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

[pemerton]

They did not make the decision that on a success they would kill the orc, they didn't even make the decision that on a success they would hit the orc and harm it (taking away some hp). The failure stake in this orc example is also system decided, on a failure you miss. The system, independent of the player decided all of these stakes.

Huh? The game system has a rule for killing Orcs. The player invoked it.

In MHRP, the game system has a rule for the player establishing what strange runes say. The player invoked it.

What is the difference?

Thus the players 'hope' for a specific outcome factors into the resolution process as the result on a success, whereas in the orc example, the 'hope' has no effect on resolution process.

The player's hope is what prompts them to invoke the mechanic. If they didn't hope to kill the Orc, they wouldn't attack the Orc.

If the player didn't want to achieve the goal of having a way out revealed by the runes, he wouldn't have declared that he reads them.

IMO there's a 1 to 1 mapping between the players action declaration and the characters action. Because that 1 to 1 mapping exists, then saying the players action declaration does X is the same thing as saying the characters action does X. Since you cannot have 1 without the other then either can be accurately described as the cause if one is.

What RPG are you talking about here? I mean, I know some RPGs where what you say is not correct.

Again, I have no problem with you playing the way you play. There's plenty of pros to it. All I'm saying is that there are cons as well. Can you admit there are some non-trivial cons to it?

<snip>

What if instead the player hoped the runes would teleport them to another location. Or that the runes were a spell of such power that they would blow a hole out of their current location. Or etc. So yea, it cannot literally be anything, but from my perspective that kind of misses the point.

You offer those examples as if they are supposed to be problems - "cons". Why would they be?

More generally, why am I obliged to think that here is something wrong with my RPGing.

Right, so why would a narratvist player like yourself ever complain about the way a game of D&D is played?

I'm not a "narrativist" play. I'm a RPG player. I play a variety of RPGs.

And the only D&D play that I complain about is bad D&D play that I experience. Which thankfully has not been for some time.

I did spend many years on these boards having other posters complain about my D&D play, of course!

 

[AlViking]

Again, I think that this atomization of tasks is something that’s only being done for game purposes. It seems like a very unnatural way to discuss actions and consequences.

Which is why rolls are only asked for if there's uncertainty.

Now, as far as a game goes, I understand that it may be a preference. So may including more in the roll than just pass/fail. The games being mentioned that don’t want “nothing happens” to be a result… they expect the GM to decide what it means to pass or fail (likely with some guidance from the rules).

It’s the GM’s job to tell us what happens next.

The GM is telling you what happened. You didn't get the jar open. It's up to the player to tell everyone else at the table what they do next. It's also of course up to the GM to let the players know if something happened during the few moments opening the jar was attempted, but that's fairly rare in my experience.

Sure. All of those would be possible outcomes (or consequences) of a fall. I fell… so I had to use a spell slot to cast Featherfall.

Not I fell so I fell.



Oh no no no… according to your logic, if I didn’t catch you, all that happens is I didn’t catch you.

When you go splat, it’s because of the downstream consequence of your skull colliding with the ground.



How is it a “downstream consequence”? How is it not related? I can’t get the jar open, so now I need to go get a new jar of pickles for my pregnant wife. Seems



Do you make people roll to open pickle jars in games?

I could. Depends on if the jar is particularly difficult to open. I can't remember any time anyone ever rolled to see if they could open a pickle jar but I'm sure I've had people roll for other stuck containers, doors or some other object.

Are your players made of glass? Will they break so easily?

I mean, for someone who touts his old school combat as war, no snowflakes allowed kind of game, you seem awfully reluctant for there to be negative consequences on a failed roll.

It works just fine.



No, some are very obvious.



So the surrounding conditions can affect the odds of success… but they don’t inform the outcome?

You would say these two thieves are facing the same consequences?

What happens is that the lock remains locked or unlocked. The reason for and result of the roll does not change, it was uncertain whether or not the task would be successful so a roll was required. On the other hand I can't think of any reason we'd bother playing through a rogue practicing lock picking in game because we skip over the vast majority of what any character does on a day to day basis.

Don’t you think that’s bizarre?

What I think is bizarre? Is that people keep insisting that running a game in any way other than how they run their game is bizarre. Yes, the two thieves are facing the same outcomes, the lock is unlocked or not.

