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

Similar to my other post, isn't proposing they can climb a wall or force a trapdoor open going to benefit the player that proposed it? Surely players often propose things that will be to the benefit of their characters, and roll to see if it goes their way.

I genuinely find it puzzling that any difference is perceived in that regard.
I like this example.

With a trapdoor, you already know its function. Your roll is to utilise its function.
With the runes, you do not know their function. Your roll is to determine (importantly not to discover) their function.

Now if you are able to determine the function of the runes (via successful roll) you can in theory

Determine that the runes heal the party
Determine that the runes cremove a curse or condition
Determine that the runes provide safe sanctuary to the party
Determine that the runes quench the party's thirst or satiate the party's hunger
Determine that the runes reveal information about xyz
Determine that the runes illuminate the area
Determine that the runes provide resistance vs abc
Determine that the runes provide an escape route
...etc (all via a successful roll ofc)

I think what is helpful is if we could ascertain the limitation, if any, on the players' creativity on the level of power that may be imposed on the runes with a successful roll.
THIS is the benefit the posters above are reflecting on.

EDIT: If we want to equate a trapdoor to the runes we would need to allow a similar level of creativity to the players on determining where the trapdoor opened up to - Sigil, the King's Bed Chamber, Treasure etc.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

What did your expert have for breakfast? Who was his mother? Why does he hate his father? What sort of mole does he have on his left butt cheek? Why ask why? Inquiring minds want to know!!

This pedantic questioning for ever smaller details in an effort to win the internet is getting old.

Put up dude. I showed you the mechanics of mine. You show me the mechanics of yours that make you the expert you are.
@pemerton responded with "Cunning Expert d8" but that doesn't give the whole of the mechanic. Rather that's shows some relevant parameters of the mechanic. I don't know MHRP but I do know the Cortex System that it is based on.

Stripped down

Everyone writes down their character’s name and some things they’re good at doing, they may also have a metacurrency​
Generic things a character are good at doing are represented by traits - descriptive labels with dice ratings attached to them (such as “Cunning Expert d8”)​
Games like MHRP will structure traits into sets, which could include attributes, affiliations, distinctions, powers etc. Sets of traits have defining qualities that condition where and how they apply.​
Traits are diegetic: if my character is a cunning expert, that's something they and others in the world can know about. I can include the die in my roll whenever it makes sense that it applies. I can't include the die in my roll where it doesn't make sense (and sets generally make that even clearer.)​
A metacurrency -- in it's generic form, "plot points" -- is earned by players when they roll 1 on a die, and can be spent by them to add dice to future rolls. GM gets plot points too, but the generic way GM uses them is to introduce NPCs.​
Games like MHRP can alter the way plot points work in the game using mods. A doom pool is a mod that swaps GM plot points for a dice pool.​
And finally, when you want to do something and there’s something that might get in your way (such as the environment, another character, or time), you make a test.​
Someone else picks up dice to establish the difficulty number you must beat to succeed.​
You assemble your dice pool, roll it and keep two dice to compare with the difficulty number.​
You may also nominate one die you didn't keep to be your effect level (the more sides the better, e.g. d12 is a stronger effect than d6 regardless of what was rolled on it.)​
Any 1s, whether you keep them or not, create complications (and earn you plot points.)​

In specific games, there can be numerous concrete details that make all this specific to some imagined world rather than generic. For example, a distinction "Your Life Before" may let you add a die to a crisis pool to double your attribute die when you connect to your old life.​

This general apparatus is tremendously versatile, and at the same time strongly diegetical. I say it is diegetical because every element of the game mechanic associates with something diegetic in play. If Cunning Expert doesn't matter in this situation, I can't include that d8 in my roll. If it matters, I can include it. If I include that d8 in my total and beat a test I can narrate that it made a difference. There's more to it of course, including an absence of assumptions some might port into it with their set of unwritten rules.

I think one could complain that it is not para-diegetic, meaning that the process itself is not set up to unfold in a sequence that feels like some imagined causal chain. That makes sense, because rather than a collection of sub-systems each bespoke to some phenomena significant to play (potentially and usually hung off a backbone system), the core apparatus is applicable to any phenomena that becomes significant to play.

I've observed that the quality of being diegetical matters to most who favour process-simulation, while the quality of being para-diegetic matters to some more than others (and doesn't in my opinion turn out to be all that robust... it typically relies on glossing over deviations.) Folk comfortable with traditional game system structures might count Cortex out from being proceess-sim just because it doesn't feel like those traditional structures.
 

Are we going to make any real attempt to get at why some mechanics cause a backlash and others don't? It looked like for a moment we might be trying to dig into that, but we seem to be back to sanctimoniously going on about GM authority again.
This, to me, is a MUCH more interesting conversation and gets to the heart of things. Because, from where I'm standing, it almost looks like, "Well, I like this, so, it's okay" but, "I don't like that, so, it's bad".
 


