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

[pemerton]

Pretty sure that the people who made those tables did so with the belief that the GM would be using them to make the dungeon before the game started, not during play.

You may be pretty sure, but the text confirms that you are mistaken. DMG pp 169, 173:

When you need help in designing a dungeon - whether it is a level in your main dungeon or a labyrinth discovered elsewhere - the following random generation system has proven itself to be useful. It must be noted that the system requires time, but it can be used directly in conjunction with actual play . . .

The random dungeon generation system is easily adaptable to solitary play. Locate the entrance to the dungeon, and then select one of the random dungeon starting areas given here, locating it in the middle of the graph paper.​

I've never used it for literal solo play. But I used it for playing with a friend and no GM for the first time probably around 1984. It's an obvious thing to do. It can also be used for GM-ed play with the dungeon being rolled as things go along, "directly in conjunction with actual play". Here's an actual play example: Played AD&D yesterday (using Appendix A for a random dungeon)

Plenty of other ENworlders have done this sort of thing too.

When doing this sort of play, there is no need to roll to see (eg) what is behind a door until the door is opened by a PC.

Player/character separation is not meant for you to pretend that what your PC does isn't determined by what the player says that the PC does.

I don't see how this is relevant. The player says that their PC reads the runes; the PC reads the runes.

If you are going to insist on "simulationist" procedures of play, that is, that every player decision or effect corresponds to something that the PC causes in the fiction, then you will not be able to handle even simple examples like this:

MC: "Nero, what do the slave traders use for barter?"
Player: "Oh man, those [foul people]? They use human ears."​

The player is deciding that the slave traders use human ears for barter. But obviously the PC is not the one who makes this true in the fiction.

The player in my example puts the possibility on the table that the runes reveal a way out. The roll of the dice confirms this. But the PC is not the one who makes this true in the fiction. What the PC does, in the fiction, is to read the runes and thus to learn that, as he hoped, they reveal a way out.

I honestly can't tell if you're being pedantic about phrasing here or my use of the word GM instead of MC.

I'm saying that there is no such thing as the GM role in PbtA games. The variety of games that call themselves PbtA is very wide. The variety of GM roles across those games is correspondingly wide.

I then posted some stuff about the nature and purpose of GM prep in one PbtA game, the one I'm most familiar with, namely, Apocalypse World. And it doesn't say anything about prepping situations. It talks in some detail about how, after the first session, the GM goes about prepping fronts and threats.

 

[pemerton]

The complaint was that the cook only existed depending on some event.

And the reply was that this is true for all RPGing - there are elements of the shared fiction, and events in the shared fiction, that only exist because someone at the table does something.

The player asks, "Is there a farrier in the village?" And so the GM decides there is.

The players say, "We move into the next hex" and so the GM rolls an encounter die, and it comes up yes, and so the GM decides (and/or rolls to determine) what sort of encounter the PCs have.

Etc, etc, etc.

I think this is why @hawkeyefan has conjectured that the reason for labelling some of this "quantum" - eg the decision, based on the player's roll to open the door, to introduce a cook into the scene - but not all of it, is because you don't like those instances but don't mind the other instances.

The "not minding" of the other instances tends to manifest in explanations of why their dependence on at-the-table procedures and events is reasonable or sensible or conventional. Which is itself seems to be a standard of what someone does or doesn't like.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I think this is why @hawkeyefan has conjectured that the reason for labelling some of this "quantum" - eg the decision, based on the player's roll to open the door, to introduce a cook into the scene - but not all of it, is because you don't like those instances but don't mind the other instances.

Bingo!

 

[AlViking]

And the reply was that this is true for all RPGing - there are elements of the shared fiction, and events in the shared fiction, that only exist because someone at the table does something.

The player asks, "Is there a farrier in the village?" And so the GM decides there is.

The players say, "We move into the next hex" and so the GM rolls an encounter die, and it comes up yes, and so the GM decides (and/or rolls to determine) what sort of encounter the PCs have.

Etc, etc, etc.

I think this is why @hawkeyefan has conjectured that the reason for labelling some of this "quantum" - eg the decision, based on the player's roll to open the door, to introduce a cook into the scene - but not all of it, is because you don't like those instances but don't mind the other instances.

The "not minding" of the other instances tends to manifest in explanations of why their dependence on at-the-table procedures and events is reasonable or sensible or conventional. Which is itself seems to be a standard of what someone does or doesn't like.

The cook only exists because of a failed roll that has no diegetic reason. I'm not going to argue about it any more. It's pointless because you've shown that you will never accept that anyone would care.

 

[Maxperson]

I think this is why @hawkeyefan has conjectured that the reason for labelling some of this "quantum" - eg the decision, based on the player's roll to open the door, to introduce a cook into the scene - but not all of it, is because you don't like those instances but don't mind the other instances.

