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

[Maxperson]

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.

In 5e it depends on what is being rolled for. For ability checks we are told what it represents and luck isn't on the list. For a luck reroll it's entirely luck. And so on.

 

[Emerikol]

I'm really struggling to see how you could ensure that "all input into the mechanics is diegetic" with D&D--non-diegetic inputs crop up frequently. Battle Masters, for example. Or even the Champion, simplest of the simple subclasses on the simplest of the simple classes: what is the diegetic input for the Defy Death subclass feature? You have advantage on Death saves. How can that be diegetic?

I've never heard that word before but I'm glad there is a word for it. I don't play 5e but I always played diegetic in the past if you mean conceptually diegetic. For example, do casters know about spell levels and slots. I might reflavor the names but the concept absolutely would be known in my campaign world. I guess it's how far you take that word. Conceptually yes though not always using the exact name.

 

[Maxperson]

It cannot be all of those things simultaneously. Several of them are mutually-exclusive events.

All of them are viable in a general way is my point. Can it be your first example? If circumstances allow for it. Can it be the second one? If circumstances allow for it. The DM will narrate one response, but any of those that represent skill and fit the circumstances could be used.

Which is completely meaningless, a tautology, not to mention becoming circular logic when it's literally the premise you're defending.

It's only meaningless if you choose to intentionally ignore the meaning. You are rolling to see if your skill is sufficient to achieve success or not. If you beat the DC the answer is yes. If you don't the answer is no. Where is the tautology? There isn't one. Now we continue. Was your skill sufficient for success? If you succeeded yes.

If you are asking what in the fiction made your skill sufficient, then you come up with that answer. Maybe it was because your Uncle Lemmy used to take you hiking and taught you the basics of climbing. Maybe it was because you made a level and your proficiency went up due to practice and experience. I don't know. All I know is that if the roll was successful, the skill was sufficient to achieve success.

It's not my place as the DM to figure out why your skill is what it is. It's only my job to narrate what the success looks like.

Nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnope. Sorry. Not enough. Because by that standard, 4e is one of the most simulationist games ever made, and I know for an absolute fact you would reject that.

Incorrect. Was it enough for rolls to be a simulation in 4e? Sure. Did what I consider nonsensical reasons go into giving PCs the numbers to achieve success in 4e? Sometimes, yes. Success or failure doesn't make it a very simulationist, though. I've already said that 5e's simulation isn't that great. You can come up with much better simulations for things. That doesn't make what 5e has not a simulation, though.

So skills have nothing to do with skill? That's pretty messed up then, to call them "skills" when they aren't "skills"...

Unless you're wrong, and ability score is not the end-all, be-all of skill.

Apparently you aren't reading very well right now. I mean, you quoted what I said in your very next quote of mine and it makes this response of yours completely nonsensical. I will quote myself so you can read it more carefully.

"Yes. Ability score = innate capability, training and competence. Proficiency = specializing in that skill. Expertise = expert at that skill. Training and expertise can overcome the deficit that a -1 from strength gives you and allow you to excel. The ability to overcome a low score to still be good is not proof that the low score doesn't still represent innate capability, training and competence."

This is ridiculous, and literally directly contradicts the text.

What text contradicts it? Because that text means that 5e contradicts itself. The ability check section makes ability scores = skill. The proficiency score bonus means that you are more skilled than even that since you get a bonus to your skill from it, so it = a specialization increase. Expertise doubles that proficiency increase, so it = being an expert.

Now quote me how 5e contradicts itself with the above.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

In 5e it depends on what is being rolled for. For ability checks we are told what it represents and luck isn't on the list. For a luck reroll it's entirely luck. And so on.

I think it can be all about the skill and still involve luck, as one might reasonably call the variability of skill you identified as "luck."

 

[Emerikol]

I think it can be all about the skill and still involve luck, as one might reasonably call the variability of skill you identified as "luck."

Would the roll represent all factors involved in coming to a decision on success? If some factor is not considered then why is the roll determinative? It has to include all factors at least in the abstract.

 

[AlViking]

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.