 

[pemerton]

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

They are not the same thing. Your failure to distinguish them is why I say that you seem unable, in your analysis of RPGing, to distinguish events in the shared fiction from events at the table.

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.

The PC didn't roll. The PC deciphered the runes.

The player rolled the dice.

From a mechanical standpoint, this is the same thing as the player wishing the meaning into existence.

No more than the idea that the roll to hit an Orc is no different from wishing the Orc dead.

unlike your runes, an adversary like an orc has established characteristics

The runes have established characteristics too. They're strange. They're on a dungeon wall.

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.

<snip>

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?

The PC knows that they are strange runes in a dungeon. There are many things that they might say. It turns out that they reveal a way out. That's no less likely than any other candidate thing they might say.

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

Huh? I'm very aware that many RPGs use different principles from the ones that underpin (for instance) Marvel Heroic RP.

EDIT:

While this is true, don't forget that @pemerton said that he put them there because it would be fun and interesting, but otherwise without any meaning to them or their location. And while a quacamole recipe would be silly, since there are, as I pointed out elsewhere, probably hundreds of equally likely translations (or unlikely, since there was no rhyme or reason to their existence or location beyond "fun and interesting"), it's equally silly that the runes turned out to mean exactly what the player hoped they would mean. I don't know what kind of roll was required, but I doubt that it was "roll a 1 on a d300."

This means that the GM can't decide either what the runes mean, because any particular decision would be silly because so unlikely.

 

[The Firebird]

They don't.

The PC chooses to read them, and learns what they say. They haven't changed depending on who reads them.

In the fiction they don't change. At the table they do. If Bob declared the action rather than Alice, Bob might have some other thoughts.

No. It differs from the Orc case because of the way that it establishes backstory based on a roll.
--
You're just reiterating the issue of who gets to establish backstory.

I refer you here.

Because clearly the causality is broken because the player gets to set the stakes in that way.

We are saying the same thing...I don't know why you are so allergic to the 'setting the stakes' phrasing. When I say "the player sets the stakes" I mean "the player is allowed to make parts of the backstory subject to a roll". Does that phrasing help you?

Huh? The game system has a rule for killing Orcs. The player invoked it.

In MHRP, the game system has a rule for the player establishing what strange runes say. The player invoked it.

The player is allowed to make parts of the backstory subject to a roll.

 

[The Firebird]

EDIT:
This means that the GM can't decide either what the runes mean, because any particular decision would be silly because so unlikely.

Don't want to move too fast, but reread Faolyn's post, especially the bold.

While this is true, don't forget that @pemerton said that he put them there because it would be fun and interesting, but otherwise without any meaning to them or their location. And while a quacamole recipe would be silly, since there are, as I pointed out elsewhere, probably hundreds of equally likely translations (or unlikely, since there was no rhyme or reason to their existence or location beyond "fun and interesting"), it's equally silly that the runes turned out to mean exactly what the player hoped they would mean. I don't know what kind of roll was required, but I doubt that it was "roll a 1 on a d300."

She doesn't see the interpretation as silly because it is objectively unlikely, but because it is a little too cute that they would happen to mean exactly what the player wants. (correct me, @Faolyn, if I am wrong).

 

[pemerton]

I'm with you. I prefer to abstract away very little.

Except in combat? When everything - the time sequence of actions ("stop motion" initiative), the nature and consequences of actions (what is an "attack"? what is a "hit" or a "miss" (eg are some "misses" really "hits" that just fail to penetrate or hurt through armour)? what is damage? where are the characters (whose space is measured in 5' squares)? etc).

Some of us who enjoy playing RPGs where these things are not abstracted away find it odd to read advocates of standard D&D play denouncing abstraction!

 

[AlViking]

Well, you'll want to talk to @Lanefan about that, as he's rejected both the idea that failure needs to have any meaning, and the idea that success needs to have any meaning (I presume separately, as if both are true simultaneously I'm pretty sure even he would say "don't bother", but I could be mistaken.)

