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

[hawkeyefan]

Seems to me that people are looking for excuses to take offense.

Oh, I didn’t take offense. I don’t get offended by what’s said on these boards.

That doesn’t mean I don’t notice when someone posts some passive aggressive comment.

 

[The Firebird]

And you still would have been factually incorrect because you weren't running the game the way it was meant to be run.

Want it more Blades-esque? Here you go. Problems?

Player: "Ok, McSneaky wants to get inside the estate without raising an alarm. I'll be prowling, trying to enter through the back door"

GM: "Great. It's dark out and there are not too many guards. But it's a big estate so there is always a chance someone comes along. We'll call it risky position, standard effect."

Player: "Ah, I got a 4. Success with a complication".

GM: "You pick the lock and enter, smooth as silk, but it turns out the cook is here, preparing for tomorrow's breakfast. He looks at you in alarm and seems like he may scream. What now?"

Read the entire sentence: The consequence(s) you inflict on a 1-3 or 4/5 roll will usually be obvious, since the action has already been established. You deal with the consequences afterwards, not before or during. After.

Are we not supposed to imagine possible consequences when establishing the action? Doing so would make it hard to determine which actions are good or bad choices. When you say you want to break into an estate, you don't imagine that you could get caught?

 

[pemerton]

As for D&D the much bashed upon HP is clearly not good for simulating anything corresponding to real life. But it appear at least somewhat simulative of some idea regarding how 70s fantasy heroes don't just randomly die from a stray arrow, while the red shirts definitely do.

The question is: is that diegetic? Do the fantasy heroes know that they cannot be killed by a single shot?

I think that the answer is no. "Plot protection" is a meta device, not a feature of the fiction itself.

 

[Faolyn]

Want it more Blades-esque? Here you go. Problems?

Player: "Ok, McSneaky wants to get inside the estate without raising an alarm. I'll be prowling, trying to enter through the back door"

GM: "Great. It's dark out and there are not too many guards. But it's a big estate so there is always a chance someone comes along. We'll call it risky position, standard effect."

Player: "Ah, I got a 4. Success with a complication".

GM: "You pick the lock and enter, smooth as silk, but it turns out the cook is here, preparing for tomorrow's breakfast. He looks at you in alarm and seems like he may scream. What now?"

That's better. You've established a minor complication and given the players something to react to.

Are we not supposed to imagine possible consequences when establishing the action? Doing so would make it hard to determine which actions are good or bad choices. When you say you want to break into an estate, you don't imagine that you could get caught?

You're not supposed to commit to something ahead of time.

 

[TwoSix]

Want it more Blades-esque? Here you go.
…
Are we not supposed to imagine possible consequences when establishing the action? Doing so would make it hard to determine which actions are good or bad choices. When you say you want to break into an estate, you don't imagine that you could get caught?

The only bad choices are the ones that create degenerate fiction. If you’re outside the classic/trad paradigm, then you’re not really trying to solve anything and thus “good/bad choice” isn’t the right metric.

 

[TwoSix]

The question is: is that diegetic? Do the fantasy heroes know that they cannot be killed by a single shot?

I think that the answer is no. "Plot protection" is a meta device, not a feature of the fiction itself.

Well, in a few of my games they do, but I’m consciously experimenting with some specific simulationist techniques.

 

[The Firebird]

That's better. You've established a minor complication and given the players something to react to.

And what are the important differences with respect to the cook's existence here?

 

[AlViking]

The question is: is that diegetic? Do the fantasy heroes know that they cannot be killed by a single shot?

I think that the answer is no. "Plot protection" is a meta device, not a feature of the fiction itself.

I don't see why they wouldn't know. I'm reading a book series right now where the heroine regularly faces down threats that would have most mortals fleeing and she's rather nonchalant about many of them. Other enemies do threaten her of course, but 30 ghouls? Just another Tuesday.

To put it another way, if I got into the ring with an MMA championship contender, they'd laugh and ask if I was lost. People who are really good at fighting know it.

 

[pemerton]

Note that neither of the two above addresses how well suited the game is for actually running a simulation of all kinds.

What sort of simulation are you running with D&D that you can't run with (say) T&T? Or to put it even more bluntly, what sort of simulation are you running with D&D, that is distinct from just playing a RPG where the GM makes up most of the fiction?

 

[pemerton]

So if the bard tries to seduce a dragon, the GM should always allow it?

This language of "the GM allows" is, to me, a hallmark of GM-driven/GM-centred play.