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

[hawkeyefan]

Now you are calling people who disagree with you delusional. This is getting increasingly insulting.

No. You really need to stop twisting things people say to justify your pearl clutching.

I said that when we look at someone attempting a task, ignoring the context of the situation... why they're attempting the task and related details... seems delusional.

Obviously whatever consequences may occur depend entirely on the context.

Unless you want them to, I suppose...

No, want has nothing to do with it. The real world doesn't work with dice rolls and a GM making decisions.

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.

But it has stakes beyond simply the picking of the lock. There are other potential consequences.

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

Not at all... I showed how it could have a consequence other than just an unopened pickle jar.

But as far as games go, I wouldn't expect a game to even worry about such mundanity, or if it did come up for some reason, I wouldn't bother gating the opening of the jar with a roll. I'd just say "You open the jar... now what?"

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.

Mitigating risk is one thing. Refusing to proceed unless all risk can be mitigated? That's another. You've described plenty of instances of play where players have been less cautious. You've even advocated for PvP with "Let them fight, says I" even though this would obviously be against their best interests.

If your game actually grinds to a halt once danger rears its head then I'd say it's probably the worst D&D game ever. I don't expect that's the case, though, so why you're trying to argue this is beyond me.

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.

But this just displays a continued misunderstanding of the idea. If we took a session I run of Stonetop and one you run of your version of D&D, then yes, a roll in Stonetop is likely weightier than one in D&D. But there will almost certainly be fewer rolls.

If the fiction suggests little to no chance of dangerous consequences, then I'm not going to ask for a roll. I'm only going to call for a roll in Stonetop when there's something at risk. If there's no risk at all, then I'm simply going to allow the character to succeed.

Also, the idea that if a character fails, they're getting "hosed" is just... I don't know... it seems adversarial even for D&D.

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.

Okay.

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

It's a consequence has been my point. You guys are fighting tooth and nail to avoid saying what's incredibly obvious.

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.

So Thief A is in lock-picking class with his guildmaster. They're practicing picking a lock.

Thief B is in a dark alley about 20 feet from a well-lit street. It's late at night, but there may still be people about, certainly the watch is still on patrol. There's a light rain, but it's only a little more than a drizzle. Thief B is trying to pick the lock of a merchant's office so he can steal some documents for a rival merchant. He'll also see if there's anything of value that can be taken.

According to you, these situations are identical?

look at it this way, cancelling the date as a result of failing your test isn't a consequence of failing your test because you didn't get the date in the first place as a result of you taking the test.

your date didn't say 'if you pass your driving test i'll go on a date with you'

Sorry, but this isn't accurate at all. It doesn't matter whether her agreement was based on me passing the test or not.

 

[Faolyn]

Now you are calling people who disagree with you delusional. This is getting increasingly insulting.

There have been lots of people who have said, or effectively said, that it's wrong, stupid, railroading, pointless, "quantum", to play games the way we like, and have been incredibly dismissive of our entire preferred method. Strange that you didn't think any of that was insulting.

 

[hawkeyefan]

It certainly seems to me that's what you were saying in these two posts.

The first excludes the possibility that 'fail and nothing happens' can have consequences besides just the task you rolled for. The second says its trivially wrong that the real world works like that.

Yes, because I have shown many times that there can be consequences beyond just success/failure of the task. Other things may happen as a result. That disproves the absolute statement "only failure or success is at stake" without making an absolute statement of my own.

If the point is just 'both methods retain verisimilitude. Fail Forward connects events which are more distant for more rapid play. Fail and nothing happens follows the causal chain more closely at the expense of more rapid gameplay', then I think we are on the same page.

Yes, this is much more what I'm saying. Though, I don't know if I'd say "follows the causal chain more closely" since what most people seem to want is to ignore the causal chain in order to look at the task in isolation.

But otherwise, yes, this is more what I have in mind. I'm not claiming that either method is more verisimilitudinous than the other... I am saying claims that "nothing happens" is more verisimilitudinous are wrong.

 

[The Firebird]

Yes, because I have shown many times that there can be consequences beyond just success/failure of the task. Other things may happen as a result. That disproves the absolute statement "only failure or success is at stake" without making an absolute statement of my own.

The argument isn't that nothing else is at stake, just that the only thing directly adjudicated by the die roll is the task. If I roll to pick the lock while being pursued by knife guy, then obviously more is at stake...

But we can model this as two rolls, (i) lockpick and (ii) stab attempt or as one (iii) lockpick + stab.

But otherwise, yes, this is more what I have in mind. I'm not claiming that either method is more verisimilitudinous than the other... I am saying claims that "nothing happens" is more verisimilitudinous are wrong.

I still disagree with this; I favor multiple rolls in the case above, to avoid tangling the results. But I think we understand each other better at least.

