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

[TwoSix]

How do you square that with Manbearcat's "firehose of adversity" that he often mentions as an aspect of play?

Just from conversing with them over the years, I know @pemerton and @Manbearcat are often in agreement but also have different styles of play (not to mention they will change up their styles depending on the game being played, as good GMs should).

 

[Lanefan]

The problem is that rules like morale or Persuasion checks is that they make people play not in character. They have to run away because the dice say they do, not because it's in character for them to run away. They have to believe an NPC or accept someone's arguments because the dice say they do, not because the NPC is actually believable or made a good point.

In other words, you stop playing your character and let the dice play them instead.

In D&D, and many other games, most of the time (there are a few exceptions) when a character is forced to run away or believe an NPC, it's because there's magic involved. Or if not actually magic, then something that is pretty darn close: a dragon's roar may (or may not) be magical in nature, but it's a creature nearly as big as a football field that is angry at you in particular. Some games even specify that fear effects should be limited to supernatural events--both GURPS and SWADE make a note of that, for instance.

Agreed. My issue with such rules is that they're asymmetrical; that they apply to NPCs but not to PCs.

Sultion: take those rules out completely so they don't apply to anyone.

 

[Lanefan]

I have no problem with @EzekielRaiden example either. Such examples could be great play or not based on other aspects, but in general I agree it's FF and would probably be fine in general in a Narrativist context.

I'm not sure what your objections to SCs amount to. There's nothing 'bare bones' about them. I'd say they're nearly as elaborate as most combat systems. I can think of no reason why a check within an SC would be seen as less detailed than any other. Certainly 4e applies the same process and rules to every check. All that seems to be true is that some of the consequences or results may be deferred to ultimate SC resolution vs needing to be completely resolved instantly.

Like in the chase example, maybe some success gets you a better situation, but doesn't immediately capture the bad guy. Or likewise a failure just worsens your situation a bit, but doesn't let them get away. Chances are a less structured approach will be similar, except the GM is left winging it, or else home brewing basically an SC. Note that 4e does not preclude the latter either!

My experience with 4e skill challenges comes from the first 4e DMG and from converting some 4e modules to run. Seeing what was put forward as skill challenges in the modules really left me wanting, as I saw tons of opportunity being skipped over for some more detailed play and, thus, more granular resolution.

One example: there's a 4e module "Marauders of the Dune Sea" which I converted and ran. In it, one of the obstacles is a permanent sandstorm the PCs need to get through in order to reach some other stuff within. The module wants the whole sandstorm piece to be done as a single skill challenge; I took one look at it and realized that sandstorm could (potentially) provide hours of play and all sorts of interesting possibilities if travel through it was resolved in a more detailed manner, and so I ran it that way.

That my players then aced every possible roll and beelined through it straight to the goal without getting lost even once, well, that ain't my fault.

 

[Lanefan]

So, stop engaging about it? If you aren't interested, just drop the topic?

So, someone who doesn't like something is supposed to just bow out quietly rather than speaking in opposition to that which they don't like?

Sorry, but that ain't how discussion works.

 

[Lanefan]

My feeling is that at least some people have a very rigid definition of "failure" that's all or nothing.

It's the logical flip side to success being defined as all or nothing, in games where "success must always be fully honoured" is a hard-coded guideline.

 

[Maxperson]

And how in the first use of the term, spell levels and character levels are not the same thing or gained at the same rates (in all but one D&D edition), despite the underlying meaning being similar.

Yep. It can be confusing to use "level" for that many different things. Thanks for talking about spell levels. That was the one I was forgetting. Still, all of those uses are in the proper context and meaning of level. Gygax didn't call them "spell ovals" or "character jumping beans" to cause confusion by using words that don't mean what the term is being used for.

The point is more that shorthand terminology that needs interpreting in the context of the rest of the text is entirely normal in RPGs, and always has been.

This is a False Equivalence. Using "level" in the proper context and as it's commonly used definition is not the same as inventing completely hokey phrases that don't at all mean what they purport to do, or are derogatory in nature.

 

[Thomas Shey]

It's the logical flip side to success being defined as all or nothing, in games where "success must always be fully honoured" is a hard-coded guideline.

Eh. My own feeling is that's just sliding around the categories. "Failure with forward motion" or "success with a cost" can easily be describing the same end result; if one of them has a better psychological effect on the user, I can't make myself care. Either way binary pass/fail for most things strikes me as a poor description of what's going on, often even in the smallest increments.

 

[Maxperson]

We've been talking about a thief. You've just recently added the "master" designation.

We've been talking about a highly skilled thief. But you know what, it's irrelevant if I've added master, because "master" doesn't change the issue. The issue is there whether it's a skilled thief, very skilled thief, or master thief.

Focusing on master to ignore the actual issue is a Red Herring.

PC skill doesn't make the cook more or less likely to be there, it makes it more or less likely for her to hear the efforts made to pick the lock. This has been explained so many times now.

So the cook is in that room ready to react to the door opening regardless of success?

What are you talking about? You're basically advocating FOR the principle.

Games are designed to be fun, sure, but there are times that doesn't work out to be the case. A game can certainly be boring. And the game isn't interesting on its own... it needs the players and the GM to make it interesting.

There is no principle of "Don't make the game boring for the characters." The characters' lives are always going to be interesting if you are actually playing the game. There is a principle of, "Make the game fun/interesting for the players." These are different things.

This is why your denial of the principle as even existing is just silly. It clearly exists. We can open those books and read it. It was posted from Monsterhearts earlier in the thread by @Campbell .

Eh, no. As posted here to show as an example, the principle actually was "Make the result interesting for the players."

If you name a principle gooniegoogoo, but write about a principle of making the game interesting for the players, the principle is not gooniegoogoo.

You took it as a criticism of D&D for some odd reason and now you're ranting about how games are inherently fun and so the characters' lives are inherently not boring... and it makes no sense.

Nope. I criticize parts of D&D all the time. It's not a perfect game. My objection has nothing to do with criticizing D&D.

 

[Maxperson]

I think the idea of "fan" as it applies to "be a fan of the characters" is more the way we can be a fan of a fictional character rather than a sports team.

Like with a fictional character, we're pulling for them... we want them to make it... we want to see them pull through in the end. But we also want them to be in peril, right? We want to see them go through the wringer a bit.

That's bias for the characters, not being a neutral arbiter.

If I have a challenging encounter set up and they get there and through great ideas and/or planning make it an easy encounter, that's awesome. Good for them. If they get there and haven't done anything particularly effective and it's a challenging fight, good for them. If they get there and they've bungled things and a PC dies or there's a TPK. Bummer.

I have no hope for them to do any of those. I just set the stage and enjoy watching it play out, and enjoy when my players are having a good time.

 

[Maxperson]

Have you met some of the hard-core fanbases of franchises like Star Wars, Star Trek, or Tolkein?

They also want to see 26-0 victory-equivalents for their franchise over other franchises (Star Wars vs Star Trek in particular), far more so than Yankees fans want to see the Red Sox get crushed!