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

[The Firebird]

Here is my perspective on this:

I have done a lot of pretty hardcore simulationist RPGing. Mostly using RoleMaster, but also using RuneQuest and other BRP(esque) systems. My favourite current system, Burning Wheel, has PC sheets and combat resolution mechanics that could be straight out of one of these classic simulationist games.

And yet I get told again and again that I don't understand simulationism, that I am dismissive of simulationist priorities, etc.

Then when I ask some of those proponents of simulationism how they handle knowledge checks, or dodging in combat, and other stuff that (in various RPGs, and especially D&D) requires departure from simulationist methodologies, I get told that it's a "spectrum" and that I am unreasonably insisting on "100% sim".

The fact that it makes it seem that RM and RQ (and Burning Wheel?) are too much sim, while clearly Marvel Heroic RP is too little, leaving the conclusion that D&D in some non-4e incarnation is just right, seem a little gerrymandered.

Now if I've misunderstood, and that is not the conclusion, then I apologise. But in that case why can we not talk openly about techniques - eg about how knowledge checks work (their is a way they can cause issues in Burning Wheel; Marvel Heroic RP does not have the same problem, as best I can tell from reading, reflection and experience); about how asking and answering questions provides an alternative to them in Apocalypse World - rather than shutting those discussions down?

For instance, the dismissal of asking and answering questions on the basis that "the GM controls the world", only to learn that this doesn't mean that only the GM ever controls the world, seems more like dogmatic insistence than like discussion. What's the difference of method, after all, between what @Micah Sweet described upthread in relation to a player collaborating in relation to a PC's family, and a player in AW answering the GM's questions about their PC's life, memories, relationships, etc? I don't see any fundamental difference. Yet the latter is dismissed, while the former is accommodated under the banner of "no absolutes".

RM and RQ aren't too much sim. I just don't think you need to have the player make all the dodge rolls for "the player controls the PC to hold as a general principle".

We have had a discussion about knowledge checks work. The methods you're suggesting fall on the far side of the line for us.

I don't understand where the confusion regarding spectrum lies. I'm saying red light is ~620-750 nm. Some things are clearly fine (700). Some are on the edge (620). Some are clearly not fine (300).

It seems to me like you're saying "they are all light and there is no fundamental difference in that regard, so why can't we have a discussion about 400"? Or "don't the cutoffs seem a bit gerrymandered? Why aren't they 600-770, or 500-700"? I think there is some ambiguity for the edge cases, as always with categorization. But that doesn't mean the categories don't exist and don't capture something real. And it is easy to see movement along the spectrum.

We've outlined the principles involved in making these decisions, in terms of a fixed world, fidelity to that world, in terms of player/PC distinction. So apply those, and see if techniques break them a little or a lot. Maybe RM is 730 (I haven't played it). D&D is 700. The 10 page backstory is 640. And ascribing meaning to the runes is way down at 400.

If there's a different account to be given, I'm happy to hear it. But as I posted, I can't see what it is: that is, I am not seeing what narrating the farrier when prompted by a player and narrating a monster when prompted by a wandering monster roll have in common, that neither has in common with narrating a cook when prompted by a player's failed check, as far as "quantum-ness" is concerned.

The last one differs in that it is prompted by a failed check.

Also, you ask "why can we not talk openly about techniques ...rather than shutting those discussions down".

Those discussions have been going on for months in this thread. No one is trying to shut them down. We just don't like the method.

 

[Maxperson]

Not having an agenda of make the player characters' lives not boring is not the same as having an agenda of making the player characters' lives boring. We're also specifically talking about the player characters, not the players here. I was speaking to having an active agenda where the undefined parts of the setting are actively used tools to keep play flowing and compelling (and reflective of what the characters are up to).

If you consider yourself a referee or someone who inhabits the setting than I don't know why this should be contentious because then you should have no agenda.

I think it's a false agenda. The characters' lives can't be boring if you are playing the game, even if there are boring bits in it. The only real concern with regard to boring is with the players, and I think we all have the agenda of not making the players' lives boring when it comes to playing an RPG.

 

[AnotherGuy]

It takes less than 6 seconds. RAW says you can attempt to open a lock on your turn during combat. Success and it opens. There is no penalty, increased loudness for speed or anything else. It's a normal lockpick attempt in your 6 or less seconds. That means that outside of combat, it also takes 6 or less seconds. It can't take longer or you would incur penalties during combat for rushing the attempt.

I actually didn't know that. I would not allow that at my table. I wonder if @Lanefan rules that one's best attempt is done within 6 seconds - he doesn't play 5e.

Each attempt is at most 6 seconds, though. So even 20 attempts would only be 2 minutes.

