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

[Maxperson]

Really? Those decisions don't involve you at all? Don't you provide any information about what could potentially be found in either direction? Or are they just blind choices? Where did that ogre den come from? Didn't you put it there? Where did that potion come from? Didn't you put it there?

Every single decision that the players take has your fingerprints all over it.

It's not relevant whether I am connected in some way. It's a fact that I am not making those decisions. They are. They make more decisions than I do.

As for whether they have information about what lies in what direction. That's on the players and their decisions. If they don't make decisions designed to get information, then sometimes they won't have any.

 

[Enrahim]

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?

To the first - I don't know.

To the second: Simulations that have volient or highly dangerous situations as a prominent feature. I would not feel confident in running such scenarios without the support of a system for determining the "bang you are dead" conundrum agreed upon with the players up front. The social risks associated by getting this wrong would be too high, so I would have worked hard to avoid it.

 

[Maxperson]

Again, no it doesn't, unless you think that a skill roll invokes no luck at all. There's no element of chance in a roll? Only skill? That seems rather strange considering the HUGE variation from the die. I mean, I well skilled character with a +7 or +8 skill bonus still ranges from a 9 to 28 on a skill check - far more variation than is even possible with skill.

Obviously there is more to the check than simplly a failure of skill and/or ability.

That's simply not true. The variable d20 roll represents the variable skill of the PC.

Have you ever had to make multiples of some object for an event or game? Despite your skill remaining constant, your results will vary. Some of them will be better than others.

As for the 9-28 range, whe. The DC is most commonly 15, most of those upper numbers are wasted. The range is effectively 9-15 as a 28 is a good of a success as the 15 is. Results of 16 to 28 are all just more 15s.

 

[pemerton]

The person climbing and falling is diegetic, it occurs within the world of the narrative. The definition is silent on the cause of what happens.

A person reading runes is also diegetic, it occurs within the world of the narrative. So now my episode with the strange runes is diegetic!

 

[pemerton]

To the first - I don't know.

To the second: Simulations that have volient or highly dangerous situations as a prominent feature. I would not feel confident in running such scenarios without the support of a system for determining the "bang you are dead" conundrum agreed upon with the players up front. The social risks associated by getting this wrong would be too high, so I would have worked hard to avoid it.

But what is the simulation? I don't see how you are describing a simulation as opposed to just a RPG.

 

[Enrahim]

No. They were not even allowed to request an audience. Instant denial. That was the point.

Ok, I reread the passage where you described the situation (post #5318 for reference). Indeed there is more meta than what I remembered. The question is: Would you have been more happy if you actually got to play out the failed bribery and reasoning attempt with the guard?

In that case that paint this situation in a slightly different light. Still, from your description there is a bit of ambiguity. You are as a player told that the guard is ubribeable due to their loyalty being absolute. Do this player knowledge prevent the character from presenting a bribe to the guard? I could imagine a social dynamics where this is indeed in effect a veto, but that is not an obvious given.

Another interpretation would be that those summaries of the guard being unbribable and not possible to reason with was indeed a summary of your character's" conclusion after extensively having tried to bribed and reasoned with them. That is that in fiction your character action declaration was fully carried out (not vetoed), but it was decided to not be *played out. Such pacing techniques is in my view well within standard GM responsibilities, though I tend to be more explicit about it. "After offering the guard all you are willing to depart with, you are stuck with the feeling the guard has some extreme, misguided, loyalty that make them impossible to reason with"

Anyway, if you description is precise I agree something feel a bit "off" in this situation. I can even read it as an implicit veto against a character action. This veto seem benevolent in nature though. From what you write I guess you agree that you insisting on playing out the failing bribery and reasoning attempt would be considered disruptive player behavior? The implicit veto was simply in giving you as player the information you didn't have that made you recognise that it would be disruptive. As you were a good player, you got the picture, and no explicit veto was needed.

In this sense it is not that different from the more standard example of you saying something in character that the GM points out the character might not know, or know to not be true. For instance your character exclaims "There are no pink elephants!", and the GM points out that your character might not be so confident about that notion as you might think.