 

[Faolyn]

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.)​

Nope. They are, in effect, the same thing, because the meaning of the runes was not established ahead of time.

If you, the GM, had decided that the runes meant "exit thataway -->" and a PC said "boy I hope that these runes will show us the way out," then rolled well enough to translate the runes, that would be one thing.

Instead, what happened is that you, the GM, put the runes there to be "fun and interesting." They had no other meaning or translation. A PC said "boy I hope that these runes will show us the way out," then rolled well enough, and they were. From a mechanical standpoint, this is the same thing as the player wishing the meaning into existence. From an in-fiction standpoint, it also doesn't make much sense to me as anything other than a suspiciously lucky guess--considering there were likely hundreds of other logical translations, some of which were probably even more logical for the location.

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.

Except that people do, all the time. In D&D and its -alikes, you can usually decide if you kill the orc or if you knock them unconscious. And, of course, you can choose to not strike at all.

Also, unlike your runes, an adversary like an orc has established characteristics. There is a certain amount of harm you can inflict before one of these characteristics--the hit points--run out, at which point its dead.

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

Then how is it credible that the exact runes the player hopes mean "exit thataway" do, in fact, mean "exit thataway"? Did the PC have any reason to believe that they would mean that?

I'm really getting quite fed up with you correcting me on the play of games that you're not familiar with.

And yet, you seem to think that most or all games work like the ones you play with, and get affronted when people push back.

 

[AlViking]

You guys are being too literal with this. If he was trying to pass his driving test, he was probably in high school or not too long out of it. Kids that young don't have the confidence that adults have. He likely told his date that he would be picking her up and there's a good chance he was mortified at not passing and having to go on the date without driving the car.

When I was that age I would have canceled that date, too. The failure is what brought him to the point that he canceled.

It was certainly a major factor in the chain of events but the only immediate repercussion of failing the driver's test was not getting a driver's license. I'm not talking about real world philosophical or behavioral discussion on what happened*. The thing I care about in the game is how we handle the immediate repercussions of failure - knock on effects later on don't really come into play.

 

[Faolyn]

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

Because most of those times, those are things that, if it were a game, wouldn't require a roll to begin with.

And also because games aren't real life. I don't play a game to be bored because nothing is going on.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Well, we're not off to a great start. I have literally never used the word "owns", except to tell you I haven't used the word, and this particular instance goes beyond misrepresenting my words into outright gaslighting. I refer you to post 15,098:

OK, you got me. 15,000+ posts of a slew of trad GMs oozing 'I own this part of the game' and you post a quote from John Harper that talks about what the GM is 'in charge of', and my using the term 'owns' is gaslighting?! Look, I'm going to accept that you didn't use the word, I don't think you're trying to BS anyone, but look at it this way. I have a life, it would take me 8 or 9 hours a day to read through the 100 pages of posts that get dropped on this thread every day. So, there may well be some subtlety of your position that I have missed, etc. If you want to replace 'owns' with 'in charge of' I don't think it changes the sense of what I'm saying AT ALL.

This consistent factual misrepresentation when you try to make your point does nothing to engender a good faith discussion. Quite the opposite.

Again, if I missed something you posted, which is quite possible given that even my notifications are so large now as to be unwieldy, I apologize. Still, you don't have to assume instantly that everyone is a wanker.

Again, I refer you to post 15,098:



This is really where I see the difference. Narrativism allows for/requires increased transparency that a. enables author and director stances more readily than trad (just to pre-empt: I think all stances are utilised across all playstyles and by different persons in different proportions), and b. trad-leaning individuals find uncomfortable. I expect this is where the mischaracterisation of "writer's room" comes from.

This may be true in some sense. I don't perceive much of my play, as a player, as being outside of a 'character centric' mode. I was never a big speak only in character kind of player. in the 1000 Arrows game we wrapped up pretty recently my recollection is I spent a pretty good amount of time saying things like "I do this" or "I say XYZ." Now it is true that when you act in that game, you are going to have to make explicit what you intend. Often we would, as players, say something about a given situation, that it put pressure on a particular drive or something like that.

I'm not sure how that's different from trad play where all the games I've ever experienced included asking the GM many questions, and making statements about what skill checks we're using and whatnot. The tenor of the discussions seems similar, though the thrust of what was being discussed was somewhat different.

 

[JConstantine]

Where is the answer to the test supposed to come from - the player? or a proper interpretation/application of the Tenets and Concitions?

Both? I'll admit, I may not be parsing this in the manner you intend.

