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

[Thomas Shey]

I wanted to jump back to this point, because I think it's where a significant element was moved outside the thing under question. The whole point about constraints on what outcomes are possible is that it allows the player to have preferences and exert themselves toward achieving them. One of the underlying goals of the whole design is to allow players freedom to try and achieve specific outcomes by leveraging their decisions. It's why I keep talking about "immersion" as moving that player state as close as possible to the character decision-making state.

It's not incidental that a player can try and string a series of actions together to get a specific outcome, and is unconstrained in how they make their choices, it's the whole point. That is a design feature, and not to include that, to set additional constraints on what the player is allowed to want or what their goal must be action to action, is to be lacking that. Once you require the player to respect the fiction in this nebulous way, instead of offloading that task to the mechanics such that their actions must fall within those norms, you're stripping away their ability to try and make the best possible choices. The point is to move the burden of avoiding a "corrupt" answer as you put it, outside the realm of player decision making in the first place, thus that whatever inputs a player provides can be honest attempts to bring the game to their desired state.

The only problem with that is that at least some genres, its probably impossible to limit some decisions mechanically. Someone who is not engaging with the expectations of a superhero game or some horror games is going to be difficult to restrain mechanically without turning it into a straightjacket.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I'll have you know that I am arguing in weird ways to an excellent purpose. Only persons of ill-repute and unappealing complexion would fail to see that.

For what its worth, I'd have characterized your arguments the same way you do here.

 

[AlViking]

Your post just upthread of this one, together with the rest of this post, strongly imply that this is exactly the issue:


I mean, you use the language of "cheating" and "get out of jail free" - your whole complaint is about the way the challenge is structured and overcome.

You are not factoring in that it is not map-and-key play. There is no map of the dungeon. There is no tracking of the position of PCs (or NPCs) on a map. The fact that the PCs are lost is expressed by them being burdened with a complication, Lost in the Dungeon (rated at d12). The way for the PC to become unlost is for their player to reduce that complication by taking actions that reduce it. Reading Strange Runes and having them reveal ways out is exactly the sort of thing the game expects. It's not a game of solve-the-GM's-puzzle or overcome-the-obstacle-set-by-the-GM.

As for your claim that it makes no sense, that's obviously not true. Consider what @clearstream posted, for instance:
And obviously there are many other ways, too, in which runes could reveal a way out of the dungeon. For instance, they could reveal that the room is the 8th chamber, and the PC knows - from their study or experience - where the 8th chamber is in relation to the dungeon entrance (Gandalf uses this method in Moria).

I didn't care for @clearstream's example either. It doesn't make it better that you could do the same thing in D&D. It doesn't matter that it's the GM adding to the fiction. It's the action of adding to the narrative things that are not justified by the fiction done solely in order to direct the flow of the game. See my response to them above.

Etc.

EDIT:
See, here is where you assume map-and-key play.

If the Lost in the Dungeon complication steps up from d12 to d12+, then the player doesn't need to "play along". The player is out of the scene ("stressed out" by the complication). As GM, I can approach that however I like (obviously within the bounds of the shared fiction, good taste, etc). For instance, I could narrate that they wake up a prisoner of the Dark Elves. Or I could describe them wandering lost through the tunnels for days or even weeks, and then frame a scene in a dungeon room that seems to me like it will be interesting and fun.

Etc

 

[Pedantic]

The only problem with that is that at least some genres, its probably impossible to limit some decisions mechanically. Someone who is not engaging with the expectations of a superhero game or some horror games is going to be difficult to restrain mechanically without turning it into a straightjacket.

Right, I'm probably in the only deconstructions superhero bucket. You can find me 10 years ago claiming that superhero stories aren't appropriate for games; at the very least I know I've complained about Batman/Superman pairings as unplayable. I'm pretty comfortable putting subjects/genre outside the gameable space if they can't hold up to player scrutiny.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

In the fiction, what caused the Orc to not dodge the attack? What caused the Orc's footwork to be anticipated by the attacking PC?

All the mechanics do is correlate likelihoods: the likelihood of this character beating this Orc correlates to the likelihood of this roll of a d20 and a damage die reducing the Orc's hp to zero.

Yes.

This is the same in the rune case.

What is not the same is the causality. Why you keep ignoring this? I absolutely do not understand why you always champion narrativist ways to play, but then adamantly refuse to accept that they are any different from trad methods. Presumably the difference is actually why you like to do it this way, just like it is the reason why some other people do not like to do it that way. But if it is the latter, then you try to do your damnedest to pretend that no difference exits! It is confusing and counterproductive and I really wish you'd stop.

And? What problem does this cause?

