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

[Hussar]

Yes, really. There are a couple other variables of course like the friction imparted because of the amount of chalk on my cue tip and how fuzzy the tip is.

But as far as the 8 ball going in the corner pocket? It all comes down to that momentary connection of cue tip and the cue ball. How well I determined optimal trajectory, calculated the spin I impart or do not? All of those come down to some combination of skill, mental and physical aptitude, and variability caused by the fact that I am imperfect analog biological being.

Sometimes after the shot I may realize my aim was just off or I calculated angles wrong, misjudged whether or not I could get that 8 ball past the 2. Most of the time it's some combination and I have no clue.

But when I'm making the shot? I'm just trying my best to get that 8 ball in the corner pocket to win the game. Whether I succeed or not relies on a wide range of factors that determines whether or not i hit the cue ball correctly in order to make the shot.

So every single cue you use is absolutely true? Every single table you play on is brand new, virgin felt that has never been played on before? Every single bumper on the table is brand new? You've never, ever played on a table that wasn't 100% pristine?

Saying that you missed is always down to your skill is pretty much how this conversation always goes - ignoring the thousands of other variables in play. Your inability to analyze the reasons for you missing is more due to your own lack of experience playing than anything else. Because I'll tell you right now, an experienced pool player most certainly can know why they missed with a very high degree of accuracy.

Is it down to a simple missed shot? Sure, lots of times. But, certainly not always. Playing on some beat up 4x8 bar table with its giant balls and mostly non-existent felt is going to be very, very different from playing on a professional 6x12 table with snooker sized balls. Playing with your warped, abused, poor bar cue is going to be very different from playing with a professional, well maintained, properly weighted custom cue that is made just for you.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

The players already know how the resolution system works. They've played the game, they know the rules. It's not kept secret from them.

Yes, of course, but I meant the people in the setting, the characters and NPCs, not the players.

 

[Hussar]

That was more or less what I remembered, but I haven't run the system in decades (and it was always possible I was conflating it with the Hero System which I've run more recently and more frequently) so I didn't want to say so authoritatively.

But it's still missing the point. We KNOW what the character's skill is. So, any roll below that skill succeeds because of skill. The modifiers don't really change that. If you succeed because of a +2 to skill but rolled 2 above your base skill, the system is telling you that you succeeded because of the modifier. The system is still giving a tiny bit of information about how a check succeeded or failed. It gives you FAR more information than something like D&D where all the modifiers are squashed together and then a die roll added - a die roll that no one actually can tell me what it means - which gives us a resulting success or failure but no information about HOW that success or failure was achieved.

 

[pemerton]

Yes, of course, but I meant the people in the setting, the characters and NPCs, not the players.

I don't follow. The declaration of actions, and their resolution, is something that happens in playing the game. It's not part of the fiction.

 

[Hussar]

There is literally nothing in the rules to back up that claim. Not one thing. On the other hand, I've shown you the ability check rules that say all of the ability check is based in skill, and when you look at the rules, that includes the d20.

Do you have anything from the rules that backs you up? Because I can't find anything. Even the process of play just says that the DM narrates the results, not the DM can narrate any result he dreams up.

Ok, you want dueling quotes? Fair enough.

Page 10 2024 PHB:

When the outcome of an action is uncertain, the game uses a d20 roll to determine success or failure

3. Compare the total to a Target Number. If the total of the d20 and it's modifiers equals or exceeds the target number, the D20 Test succeeds. Otherwise it fails
...

When the outcome is uncertain and narratively interesting, the dice determine the result.

Note, at no point is the d20 roll actually defined. At no point does the D20 test determine HOW it succeeded or failed. Nothing in the rules suggests that it does. It SPECIFIES that it only produces the results. The rules straight up say that it determines the result.

 

[Hussar]

If I don't get the 8 ball in the corner pocket while playing pool, I can look at the result and narrate where I went wrong. No time running backwards required.

Interrupts are a bit weird, but that's just because of the nature of play at the table and compromises made to keep the game flowing.

Where does the information come from though? Where does the information about how you missed come from? You don't know that you missed until the after all the balls stop moving? By your way of doing things, you're saying that it would be impossible to narrate your shot in real time. Which, if you've ever watched snooker or pool, you know that isn't true. You can certainly narrate in real time.

But, in D&D, you can't. It's literally impossible. Because the system is providing you no information until the result is known. You can't actually narrate anything until after the fact. Unlike systems which provide information about how a roll succeeded or failed, where the narration is generated in real time as it occurs. You missed because the attack was blocked. You missed because you rolled over your skill number and extra modifiers weren't enough to cause success.

In D&D, it's, "We'll make up anything we want after the fact". And that's simulation?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I don't follow. The declaration of actions, and their resolution, is something that happens in playing the game. It's not part of the fiction.

Look the post I was responding to. "Why is it such a problem for a system to integrate narrative concepts? Those could just be representing how things work in a particular setting." I.e. baking the "narrative mechanics" into the "simulation" because that is how the fictional world actually works. In the case of your rune example it would mean that in the setting people's hopes and fears actually actualise, as that is the outcome the system produces.

 

[AlViking]

So every single cue you use is absolutely true? Every single table you play on is brand new, virgin felt that has never been played on before? Every single bumper on the table is brand new? You've never, ever played on a table that wasn't 100% pristine?

Saying that you missed is always down to your skill is pretty much how this conversation always goes - ignoring the thousands of other variables in play. Your inability to analyze the reasons for you missing is more due to your own lack of experience playing than anything else. Because I'll tell you right now, an experienced pool player most certainly can know why they missed with a very high degree of accuracy.

Is it down to a simple missed shot? Sure, lots of times. But, certainly not always. Playing on some beat up 4x8 bar table with its giant balls and mostly non-existent felt is going to be very, very different from playing on a professional 6x12 table with snooker sized balls. Playing with your warped, abused, poor bar cue is going to be very different from playing with a professional, well maintained, properly weighted custom cue that is made just for you.

I am assuming good conditions and not playing at some dive bar with a crappy table. I also have my own pool cue. But even if I didn't you're just adding a bit of extra randomness into the results.

But no matter what the reason I miss will never be something I can ascertain with 100% certainty.

 

[pemerton]

Look the post I was responding to. "Why is it such a problem for a system to integrate narrative concepts? Those could just be representing how things work in a particular setting." I.e. baking the "narrative mechanics" into the "simulation" because that is how the fictional world actually works. In the case of your rune example it would mean that in the setting people's hopes and fears actually actualise, as that is the outcome the system produces.

But that wasn't my post, was it? So I don't see how it relates to my RPGing.

 

[AlViking]

Where does the information come from though? Where does the information about how you missed come from? You don't know that you missed until the after all the balls stop moving? By your way of doing things, you're saying that it would be impossible to narrate your shot in real time. Which, if you've ever watched snooker or pool, you know that isn't true. You can certainly narrate in real time.

But, in D&D, you can't. It's literally impossible. Because the system is providing you no information until the result is known. You can't actually narrate anything until after the fact. Unlike systems which provide information about how a roll succeeded or failed, where the narration is generated in real time as it occurs. You missed because the attack was blocked. You missed because you rolled over your skill number and extra modifiers weren't enough to cause success.

In D&D, it's, "We'll make up anything we want after the fact". And that's simulation?

Ah, back to your personal pet definition. Good luck with that.