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

[pemerton]

My biggest beef with this conversation is pulling a mechanic out in isolation without the infrastructure that normally surrounds and like acknowledging the huge role the GM plays in how it's implemented. The latter of which is a big problem to me because we (this community) never seems to acknowledge the craft involved in running games like Apocalypse World.

Right. I have tried to address this in my posts to @FrogReaver. "Fail forward", to work, depends upon other "infrastructure" of play: trajectories of threat and promise, hopes for what success will deliver, etc.

 

[hawkeyefan]

It may surprise you, but I agree with all of that. Home brew just isn't particularly applicable to a rules discussion. Unless you're saying something like, "Yes I know the rules say X, but how I do it is Y, because that makes more sense to me."

In a rules discussion if you skip the first part and just argue Y, it come across as arguing that the rules say or include stuff that they don't.

But in a rules discussion that’s about bot doing things the way they’ve always been done, I would expect homebrewing to be a big factor.

And this is what I’ve been talking about. Other ways to do things in D&D besides the ways they’ve always been done.

An incredibly shorter amount of time than the hours in-between checks.

You always only roll for checks every few hours? Like, in a wilderness journey or similar, sure that makes sense… but what about in a dungeon? Or a hostile city?

Do the actions of characters ever impact this? Like, in earlier versions of D&D, searching took time, and that meant a random encounter roll.

Do you not make these kinds of rolls? Do these factors not matter? Is it always just X hours and make a roll?

Not even those. I might create a furrier, since those won't be in pretty much every town and only has the possibility of being in one. That would require a roll.

And before you say something like, "Aha! You do it, too!" I have long said I don't run a perfectly traditional game. I also improvise a lot, because I just don't have the time to prep like I did in my much younger days. That doesn't mean that in a discussion about how traditional games try to do things, I should include my differences.

I don’t think improvising is anything like an obstacle to traditional play. I think there was plenty of that as needed. This is why I find your goal to avoid it as much as possible a bit odd.

The whole of the 5e DMG is just a bunch of suggestions. The game says the rules to play are in the PHB and the DMG uses language in pretty much every chapter has language about how it contains suggestions and guidelines.
None of the 5e DMG "rules" are written as hard rules like the PHB rules are.

Sure. But my point about the random encounter “system” as suggested by the DMG is that it’s crap. Why is it crap? Well, other than being utterly non-committal and wishy-washy, it also doesn’t inform any other part of play. It doesn’t suggest anything that the players do affect the process. It’s basically saying “sometimes random encounters can happen, determine them however you like”.

Without things like dungeon turns and tracking PC actions outside of combat while in a hostile area, the random encounter system doesn’t do anything. When those two systems are combined… that’s when it gives the players interesting decisions to make.

Maybe they’re low on HP and the cleric’s down to his last few spells, and the wizard only has his wand with a few charges… but we heard the orcs talking about a secret door. Should we search here and risk a random encounter?

That’s what I mean when I say that modern D&D has legacy eleme ts that don’t really make sense. Without dungeon turns and similar things, the random encounter process is just “have some occasional unexpected stuff happen” without any influence by the players.

Again, tagging @AlViking so that he sees what I’m talking about.

I just don't see any sense in being the middle of a roleplaying session and then being like, "Okay, everyone stop for a while so that I can roll random encounters, then open books to find the appropriate tables, then roll what the encounter is, then open the monster book to find the monster, then figure out how it will wander by. You might as well pull out your phone or a book, because this will be a little bit."

That's incredibly disruptive and in my opinion, detrimental to the enjoyment of the game session.

Maybe. I mean, I’ve largely been running D&D almost exactly that way for years now and it’s not really a problem for me.

Generally when I prep for D&D it’s to print up stat blocks or tables that may be needed during play. So I don’t have to reference different books and all that at the table.

I spend a lot more time doing that than I do creating specific encounters and maps and the like.

Because literally dozens of posts were about how the more skilled thief will encounter the cook less. It's a part of the scenario, even if you haven't brought it up yourself. If failure is based on skill, and it is, then a less skilled thief in the same circumstances will be more likely to run into the cook or other household member.

I have not been talking about skilled versus unskilled thieves and how they compare. That has nothing to do with what I’ve said.

