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

[Hussar]

The GM doesn't set the difficulty in GURPS, but the GM can include penalties and bonuses to the difficulty based on external factors (page B345), which is effectively the same thing:

Yes, absolutely. So, now we KNOW why you failed.

If you roll higher than 9, you straight up failed because you were not skilled enough. If you roll 4-9, you failed because it was dark. If you roll 3 or less, you succeeded because of your skill despite the dark.

That's what a sim system looks like.

Compare D&D. You impose disadvantage because you are working in the dark. Your skill is +7 and the DC is 15. You roll a 7 and a 9. So, you failed. But, why did you fail? Because of the darkness? Maybe. After all, it's disadvantage, not a reroll, so, both dice are rolled at the same time, so we cannot know if you would have succeeded if you didn't have disadvantage because you might have rolled that 7. Did the 7 fail because you weren't skilled enough? Well, again, we don't know because you also rolled a 9, meaning you were skilled enough, but, failed. But, you might have failed anyway if there was no darkness because you did actually roll that 7. IOW, there's no actual information. It's all just "make something up".

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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

I was using it as an example of how that poster's suggestion would work in practice, if applied to the case we all had been discussing for thousand pages.

 

[Hussar]

And when put in game terms, that represents the "luck" factor that's also present in the d20 roll along with the skill piece.

Oh, wait a minute. I was told in NO UNCERTAIN TERMS that the d20 ONLY represents skill. No luck at all.

So, now, which is it?

 

[Hussar]

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.

Again, though, it's not 100% certainty we're looking for. That's the red herring you guys have added to the conversation. That any definition of sim that doesn't include 100% certainty isn't sim. I've never, ever argued that. I've been really, really clear that I am not arguing that. Sim most certainly doesn't require 100% certainty (and frankly is nearly impossible to achieve in any case - even super computers don't simulate with 100% certainty).

All I require is that the mechanics provide ANY information. You missed your pool shot. In D&D terms, you'd have a DC X, Ability Y and Proficiency Z. If Y+Z+1d20>X then you succeed. If not you fail. That is the only information that D&D provides.

In something like GURPS, you would have a Pool Skill (making it up) of X+/-modifiers for the situation itself. If your roll is below X, then you succeed. Why did you succeed? Because of your skill. If the roll failed or succeeded due to modifiers, then it's the modifiers that produced that result. If the roll straight up fails, then you just straight up failed. Miscue. Bad shot. Whatever. On the straight up fail, there's less information presented, so, it gets a lot more nebulous.

But, in most cases, we're going to get some information about why you succeeded or failed. Which is going to inform the narrative.
That's the difference I keep talking about.

 

[Hussar]

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

Sorry, but, I don't find, "Make anything up after the fact" to be a particularly useful definition of simulation.

 

[AlViking]

Sorry, but, I don't find, "Make anything up after the fact" to be a particularly useful definition of simulation.

You've made criteria nobody else supports. If there is support provide links.

 

[Maxperson]

As I already posted,

So nothing then. Einstein's conjectures were based on physics and were theories and ideas about physics. He was using his vast knowledge of physics to extrapolate and form new ideas.

Random runes found in a tower or wherever aren't more likely to be what an expert at rune reading conjectures before he reads them than anyone else's ideas. Having a vast knowledge of runes just means you are more likely to be able to read them, not they will be what you hope they will be. Those runes could be demon summoning, a written spell, or someone's warning not to go further. Hell, they could be a wizard's laundry days as a test to apprentices to see if they have learned to read runes.

 

[Maxperson]

Ok, you want dueling quotes? Fair enough.

Page 10 2024 PHB:



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.

There is nothing there that supports you or contradicts the quotes I provided that say the entire ability check is skill. You just roll when it's unsure that the PC will be successful or not, not whether there is luck involved with the skill.

And yes it is defined. It's defined in the ability check.

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

There is no test of luck or randomness involved.

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

And there we have it. An ability check is d20+modifiers and tests only innate talent and training.

Can you show anything at all that contradicts that?

 

[Faolyn]

I've posted, upthread, how Marvel Heroic RP works. It's not mysterious.

Like, I don't ask you about the scene distinctions that you use in your D&D games. Because I know that you don't use them.

Really? You know that? How, exactly? Since I've never posted anything more than brief, extremely summed-up descriptions of any game I've run or been in, I find it hard to believe you know much about anything about my games go, let alone how I distinguish the scenes.

But you keep asking me about stuff in MHRP/Cortex+ Heroic play that only makes sense if you are assuming play along the lines of conventional D&D or CoC or other games where the GM feeds the players "clues" so that the players can then infer to the true state of the GM-authored backstory.

No, I'm not asking you about "stuff" in those games. I'm asking whether or not PCs can roll to see if their hopes come true re: a sign written in a language they know how to read, or if, when you place the sign (whether ahead of time or improvised right then and there) you come up with the sign's meaning. That's a pretty simple question to answer. For instance:

* "When I run MHRP/Cortex+ Heroic and put down a sign in a language they know, I don't decide what it means; they can hope it means something, and therefore roll for it." (or phrasing more in tune with what the game uses.)

* "When I run MHRP/Cortex+ Heroic and put down a sign in a language they know, I come up with a meaning when I put it down, but they can still hope it means something else and roll for it before I tell them what I thought up. And if they succeed, it means that instead."

* "When I run MHRP/Cortex+ Heroic and put down a sign in a language they know, I decide what it means when I put it down, and they can't hope it means something else."

* "I've never actually put down a sign they can read before when I've run MHRP/Cortex+ Heroic; all the signs I've placed were there either in a language they can't read (and thus had to hope they could translate it and it would mean what they hoped it would mean) or because the players asked if there was a particular type of sign around before (and thus were authored by the player, not me, the GM)."

You could have even included additional information such as "I never come up with details like that ahead of time; instead, I always put them there only when the PCs actually would encounter them," a phrase that would do a better job of describing your GMing style than any after-game report you could link to or quote.

An answer like one of the above would have saved probably scores of posts.

 

[Old Fezziwig]

Really? You know that? How, exactly? Since I've never posted anything more than brief, extremely summed-up descriptions of any game I've run or been in, I find it hard to believe you know much about anything about my games go, let alone how I distinguish the scenes.

Scene Distinctions are a mechanical feature of Cortex. They're Traits that belong to the Scene rather than characters -- often, they're environmental hazards or sensory conditions (e.g., Pitch Black, Flooded, Noisy, etc). You could use something similar in D&D, though I don't imagine they'd function the same way. Unless I knew otherwise, I'd assume folks' D&D games wouldn't use them, too.

Edit: Added last sentence.