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

[Hussar]

I already did. There's no need to come up with the pedantic details you are requiring, so that you can win the internet. The level of detail I gave is much more than sufficient to tell folks how the rogue climbed.

That tells me a lot. I've used very specific mechanics related in very specific ways to the climb. Dex bonus, which is defined. Proficiency, which is defined. Expertise, which is defined. Reliable talent, which is defined. A rope and grappling hook, which are defined.

You've given me d8 and the name. You might as well have said V8, at least then I'd know you were using vegetable juice which would tell me something.

See, but here's the problem.

What do you do when the player rejects the DM's narrative. When the player finds the DM's post hoc justification to be not simulating the world?

For example, let's use the rope example. You talk about the rope being cut by a rock. Now, I've done some climbing with the army. I know pretty well that no, any rope that is strong enough to be used for climbing is not going to be cut by a sharp rock. At least, not accidentally. Unless your rocks are made of diamond (or perhaps obsidian) it's just not going to happen. You cannot cut a 3/4 inch rope with a rock. Not going to happen.

But, the DM thinks it's perfectly plausible. The DM thinks that this is totally normal and can be done.

At this point, the simulation is not functioning. The only way it works is if the player must accept whatever the DM makes up at the time. Which, in cases where the player may be more knowlegeable than the DM, means that many times the narrative isn't possible from the player's POV.

Unfortunately, there is nothing to resolve this because the mechanics provide no information.

 

[Hussar]

Speaking for myself, I want both. I want light sim mechanics. Enough to tell me basically what's happening, like with the D&D climb mechanics. The specific details can be left to the narration.

Whereas to me, the skill mechanics don't tell you anything. We have no idea why you succeeded or failed. And the fact that you can make narrations that change the game world and it works perfectly fine - adding sharp rocks, causing rocks to be unstable, etc - means that the mechanics are not informing the narrative at all.

To me, there is zero difference between falling because rocks cut the rope and a cook waking up due to a failed lock pick check. After all, it's perfectly plausible that a failed lock pick check could be noisy and wake someone up. It's perfectly plausible that a cook might be sleeping in the kitchen. There's no simulation being violated here at all. If the DM is allowed to simply make stuff up without any guidance from the mechanics, you cannot then complain that the DM is making stuff up without any guidance from the mechanics.

 

[Maxperson]

See, but here's the problem.

What do you do when the player rejects the DM's narrative. When the player finds the DM's post hoc justification to be not simulating the world?

For example, let's use the rope example. You talk about the rope being cut by a rock. Now, I've done some climbing with the army. I know pretty well that no, any rope that is strong enough to be used for climbing is not going to be cut by a sharp rock. At least, not accidentally. Unless your rocks are made of diamond (or perhaps obsidian) it's just not going to happen. You cannot cut a 3/4 inch rope with a rock. Not going to happen.

But, the DM thinks it's perfectly plausible. The DM thinks that this is totally normal and can be done.

At this point, the simulation is not functioning. The only way it works is if the player must accept whatever the DM makes up at the time. Which, in cases where the player may be more knowlegeable than the DM, means that many times the narrative isn't possible from the player's POV.

Unfortunately, there is nothing to resolve this because the mechanics provide no information.

I've never actually had that happen yet, but if someone knew better and said, "Hey, I'm an expert climber and that just isn't the case because of X, Y and Z," I'd change the narration to make sense.

Also, I wasn't suggesting that the rock just sliced through the rope like a knife. I was envisioning the rope sliding back and forth over a rock with a sharp jagged edge, slowing being sawed by the rock until it was cut through enough to snap under the weight or cut all the way through. That also may or may not be possible, but if no one knows any differently(and I can say my players wouldn't realize), then no harm no foul really.

Edit: The mechanics don't need to resolve that particular issue. It's something that the DM and player(s) can discuss quickly and easily in order to resolve it.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

The only people who can make demands or set expectations for what happens at your table must be sitting at your table.

The rest is rhetoric.



Cannot? Says... you?
Or else... what, exactly?

So, if you don't mind me asking - is drawing lines in the sand over what other people can and cannot do... getting you anywhere?

I mean, I've convinced at least a couple people in this very thread of my position, or to move closer to my position. So...kind of yeah?