I still don't see what problem it will cause, in my game of freewheeling fantasy adventure, for a player to have their PC conjecture that some strange runes mark the way to a tresaure.

I did not say it is necessarily a problem. But that the character decision space and the player decision space diverge here is a fact. Whether one finds that to be problem or not is a matter of taste.

In fiction it does not matter if the treasure hunter examines the runes first and it does not matter that they hope for different things than the arcanist. In the fiction the examination will not cause the runes to be anything. However by the rules they have 10% chance to get the treasure location and 90% get bad stuff, and now the runes are "fixed", so the arcanist who would have had 75% to chance for the runes be the map and only 25% chance for them to be bad stuff cannot examine them again.

I do not know how this is not apparent to you and I do not know how the people in your game react to this. Do they have meta discussions about what to do, or do they just play their characters and have them take actions that are sensible in the fiction but disadvantageous by the rules?

I find this sort of thing to already be an issue in Blades in the Dark, and the disconnect there is far less severe. (Granted, it is possible that is partly due our GM being too enamoured with risky rolls, and use them when controlled or even fortune rolls might be more appropriate.)

 

[Maxperson]

The Cunning Expert conjecturing what the runes say is abstracted. It isn't disconnected from the in-universe fiction - namely, that this person, being a Cunning Expert, is apt to make reasonable conjectures about what Strange Runes say.

This basically says that he's able to make reasonable conjectures because he's able to make reasonable conjectures.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I've been wondering if one can arrive at the same result using D&D mechanics. Here is some relevant text

1. The Dungeon Master Describes a Scene. 2. The Players Describe What Their Characters Do. 3. The DM Narrates the Results of the Adventurers’ Actions.​

​

the DM might ask the player to roll a die to help determine what happens​

​

The DM has the ultimate say on whether a skill is relevant in a situation.​

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.​

​

Athletics Strength Jump farther than normal, stay afloat in rough water, or break something.​

​

Strength Physical might​

​

History Intelligence Recall lore about historical events, people, nations, and cultures.​

​

Intelligence Reasoning and memory​

​

Skills here are those words I bolded. I want to compare a character breaking something with a character conjecturing some ancient runes show the way out.

Player 1 "We have to get through that trapdoor. I believe I can break it with a bit of effort"​

Player 2 "The sand is pouring in fast! Can I help?"​

DM "The crawlspace is too narrow for more than one person to get at the trapdoor"​

Player 1 "We have to get through! Can I apply Athletics to force it?"​

DM "Yes, the trapdoor is made of stone so Strength (Athletics) against a DC of 20."​

DM (continuing) "But working in the crawlspace makes it hard to apply your strength, so make that with disadvantage"​

Player 1 (rolling) "13 on the lowest die plus 4 for Strength and 3 from proficiency Athletics, it takes all my skill to manage it"​

DM "The thick stone of the trapdoor resists your efforts to break it, but then the rods that close it suddenly give way and it falls into a void... with you nearly following"​

​

Player 1 "We have to find our way out. I believe those runes could indicate the right way out"​

Player 2 "If we're still here after sunset, those things awaken! Can I help?"​

DM "Only someone skilled in History has any chance of reading these runes to see if they do"​

Player 1 "We've got to get moving! I'm trained in History so...?"​

DM "Yes, they're from the Founding Time so Intelligence (History) against a DC of 20."​

DM (continuing) "But the chance of them helping you find the right way out is slimmer, so make that with disadvantage"​

Player 1 (rolling) "13 on the lowest die plus 4 for Intelligence and 3 from proficiency History, it takes all my skill to manage it"​

DM "The runes seem at first hopelessly obscure but then you make out symbols for warning and undeath... and for light! It's got to be the tunnels going East that you should follow."​

​

I don't think the DM in the second imagined sample of play has broken any rule in D&D. In both cases the outcome was uncertain and narratively interesting. Characters didn't do anything non-diegetic. DM is as empowered to say the stone trapdoor can be forced as they are to say the ancient runes indicate that the tunnels going East will lead to light (indicating the way out).

Some approaches to play would have DM work out what the runes indicate in prep, but the D&D game text does not mandate that.

An encounter centered on exploration might involve the characters trying to disarm a trap, find a secret door, or discover something about the adventure location. An exploration encounter could also involve the characters spending a day crossing a rolling plain or traversing vast caverns.​

​

The DM’s Role. If the characters can’t figure out how to solve an encounter or aren’t sure what to do next, you can remind the players of things their characters have already learned or call for Intelligence (Investigation) or similar checks to see if their characters can remember and connect things that the players might be missing.​

​

Surely a virtuous instance of "call for Intelligence (Investigation) or similar checks to see if their characters can remember and connect things that the players might be missing" would be when something a player says prompts DM to do so!