That's probably because they aren't the same. How many times do we have to say that there's a difference between the DM rolling in advance and the player rolling to determine things in the moment? That there's a difference between PC skill influencing the roll and a roll happening without PC skill in something unrelated being used?

If all your play posts are to be believed, you have a fantastic memory, so why do you continuously forget things like that and just repeat that which is wrong? We aren't going to forget why we are okay with one and not the other just because you repeat it a lot.

 

[hawkeyefan]

That's probably because they aren't the same. How many times do we have to say that there's a difference between the DM rolling in advance and the player rolling to determine things in the moment? That there's a difference between PC skill influencing the roll and a roll happening without PC skill in something unrelated being used?

Well, for me... I had asked you about your random encounter process oh a hundred pages back or so, and you never really answered. Because as described, it seems just as "quantum" as any other roll.

And I don't think it matters how many times you or @AlViking say it, I think there is clearly a diegetic connection between an attempt to pick a lock and that attempt drawing someone's attention, and it absolutely is related to the character's skill.

Finally, the DM rolling in advance... I think that's something you said you like to do. But I don't think that's very common. I mean, how far in advance are you going to know a random roll will be needed, and if so, on what table should it be rolled (whether by region, or dungeon level, or what have you). Most people make those rolls as needed, not ahead of time... and when they make those rolls, they are establishing details at the moment of play.

All of which is to say that your arguments that one type of roll is "quantum" and another is not don't really hold up to scrutiny. Neither does comparison to just basic GM functions where the GM needs to come up with some undetermined thing on the fly. That all happens... and no one describes them as "quantum" moments.

So to me, it seems clear that it's more about the rolls that have typically been handled that way being accepted, and any kind of new method is seen as problematic.

Now, I'm sure you'll argue that's not the case... but so far, I haven't seen a compelling argument in your favor.

If all your play posts are to be believed, you have a fantastic memory, so why do you continuously forget things like that and just repeat that which is wrong? We aren't going to forget why we are okay with one and not the other just because you repeat it a lot.

So, you're asking people to stop using words you may consider disparaging to describe a style... but then here you're challenging someone's integrity?

 

[Maxperson]

Well, for me... I had asked you about your random encounter process oh a hundred pages back or so, and you never really answered. Because as described, it seems just as "quantum" as any other roll.

I answered it several time. Quantum for the DM before the players encounter it =/= quantum for the players hitting a random encounter because someone failed a knowledge engineering check.

Those are two different things.

And I don't think it matters how many times you or @AlViking say it, I think there is clearly a diegetic connection between an attempt to pick a lock and that attempt drawing someone's attention, and it absolutely is related to the character's skill.

Not by D&D RAW there's not. Both use the same tools in the same amount of time and neither of them is louder than the other. So the skilled PC shouldn't be avoiding the cook at any greater rate than the unskilled PC.

Finally, the DM rolling in advance... I think that's something you said you like to do. But I don't think that's very common. I mean, how far in advance are you going to know a random roll will be needed, and if so, on what table should it be rolled (whether by region, or dungeon level, or what have you). Most people make those rolls as needed, not ahead of time... and when they make those rolls, they are establishing details at the moment of play.

I often know several days(in-fiction days) in advance, which usually equates to at least one session ahead of where we are now. So I have to do it during the week before the next session. Even if I don't and I'm rolling it during the session, I still roll it before they get to that point. I'm never like, hey, let's see if something wanders into you guys now.

All of which is to say that your arguments that one type of roll is "quantum" and another is not don't really hold up to scrutiny. Neither does comparison to just basic GM functions where the GM needs to come up with some undetermined thing on the fly. That all happens... and no one describes them as "quantum" moments.

I mean, nobody has argued that for several hundred pages. Very quickly we acknowledged that both were quantum, but quantum for the DM is different than quantum for the players.

Now, I'm sure you'll argue that's not the case... but so far, I haven't seen a compelling argument in your favor.

I think that us having said that what the DM does being quantum, but not the same as the players, several hundred pages ago is a pretty compelling argument in our favor that we are not saying yours is, but ours isn't.

So, you're asking people to stop using words you may consider disparaging to describe a style... but then here you're challenging someone's integrity?

Repeatedly getting something wrong over and over and over when it has been said that it's something different, and shown that it's something different, directly to him multiple times, eventually makes it seem like it's deliberate.

 

[Faolyn]

So question on this: would you think a Seek Insight/Discern Realities (I forget, are you familiar with Dungeon world?) roll where the player says "wait, there's runes on the wall? I'd like to see if they contain any clues about the way out of here" and then roll a 7-9 and pick "what's useful or valuable to me" and the GM goes "ok yeah, so you puzzle over the runes for a bit and realize that they're a set of pictographic landmark directions that will like, kinda get you back on track?" as bad? Because generally when my players roll either Seek Insight or Know Things they're starting from a "I Hope..." position (are there tracks? what's the weakness here? what happens if I let this creature out?...etc).

