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

[Faolyn]

While I can see where you’re coming from, I think that there might be a distinction between a Front/Threat and at least what I think of when I see advice like “prep situations not plots?” The former is a fictional chain of badness, and once written down the principle of “always say what your prep demands” is really “don’t you effing dare pull your punches.”

If you wrote down “Baz’s crew infiltrate town -> the crew roughs people up to figure out wheee the water plant is -> they assault the water plant -> smash it ALL” or some such, each one of those might create situations or places for the characters to intervene or take action. Or maybe they don’t, and you follow through.

That's pretty much how countdowns work in Monster of the Week. Here's one from the Tome of Mysteries:

And maybe modern situation advice takes inspiration from that sort of thing and I just haven’t read it in detail, but I tend to see or think of it as “stuff for the players to do/explore” vs “stuff to actively impose upon what they care about” if that makes any sense?

They both would count as situations.

Well, the latter--stuff to actively impose on them--might actually count as a hard move, depending on how involved it is.

 

[hawkeyefan]

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.

I don't think that RAW comments on how loud a failed lock pick attempt is versus a successful one. I think that's more in the "rulings not rules" category, which seems perfectly suited to his kind of situation.

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.

Why do you think the timing matters in this way? And what's the difference between someone else who makes those rolls in the moment as needed in play?

This is why I think this quantum label is kind of useless... it's fiction that we're talking about. At one point, it doesn't exist, and then a moment later it does.

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.

What is the difference? What does quantum for the players but not the GM even mean?

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.

Max, if you expect people to not disparage a style... an element of RPG play... then I think we can expect you not to disparage a poster, no?

There is in fact a difference. I came up with that town waaaaaaay before that session, so that's when the farrier was there, not during the session the player reminded me that I had forgotten to write it down.

The difference is timing. Making it up when the player asks is creating it on the spot. Confirming the existence of something that was in the town prior is not making it up on the spot.

No, you came up with the farrier in response to the player bringing up the farrier, and then you treated the farrier as if he was there all along.

That's no different than making things up on the spot. There is a moment where there is not a thing, and then a moment where there is a thing. This can be weeks before when you created the town, this can be when a player asks a question that makes you realize you didn't detail something and now you have to do so on the spot, or this can be in response to some kind of game procedure. However, once introduced into play, that thing has been there.

You're making a distinction for the town/farrier situation that you shouldn't.

1) You can only be less likely to blunder into that person that is behind the door if that person is there regardless of that roll

No, not if the attempt to get through the door is what brings them to the room or otherwise alerts them.

2) The more skilled PC will be less likely to blunder into someone behind the door, but the skill used isn't lockpicking. Lockpicking only deals with opening the lock. Perception, experience, etc. will allow the PC to be aware of someone behind that door and perhaps wait to open it until after the cook leaves.

Again, rulings not rules. One GM may rule as you do above. Another may decide that a lock pick attempt includes all the relevant factors of attempting to pick a lock, including being aware of potential observers and making noise. That seems reasonable since typically most GMs aren't going to ask for 5 different rolls for one action.

It's been pointed out to you multiple times that this was a single example that happens to be pretty bad. So why do you keep bringing it up?

That was me, actually... but not for the reason that he mentioned...

I didn't. The conversation started with someone complaining about the quantum cook again.

Not exactly, no. I didn't bring it back up to complain about the quantum cook. I brought up the use of the term "quantum" as being problematic in the same sense that @Maxperson viewed "Princess Play" and similar terms, but which he happily used himself despite others rejecting the term.

Now, I personally don't really mind if people want to use "quantum" as a criticism because I feel I can address that. But when a poster is calling for others to stop using words they don't like, the fact that they use words others don't like seems relevant. I'd much rather we all stop complaining about what words are used and instead talk about the ideas that words convey.

 

[Umbran]

I'm assuming you do not have alzheimers or some other memory issue so I don't see any reason to repeat the back and forth yet again.

Mod note:
Before you go there, first remember yourself - Rule #1 on the site is "Keep it civil".
Then, maybe choose a better path than this dismissive rudeness.
Thanks.

 

[Enrahim]

What makes this different from the DM rolling on a random encounter table? This seems even more related than the previous examples, because now it's (quite literally) a direct connection. Failing to pick a lock nearly guarantees that you've spent a lot of time trying. You don't spend two seconds and then realize "oh, unpickable". That stuff takes time. And time spent locked down, in one specific place, doing something that does make noise, is one of the greatest risks to a would-be thief. That's why locks exist. Locks don't guarantee people can't get in. They make getting in sufficiently slow and onerous that burglars decide to burgle elsewhere.

For goodness' sake, this roll IS specifically tied both diegetically and physically to whether or not someone MIGHT get discovered. That's literally the physical reason why locks exist! This has greater similarity to what locks truly do! It has the form of truth! It IS VERISIMILITUDINOUS!

But time/noise do have a mechanism for being handled. That is what the random encounter roll is for! If the ruleset specifies the time needed for a pick lock check, you roll the aproperiate number of wandering monsters. If it is indeed noisy then that normally triggers a wandering monster check in most systems. If the time is not specified by the rules, this is ruling territory. Depending on ruled time an approperiate number of wandering monster checks should be done.