Having said that, though, it does not seem in any way strange to me that an unskilled thief would be more likely to attract attention than a skilled one. I mean… why would it be otherwise?

It is, but there isn't a lesser quality than best. A roll of 2 is the best the thief can do with his skill level, just like a 19 is. It's not as if a roll of 2 indicates a poorer quality attempt than the 19. If the 19 will be quiet, so will the 2.

What? Then what’s the difference when Marco the thief rolls a 5 compared to when Marco rolls a 19? You’re saying his performance in both cases is the same?

Right, which is why it does contradict what you said. A successful check is at the same quality as a failed attempt, because both are the best the thief can make. Making more noise would indicate a poorer attempt, which isn't what the roll is showing.

This makes no sense.

Right, but it's not the "quantum" part. It's the timing part or who is doing it part.

Then why did the term “quantum” ever get brought up? Especially in ways like “I don’t like quantum cooks” and similar sentiments?

I do my best to be. And no they are not at odds in the least. Every moment of the characters' lives doesn't have to be not boring for their lives to be not boring. If they are pirates for 5 years and then decided to travel inland to raid a dwarven stronghold, a boring walk does not suddenly make their lives boring.

If you are playing the game, their lives cannot be boring. Only the players' boredom matters here.

You’re mistaking what the principle is saying. “Make the characters lives not boring” means that when you make a decision as a GM you are expected to do so in a way that will make things interesting.

As an agenda, that doesn’t jibe with “be a neutral arbiter”.

 

[pemerton]

There's a difference between resolving uncertainty with the roll of a dice than causing something unrelated to happen because of a failure. Walking through tiger infested lands? You may or may not come into conflict with a tiger, it's uncertain. So we roll the dice. The cook (or the guard or the nosy neighbor) was never going to be there at the time of the lockpicking unless the sleight of hand fails is not resolving uncertainty. It's adding a complication.

The cook being startled is not unrelated to the failed attempt at burglary.

 

[hawkeyefan]

The cook being startled is not unrelated to the failed attempt at burglary.

I mean… I’m not sure how that is still unclear.

 

[Maxperson]

Would you say a bit more about this?

My goal is for everyone at the table to have fun, not be bored. To that end I run the game that best fits the style of everyone at the table. Currently that's a more traditional style game. Not completely traditional. I improvise a great deal, reacting to what the players do in the game.

 

[Maxperson]

You always only roll for checks every few hours? Like, in a wilderness journey or similar, sure that makes sense… but what about in a dungeon? Or a hostile city?

Do the actions of characters ever impact this? Like, in earlier versions of D&D, searching took time, and that meant a random encounter roll.

Do you not make these kinds of rolls? Do these factors not matter? Is it always just X hours and make a roll?

No, other factors matter. If they are in a hostile city that is in high alert or something, encounters will be more common. They aren't on a scale of minutes, though, which is what searching is. Unless the players search coincidentally coincides with encounter timing, it's not going to be a factor.

I don’t think improvising is anything like an obstacle to traditional play. I think there was plenty of that as needed. This is why I find your goal to avoid it as much as possible a bit odd.

My experience is that traditional play plans out as much as possible in order to minimize the amount of improvisation. I don't have time for that in my game, so I improvise a lot.

Sure. But my point about the random encounter “system” as suggested by the DMG is that it’s crap. Why is it crap? Well, other than being utterly non-committal and wishy-washy, it also doesn’t inform any other part of play. It doesn’t suggest anything that the players do affect the process. It’s basically saying “sometimes random encounters can happen, determine them however you like”.

Or not at all. It also advises no encounters at all if you don't want them or the players don't enjoy them.

Without things like dungeon turns and tracking PC actions outside of combat while in a hostile area, the random encounter system doesn’t do anything. When those two systems are combined… that’s when it gives the players interesting decisions to make.

Maybe they’re low on HP and the cleric’s down to his last few spells, and the wizard only has his wand with a few charges… but we heard the orcs talking about a secret door. Should we search here and risk a random encounter?

That’s what I mean when I say that modern D&D has legacy eleme ts that don’t really make sense. Without dungeon turns and similar things, the random encounter process is just “have some occasional unexpected stuff happen” without any influence by the players.