If people could perfectly replicate technique and clearly observe every variable, everyone could bowl 300. We can't, there are miniscule variations including how we hold the bowling ball, the skill we have, the exact moment the ball leaves our hand, the spin we put on it, correctly assessing how the lane was waxed, how many beers we've had. All these things come into play, with too many variables to measure. We can call that luck, and personally I don't have a problem with that, but if we had a bowling (or dart throwing) robot that could be calibrated and control for all the variables, it could be unbeatable.

Luck still enters into it when some of the variables external to the person change but even then if a person is skilled enough they can adjust for the vagaries of the environment. So I don't personally disagree with you, but luck is only one small part of the equation - depending on your point of view.

 

[Emerikol]

Luck still enters into it when some of the variables external to the person change but even then if a person is skilled enough they can adjust for the vagaries of the environment. So I don't personally disagree with you, but luck is only one small part of the equation - depending on your point of view.

I agree with your post so this is not a rebuttal so much as an addendum or expansion of your idea.

An example might be you are fighting in a hallway and your opponent hits a slick spot on the floor as he backs up. In that moment due to his momentary adjustment for the slickness you find a weak spot and do a critical hit. Since we are not tracking slick spots, sun in the eyes, or any other number of random variables, we just let the dice represent those things. It is absolutely true that skillful people tend to be "luckier" because they can take advantage of far lesser distractions in their opponents.

 

[AlViking]

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?

What it actually says is

"An ability check represents a creature using talent and training to try to overcome a challenge, such as forcing open a stuck door, picking a lock, entertaining a crowd, or deciphering a cipher. The DM and the rules often call for an ability check when a creature attempts something other than an attack that has a chance of meaningful failure. When the outcome is uncertain and narratively interesting, the dice determine the result."

The general advice is that the player does things like attack rolls, the DM calls for everything else but I'm too lazy to look up those rules at the moment.

 

[Enrahim]

Okay, so how do we square that with--for example--the GM having complete preference control over the description of the outcome? Because some descriptions have significant impact, such that they condition future valid mechanics, while being, in D&D, completely and totally up to GM preference.

This one is on one hand similar to the input side, but has a subtlety on the output side that I will further address bellow. On the input side I have already pointed out how a corrupt referee can make an otherwise diegetic rule non-diegetic by letting their own preferences intefer. This in a similar way to how a soccer referee might compromise the intention of the rules of the game by letting a preference for one of the teams affect their judgement calls.

There is an argument to be had about the level of discoverability and accountability when it comes to such corruption. But I think this are concerns outside the scope of the mechanics itself, and hence seem strange to bring in when contemplating good language to describe properties of mechanics.

I'm really struggling to see how you could ensure that "all input into the mechanics is diegetic" with D&D--non-diegetic inputs crop up frequently. Battle Masters, for example. Or even the Champion, simplest of the simple subclasses on the simplest of the simple classes: what is the diegetic input for the Defy Death subclass feature? You have advantage on Death saves. How can that be diegetic?

I think the answer to this is relatively simple: Not all mechanics in D&D are "diegetical" (ref. @clearstream 's improved terminology).

Okay....so....how do you pick which one? Because it seems to me that that now means the GM can invent anything they want, whenever, whatever, so long as it has the tiniest scrap of plausibility, boom, instantly diegetic, always forever.

This I agree is an important point. The simplest way to address this is to seperate out the mechanics for determining success from the system for determining the resulting narration. I agree that the interesting unit of conversation is the synthesis of these, but I think this separation is useful for analysis.

For the first more "pure" mechanics part the input is the dominating part to see if the end syntesis is diegetic. I think the only requierement on the output side for this analysis to work would be that each outcome (usually easily enumerable) allow for at least one narration satisfying the causality requirement. (As such a relatively weak condition)

But as you point out the system for how to actually determine narration based on the outcome of this mechanics is important for recognising if the causality criterion is satisfied. If the system for instance is that the referee rolls these dice for show, to then narrate what they prefer independent of the result, the synthesised mechanic clearly is not "diegetical".

I think however I think a system having just a few properties bring us a long way. First off - Assume this system is based on a human making a judgement call. This allow us in this stage be self - referential by instructing the human to make the narrative decission based purely on diegetic information and the outcome of the analytical mechanical outcome and their understanding of diegetic causality.