*In MHRP, a player earns XP by fulfilling "Milestones", which are character-specific story-esque events. For example, here is Captain America's "Avengers Assemble!" milestone:

​

1 XP when you first lead a team.​

​

3 XP when you defeat a foe without any team member becoming stressed out.​

​

10 XP when you either convince a hero to join a new Avengers team or disband your existing team.​

​

As this example illustrates, and as the rulebooks says (pp OM106-7), the "10 XP trigger . . . should be a tough decision point. . . . [and] is earned when you’re in a position to make the central choice of the Milestone". The game doesn't tell the player what choice they should make, to be true to their character. The player has to inject their own choice. (And thus, "poof", they're not playing sim!)​

So here's the official XP rules from V:TM V5:

The Storyteller awards each player 1 experience point per session played, plus 1 point at the end of each story. In shorter chronicles and others where more rapid improvement adds to the drama, the Storyteller may choose to award 2 points per character at the end of each session.​

I think you'll agree that they're absolute crap. I rewrote them for what I want to see in my own game:

Accomplishment	XP
Achieved a short-term goal (Desire)	1
Achieved a long-term goal (Ambition)	2
Fulfilled a minor boon	1
Fulfilled a major boon	2
Fulfilled a life boon	3
Upheld the Masquerade	1
Affected the relationship map	1
Struggled with Chronicle Tenets, Convictions, Compulsions or Clan Bane	1

As I said, without knowing how Tenets and Convictions work in V:tM V5, I don't know whether they support simulationist play or narrativist play.

I'd say the system as a whole allows for both, but Tenets and Convictions lean toward narrativist. They're certainly not simulationist.

don't know how the touchstone was brought into play and made significant;

Touchstones are created by players during character creation as human representations of their Convictions. For example, if a character has "Family comes first" as a Conviction, then the Touchstone is very likely to be a mortal relative (depending on the age of the vampire PC, this could be a direct blood relation, or a descendant many generations removed); another character with the Conviction "the guilty must be punished" might have a judge or prosecutor as their Touchstone. Their significance comes from acting as a tether to the mortal world that helps the vampire maintain their humanity (V:TM is a game of personal horror encapsulated by its Nietzschean tagline: A beast I am, lest a beast I become).
If the Touchstone is lost, the associated Conviction is also lost, but new Touchstones and associated Convictions can potentially be gained through play.

don't know that about the Sheriff either;

The Sheriff is pretty much what it sounds like. But specifically, it's a role held by a certain vampire who is tasked with upholding the laws (The Traditions) of a certain faction (The Camarilla) in domains that that faction holds power. It's typically an NPC, but there's nothing stopping a PC from gaining/holding the position. It's mostly setting fluff.

and don't have a good sense of what the consequences mean.

Vampires have a track representing their Humanity. The consequences would be potentially incurring Stains that subsequently risk reducing their Humanity. Any character who incurs Stains must make a roll (Remorse test) at the end of the session, where the amount of dice the player can roll is reduced by the number of Stains incurred, making it more likely that the character fails the roll and subsequently loses a point of Humanity (pushing them closer to their monstrous nature). The Humanity track also has a mechanical use in resisting certain vampiric impulses, which are likely to cause complications for the characters, so a lower Humanity means those are more likely to occur.

To elaborate that just a bit: I can't tell if this is more like a paladin in classic D&D being forced by a predominantly GM-driven process to choose between alignment (breaking it costs abilities) and treasure (foregoing it costs XP, hence advancement, hence abilities), or is more like a BW game where the back-and-forth of play has led to a mouldbreaker moment.

With the added context, hopefully this more clear.

The second scenario - from your description - seems like standard information-gathering play, in which the player has prompted the GM to provide more information about the backstory/setting. So to me it seems fairly GM-centred/GM-driven.

I expected as such, but it would be trivial to make it more like the first: with the same Conviction of "do what it takes to survive", the Nosferatu PC could be spying with hopes of gaining information that improves their chances of survival, either by blackmailing the Primogen and/or Seneschal into protecting them, or revealing the plot to the Prince to get in their good graces, thereby serving their Conviction.

 

[hawkeyefan]

The argument isn't that nothing else is at stake, just that the only thing directly adjudicated by the die roll is the task. If I roll to pick the lock while being pursued by knife guy, then obviously more is at stake...

But we can model this as two rolls, (i) lockpick and (ii) stab attempt or as one (iii) lockpick + stab.

Yes, it can work either way in a game. But that's why I was trying to get people to look at it in real life examples. How we would describe and categorize those.

Removing the context of RPGs, I don't expect anyone would divorce the outcomes from the actions the way is happening in this conversation.

I still disagree with this; I favor multiple rolls in the case above, to avoid tangling the results. But I think we understand each other better at least.

You disagree with it based on your preference, you mean? That's how I read that... let me know if I've misunderstood.

If I'm correct, then sure... that's a perfectly fine way to do it. Many games handle it this way.