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

[Enrahim]

I mean, it can: "I hope you bought me a bicycle for my birthday. Oh, you did? My wish came true!"

Yes, your wish came true. But for you to claim your hope was hence accurate seem to me like a bizzare use of the word "accurate".

The significance of "hope" is for action resolution: very roughly, on a success the hope tends to be realised; on a failure, it tends to be dashed. As I've also posted, this is as true for an attempt to kill an Orc or climb a cliff (in D&D) as it is for an attempt to read strange runes (in my Cortex+ Heroic Fantasy hack). The generality of the point arises from the fact that success (and thus failure) is relative to a standard/goal, and in the case of a player's action declaration in a RPG it is there intention for the action (formulated in accordance with whatever the rules of the RPG being played permit) that sets that standard/goal.

I also posted this, way upthread: D&D General - [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting. As well as setting out the PC sheet, I made the following observations:
I've reiterated them once or twice since that posting.

You seem to fail to engage with my point about the distinction between hope and conjecture. You are rather further mudeling the water by seemingly trying to set up another false equivalence between hope and intent. (Sitting on the bottom of a cliff just hoping to get to the top likely doesn't take me far. An action taken with the intent of getting to the top might get me further)

I understand conjecture, hope and intent to be 3 significantly distinct concepts. As such, if you want to communicate in a way I can understand you cannot causally intermix them. Are you interested in helping me (and others) to understand better what was actually going on in the runes example?

 

[Maxperson]

Yes, but, I can have a -1 and still succeed. What skill did I have? How did I succeed when I had no training, no innate capability or competence? You aren't allowed to say that I got lucky. After all, you're insisting that the roll ONLY represents skill. So, someone who is completely unskilled and completely lacks any talent, can still succeed by skill alone?

And, how do you not have the skill to do something then six seconds later, you do have the skill to do it? After all, the roll, according to you, ONLY represents skill. No luck. No outside elements whatsoever. Skill alone. So, how can skill vary so much? What does that mean?

And, @Maxperson, you should be a bit careful here to clarify that you are ONLY speaking of 2014 D&D. No other version of D&D says what you say it says. So, anyone not playing 2014 D&D does not subscribe to your definition. In 2024's case, they literally cannot apply your definition because your definition is runs directly counter to what it says in 2024.

Poor skill is still skill. Since the ability score = training and innate talent, even with an 8 strength you still have training. You just aren't very good at it.

As for why retries work, have you never failed at something and learned from your mistake? Then the next time you tried you did something different with your skill and succeeded? I have. Lots of times. Sometimes I fail more then once before I succeed.

So far the only difference you've pointed in between 5e and 5.5e is that 5.5e made the suggestion for failure to have meaning(narrative meaning) part of the rules. What does 5.5e say about ability scores in the ability check(or test) section?

 

[Enrahim]

With climbing, were you too physically weak to pull yourself up, so you fell off? Did you grip something you thought was sturdy, and then it gave way? Did you accidentally pull too hard and yank out the otherwise well-rooted plant that would've held your weight if you hadn't pulled too hard? Did you screw up and get your foot stuck, such that the force you needed to pull it back out of that hole unbalanced you? Did you misjudge how long your muscles could hold you in place? Did you...

Etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., ad nauseam. There are nigh-infinite reasons why this could apply. The rules indicate absolutely nothing about which of these is correct.

Just wanted to provide a bit more mathematical perspective on this. Even if you have still more options than what you'd care to enumerate, doesn't mean that the set of options might not be smaller than a different set that has even more options than what you care to enumerate.

It is true that the rules say nothing about which of the options you described is correct, but that was because the set in question was already filtered on the condition of the rules accepting them.

Consider instead if the set of options under scrutiny also included things like "Did the cliff evaporate?", "Did the gods teleport you to your bathtub?", "Did you actually get to the top anyway?". The claims is that then the rules would actually say something about "which of these is correct".

 

[Lanefan]

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

I'm fairly sure you weren't told that by me, though; as that's not my position. In fact, it's fairly close to the opposite; I see luck as being a significant factor in a lot of this, along with day-to-day variables in performance - "some days you got it, some days you don't".