As you point out this instruction is not sufficient to produce an unambiguous outcome. And we are left with a philosophical question: A judge is asked to make an impartial decission between two options. There are nothing objective separating them. External randomisers are not allowed. Is this an impossible request?

I think ultimately the answer might be yes. However in terms of practicality I think it is usefull to accept a honestly attempted to be impartial judgment call as not corrupting the process in terms of the "no preferences" requirement. If analytical categorization is required I think it in effect would count as another randomization step, even if explicit randomiser is not used due to practical concerns.

However, where would that leave D&D? A standard guideline for DMs are to in case several options are available, chose the most exiting one. I think if this guideline is in play, that compromises the entire ruleset in a way that makes hardly anything "diegetical". However following this guideline is optional. The same can be said about basically all DM guidelines.

So I think it is usefull to look at D&D (and most rpgs) as a toolkit for "building" a game. I have here argued that there is at least one common D&D "build" with barely a single "diagetical" mechanic in it's body. However I would argue that the toolkit do allow for building a game where quite a few (though not all) it's mechanics are indeed "diegetical" (allowing for judgment calls).

Again, I keep coming back to the notion of the failed Perception check as a critical breakdown point for this sort of assertion. The inputs seem diegetic; GM knows the party has just been exposed to something they might or might not notice, so she asks for Perception checks, essentially as a reactive defense; let us assume a DC of 15. The players roll. The high-Wisdom, Perception-proficient Druid rolls a natural 1: result 11. The 8 Wisdom, no-proficiency Sorcerer rolls a nat 20, result 19. The GM narrates this as the Druid being preoccupied with preparations for the day, while the air-headed Sorcerer was placidly looking out at the forest and spotted the enemy by chance.

Diegetic inputs, outcomes that are possible to understand in the way you described, being entirely well-grounded and naturalistic, something that anyone could have foreseen as a plausible result. Yet we as players know that this is the GM retroactively inventing the explanation, solely because of the dice, not because of skill (since skill would have said the exact antithesis of this event occurred). How can that qualify as diegetic? We're literally retconning the world in order to explain what happened!

This narration takes into consideration the skill levels. It go out of it's way to make sure the narration was made so that it honors the outcome of each individual check, while maintaining in fiction causality in light of the diegetic skill capabilities of the participants involved.

If the roles had been reversed, it would have hardly been neccessary to narrate sorcerer being distracted, nor that the druid happened to look into the forrest. The purpose of the narration appear to be exactly what would be required for this instance of mechanic use to be "diegetical".

As such the GM ability to perform such "retroactive" justifications might be exactly what is needed for the mechanics to be "diegetical". Without such powers we might quickly find ourself in a situation where the mechanic would indicate an outcome where it is impossible to provide a narration that make causal sense in the fiction. In wich case the mechanic break the second criterion for being "diegetical".

I would like to add I am not sure why you would find a problem with such "retroactive" narration? The narration happens to have constraints on the end situation of the narration, but among all the other constraints on narration I fail to see how this particular kind should be particularly problematic? There are no causality issues as seen from the fiction. I could possibly see how this could be a issue in terms of immersion, but I don't think it is widely reported as such?

That last one is gonna be a tough one to get through, because it makes such a porous boundary. What does it mean to be "dominated" by such? Does it have to be so nearly all mechanics that it's rare to ever see anything else? That would seem to "hardly count as a 'game'" by your own standard. Is it enough to be merely 50%+1? That would seem completely out of wack with how people talk about their expectations for such gaming. But leaving it open to individual interpretation just lands us right back in the same old problem of "so now any game is 'simulationistic' if the GM simply fiat declares enough of the mechanics to be so."

Agreed. @clearstream 's approach is better in my opinion ref seperate reply chain with them.

 

[FrogReaver]

Aren't they? Do you say this based on your own expert knowledge of runes in dungeons?

Eg do you not think an archaeologist might be better at conjecturing what some writing is likely to be about, before they read it, based on what else they can observe about it, its location, etc, than a non-expert?

I don’t think that whatever an archaeologist might conjecture is more likely. I think the likelihood of his conjecture greatly depends on the nature of his conjecture, whether he is basing it on already established facts or not.