This, for instance, is one of the reasons why I don't think it so horrendous to talk about, for example, a guard or servant* to walk past a secondary servants' entrance into the house. Keep in mind, in medieval, renaissance, and early modern periods, servants had their own halls, staircases, etc. they were supposed to use. At essentially all times other than "direct personal service" situations, servants were supposed to stay completely out of sight. Dusting, sweeping, mopping, etc. were to be done while the family was asleep, unless a sudden emergency occurred (e.g. a major spill caused by the family or guests), or the family needed special service (e.g. "we're hosting prestigious guests for supper, get the house completely spic-and-span!") So it's very much A Thing that, during the wee hours, various servants would clean, prepare, organize, etc., etc. so that the family could rise fresh and ready the next morning, seeing only their direct personal servants (e.g. the ladies' personal maids, the gentlemen's manservants, the butler of the house, etc.)

Most locks, so long as they aren't some bizarro newfangled design, are not that much of a challenge to pick, having watched a fair amount of the Lock-Picking Lawyer--assuming you have the right tools. Hence, for most locks, what matters is less can you pick it, because the answer is most probably "yes"--what matters is how much time it'll cost you. A robust lock might take a good while, especially to one unfamiliar with its design, but unless it genuinely requires a specialized tool, whether or not it can be picked really shouldn't be in doubt. (And, I'll note, if it did require a specialized tool to pick it, that would imply the lock couldn't ever have been picked in the first place, which has been explicitly ruled out--success was possible when our Thief began picking.)

As a result, a difficult-but-not-impossible pick might have to be stopped, not because the picker cannot do it whatsoever, but because doing so is no longer safe. Most security measures work exactly like this. Security isn't, and cannot be, absolute. Instead, security measures are an effort to make it too risky to try. A lock that the best lockpickers can only get through after an hour's concerted work is a very good lock, because an hour is an extremely long amount of time for the would-be burglar to just sit there, doing nothing, focused intently on the lock. That's a risk almost all burglars would avoid--all but a very few, very brave and usually very foolish, would avoid it.

If there is no time pressure, I generally don't ask for a check to see if a lock can be opened if it's standard quality but there are exceptions. In today's world locks are mass manufactured and most locks we encounter day to day are relatively low quality. In the past certain types of locks likely followed a very similar pattern but they were all hand made so any two locks could require different techniques. In addition not all locks use standard keyways and tumblers, there are some locks that can't be picked 4 Locks That Cannot Be Picked – 4 Unpickable Locks. I particularly like the chain key myself.

When coupled with the above, is it really so unreasonable to say that the result of "failure" is "you weren't able to get through the lock before attention was drawn to the door you were trying to get through"? That seems like quite a reasonable, and indeed realistic, answer. A lock that is simply impossible for a trained (but perhaps green) lockpicker to pick, solely due to skill level, is less realistic than one that is simply very challenging to pick, and which would take too much time for this trained(-but-maybe-green) Thief.

The fact that this advances the fiction toward some kind of conclusion (in this case, toward discovery and thus either failure of the stealth mission, or needing to risk violence to complete their objectives) is thus a bonus on top of an already-realistic situation: Servants are milling about even though the family is asleep (a typical situation in manor-houses for centuries in Europe, from medieval to industrial times), guards are patrolling, and the Thief is much more likely to be skilled enough to pick the lock eventually but not soon enough, rather than being simply incapable of it at all.

*"Cook" was the specific term used earlier, but it could be any servant, cooks are just likely to be near to one of the most plausible servant-entrance doors of a manor house.

In my game if the character can't get the lock opened quickly but I think it is possible (depends on how much they miss the target DC by) they have the option to continue but it will take 2d10 minutes to open the lock. If they're in a threatening area something may happen while they're working on the lock.

The only direct result of a sleight of hand to open a lock will be whether or not the lock is opened. Other things can happen while the rogue is opening the lock. Other things can happen depending on whether or not they are able to open the lock. Other things will not happen because of the the check itself.

 

[pemerton]

I'm trying to describe what is necessary for a narrativist game.

My Definition - A narrativist game is structured in such a way as to produce fiction that revolves around certain player defined aspects of their characters chosen at character generation.