While I don't play DW, I do play games that have similar moves. Anyway, according to the SRD, the player asks the GM either one or three questions from the following list:

• What happened here recently?
• What is about to happen?
• What should I be on the lookout for?
• What here is useful or valuable to me?
• Who’s really in control here?
• What here is not what it appears to be?

The PC doesn't get to say "It would be useful for me if the runes pointed out an exit." (Or, well, they can, but the roll has nothing to do with that.) The GM can say that the runes point out an exit, but the player doesn't get to "hope" that and then roll to see if they do. And even if the players made a point of looking at the runes, the GM could say "the runes are just a recipe for guacamole, but you notice this other useful thing over here..." Or "the runes say the password for that food locker you couldn't get into a few rooms back." The GM isn't required to fulfill the PCs' hopes, no matter how well they roll.

Same thing with the Spout Lore move.

(It should also be noted that, according to things I've read, it's perfectly fine to use a pre-drawn map when playing DW. So if the runes are in a position where they would logically say "exit thataway -->," they could, in fact, say that.

I was musing elsewhere the other day that this is one thing that the FITD series of designs have done so well, especially the ones that came after Blades. The creation of explicit Downtime procedures with focused activities (many of them have excellent fictional framing around deepening connections between PCs or PCs and NPCs in pursuit of mechanical outcomes like recovery) allow for the framing of really awesome scenes. Ones of tension, or denouement. Caring for another PC, motivating them in the sort of "bringing tea and cookies to somebody reliving traumatic events" you'd see in a good piece of media. Hitting the bar for a girl's night out, two characters who don't know what they're doing in this place trying to figure it out together.

Little vignettes that may not have conflict, but definitely have discovery and delight. Plus a lot of people who play TTRPGs really want character to character role-play away from constant conflict, and having this explicit system-level promise that "its coming" has IME led to really good focus in the "score/missions" space so that they can generate more stuff to explore/resolve in upcoming downtime.

Yep! While I haven't played any FitD games (yet), they seem to do a good job allowing for very character-intensive downtime scenes.

 

[Faolyn]

You may be pretty sure, but the text confirms that you are mistaken. DMG pp 169, 173:

Of course, you cut off the rest of my text here. And note that the text is saying that they can be used live, not that they were designed to be used live.

When doing this sort of play, there is no need to roll to see (eg) what is behind a door until the door is opened by a PC.

Well, if you don't care about logic, continuity, physics, dungeon ecology, etc., then there's no need.

If you are going to insist on "simulationist" procedures of play,

Am I? Show me where I said that.

that is, that every player decision or effect corresponds to something that the PC causes in the fiction, then you will not be able to handle even simple examples like this:

You got it backwards. The players say things. As a result, the PCs do things.

Also, nobody sticks to one mode of play throughout a game. People switch back and forth between gamist, simulationist, and narrativist all the time. Individuals might use one method more than others, but they will use all three at one point or another.

The player in my example puts the possibility on the table that the runes reveal a way out. The roll of the dice confirms this. But the PC is not the one who makes this true in the fiction. What the PC does, in the fiction, is to read the runes and thus to learn that, as he hoped, they reveal a way out.

Since you keep trying to assert that the games are imaginary fiction, you should know that the PC doesn't exist except for the player. The player and PC are one. You, as the PC, want something to be true. So you, as the player, roll for it.

I'm saying that there is no such thing as the GM role in PbtA games. The variety of games that call themselves PbtA is very wide. The variety of GM roles across those games is correspondingly wide.

And again, unnecessarily pedantic, to the point it's preventing you from actually considering what's being said. Forest for the trees. Can you not imagine that "the GM role" can be an overarching term used for whatever the GM role is in any particular game? Am I required to specify every single game as part of a list that goes "The GM's roll in <game 1>", "the GM's roll in <game 2>"?

I then posted some stuff about the nature and purpose of GM prep in one PbtA game, the one I'm most familiar with, namely, Apocalypse World. And it doesn't say anything about prepping situations. It talks in some detail about how, after the first session, the GM goes about prepping fronts and threats.

Likewise here. Fronts and threats = situations. Common English here. These are situations that the GM preps.

 

[The Firebird]

I mean, nobody has argued that for several hundred pages. Very quickly we acknowledged that both were quantum, but quantum for the DM is different than quantum for the players.

I think that us having said that what the DM does being quantum, but not the same as the players, several hundred pages ago is a pretty compelling argument in our favor that we are not saying yours is, but ours isn't.

Yep. There is no point in going through it again. The argument has been well stated and looked at from lots of angles and there are very clear differences. At this point if someone is still not getting it they perhaps never will.