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

[AlViking]

But it's precisely a dead end caused by failing to clear a mechanical hurdle that is the thing I'm talking about.

Talking through a dead end purely within fiction is perfectly acceptable. Good, even--in moderation. I've made very clear here that it's about invoking mechanics where mechanics have no place. Pretty sure I've said some variation of the phrase "why would you invoke mechanics for this" half a dozen times already.

What I'm getting at here is that dead-ends which
(a) only occur because the characters failed to clear a mechanical hurdle
(b) add genuinely nothing to the experience other than "you spent maybe a minute and nothing happened, what now?" and
(c) do nothing to advance toward any kind of (local) conclusion

are something that should be avoided.

If it happens without invoking mechanics, sure, fine, whatever, knock yourself out. That's part of the conversation of play, and that conversation can have all sorts of things in it. Or, if it happens and invokes mechanics, but the result does in fact add something, anything other than "you wasted a little time, now what?", awesome, have at it--whatever was added is, necessarily, new information, or a new avenue of approach, or something which helps keep the game going. Or, if it happens, invokes mechanics, and doesn't add anything, but does inherently push the situation toward some kind of (local) conclusion, any kind of local conclusion, good, bad, weird, whatever, awesome, more power to ya.

But if all that's happening is the PCs are wasting their time and the players are wasting theirs, why on earth are we invoking mechanics for this? Just keep it in the fiction.

In real life I sometimes can't achieve something I could possibly achieve. Taking risks, uncertain outcomes are part of what makes the game enjoyable for me. When my character swings a sword at an enemy I'm not guaranteed a hit then either, why shouldn't they occasionally fail at other tasks? As far as nothing happening, that's not what's occurring either as far as I'm concerned. You're probing the defenses put in place on the house and you just need to try something else. As a GM if I wanted the character to succeed I wouldn't have asked for a roll. I ask for a roll because I want there to be tension, luck and innovative thinking about alternatives.

If that doesn't work for you there are other games out there.

 

[AlViking]

I prefer not to I mean is Orc poo green? Gnome poo pink? Does tiefling poo smell like fire and sulpher?

The real question I have - do rich people have tame water mephits acting as bidets or do they just have a low level magic user servant that casts shape water? Perhaps that magic user servant has prestidigitation instead. It would be useful for removing stains or would that be too gauche? Enquiring minds want to know!

 

[FrogReaver]

The real question I have - do rich people have tame water mephits acting as bidets or do they just have a low level magic user servant that casts shape water? Perhaps that magic user servant has prestidigitation instead. It would be useful for removing stains or would that be too gauche? Enquiring minds want to know!

Only French ones have water mephit bidets.

 

[AlViking]

Only French ones have water mephit bidets.

Give new meaning to when they say qui.

 

[Enrahim]

Sure. I had presumed that.


I don't really buy that the time--what, a minute? two minutes?--taken to pick a lock is relevant for this. I'm also, as usual, very, VERY skeptical of all these things that are kept completely mum from the players.


I don't see how this is any different from the previous point. It's just saying the same thing in a different way. Whether you roll the encounter now or "6 turns from now" is not a difference of method.


But it explicitly isn't becoming more urgent. That's....literally part of the problem is that we've been specifically told it is NOT becoming more urgent. Nothing happens.


I mean when I am specifically calling this out as a problem, I should think it would need mentioning! But beyond that, I don't really accept much of what you have provided here. The lock being established as unpickable is (part of) the problem, I just flat-out do not see 1-2 minutes as making sense for a "random event check" situation, I don't see how "hidden clock ticking down" is any different from that previous thing, and all this "subtly changes their tone of voice" is specifically contradicting the idea that, again, as specifically stated many times over, nothing happens.

Further, all of these things go right back into what I've been saying all along: that what is actually happening is the GM orchestrating an experience, not simply dispassionately portraying a world as that world itself is. Your "fourth" point (recognizing that I think you've only really stated two points here, namely "encounters might occur because of time taken" and this point) is particularly problematic, because it is very literally all about establishing an emotional response, a feeling, a tone--which are all drama concerns, not simulation ones.

