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

[Faolyn]

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.

Lots of games have similar things--scene aspects in Fate, for instance, which is a game I've run. Monster of the Week, which I currently run (although it's on hiatus), gives areas their own motivations, and those seem to act in a similar way.

 

[Hussar]

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

Really? You think that the notion of simulation doesn't include any idea that how a result was determined should be part of a simulation? What links do I need to provide when that's the basic definition of the word?

The basic definition of simulation is:

noun
noun: simulation; plural noun: simulations

1. imitation of a situation or process.

1. 
   

Yes, I do realize that there are more definitions there, but, I've been pretty clear which one I'm working from. NOte that word PROCESS right in the definition? Again, I've provided numerous examples of how this is true. You've yet to provide a single example of a simulation that does not provide any information about the process. It's not a "criteria" nobody supports. It's bloody meaning of the word.

 

[AlViking]

Really? You think that the notion of simulation doesn't include any idea that how a result was determined should be part of a simulation? What links do I need to provide when that's the basic definition of the word?

The basic definition of simulation is:

Yes, I do realize that there are more definitions there, but, I've been pretty clear which one I'm working from. NOte that word PROCESS right in the definition? Again, I've provided numerous examples of how this is true. You've yet to provide a single example of a simulation that does not provide any information about the process. It's not a "criteria" nobody supports. It's bloody meaning of the word.

Nah, it's yours. Simulation does not require every abstraction and input to have an explanation.

 

[Old Fezziwig]

Lots of games have similar things--scene aspects in Fate, for instance, which is a game I've run. Monster of the Week, which I currently run (although it's on hiatus), gives areas their own motivations, and those seem to act in a similar way.

Of course -- I'm not saying it's novel tech. I'm just saying that it's a specific thing for Cortex, and, without knowing how people have houseruled their D&D game, I don't think it's unreasonable to assume they're running RAW until you know otherwise and that they've not imported specific tech from other games into their D&D game.

 

[Hussar]

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?

Where in that definition does it say ANYTHING about the process? It only talks about resolutions. I totally agree D&D gives you the results. But, it does not define the process at all. It provides zero information about the process.

And no, you don't "just roll when it's unsure that the PC will be successful or not". Again, you are cherry picking quotes. You cut off the when it is "narratively interesting" part. IOW, the very definition of a D20 Test rejects simulation. You ONLY ROLL when in doubt AND it is narratively interesting. What's simulationist about that? We've spent thousands of posts on how something being "narratively interesting" is the opposite of simulation.

And, @Lanefan, care to weigh in here? @Maxperson is straight up saying that luck has NO PART of a d20 Test.

 

[Hussar]

Nah, it's yours. Simulation does not require every abstraction and input to have an explanation.

Agreed. Not every one does.

But at least one does. It has to provide any amount of explanation. Even the tiniest sliver is fine. Again, you keep insisting that this is all or nothing. That a simulation in my definition must explain everything. It most certainly doesn't. But it does have to give ANY information. If it provides NO information then it is not a simulation.

 

[Maxperson]

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".

The statement "we cannot know" isn't accurate. My players have a die that they roll for their checks. When they have advantage or disadvantage they pick a second die which never looks like the first, because like most gamers, we don't buy d20s that look like other d20s we have. Since we know by appearance which the original was and which was added for advantage/disadvantage, we know for certain whether the advantage/disadvantage made the difference in success or failure. Alternatively, sometimes they just roll the one die they have twice consecutively, which automatically makes the second roll in the sequence the advantage/disadvantage die.

I'm not saying that there aren't people out there who for some reason pick two identical looking d20's and roll them together, but I rather think that's the exception to the rule and not the rule itself. I think most players and DMs will know if advantage or disadvantage made the difference.

And as a response to another post of yours a few posts up, nothing is added after the fact. DM narration of results doesn't add things after the fact or go back in time to do anything. It's simply a narration of what is occurring that caused the narration.

 

[Thomas Shey]

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.

Not if there's penalties on it. Then it misses because of some combination of situations in the modifier and the die roll.

The modifiers don't really change that.

Then neither do target numbers. To suggest there's a meaningful difference there approaches magical thinking.

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.

I can tell you what the die roll means. The problem is you want it to mean only one thing and it probably doesn't, it likely means more than one.

As I've said before, success in most things has a lot of small factors that no one running--or playing--a game will know all of up front; they drop below the level of possible management. That's most of the reason for having die rolls in the first place.

 

[Maxperson]

Where in that definition does it say ANYTHING about the process? It only talks about resolutions. I totally agree D&D gives you the results. But, it does not define the process at all. It provides zero information about the process.

The part where it talks about it being only about skill. Since ability checks are 100% about skill(innate and trained), use of skill is the process by which we get the resolution.

And no, you don't "just roll when it's unsure that the PC will be successful or not". Again, you are cherry picking quotes. You cut off the when it is "narratively interesting" part. IOW, the very definition of a D20 Test rejects simulation. You ONLY ROLL when in doubt AND it is narratively interesting. What's simulationist about that? We've spent thousands of posts on how something being "narratively interesting" is the opposite of simulation.

That part is just a suggestion in the 5e DMG. The rule in the 5e PHB is that you roll when the outcome is in doubt. The 5e DMG suggests that you also limit rolls to when failure would have meaning, but that is not a rule.

And, @Lanefan, care to weigh in here? @Maxperson is straight up saying that luck has NO PART of a d20 Test.

Right. The d20 roll represents a variable range of skill ability, not a range of luck or randomness that gets added to the skill. It's a subtle difference.

 

[Hussar]

I'm not saying that there aren't people out there who for some reason pick two identical looking d20's and roll them together, but I rather think that's the exception to the rule and not the rule itself. I think most players and DMs will know if advantage or disadvantage made the difference.

The rules do not make this distinction. There is not supposed to be a way to tell which is first or second. Now, adding that in, sure, you could make the argument. But, I thought house rules were off the table here in this discussion. I mean, I have an add on in my VTT that tells me which die is first and which one is second. It's not difficult. But, it's not part of the actual rules of the game either.

But, sure. For the sake of argument, let's say you're right. Ok, so, in cases of disadvantage, you might be given a bit of information about why you failed - you failed due to disadvantage. Fair enough. That's satisfying my definition. It's providing any information about how the result was achieved.

So, in any roll where you don't have disadvantage or advantage, you would say that you can still tell? That you are given just as much information? In a normal d20 Test, how do you tell what caused the failure or the success when the die roll is only called for when it is narratively interesting?