Is this a GM veto of a character action? Perhaps? And in that case I indeed believe I have been the source of numerous such vetos trough informing the players about facts of the world as they become relevant for proposed actions.

But if this is what constitutes a veto, then I think the overwhelming majority would indeed like the GM to use that veto power. I think most are grateful for being stopped from declaring something that their characters should know is foolish. I also think many would be happy to get the information needed to stop them from spending hours pursuing leads or approaches the GM very well knew was doomed from the start.

 

[Don Durito]

That's simply not true. The variable d20 roll represents the variable skill of the PC.

Have you ever had to make multiples of some object for an event or game? Despite your skill remaining constant, your results will vary. Some of them will be better than others.

As for the 9-28 range, whe. The DC is most commonly 15, most of those upper numbers are wasted. The range is effectively 9-15 as a 28 is a good of a success as the 15 is. Results of 16 to 28 are all just more 15s.

The thing with this is that it skirts the issue - which is: was modelling the real chances of someone being able to successfully do something even actually a consideration?

You are right that the dice mechanics are essentially binary - but the odds of success equate to percentage chances. And that leaves us with the question of whether those percentages exist as an attempt to model anything at all.

To which I think the answer is obviously no - I think it can be argued that there is some effort at modelling in 3.x DCs, but It seems obvious that skills DCs in 5E are related to bounded accuracy which exists for pure gamist reasons of solving difficulties with scale for the sake of satisfying game play. (I mean it doesn't even have specific DCs per skill - something which was taken out as a matter off deliberate decision).

Again. and again in this thread people seem to be insisting that D&D is simulationist without comparing it at all to systems that actually try to do things that D&D isn't even trying to do.

 

[pemerton]

I think most are grateful for being stopped from declaring something that their characters should know is foolish. I also think many would be happy to get the information needed to stop them from spending hours pursuing leads or approaches the GM very well knew was doomed from the start.

The first thing in this quote is the "isekai vibe" - the character is ostensibly at home in this imagined world, but to the player the world is unknown and strange.

The second only makes sense in the context of "beat the module"/"solve the mystery" play; what, quite a way upthread, I also described in terms of their being a "finish line" that the players are trying to reach via the play of their PCs.

 

[Enrahim]

But what is the simulation? I don't see how you are describing a simulation as opposed to just a RPG.

I am sorry? I don't get the question? I have run several sessions simulating travel, fantasy life, diplomatic negotiations and various exploration expeditions, without any particular volience or dangers being in the cards at all. I think I would feel confident running a decent simulation of these armed with no support beyond the trad play structure.

Simulating for instance an armed conflict, or a delve into a dungeon known to contain dangers out to take you, I would not feel confident doing without the support of some pre-agreed upon rule for how to determine the severity of consequences beyond my own judgement.

 

[Don Durito]

I think the Isekai thing is actually one of the most interesting challenges in rpg design.

You can of course get around it by having the players contribute to the setting. Another way is just to choose a genre and lean into it heavily.

But for more setting dense worlds (which I prefer) this is a bit of a challenge. There's a lot of rpg techniques to facilitate often in character creation - such as lifepaths being a notable one, or loresheets from Legends of the Wulin and Weapons of the Gods (which never really caught on).

This is one of the reasons I like historical settings. The players, even those without a huge amount of history knowledge know a lot more about Venice or France than they do about any fantasy setting.

This is also why I think a lot of arguments about whether the GM should allow Tieflings or stuff like that miss the point. If Tieflings don't fit your setting and a player wants to play one then you have already failed to communicate your setting (or to get basic buy in to the concept of the setting) which suggests that even if the player makes a new character there's going to be a lot of trying to communicate the setting in play.

The bigger challenge is, if you have a particular individual take on D&D that you want to promote is how to communicate it - eg when why when I ran my Silk Road China D&D game I stole the Icons from 13th Age as asking the players to create their characters with some kind of relationship or feelings about these important NPCs proved a quick and useful way to communicate key setting conceits.