This is well established game procedure that ensures approperiate (in)dependene between pick lock and encounter.

An example rulings for a non specified system is that the GM based on the result of the check determines the amount of time before the character concludes with succeeding or that they are not able to do it. Then each turn until this time-limit the GM ask if the character keep going (note: no new skill roll!). When the time has come for rolling wandering monster, the GM does so. (Edit: this ruling would of course be known (and accepted) by the players before having to make the choice between keeping going or not - maybe they even get to know how the time is determined, like a roll of 1d6 turns)

An effect of this would be that we could have a lock that the thief roll well enough to unlock, but that get interrupted before they finish the job. I think this will be a much more acceptable state of affairs for most trad players and GMs.

 

[JConstantine]

Plus we like, have a perfectly excellent term for this style of play as he describes it (writing not that long ago in 2020): "OC" / "Original Character" style of play, which has been with us for quite a while.

I'm not sure that term is quite so appropriate. So, "OC"/"original character" comes from the community of people who create fan works for various media. In that context, they're essentially fan inserts, and while there can certainly be overlap in that regard as far as RPGs go - particularly with games set in a preestablished IP, like Middle-earth or Star Wars- there's a common trend in that community that isn't so common in the RPG crowd. Admittedly, this is anecdotal from my experience interacting with a few people from that scene in my younger years, as well as a younger cousin who currently engages in it, but there is a certain protectiveness and specific view that the creator tends to have for the character that is generally at odds with the randomisation aspect of RPGs - it is akin to those GMs who people often feel would be better served writing a novel.
At a convention game a few years ago, I experienced a player with this mentality at the table, and I have seen (as an outside observer) this occur a few times online. It seems to be a burgeoning trend that I personally think it warrants being considered it's own playstyle (even distinct from neo-trad, if going by the Cultures of Play article).

One thing I really admire about Baker is how he's like, updated his thinking & writing with the ensuing decades of a) being a parent, b) not being the openly confrontational/angry at the scene person he was in the early 2000s, and c) thinking and onboarding changes in how we can think and communicate for inclusion and better idea sharing (see also his dropping of Dogs).

While I certainly think it's commendable for a person to change their opinions with new information, the post @AbdulAlhazred linked earlier (I forgot to post my thoughts on it, sorry) was simultaneously frustrating and vindicating in that Baker seemed to finally recognise what some people were saying at the time and in the intervening years since.

 

[JConstantine]

Player-facing "quantum" at least has the benefit that it's been done in the open. It isn't pretending to be anything other than what it is. It completely averts any risk of deception; it is, if anything, more a demonstration of GM integrity than anything GM "quantum".

Whilst I can understand your perspective here, it's been pointed out, more than once, that the illusionism from the GM is important to certain players in helping maintain their suspension of disbelief (and by extension, immersion). That transparency you consider a sign of integrity is actively detrimental to the enjoyment of that sort of player.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

This is incorrect.

The MC controls the psychic maelstrom. What form it takes, how and where (and if) it moves. How strong it is. How common it is for people to be able to tap into it.

The player controls their PC's personal experience with it. They control their PC's senses, not the maelstrom itself.

As an example, in this game, the maelstrom is like constant radio signals. One player says they always hear static but can sometimes snatch useful bits of coherent sound out of it. Another player says they have to work hard to tune their own mind, but have access to dozens of clear stations when they successfully do so.

AFAIK the psychic maelstrom ONLY effects things through the interpretation of the characters, as described by the players. While it doesn't belong to the players, they're the ones who actually describe it.

The GM could then follow up on that and manifest it as an actual threat.

 

[JConstantine]

A few posts in this thread have attributed intractable differences in perceptions to mental models. Here I'm suggesting that without the mental model, the distinct play might not exist.

Agreed. This is what I was getting at with a previous comment about not enough weight being given to player idiosyncrasies, but you've put it more overtly.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Personally I've always carved out an exception for superhero settings in regards to that stuff. Whole different kind of play for me.

I suspect in the case of the people I'm talking about, there are whole elements in superhero settings they wouldn't be able to engage with. But then, I also, from what I know of you, would find it surprising if you got soggy about someone filling in some elements about their family in a fantasy game, even if they didn't do it until ten or twelve sessions in when it actually became relevant, unless they looked like they were trying to game process. From what I've seen of your position on such things its firm but not kneejerk.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I suspect in the case of the people I'm talking about, there are whole elements in superhero settings they wouldn't be able to engage with. But then, I also, from what I know of you, would find it surprising if you got soggy about someone filling in some elements about their family in a fantasy game, even if they didn't do it until ten or twelve sessions in when it actually became relevant, unless they looked like they were trying to game process. From what I've seen of your position on such things its firm but not kneejerk.

That's fair. My actual preference is for the player to stick to their PC specifically once the campaign begins, but in practice people throw out little details about their backstories all the time and it's not something I'm losing sleep over. My daughter's PC in a recent game brought the party to stay at her family's home for a couple of days, and we basically made them up together.