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

[Maxperson]

You keep cutting stuff off.

Because you're ignoring the biggest part of that check. The die roll. After all, I can overcome the DC without any sklll at all. Ropes and pitons must be used in all climbs? That's a new rule. I wasn't aware of that one. But, a die roll is required every single time. If a die roll isn't required, then the DC is overcome by skill and ability. So, anything less that your bonus to athletics can be narrated by being overcome by skill and ability. So, what does the die roll represent?

See, you are wrong. The rules dictate that the result was achieved by a combination of skill, ability and an undefined variable that is represented by the die roll which can massively overshadow skill and ability and even make skill and ability not even relevant.

You are the one ignoring the mechanics.

Not only did I not ignore it, I explicitly addressed it in my last post. I think you were reading too quickly.

Now for the response.......again. No the d20 is not luck. Yes the d20 is skill. Even with 0 modifier or proficiency. There is a base level of competence that people have and the d20 represents that. Someone of average intelligence here on Earth and untrained can still do a lot of things that take skill. They just aren't very good at it. Much like PCs with no bonus or proficiency.

RAW makes the d20 represent skill because it's part of the ability check which is purely about skill and innate talent. There is no text about luck anywhere in the ability check section. There are multiple references to skill and talent, though.

 

[Hussar]

"Each of a creature's abilities has a score, a number that defines the magnitude of that ability. An ability score is not just a measure of innate capabilities, but also encompasses a creature's training and competence in activities related to that ability."

Agreed. So what does the die roll represent? It cannot represent skill or ability because those are already represented. Rules of the game say that sources cannot stack. So you cannot count ability or skill twice. So what does the die represent if it's not everything other than ability and skill. And, since it's EVERYTHING else, then magical pixies are back on the menu. Never minding that "crumbling rocks" or "broken rope" are not part of the measurement of skill or natural talent. Those are outside the scope of those criteria. I totally agree that they are within the scope of the die roll. Absolutely. Because the die roll represents everything OTHER than skill or ability.

Which means that the die roll doesn't actually provide any guidance as to why you succeeded or failed. It can't because it encompasses all possible justifications. Why did you succeed? Well, it cannot be just your skill and ability since the die roll was required. What does the die roll represent? Everything that isn't skill or ability. Magical pixies again.

 

[Hussar]

Ask the Oracle is generally used as a tool to support the simulation. The questions are assumed to be limited to what could be reasonable simulation outcomes. In your example asking "Is it a distracting ice cream truck?" would be a foul for most games of Ironsworn.

Edit: Or are we back to the illusion of independence "simulationism"? In which case there can hardly be any illusion, if you are actively creating the world yourself as you go..

Ahh, we're back to everything is simulation. I mean if asking the DM, outside of the game, a series of questions to create content for what you are doing, and that counts as simulation, well.... I'm thinking most people would balk at that idea. The DM in a D&D game has no idea what is behind a door. He asks a series of yes/no questions and it is narrowed down to half a dozen orcs are behind the door. All of this is done in play, during session.

And this would be simulation?

 

[Hussar]

"the system alone produces complete narrations assuring it make diegetic sense"

You are adding the word "complete" here to create an argument I am not making.

The system alone produce ANY information that then guides the narration which assures it makes diegetic sense. The DM makes stuff up after the fact is the opposite of diegetic. A mechanic that only works by rewriting the past cannot be diegetic.

 

[Hussar]

Not only did I not ignore it, I explicitly addressed it in my last post. I think you were reading too quickly.

Now for the response.......again. No the d20 is not luck. Yes the d20 is skill. Even with 0 modifier or proficiency. There is a base level of competence that people have and the d20 represents that. Someone of average intelligence here on Earth and untrained can still do a lot of things that take skill. They just aren't very good at it. Much like PCs with no bonus or proficiency.

RAW makes the d20 represent skill because it's part of the ability check which is purely about skill and innate talent. There is no text about luck anywhere in the ability check section. There are multiple references to skill and talent, though.

So, if I'm understanding this right, then the d20 roll in a skill test in 5e D&D ONLY represents skill. Correct? It represents NOTHING else. Only skill.

So, the crumbling cliff face is off the table then because that's not a failure of skill. That's luck. The broken rope is off the table too - obviously a failure of luck, not skill. Being skilled doesn't break ropes.

Which means, how do you retry? If your roll represents your skill, why do your skills so wildly vary from moment to moment? I mean, a decently skilled person has a +7 to a skill. That would be pretty close to an expert in 5e D&D. The die roll though can triple that amount. I can literally be more than 3 times more skilled at something one moment (20+7=27) and barely more skilled (1+7) at the EXACT SAME TASK, the next. How does that work? No luck.

 

[FrogReaver]

It is the feature that a player/character wish was the stakes of a check (and that the check is presented to be based on something completely different than the character's "wishing" ability), that seem to be the thing most are choking on.

Exactly. From a simulationist perspective a roll isn’t simply to establish whatever new fiction the player/dm desires (within constraints).

This is the problem with framing everything as simply ‘authoring’. Either it’s not all authoring or there are subtypes of authoring and the subtype matters. This is the point of the focus on simulation and diegetic as even while not everyone particularly agrees to what those ideas truly mean, The common thread is that the rune example is a different category of establishing fiction than what traditionally happens.

We can show differences in a few key ways:

1) the probabilities of the roll don’t match the probabilities of the outcomes in the fiction.

2) as you point to above, the stakes vs the stated basis of the check don’t align.