Yeah I'm not adopting any of that and I think it was @AlViking that had like 2d10 minutes for his games which he extrapolated from RL examples/data.
I haven't done the research but that feels more simulating reality.

So, I'd say make a check, success you unlock within a minute or less, otherwise to make another check the immediate cost is 2d10 minutes and you may not even succeed. Fail badly enough and you damage the lock, the picks or both.

 

[Enrahim]

Here's another well-known game procedure: the Gm asks the player something about the world, and the player answers. I expect that everyone in this thread will be aware of it, given the repeated discussion of it (mostly by reference to John Harper's blog).

And here's another one: "fail forward", which everyone in this thread knows about.

I don't understand why, outside of the context of some particular game system or rules text, you're privileging one well-known procedure over another.

I didn't.

The context was a reply to a forum thread, where I happened to talk about this particular procedure.

 

[Maxperson]

I actually didn't know that. I would not allow that at my table. I wonder if @Lanefan rules that one's best attempt is done within 6 seconds - he doesn't play 5e.

Rounds were 1 minute back then, so probably it takes longer.

Yeah I'm not adopting any of that and I think it was @AlViking that had like 2d10 minutes for his games which he extrapolated from RL examples/data.
I haven't done the research but that feels more simulating reality.

I agree.

So, I'd say make a check, success you unlock within a minute or less, otherwise to make another check the immediate cost is 2d10 minutes and you may not even succeed. Fail badly enough and you damage the lock, the picks or both.

I'd just make it longer and if you want to rush it, you get disadvantage or some other penalty.

 

[AlViking]

I actually didn't know that. I would not allow that at my table. I wonder if @Lanefan rules that one's best attempt is done within 6 seconds - he doesn't play 5e.


Yeah I'm not adopting any of that and I think it was @AlViking that had like 2d10 minutes for his games which he extrapolated from RL examples/data.
I haven't done the research but that feels more simulating reality.

So, I'd say make a check, success you unlock within a minute or less, otherwise to make another check the immediate cost is 2d10 minutes and you may not even succeed. Fail badly enough and you damage the lock, the picks or both.

In the 2024 PHB they call using thieves tools a "Utilize" action.

Utilize. This entry lists things you can do with the tool when you take the Utilize action. You can do one of those things each time you take the action. This entry also provides the DC for the action.​

...​

Thieves’ Tools (25 GP)​

Ability: Dexterity Weight: 1 lb.​

​

Utilize: Pick a lock (DC 15), or disarm a trap (DC 15)​

I'm sure it was similar in the 2014 rules, it's an action which can be taken on your turn in combat which is around 6 seconds. My house rule is that if you fail on your initial check by 10 or less you can then take another crack at it, but it will take 2d10 minutes. On the other hand there are competitions called " ‍locksport speed ⁢picking" to see how quickly people can pick a lock and they say it can be done in "a few seconds" depending on the lock.

Of course D&D is full of oversimplifications and the speed of picking a lock doesn't register all that high on my list. If you want to add a house rule that's fine, but we aren't discussing house rules unless they're specifically spelled out.

EDIT - I would also note that modern locks are mass manufactured, the vast majority of locks your average locksmith comes into contact with are likely made by the same handful of manufacturers with only a few relatively minor modifications. Most D&D games are set in a preindustrial society so each lock is potentially unique and likely quite crude by modern standards.

 

[kayakingpoodle]

I'd suggest checking out the lock picking lawyer on YouTube to see what a practiced lock picker can do with a variety of unknown locks. Be warned it is a rabbit hole.

 

[TwoSix]

Breaking a belief is as much a faithful portrayal of the PC as keeping it is.

People are people. We have beliefs. Some of them we keep. Others we keep and then break, sometimes forever and sometimes only briefly. The system you describe is asking for the player to faithfully portray their PC. It just rewards the player no matter how that portrayal takes effect.

No. You can’t faithfully portray a character without some sort of metric to measure that portrayal against.

“I’m faithfully portraying the headcanon I have” doesn’t meet that standard. It’s a semantic distortion.

 

[AlViking]

No. You can’t faithfully portray a character without some sort of metric to measure that portrayal against.

“I’m faithfully portraying the headcanon I have” doesn’t meet that standard. It’s a semantic distortion.

I don't see why not. If you have rules that establish metrics then you've just changed who gets to decide if you've faithfully portrayed you character. It will always be a judgment call, the only thing that changes is who makes the judgement.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

The problem is not with appearing or even being childish. Hell, I've always held that being grown-up is vastly overrated.

The problem comes when one type of RPG is held up as childish in order to make another type appear more adult.

But who's doing that?