So, what do we do if--again, building off what Lanefan himself has said!--no meaningful time has been expended? That seems to leave us with "the GM narrates the scene in a way that has the sound of greater drama". That's...really not much of anything at all, because no events have occurred, and the players already know that they still need to get into the house! Seems to me that if we're caring about drama, it's better served by actually having something happen, so long as that happening is reasonably linked to what we know to be true. Hence why I use examples like, because Lilia has been fiddling with the lock for five minutes trying to get it open, that is why she's now in a tight spot because the chef is about to exist the door (or whatever else)--it is in fact her failure to pick which has put her in that compromised position.

But it's precisely a dead end caused by failing to clear a mechanical hurdle that is the thing I'm talking about.

Talking through a dead end purely within fiction is perfectly acceptable. Good, even--in moderation. I've made very clear here that it's about invoking mechanics where mechanics have no place. Pretty sure I've said some variation of the phrase "why would you invoke mechanics for this" half a dozen times already.

What I'm getting at here is that dead-ends which
(a) only occur because the characters failed to clear a mechanical hurdle
(b) add genuinely nothing to the experience other than "you spent maybe a minute and nothing happened, what now?" and
(c) do nothing to advance toward any kind of (local) conclusion

are something that should be avoided.

If it happens without invoking mechanics, sure, fine, whatever, knock yourself out. That's part of the conversation of play, and that conversation can have all sorts of things in it. Or, if it happens and invokes mechanics, but the result does in fact add something, anything other than "you wasted a little time, now what?", awesome, have at it--whatever was added is, necessarily, new information, or a new avenue of approach, or something which helps keep the game going. Or, if it happens, invokes mechanics, and doesn't add anything, but does inherently push the situation toward some kind of (local) conclusion, any kind of local conclusion, good, bad, weird, whatever, awesome, more power to ya.

But if all that's happening is the PCs are wasting their time and the players are wasting theirs, why on earth are we invoking mechanics for this? Just keep it in the fiction.

It appear point (b) is the contested part.

I am not sure if you accept the "no retry", but knowing that we cannot take that way in adds to my experience at least. And in games with random monsters and hidden clocks the players are usually aware that these procedures is in play, so knowing the "clock is ticking" add something to their experience even if they cannot hear it. And even in the last and most far fetched example, the players are likely aware the GM can do anything at their whim, and their mode and tone changing is indeed a very real addition to their experience.

So all of these clearly can be said to "add to the experience". So I guess the only point of lack of clarity is the "genuinely"? Is this a purely subjective term allowing you to declare anything you don't feel good about as "bad"?

 

[FrogReaver]

If I had to sum up what I’ve learned this thread it would be that the causality I’m worried about isn’t the fictional causality but rather the simulation causality. Which presupposes a simulation to begin with. It’s that underlying assumption of simulation vs no simulation that makes communication so difficult.

 

[Maxperson]

But they never SHOW experimenting with the two spells. They never SHOW "developing" the new spell. It never happens "on-camera". It is 100% completely implicit.

So is going to the bathroom. It doesn't have to be on camera. It can be, just like going to the bathroom, but there are generally better things to play out in the limited time the group has.

Only because you have divined that it has to be from the rules. The rules established that players would get new spells. You have to invent why the heck that happens consistently, everywhere, no matter what the party is doing.

I didn't have to invent anything. The wizard is in fact experimenting and practicing with his spells all the time. It's called spellcasting. Wizards do it a lot, and they get inventive with their spells.

Of course there is. Because you're inventing something on the basis of what the mechanics told you, NOT on the basis of what the actually-observed events of the world demonstrated.

World mechanics require world lore. The spells just don't pop out of thin air. Or put another way, they can pop out of thin air into the brain of the wizard if that's the lore you establish for how they gain their spells.