Why not read what has been said by one of the greatest designers of RPGs intended to support narrativist play? I quoted it upthread, but here it is again:

If you're designing a Narrativist game, what you need are rules that create a) rising conflict b) across a moral line c) between fit characters d) according to the authorship of the players. Every new situation should be a step upward in that conflict, toward a climax and resolution. Your rules need to provoke the players, collaboratively, into escalating the conflict, until it can't escalate no more.​

Your definition doesn't capture setting or situation-oriented narrativist play (eg HeroWars, 4e D&D, The Dying Earth, Prince Valiant). Nor does it capture even most character-oriented narrativist pay that I'm aware of (eg in Burning Wheel, as I've already pointed out upthread, a player can rewrite a Belief or Instinct at any time; in Torchbearer 2e a player can rewrite a Belief or Instinct at the start of the session).

Whereas Vincent Baker doesn't define where the moral line comes from: it can come from the character, or the situation, or the setting.

Your definition also leaves it quite possible that the revolving of play around the player-defined character aspect might not be player-authored. For instance, a Pendragon-type RPG where the player gets to set, at PC build, the ratings of their traits, would satisfy your definition. But that game would support simulationist play better than narrativist play (as per posts I've made upthread about Pendragon).

I think this rules out D&D module style play and many other typically D&D playstyles - play revolves around the module where player defined aspects may or may not ever come into play, and even if they do they may do so sporadically such that the fiction produced isn't revolving around those aspects.

I've used D&D style modules for narrativist play, based around setting or situation.

Normally the module needs a bit of reworking, mostly to get rid of prescribed consequences or evolutions in situation that prevent the players from escalating conflict across the moral line established by the module.

What other implementations of narrativist can there be?

Indefinitely many. "Narrativism" isn't a set of techniques. It's a type of pleasure to be found in RPGing.

 

[pemerton]

In the fiction they don't change. At the table they do. If Bob declared the action rather than Alice, Bob might have some other thoughts.

But at the table they don't change. They become more precisely specified.

When I say "the player sets the stakes" I mean "the player is allowed to make parts of the backstory subject to a roll".

OK. I'm not familiar with that usage of the phrase.

 

[FrogReaver]

Huh? The game system has a rule for killing Orcs. The player invoked it.

In MHRP, the game system has a rule for the player establishing what strange runes say. The player invoked it.

What is the difference?

You just plainly described the difference.
1) The game system has a rule for killing Orcs.
2) In MHRP, the game system has a rule for the player establishing what strange runes say.

I'll note that of particular importance is the fact that you specifically didn't describe the first as 'the game system has a rule for the player establishing they killed an Orc', which would have been an exact match of the wording used for the second. So before I proceed with putting words in your mouth, let's establish whether you think this would be an accurate description. If not, then not being able to describe the 2 events using identical language suggests the 2 events are not identical.

Yes, it is true that players in both games invoke a rule and in both games invoking that rule establishes fiction. That's never been in dispute. I fully agree with that. We all do. Those details aren't where the difference lies though, so its not clear why that part keeps getting repeated.

The player's hope is what prompts them to invoke the mechanic. If they didn't hope to kill the Orc, they wouldn't attack the Orc.

I don't think I disagree here.

If the player didn't want to achieve the goal of having a way out revealed by the runes, he wouldn't have declared that he reads them.

I do disagree here. There are countless possible goals the player could have declared he reads the runes in order to obtain. He could have declared he reads them for any 1 of those.

What RPG are you talking about here? I mean, I know some RPGs where what you say is not correct.

All of them. I mean you could have skipped straight to the counterexample part. But we can get to the same place over multiple bite sized posts I guess.

You offer those examples as if they are supposed to be problems - "cons". Why would they be?

All the examples are meant to do there is to show we reach the same point in discussion even without outlandish examples. The con of the runes example is that it breaks the simulation. That doesn't mean you have to care about the simulation.

More generally, why am I obliged to think that here is something wrong with my RPGing.

Having a con doesn't mean something is wrong with it. A con of my 2013 Toyota Corolla is that it's not a flashy status symbol. The pro is it's reliable, wasn't too expensive and gets good gas mileage.

I'm not a "narrativist" play. I'm a RPG player. I play a variety of RPGs.

Whatever you want to call it. You know exactly what I meant.

And the only D&D play that I complain about is bad D&D play that I experience. Which thankfully has not been for some time.

I'm 100% certain that many of the things you call bad D&D play others call good D&D play.

I did spend many years on these boards having other posters complain about my D&D play, of course!

That must have sucked. So maybe you can realize how others feel when the same is being done toward them and their play.