I do agree with you that the 5e random encounter advice isn't at all good. You have random encounters, unless you don't, but if you do, have them at time intervals that you choose, like these highly variable time increments that have nothing to indicate which ones to use when.

Maybe. I mean, I’ve largely been running D&D almost exactly that way for years now and it’s not really a problem for me.

I think it's a matter of style and what you want out of the game. My players and I are big into character immersion, thinking and talking as the characters as much as possible. Stopping the game like that to roll an encounter doesn't just pull them out of their immersion, it's a freaking punch in the face that knocks them head over heels out of it. For our purposes it's a major disruption.

Generally when I prep for D&D it’s to print up stat blocks or tables that may be needed during play. So I don’t have to reference different books and all that at the table.

Random encounter tables often are too large for that, though. Just look at the tables in Xanathar's. That's a lot of monsters that I would need to have stats on just hanging around. Enough notes to make a monster book.

Having said that, though, it does not seem in any way strange to me that an unskilled thief would be more likely to attract attention than a skilled one. I mean… why would it be otherwise?

Because there's no appreciable increase in time or noise by how things are run by RAW. And if you increase the amount of time to open a lock, which makes a lot of sense, it still doesn't make sense for a skilled thief to make more noise than a skilled thief. In 5e there are no unskilled lock pickers. I don't know if 5.5e changed that.

What? Then what’s the difference when Marco the thief rolls a 5 compared to when Marco rolls a 19? You’re saying his performance in both cases is the same?

This makes no sense.

Sure it does. The roll represents your best effort. You've given it 100% and you couldn't possibly do any better. If you roll a 5, that 100% best effort just isn't enough. The lock is too hard for you. If you roll an 18 and hit the DC, your 100% best effort was good enough and it opens. In both cases the effort being made is the same.

Then why did the term “quantum” ever get brought up? Especially in ways like “I don’t like quantum cooks” and similar sentiments?

Because the way you do it doesn't work for our style of game. We wouldn't like running it that way. The cook should be in the kitchen at a specific time whether or not the thief succeeds in his roll. She shouldn't be there on a failed roll and not there on a successful one. Those "shoulds" being for how we run games. And for our purposes the roll to see if she is there or not should be directly related to whether she is there or not, which lockpicking isn't. Lockpicking as at best distantly connected, not directly connected.

You’re mistaking what the principle is saying. “Make the characters lives not boring” means that when you make a decision as a GM you are expected to do so in a way that will make things interesting.

As an agenda, that doesn’t jibe with “be a neutral arbiter”.

Then the name is a bad one, because as a neutral arbiter I can say that I have not ever run a game where the character's lives were boring. "Make the characters' lives not boring" is a bad description of what fail forward accomplishes.

 

[pemerton]

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

<snip>

We just don't like the method.

I understand that you don't like it. I don't understand how it is more, or uniquely, "quantum".

 

[pemerton]

My goal is for everyone at the table to have fun, not be bored. To that end I run the game that best fits the style of everyone at the table. Currently that's a more traditional style game. Not completely traditional. I improvise a great deal, reacting to what the players do in the game.

I was asking how this is done in conjunction with fidelity to the setting.

 

[pemerton]

What? I've pointed out previously that there are people who view various PbtA games, including AW, as gamey because of the move structure. And, while I can't speak to MHRP specifically, Cortex is incredibly gamist with step up/down, buying off hitches, etc.

As I already posted:

I was replying to @The Firebird, who (at least as I understood things) used the word "gamist" in the sense of playing for winning/achievement (what has also been called "Step on Up").

 

[pemerton]

Sorry, this quantum nonsense is getting tedious. Yes, someone did use the word "quantum" about a phenomenom they didn't like and that they thought had associations with quantum mechanics. There was a bit back and forth until I stepped in as an actual MSc And validated both side's conception of quantum - and gotten what appeared to be a consensus that "quantum" in this extended sense is not a problem in itself. After that I have not seen quantum used in a problematic way without pointing to this, and it is quite a time since that has happened before now.

Maybe you missed this post:

The quantum runes said nothing at all. A successful check and they said what the player hoped for. A failed check and the DM made up something different. Until the roll, though, they said nothing at all, so defining them changed their state.