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

[FrogReaver]

In real life, sometimes the only consequence is that you failed to do the thing.
For example, say you have an interview for a potential new job that pays better than your current one. You flub it and you don't get the job. Nothing about your living situation materially changed. Now, if your current job isn't paying enough to cover the bills, mortgage/rent, etc., then failing to land the new job will have consequences as you risk defaulting on your mortgage, need to cut back on expenditures, etc. However, if your current job does pay enough, then there's no real loss beyond the missed potential of additional savings/disposable income, which isn't actually a loss.

I think a better description would be "indirectly connected", where @AlViking clearly wants direct connection.

Indeed. I'm in constant disbelief that such a simple concept and obvious difference is repeatedly denied.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I learned it from the 4e rulebooks. Read the DMG's discussion of combat and non-combat encounters (especially skill challenges), and also the rules in the PHB and DMG for player-authored quests.

And you wonder why I don't consider 4e all that close to the many other versions of D&D?

 

[FrogReaver]

In that case, I assume you can distinguish the following two things:

*The character's reading of the runes causing the runes to be <this> rather than <that> as an event within the fiction. (Did not happen.)​

​

*The player's resolution of their declared action for their PC, which succeeds, thus causing everyone at the table to agree that the runes reveal a way out (Did happen.)​

​

But not in virtue of the player deciding they would be that thing. You say that you are not hinting that the roll doesn't matter - but if you agree that the roll was crucial, then you agree that the player didn't decide the outcome.​

As long as you agree that the player decided what the outcome would be if/when success was rolled. You see, we fully understand that the player decided 'potential' outcome is gated behind a roll that must succeed before it comes to pass. That's never been the issue, nor the concept we are trying to get at. What we can't tell is whether you are just insisting on more precise language or really don't understand the concept around what we are saying.

As I've repeatedly posted, no one talks about a player, whose successful rolls kill an Orc, as deciding that the Orc is dead. Likewise, in this case: the player declared their action, and it succeeded, and thus - as per the rules of the game - everyone agreed that the runes revealed a way out.

But not in virtue of the player deciding they would be that thing. You say that you are not hinting that the roll doesn't matter - but if you agree that the roll was crucial, then you agree that the player didn't decide the outcome.

Because when it comes to killing the orc the player didn't decide what the 'potential' outcome would be if/when success was rolled.

 

[FrogReaver]

The PC's action doesn't cause anything in the real world, as a special case of the general principle that imaginary things don't have real effects.

The player's declaration of their PC's action causes some things to happen in the real world, including prompting others to say and imagine various things depending on how some dice rolls turn out.

Are you really quibbling about describing this as 'the PC's action' vs 'the player's action declaration' such that you would say 'the player's action declaration' prompts X to happen in the real world but 'the PC's action' does not prompt X to happen in the real world? Because from my perspective and i presume most non-narrativists here (and maybe even some of the narrativists as well), 'the PC's action' and 'the player's action declaration for their PC' refer to exactly the same thing.

 

[FrogReaver]

By those rules, if I said that I hoped the runes were a guacamole recipe, and then succeeded on my roll, then it certainly seems like they would be--even though that makes absolutely no sense in context.

I understand the sentiment but presumably the game has principles that would limit a player from declaring that as his hope in a situation where it wouldn't make contextual sense.

The bigger issue around principles in these discussions is more that not everyone is familiar with what they specifically are for a given game and they are usually left out of the play examples from those specific games and then even if someone is familiar with them, they usually have plenty of room left for interpretation, especially in instances where 2 principles may be in conflict.

 

[clearstream]

That did not answer the question. How is this a major fact about the world?

It sounds like you have in mind some set of facts that will please you, that you deem "major". To me, it was sufficiently pivotal that the course of play was diverted.

I can say that my polite opinions would be rather brief, at least, while the frank ones would not be.

I'm curious to hear your frank opinion!

 

[Lanefan]

That did not answer the question. How is this a major fact about the world?

My not being able to pick a lock isn't a major fact about the world at large but it is a major fact to my character in the here-and-now moment, and as it's my in-character perspective that matters to me-as-player, that makes it a major fact to me.

Now sure, it might not be or remain a major fact for very long, but from the perspective of the immediate that duration is irrelevant.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Indeed. I'm in constant disbelief that such a simple concept and obvious difference is repeatedly denied.

You are kind of getting into real world belief systems here, so I'm being a bit cautious about the sites restrictions on talking about religion, but some people believe in something called Actualisation. Now, its always dangerous to try and describe something believed by others that you do not believe yourself, and of course within any belief system there are individual variations, but it works something like this: if you hope for something hard enough, the universe will give it to you. So, if you you don't get that job, it's because you didn't hope for it hard enough, not because you rolled a 2 on your Persuasion check.

And there are other belief systems too, that could influence how someone interprets determinism within a RPG.

 

[Lanefan]

So games don’t tend to work the way real life does.

Unless you want them to, I suppose...

Sure, but who would make someone roll for such a mundane thing? We’re taking about D&D right? Aren’t the PCs in your game generally doing things that might actually cause harm to themselves or others? Aren’t they doing things with actual stakes?

Trying to pick a lock has stakes, namely whether you can get beyond it or not. There may or may not be any threat of harm involved, but there's still no guarantee they'll get the lock open. They might have to resort to boots or crowbars or a different point of entry.

Are your games filled with pickle jars and other consequence free crap?

No, but life is, and a completely mundane example seems to have got my point across.

Please. Do your players shy away from all danger because sometimes bad things happen?

They do what they can to remove, avoid, or mitigate the dangers before those bad things have a chance to happen. If they can get it down to failure meaning "nothing happens" that's a good result for them; then they just need to reduce the chance of failure in order to make it more likely they'll get what they want.

I know were I a player in a game where I knew that every time I failed at some task that the fiction suggested carried little to no chance of dangerous consequences and yet something was still going to hose me anyway, I'd do whatever I could to find can't-fail means of achieving the same ends.

Which seems to go against the idea of "accepting the risks" that some of these games seem to expect, but sorry - no matter what the game, I play in survival mode. Self-preservation is job one. Preservation of my companions is (usually) job two. Mission accomplishment is job three or four or five depending whether I care about it in-character. And when there's an unavoidable risk needs taking I'm happy to take it, but I'm going to do everything I can to better my odds of survival before diving in.

Yes, closed it remains. But there could very likely be other consequences. If I was trying to open the jar for my pregnant wife who’s having a craving, then a trip to the grocery store may be in my future.

An indirect potential downstream consequence, beyond the scope of immediate task resolution.

The surrounding context is why you’re trying to do the thing. To say it is irrelevant seems delusional.

When you're resolving a task, what matters is the resolution itself. Not the whys and wherefores, not the history, not the future, but right now. History's done, and the future is as yet undetermined; and while the future will very likely be affected by how your task goes, it's rarely if ever locked in beyond your next opportunity to do or try something else.

I can put the lock-picking in historical and temporal context when looking back on it later, after the whole break-in situation is finished, aborted, or busted.

 

[Lanefan]

Is this true? Which rule are you referring to, that says that there is no credibility test on permissible action declarations?

Faolyn's guacamole recipe aside, it's highly credible that the runes could - on someone's successful roll in hopes of such - be something completely bland and inocuous:

"Constructed in 1085 by Balin and Co. If we built it, you can't break it." or
"Dedicated to the memory of my love Marilene, may she rest in peace." or
"Zeider Trading Company. Information and reception on the right." or
"Welcome one and all to Dwarfneyland, the magic kingdom!"

In other words, the player has just turned the runes into a red herring.