@pemerton for vis.

Yeah, I said pages ago that for rules to be sim, it requires that "the operator" (usually the GM) actually uses them that way, and you absolutely could drift 5e into narrativist direction this way if the operator chose to use narrativist logic instead.

 

[The Firebird]

The central difference in his play is the eschewing of GM control (via predetermination) of the meaning of the runes. But none of the 'simulationists' will come out and say so as that would rather give their game away.

Giving what game away? This is exactly the reason for dislike I've seen offered; that giving players control in this way amplifies the player/PC distinction.

Player 1 "We have to find our way out. I believe those runes could indicate the right way out"

Player 2 "If we're still here after sunset, those things awaken! Can I help?"​

DM "Only someone skilled in History has any chance of reading these runes to see if they do"​

Player 1 "We've got to get moving! I'm trained in History so...?"​

DM "Yes, they're from the Founding Time so Intelligence (History) against a DC of 20."​

DM (continuing) "But the chance of them helping you find the right way out is slimmer, so make that with disadvantage"​

Player 1 (rolling) "13 on the lowest die plus 4 for Intelligence and 3 from proficiency History, it takes all my skill to manage it"​

DM "The runes seem at first hopelessly obscure but then you make out symbols for warning and undeath... and for light! It's got to be the tunnels going East that you should follow."​

​

I don't think the DM in the second imagined sample of play has broken any rule in D&D. In both cases the outcome was uncertain and narratively interesting. Characters didn't do anything non-diegetic. DM is as empowered to say the stone trapdoor can be forced as they are to say the ancient runes indicate that the tunnels going East will lead to light (indicating the way out).

Interesting. Given the highest level description of how d&d functions I think this may be compatible.

But, is there a single example of play working this way in the entire corpus of say, 5e material published by WotC?

 

[Umbran]

What is not the same is the causality.

We might break this down in a more clear way.

For the orc in a fight - all the abstracted events (dodging, footwork, and so on) that are resolved by the die roll happen between the action declaration and the action resolution. We have at least a plausible causal relation between the action declaration, those abstracted events, and the observed result.

For the runes - the abstracted events now also includes... carving of runes centuries before the character was ostensibly born? Finding a plausible causal relation between the action declaration and that result is difficult.

There's a bunch of folks who really, really want action declarations to have that plausible causal relation to the their results. Removing that causal relationship sticks in their craw something fierce. And there's nothing wrong with that - it is just a thing about play a person happens to care about, or not.

One can do some reframing that might alleviate some of that disconnect, but in a more general sense, one cannot guarantee the disconnect will not be present.

 

[clearstream]

You can make something that sounds similar in D&D, that does not make them the same.

Just to clarify, I don't see my example as something to like or dislike. Rather it poses a question: what in the core D&D game text (including any rules, principles, examples, fictions and commentaries) tells players that this is to be excluded? If the answer is "nothing", then isn't it right to say that it is down to some unwritten rules players are bringing to the game for themselves.

Why does it not count as playing D&D if I adhere to the game text without following whatever unwritten rules exclude the example? Rather I think it fails to count as playing some version of D&D that you and perhaps others have in mind.

First, in pemerton's example if the check had been a failure not only would the runes not have been interpreted, something would have happened that made the character's predicament worse. I guess you could interpret that as they read the runes incorrectly and head in the wrong direction. The issue there is that as a player I know I read the directions wrong. Of course I'm going to play along and go the wrong way but that makes it less enjoyable. In this case, was there any reason to believe that the builders of this ruin believed in a balance of dark and light, ying an yang? If it was just a temple dedicated to the evil god trope, I don't see how it makes much sense.

Why must failure necessarily understand the runes as indicating the wrong direction? Upthread in conversation around failing-forward, many posters seemed satisfied with "You can't read the runes."

The bigger issue is that it would feel like the DM controlling the flow of the game (railroading, if taken to the extreme) when it happens on a regular basis. It's not something I may not notice if it happens irregularly enough and I used to put my thumb on the scale frequently myself. If there's a miraculous escape option, you just happen to stumble upon the evidence or clue you need because of coincidence, reinforcements come along at just the right time to help the group because they're about to fail or the enemy's reinforcements show up because the fight was too easy? Those things happen on even a semi-regular basis and I'm not going to be enthusiastic about that game. Especially if the change to fiction doesn't make sense in context.

Why would it feel like railroading to listen to what players propose, and call for a roll to see if that turns out to be true in the fiction? I should have thought listening to what players propose to be contrary to railroading!

And, again, how is proposing my imaginary character can get to the top of some imaginary wall really different from proposing that my imaginary character can discern the the way out from some imaginary runes?