3) the player is authoring the outcome for success.

4) the intent of the roll isnt to simulate anything.

 

[Maxperson]

Agreed. So what does the die roll represent? It cannot represent skill or ability because those are already represented. Rules of the game say that sources cannot stack. So you cannot count ability or skill twice. So what does the die represent if it's not everything other than ability and skill. And, since it's EVERYTHING else, then magical pixies are back on the menu. Never minding that "crumbling rocks" or "broken rope" are not part of the measurement of skill or natural talent. Those are outside the scope of those criteria. I totally agree that they are within the scope of the die roll. Absolutely. Because the die roll represents everything OTHER than skill or ability.

Which means that the die roll doesn't actually provide any guidance as to why you succeeded or failed. It can't because it encompasses all possible justifications. Why did you succeed? Well, it cannot be just your skill and ability since the die roll was required. What does the die roll represent? Everything that isn't skill or ability. Magical pixies again.

Once again, if you are skilled at carving little wooden figures and you carve 30 little men that are supposed to look the same. Not only will they not all look the same, but some will be better than others, because skill levels vary based on a whole host of factors. The d20 roll represents that variable skill level.

It does in fact, per RAW, represent skill. RAW declares the ability check to be skill and innate talent(another way of saying skill), and the ability check includes the d20. To treat it as luck or random chance is to ignore RAW and go with a rogue DM ruling.

"To make an ability check, roll a d20 and add the relevant ability modifier."

"An ability check tests a character's or monster's innate talent and training in an effort to overcome a challenge."

That's it. No more. No less. Everything, including the d20, is talent and training, or in other words, skill.

 

[Maxperson]

So, if I'm understanding this right, then the d20 roll in a skill test in 5e D&D ONLY represents skill. Correct? It represents NOTHING else. Only skill.

So, the crumbling cliff face is off the table then because that's not a failure of skill. That's luck.

That's not luck. He failed his in his skill to identify or test the rock before putting weight on it.

The broken rope is off the table too - obviously a failure of luck, not skill. Being skilled doesn't break ropes.

Sometimes yes and sometimes no. If he fails in his skill to keep the rope away from the sharp edge and the rope is cut, that's a skill failure. If the DM goes rogue and simply narrates the rope breaking due to age or rot, that's not skill.

Which means, how do you retry? If your roll represents your skill, why do your skills so wildly vary from moment to moment? I mean, a decently skilled person has a +7 to a skill. That would be pretty close to an expert in 5e D&D. The die roll though can triple that amount. I can literally be more than 3 times more skilled at something one moment (20+7=27) and barely more skilled (1+7) at the EXACT SAME TASK, the next. How does that work? No luck.

Well, no you cant be three times more skilled. Say the DC is 15, everything over a 7 is a success. So an 8 is the same as an 18. The d20 is incapable of doing what you are saying it does.

Not to mention, you only roll in 5e if the outcome is in doubt AND there is meaning to failure. Most tasks don't have that kind of meaning, so are automatically successful. It's generally in stressful situations that a roll is called for and stress is something that can mess with skill.

 

[Aldarc]

It's also you dodging the questions like a pro.

You have accused pemerton of persistently engaging in pedantry and now you are saying that he dodges questions like a pro. Could you maybe stop being so hostile and making it personal? You are personally not doing yourself any favors with this sort of behavior.

Edit: To be clear, I am not saying this in defense of pemerton, but, instead, in my hopes that someone I otherwise like would choose to behave better when it comes to how they choose to engage with others.

 

[clearstream]

Ask the Oracle is generally used as a tool to support the simulation. The questions are assumed to be limited to what could be reasonable simulation outcomes. In your example asking "Is it a distracting ice cream truck?" would be a foul for most games of Ironsworn.

Edit: Or are we back to the illusion of independence "simulationism"? In which case there can hardly be any illusion, if you are actively creating the world yourself as you go..

Oracles are not designed to explain how results are achieved. From the text, Oracles are used in the following ways

reveal details, trigger events, and guide the actions of other characters in your world​

you can Ask the Oracle to help guide your game session and trigger ideas when you need to know what happens next​

resolve questions, discover details in the world, determine how other characters respond, or trigger encounters or events​

If you are playing with a GM, they are the oracle​

provide inspiration for the GM​

The game system isn't designed to retroactively explain your failures, because it's fiction-first. It's designed to inspire you what to say next that follows. Some moves prompt you to use the Oracles, for example Gather Information

Envision what you learn (Ask the Oracle if unsure)​

To me the greatest value of Oracles is to detach and inspire narration in directions I would not otherwise have imagined. I would say that Ironsworn has a simulationist intent, considering the details of the Ironlands setting and the kinds of narration it encourages you to deliver. (An example is explicit text up front listing default assumptions for The Setting.) The degree to which it focuses on simulative experiences would depend on the individual player or group.

One of the Oracles tables is for Settlement Names, e.g. "Bearmark". Another Oracle is for Location, e.g. Bay/Fjord. I do not see why rolling for settlement names or kinds of locations in keeping with the setting can be regarded as non-simulationist. Another example are Combat Oracles, e.g. "Coordinate with allies" or "Attack with power". Those specific uses should meet the standard of process-simulation because they are explicitly associated with things that are going to be diegetic. (More accurately, I don't think anyone has adequately deconstructed supposed process-simulationist game mechanics to show that they would not be.)

@EzekielRaiden in case you're interested in these sorts of questions about Ironsworn.