I'm just absolutely sick and tired of people lambasting, hating, railing against a bunch of things that are perfectly fine and acceptable, doing everything they can to drive them out of the hobby as much as physically achieveable and very specifically to declare that D&D cannot EVER include such things. I've been dealing with people like that for literally almost two decades now. I'm preeeeeetty tired of it and don't really have patience for that rhetoric anymore. When I see it, I'm gonna call it out.

 

[Maxperson]

Whereas to me, the skill mechanics don't tell you anything. We have no idea why you succeeded or failed. And the fact that you can make narrations that change the game world and it works perfectly fine - adding sharp rocks, causing rocks to be unstable, etc - means that the mechanics are not informing the narrative at all.

I strongly disagree with that. Rather, it's more like a puzzle that has 80%(or whatever percentage) fixed and the remaining 20% can be filled in by someone else, as long as what's filled in matches the 80%(or whatever percentage).

The DM adding in details in narration that MUST fit what the mechanics tell you(resolved via skill and natural talent), as well as prior narration, doesn't mean that the mechanics didn't say anything at all.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I am not quite sure what sort of retrocausality you see happening here. I don't see it. The events that could be noticed, the noticing (or lack of it) and the roll all happen basically at the same time. That we cannot practically do and describe all of them at once doesn't indicate any retrocausality.

We learn that the character did not observe the thing...

And then, only AFTER knowing that the character did not observe the thing, we invent the preceding events which led up to that failure to notice. In particular, if someone who has a high bonus rolls poorly and thus fails to notice, that narration will invent things which would interfere with their skill such that the expected result didn't happen. That is textbook retrocausality: we invented the origin of the effect after learning what the effect was.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I strongly disagree with that. Rather, it's more like a puzzle that has 80%(or whatever percentage) fixed and the remaining 20% can be filled in by someone else, as long as what's filled in matches the 80%(or whatever percentage).

The DM adding in details in narration that MUST fit what the mechanics tell you(resolved via skill and natural talent), as well as prior narration, doesn't mean that the mechanics didn't say anything at all.

It's more like a puzzle where the corner pieces have been put in...

...and the GM can then spindle, fold, and mutilate the remaining pieces into whatever result she desires. Because she can invent a nearly-infinite list of possible eventualities in essentially every case. Nearly no cases are limited by context in any meaningful degree--because the roll literally IS an invitation to create new context.

 

[Maxperson]

I mean, I've convinced at least a couple people in this very thread of my position, or to move closer to my position. So...kind of yeah?

I'm just absolutely sick and tired of people lambasting, hating, railing against a bunch of things that are perfectly fine and acceptable, doing everything they can to drive them out of the hobby as much as physically achieveable and very specifically to declare that D&D cannot EVER include such things. I've been dealing with people like that for literally almost two decades now. I'm preeeeeetty tired of it and don't really have patience for that rhetoric anymore. When I see it, I'm gonna call it out.

I haven't seen anyone in this thread trying to drive anyone or anything out of the hobby.

 

[Maxperson]

It's more like a puzzle where the corner pieces have been put in...

...and the GM can then spindle, fold, and mutilate the remaining pieces into whatever result she desires.

There's more to it than that. Perhaps the whole puzzle border. Enough is given that the DM is not free to just put in whatever he wants without disrupting the game.

 

[Hussar]

I've never actually had that happen yet, but if someone knew better and said, "Hey, I'm an expert climber and that just isn't the case because of X, Y and Z," I'd change the narration to make sense.

Also, I wasn't suggesting that the rock just sliced through the rope like a knife. I was envisioning the rope sliding back and forth over a rock with a sharp jagged edge, slowing being sawed by the rock until it was cut through enough to snap under the weight or cut all the way through. That also may or may not be possible, but if no one knows any differently(and I can say my players wouldn't realize), then no harm no foul really.

Edit: The mechanics don't need to resolve that particular issue. It's something that the DM and player(s) can discuss quickly and easily in order to resolve it.

But you can see why I have a problem calling that simulationist right? How is your example any different than magic pixies? That's the point I've been making all the way along. One implausible outcome is simulationist simply because the DM and players don't know any better, while the other is not simulationist? It's simulationist so long as no one challenges it? That's not really a definition of simulation that I'm very comfortable with.

And, having seen conversations like the "rock saws through rope" crop up SO many times in the past, which lead to all sorts of breakdowns at tables, I prefer it if the system itself provides a bit of guidance. I find that players are far, far less likely to challenge the mechanics than they are a DM. Make stuff up is no different than the old game of "cops and robbers" - I shot you!! No you didn't. That's why we have mechanics.