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

[CreamCloud0]

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?").

Post 20,000! Let’s give it up for post 20,000! Wooo!

 

[clearstream]

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.

That is a good framing. I'll leave the MHRP case to others, to focus on D&D.

In formulating my example upthread, I had in mind a more complex example that I omitted at that time, which was to compare with Charisma (Persuasion). It's worth laying out that example now.

Player 1 "We have to remove the curse. I believe the priest here in Tilverton could be persuaded to do that."
Player 2 "At sunset I'll transform into that dreadful creature! Can I help?"
DM "You can easily locate the priest in her temple, but she won't be badgered by a group. She'll see one of you."
Player 1 "I've the best chance! I'm skilled in persuasion so...?"
DM "Okay, she is hesitant and it is a 3rd-level spell so Charisma (Persuasion) against a DC of 20."
DM (continuing) "But her deity has an antipathy to yours, so make that with disadvantage"
Player 1 (rolling) "13 on the lowest die plus 4 for Charisma and 3 from proficiency Persuasion, it takes all my skill to manage it"
DM "She stresses how limited her access to 3rd-level spells is, and questions whether there will not be more urgent purposes... the arguments grow long as the day wanes. Fortunately, before sunset, your arguments sway her."

Across D&D groups I have seen DMs grant anything from healing to sanctuary to information to escape routes as a result of Charisma (Persuasion) rolls. With NPCs, it is often the case that the group do not know what parts they may go on to play. A roll to influence can determine that. For example, the priest above could just as well have been persuaded to heal, provide sanctuary, quench thirst or satiate hunger, illuminate the area, etc.

 

[clearstream]

Post 20,000! Let’s give it up for post 20,000! Wooo!

Rats, I swore to myself I would be out right after post 20,000, and just above I find I authored 20,002. Is there no escaping this thread!

 

[EzekielRaiden]

No it doesn't.

Would be great if you actually gave an argument rather than "Nuh-uh!"

If the GM is reality, every statement they utter is true. Doesn't matter if it's contradictory or not. Doesn't matter if it's ridiculous or not. Doesn't matter if it's harmful or not. It's true, because the GM is reality.

Unless we're now somehow using a new meaning of the word "is", which would be quite par for the course with our discussions.

Absolutely false. My definition has never been that the DM cannot disrupt the game. Hell, I even said earlier in the thread that the DM can cause more disruption with a bad decision than a player can.

A person with absolute power gets whatever they want. Whatever they want, goes. It may be fantastically unwise. It may be incredibly harmful.

It is truth. Because that's what absolute power means.

And now you wonder why I tried so damned hard to get you to step away from that. To get you to consider anything less than it. But you refused. Too late to back out now.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

No it doesn't.

Yep. You CAN do those things. Not will.

And that's the definition of obedient, not authority. You see, if someone with authority does use to demand a person do something, then the person who is submissive will be obedient. Nowhere does it say that authority = demand for obedience, because it doesn't mean that.

....obedience IS submission to authority!

Absolute power that does not come with others owing absolute obedience ISN'T ABSOLUTE POWER.

For God's sake, Max, you are literally mincing definitions left and right just to hold onto your precious "absolute power" phrasing without recognizing the MANY, MANY problems it induces.

 

[FrogReaver]

Rats, I swore to myself I would be out right after post 20,000, and just above I find I authored 20,002. Is there no escaping this thread!

You just need to find some runes and hope they indicate an exit

 

[Enrahim]

This is hugely controversial. I wouldn't play at a table where a GM asserts this sort of power.

I mean, even as default-GM-driven/centred a RPG as 5e D&D describes the basic play-loop thus:

1. The Dungeon Master Describes a Scene. The DM tells the players where their adventurers are and what’s around them (how many doors lead out of a room, what’s on a table, and so on).
2. The Players Describe What Their Characters Do. Typically, the characters stick together as they travel through a dungeon or another environment. Sometimes different adventurers do different things: one adventurer might search a treasure chest while a second examines a mysterious symbol engraved on a wall and a third keeps watch for monsters. Outside combat, the DM ensures that every character has a chance to act and decides how to resolve their activity. In combat, the characters take turns.
3. The DM Narrates the Results of the Adventurers’ Actions. Sometimes resolving a task is easy. If an adventurer walks across a room and tries to open a door, the DM might say the door opens and describe what lies beyond. But the door might be locked, the floor might hide a trap, or some other circumstance might make it challenging for an adventurer to complete a task. In those cases, the DM might ask the player to roll a die to help determine what happens. Describing the results often leads to another decision point, which brings the game back to step 1.

There is no suggestion that step 2 is actually The players ask their GM to approve their suggestions as to what their characters do.

"I jump the gap", "I climb the tower", "I kill the goblin" is all action declarations according to 2. None of them makes the thing declared automatically happen. There might be some nitpic to be had regarding formulation, but that us completely immaterial to the point presented.

(Edit: that actually stoping nose picking would be abuse is something everyone appear to agree on, so no real controversy to be found in that regard)

(Edit2: If the character was backbound at the time of declaration, I would consider it fully reasonable to block the nose picking attempt)

 

[Emerikol]

There are a lot of people here making various claims about various ways of describing games and whew this thread has ran a lot of pages just since last night.

So I will dispense with Simulationism, Gamism, and Narrativism. We all don't agree even on what the terms mean so we argue about that on top of our playstyle.

This is how I prefer my games to go:
1. The DM prepares a sandbox world in advance. What he can't write down he reasonably accounts for by random tables, etc...
2. Players interact with the world through the DM. The DM is their world reality interface. What they see, hear, smell, or even remember is from the DM. The DM should roll appropriately based on players skills to determine what to tell them.
3. It is a game and player (not character) skill also matters. So preparation, planning, and execution matter. This is what I think is the gamist side of me.
4. The DM is the final arbiter because he is the interface to the world. It goes dark without that interface.
5. The rules along with dice rolls are there to aid in consistency and a feeling that the world is not arbitrary.
6. Mechanics are not dissociative. This means that characters are aware of the rules not as rules but as truths of the world. The rules are the physics of the world. There has to be an in game explanation for anything the character can do.

So call that what you want. I think it is the dominant and traditional way D&D was played in the early days. Deviations started early though and now we have many ways to play. I fell in love with the original way and haven't really embraced the new ways as I personally don't think they are better. Now my opinion is that I am dominantly a mix of simulationist and gamist. Of course we all are at least a tiny bit of everything at times.

 

[Emerikol]

"I jump the gap", "I climb the tower", "I kill the goblin" is all action declarations according to 2. None of them makes the thing declared automatically happen. There might be some nitpic to be had regarding formulation, but that us completely immaterial to the point presented.

In some cases my players have said "I try to...." That isn't necessary because it is implied either way and not everyone says that all the time of course.

 

[Maggan]

Too late to back out now.

What are you on about? Too late to back out? This isn’t a fight to the death. It’s not a duel to determine who is in the right and who is not.

It’s a discussion about personal preferences. No more, no less.

Well, that and pixies for an unfathomable reason.