Otherwise, once having set a standard we'd meet that standard every time we repeated the same action or activity, and that ain't how things work. Just because I did well today in shooting a perfect game of darts* by no means tells me I'm going to do the same tomorrow or the next day or maybe even ever.

* - hypothetically; in reality I haven't played darts in years.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

I agree that part of what the d20 roll simulates is luck, and disgree (in part due to the previous clause!) that a d20 test rejects simulation.

As for the reasons for rolling: for me if a) the outcome is uncertain and b) something would materially change on one or the other of success or failure while the other retains the status quo, that's enough to provoke a roll. I reject the notion that a roll can only happen when both of success and failure would result in material change.

 

[Lanefan]

Nope. Reread you 2024 PHB again. On page 10 it clearly states only roll when narratively interesting.

Errr...stupid question, maybe, but why would it say anything like that in the PHB when only the DM can call for rolls? Or did that get changed such that players can call for rolls now?

 

[Hussar]

I'm fairly sure you weren't told that by me, though; as that's not my position. In fact, it's fairly close to the opposite; I see luck as being a significant factor in a lot of this, along with day-to-day variables in performance - "some days you got it, some days you don't".

Otherwise, once having set a standard we'd meet that standard every time we repeated the same action or activity, and that ain't how things work. Just because I did well today in shooting a perfect game of darts* by no means tells me I'm going to do the same tomorrow or the next day or maybe even ever.

* - hypothetically; in reality I haven't played darts in years.

Oh, hey. I'm not the one making the argument. That's @Maxperson who is insisting that the die roll ONLY represents skill. He just posted exactly that right above you. Me? I totally in your boat. The roll is a combination of all sorts of things.

 

[Hussar]

Errr...stupid question, maybe, but why would it say anything like that in the PHB when only the DM can call for rolls? Or did that get changed such that players can call for rolls now?

The PHB is a bit more DM leaning now too. AFAIK, there aren't any rules for skills in the DMG. It's a bit like 2e where they put all the actual game mechanics in one book. ((Yes, I realize there are mechanics in the 2024 DMG, work with me here. ))

 

[Hussar]

I agree that part of what the d20 roll simulates is luck, and disgree (in part due to the previous clause!) that a d20 test rejects simulation.

As for the reasons for rolling: for me if a) the outcome is uncertain and b) something would materially change on one or the other of success or failure while the other retains the status quo, that's enough to provoke a roll. I reject the notion that a roll can only happen when both of success and failure would result in material change.

Not quite the argument I'm making though. I'm saying that because the die includes all the intangible reasons for why you failed or succeeded a check, we can't really look to the mechanics for guidance on how we succeeded or failed. It's too nebulous. Sure, you have the results. But, the mechanics are pretty silent on how that result was achieved.

My argument is that in order for mechanics to be considered simulationist, they need to provide some guidance to the narrative about how a result occured. Since ALL mechanics give you results, and only some mechanics provide guidance as to how that result was achieved, I think the argument is fairly sound. Guiding the narrative about how a result is achieved seems a fairly clear way to differentiate simulationist mechanics from other styles.

 

[clearstream]

An interesting question is if whatever is narrated need to follow causally from the Dance? I would say the use of the word "consequence" strongly hints at it, though again as the actual mandate to narrate is found elsewhere it is a bit hard to conclude with certanty.

These are all interesting questions, but I am a bit curious why you ask about these possible outcomes? I expect you to not want an enumeration of bilions of posibilities, so did I answer in a way you hoped?

(Emphasis mine.) I wanted to check that we were agreed that there are a vast number of possibilities.

On surface, a signal feature of a diegetical* mechanic on your account is that it narrows the number of outcomes to those that a designer has time and inclination to enumerate. So at least I can say that Dance isn't diegetical, right? Or is it partly diegetical?

What is the understandable causal chain in Dance for all possible outcomes? Which chain leads to lust, and which to wonder?



*Note the switch to "diegetical" which I think does a better job of avoiding implying that mechanics themselves are diegetic; indicating instead their features and consequences.