It is a complete and total defiance of the explicit manifesto given earlier, to which you signed on. The mechanics told you something had to be true, so you invented new stuff in the world, with no justification other than what the mechanics told you. The complete lack of justification, other than what the mechanics told you.

I never said I don't invent new stuff. I said that that it doesn't happen retroactively.

 

[hawkeyefan]

We could narrate that the climber's grip gave out, or their fitness failed them, or they misjudged a hold, or they had an attack of vertigo and they fainted for a moment. All are congruent with the only fact that we know from the roll - they failed to climb for some reason. So why not use one of these purely internal reasons? Why invent external facts about the world at all? Why attribute the failure to bad luck rather than incompetence?

I think you are partially right about not wanting the character to look incompetent. Which, generally speaking, is a good approach, I'd say.

But there's also the matter of the emotional or mental state of the character... some of the possible reasons they might fail a climb (or any kind of check, really) are because of mental factors... fear, uncertainty, and so on. For some folks, if a GM chose to narrate things that way, they'd find it unacceptable. Their character's mental and emotional state is entirely theirs.

 

[Maxperson]

Given that's how you add in contextualisation for a player learning fireball, do you do that for every new spell the player learns? What if the new spell shares no common elements from any of the player's existing lineup?

They all can be. It's not like magic will only have aspects that are obviously part of the spell like range and fire. There will be other areas we don't know about as part of the art of magic, plus as I mentioned in the other example, things the wizard learned as an apprentice that can be added, plus flashes of inspiration...

A 1st level wizard has the equivalent of a doctorate in his field. They are capable of theoretical applications, coming up with new ideas, and more, just like people with advanced degrees. And pretty much every wizard is a genius, since intelligence is the prime attribute.

You state that "mechanics like that have to have lore attached to them, The spells don't just force themselves into the wizard's brain." but that is not true. The mechanics IS that the spells just force themselves into the wizards brain, the need to have lore attached is a personal preference (at least it is in D&D anyway).

Mechanic is NOT that the spells force themselves into the wizard's brain. See if you can find that language anywhere in any edition. You can't, because even that little sentence would be lore for the mechanic. The mechanic is only that the wizard gets two new spells. Lore has to happen for that, because it's an in-fiction mechanic.

If you want to choose that to be the lore for how wizards gain spells at each level, you can absolutely do that. I prefer to have something a more logical.

 

[Maxperson]

Taken literally that's a novel definition. It leaves open what "simulate" and "realism" mean, and will need to decide how to treat DM. What D&D could be on account of DM is more than can be inferred from all the other rules.

Exactly. Every person and table as a level of realism that they like, and it can vary by aspect of the game. You could want more realism when it comes to falling damage and combat, but less when it comes to arms and armor.

Realism in RPGs is basically a bunch of spectrums that DMs/Players can dial up or down to make the game what they like it to be. People who like to dial things up to make them more realistic and tend to like to simulate the real world to some greater degree, are the simulationists. That's the focus of their play. That doesn't mean that someone who focuses on the narrative might not also like more realism, it's just that the realism isn't the primary focus for them. Just like a simulationist can also value the narrative and narrative play.

One could look for consensus on which games are most simulationist, and then say simulationism is whatever they are doing. There are at least two catches with this. You end up having to ignore things the simulationist games have in common with the non-simulationist, and presumably include things they have that they do not have in common. And you have to decide what it means when a non-simulationist game is played in a simulationist way, and vice versa.

Is simulationism about only the game, or is it about the game in play? Your definition, like most, is about game and players jointly. If so, do players need to use the whole game or can they ignore parts of it? If they add to the game (as D&D demands as it's baseline) are they still playing that game?

Every game has simulationist, narrativist and gamist aspects. Different games just focus on one of those more than the others, some to a great degree. People also have all three, but tend to focus on one more than the others.

This is why some people who focus narrative play will leave D&D to find a game that also focuses on narrative play. Such a game will generally be better at what they like best than D&D will. Other people like what D&D has to offer, and so will just tweak the rules to be better at narrative play.