



Haha yes, clearly when a player doesn’t even get to set their own goals, or if they do, those goals may never come up or may be impossible because of two sentences the GM wrote in a notebook two months ago?

Sounds totally player driven.

It's as player-driven as real life, and I do not want to play a game where you have more power than that which such a person in the world would have. It is not fun for me.

 

[pemerton]

From my end it has been an attempt at bringing to light a subtle bias these games appear to produce that are likely to cause some, but not catastrophic inteference with the illusion of an independent world. Firebird in his testimony also attested to that, that he didn't observe this (conciously) before GM-ing himself, but that it did affect his experience at least to some extent after that.

Why does the testimony of @Firebird outweigh that of @AbdulAlhazred, or any other poster in this thread, as to what is "likely"?

No doubt it is possible that some RPGers illusion of an independent world might be shattered by (say) Burning Wheel's methods of play, But what is your basis for saying that it is likely?

 

[pemerton]

I'm not seeing how this is all that different from a quantum superposition. Until the dice are rolled and result in known (i.e. the cat is observed), the runes have multiple potentials. Once again, it seems to come down to framing/perception.

But this makes everything that is unknown "quantum superposition"! Which is not what quantum superposition is.

I mean, I don't know - right now - where my phone is. It could be in the living room, on my desk or in my bag. That doesn't mean my phone is in a state of "quantum superposition", simultaneously in all those places at once!

 

[hawkeyefan]

After a success the GM decided to give the player exactly what they wanted. Therefore because of a good roll the player decided what the runes said. I understand the GM could have overridden the request - but under what circumstances would they have done so unless the player asked for something outlandish?

If the wished for result was contradictory to what had been established or was otherwise nonsensical.

It's as player-driven as real life, and I do not want to play a game where you have more power than that which such a person in the world would have. It is not fun for me.

Real life isn’t a game with players, so it’s not player-driven.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Why does the testimony of @Firebird outweigh that of @AbdulAlhazred, or any other poster in this thread, as to what is "likely"?

No doubt it is possible that some RPGers illusion of an independent world might be shattered by (say) Burning Wheel's methods of play, But what is your basis for saying that it is likely?

I can't speak to likely either, but I'm with @The Firebird on this one. Maybe we can have a poll?

 

[pemerton]

But why would you need to be in author stance to declare a hope and an action for your character?

Right. This is the whole point of the MHRP resolution engine: the player never has to leave actor stance.

 

[hawkeyefan]

But this makes everything that is unknown "quantum superposition"! Which is not what quantum superposition is.

I mean, I don't know - right now - where my phone is. It could be in the living room, on my desk or in my bag. That doesn't mean my phone is in a state of "quantum superposition", simultaneously in all those places at once!

We could classify the trad GM’s process as quantum as well. That until he writes that the Amulet of Agonar is in the chest in Room 8, it is both there and not there!

 

[pemerton]

There's a reason why don't be a weasel is one Blades' player best practices. Honestly, this is something we really should not have to say but really said in some way as a bit of a reminder in most games.

And "don't be a weasel" comes from Mouse Guard. And is also affirmed in the BW Adventure Burner. There is a degree of continuity/influence across some of these games.

Which is not to say that they are all the same, especially when it comes to techniques.

So, in games were intent is meaningful, I expect two things. That the intention is the character's diegetic intent and not the player's hope for the scene and that intention is credible.

And my view - probably unsurprisingly - is that the player having their PC hope that strange runes will reveal a way out of the dungeon satisfies these constraints.

One consideration that hasn't been mentioned yet is that part of what is relevant here is that the PCs have been subjected to a serious (d12) Lost in the Dungeon complication. So finding a way out is highly salient. Another thing to keep in mind is that the game involved a deliberate evocation of classic D&D tropes: there was a Crypt Thing, and at an earlier point in play the PCs had become separated by some dungeon trick. I have no memory, now, of what I was thinking of or hoping for when I narrated strange runes: but the player having the idea that they might reveal a way out is precisely the sort of thing that the game situation is prompting. My view is that to shut it down, in that context, would be poor GMing.

 

[pemerton]

Well, quite. That should probably tell you something. Even @Hussar, who doesn't align with those self-identified simulationists, defines it in a way that's contrary to Edwards and Tuovinen.

That was the point of my post. Which, again, was in reply to @clearstream.

 

[pemerton]

Do you think deciding to read something should in itself determine what that something means?

No one thinks that. That's why it's not a part of anyone's RPGing.

Then why does it, particularly in the runes example?

It doesn't.

I'm sorry you don't agree, but that's close enough to the player deciding for my purposes, and that's beside the issue of the player's roll nailing down the nature of the runes in any case.

"Played a roll in determining" and "decide" are not synonyms - unless you're coining some new jargon that I'm not familiar with.

But in any event, what @hawkeyefan and I replied to you was your assertion that "deciding to read something should determine what that something means". Which didn't happen. The character decided to read something. The character didn't determine what that something means. A dice-based resolution process determined that the PC's hope as to what the runes would reveal was fulfilled. From that, it then follows by entailment within the fiction that the runes set out information about a way out of the dungeon.