The claim appear to be that there is a particular mode of play characterized by certain contributions being made exclusively based on such a mindset.
Who is making this claim, in relation to players and their play of their PCs? And what are their examples of it (either RPG texts that suggest it, or actual play that exhibits it)?

I mean, here is an early example I know of, from Gygax's DMG (p 93), discussing player contributions to setting/backstory; it is in the context of building strongholds:

Assume that the player in question decides that he will set up a stronghold about 100 miles from a border town, choosing an area of wooded hills as the general site. He then asks you if there is a place where he can build a small concentric castle on a high bluff overlooking a river. Unless this is totally foreign to the area, you inform him that he can do so. You give him a map of the hex where the location is, and of the six surrounding hexes. The player character and his henchmen and various retainers must now go to the construction site, explore and map it, and have construction commence.​

The player didn't propose a high bluff overlooking a river, suitable for the construction of a small concentric castle because he thought that this was the most likely terrain. The player wants his PC to build a castle!

Relating to the thread topic, it seems that Gygax was less conservative about the role of players in contributing to setting/backstory than some of the posters in this thread who frame their expectations for play in terms of D&D.
 

I like this example.

With a trapdoor, you already know its function. Your roll is to utilise its function.
With the runes, you do not know their function. Your roll is to determine (importantly not to discover) their function.

Now if you are able to determine the function of the runes (via successful roll) you can in theory

Determine that the runes heal the party
Determine that the runes cremove a curse or condition
Determine that the runes provide safe sanctuary to the party
Determine that the runes quench the party's thirst or satiate the party's hunger
Determine that the runes reveal information about xyz
Determine that the runes illuminate the area
Determine that the runes provide resistance vs abc
Determine that the runes provide an escape route
...etc (all via a successful roll ofc)

I think what is helpful is if we could ascertain the limitation, if any, on the players' creativity on the level of power that may be imposed on the runes with a successful roll.
THIS is the benefit the posters above are reflecting on.

EDIT: If we want to equate a trapdoor to the runes we would need to allow a similar level of creativity to the players on determining where the trapdoor opened up to - Sigil, the King's Bed Chamber, Treasure etc.
In MHRP, Trapdoor to Sigil would be an asset, with a die rating. It is no more or less powerful, mechanically, than any other asset.

I think that looking at an episode of play of a non-map-and-key RPG as if it were a map-and-key RPG doesn't produce very good analysis.
 

In MHRP, Trapdoor to Sigil would be an asset, with a die rating. It is no more or less powerful, mechanically, than any other asset.
Sorry I have not been following this thread religiously, what is MHRP?
I would expect the answer to my question about the level of creativity permitted on player determination of the runes would similarly have a "DC" that would be decided upon by the GM. At least that is how I would rule it.

I think that looking at an episode of play of a non-map-and-key RPG as if it were a map-and-key RPG doesn't produce very good analysis.
Totally agree. But that is where the opposition to your rune example is coming from (map-and-key).
Has this been mentioned?
 

Sorry I have not been following this thread religiously, what is MHRP?
I would expect the answer to my question about the level of creativity permitted on player determination of the runes would similarly have a "DC" that would be decided upon by the GM. At least that is how I would rule it.
Marvel Heroic RP. The "strange runes" example is an episode of play from a fantasy variant of that system (inspired by the Hacker's Guide, which was a type of prelude to Cortex Prime - I sometimes also describe it as Cortex+ Heroic Fantasy Hack).

MHRP uses "subjective" rather than "objective" difficulties: for this sort of thing the roll is generally against the Doom Pool, perhaps augmented by any appropriate Scene Distinctions or Complications.

Totally agree. But that is where the opposition to your rune example is coming from (map-and-key).
Has this been mentioned?
By me! But I feel with not very much uptake by other posters.
 

That's not what I said. The context of what I said was that it MUST fit within both what the mechanics tell us AND the prior narrative. Magical pixies would be a disruption to the game whether the players complain or not. The last time I was on a plane turbulence disrupted it quite a bit and I never complained. The lack of complaint doesn't mean that the turbulence didn't disrupt the plane.

So no, it's not whatever the DM invents is fine. He still has to invent stuff that fits the narrative and the mechanics.

The problem is, the only judge of the narrative is the players and the players are told never to contradict the DM because challenging the DM's narrative is considered poor play.

If the players have no problems with magical pixies, then there is no problem at all. There's no difference. The narrative is acceptable to the table.
 

It has been my experience that a DM that figuratively summons pixies to explain falling damage, and does that on a whim, will be lacking players, either after the session is done ("guys, this was silly, let's play something else") or after the adventure ("well, next adventure I wan't something else, not pixies all the way down, can we do that?").
 

Pets & Sidekicks

Remove ads

Top