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

[Hussar]

If they don't accept it then they need to either accept the limitations of the game or find a different game because they want something I don't. If you want a mountain climbing simulation, D&D isn't for you. Personally I don't know what it would even look like because as soon as you figure that out then you'll have figure out tree climbing, scaling a castle wall, a giant beanstalk, the giant furniture you find and occasionally a giant. Then you have to have a swimming simulation, be able to calculate exactly how far you can swing from a rope. The list of abstractions is endless.

I don't care about that level of detail because I don't see why an author of the rules that doesn't know the current situation can do any better. All simulations use abstractions that don't go into granular detail I don't see any value in a game attempting to go into detail when it can't possibly do a very good job of it.

And here we have exactly what I was talking about. The players can either accept the DM's narration or they can leave the game. Doesn't matter if the DM is right, wrong, an expert or pulling nothing out of his petoot. The player either accepts it or leaves.

Not exactly all about the simulation anymore is it?

Give an example. I was playing a Warhammer fantasy game a few months back. We had fought some beastmen describe (more or less) like minotaurs. Some time later, in the dark, my character hears hoofbeats approaching. Ok, fair enough. I ask the DM if I can tell how many hoofbeats and if they are beastmen. He says, "No, there's no difference between a beastman hoof and a horse's hoof. It just sounds like hoof beats, what do you do?"

Now, I've grown up around cows and horses. I know for an absolute fact that you very much can tell the difference between a bipedal, some 300 pound hoofed animal running and a 6 or 700 pound horse, with saddle and tack, plus a 150-200 pound rider wearing armor (which we learned later that they were wearing armor). These do not sound at all the same. A bipedal animal can't sound like a quadrepedal animal at a trot because, well, it's only got 2 feet. Never minding that someone in armor on a trotting horse sounds like a bag full of pennies being jingled.

But, according to what's being said here, I'm not supposed to question this. I am supposed to accept it or walk.

If your definition of simulation is, "whatever I decide it is, and if you don't like it, there's the door", then I want absolutely no part of that. And I reject that notion that that's what simulation games should look like.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Then we're missing steps.

Almost certainly. I have to question how many of the participants in this thread are interested in taking them, though.

 

[Maxperson]

You say this as if the entities at the table are not primates with very complex social dynamics, behaviors, and pressures upon them...

...or, perhaps, as if it is rhetorically convenient to ignore or dismiss the realities of real-world human social dynamics.

I see a difference between influence and authority. At work my boss has authority over me. If he tells me to do something I pretty much have to do it if I want to keep my job. At home my wife has no authority over me, but I tend to do what she aske because of those social dynamics, behaviors and pressures.

I don't have any authority over my players. I do have authority over the game. And I probably have some influence with them because of the game.

 

[Umbran]

Are you saying it’s not happening at all or that the amount @Crimson Longinus suggested it’s occurring was hyperbolic?

I am saying that descriptions of 1000 pages of headbutting that amount to, "It is all THEIR fault," are transparently inaccurate.

 

[clearstream]

I think the core fault line is whether one wants to try to correlate the player decision space with the character decision space or not.

I like the notion of making this distinction, yet am still left wondering why

player A and character A hope an action (study the runes) will produce a benefit (they indicate a way out)​

player B and character B hope an action (persuade a priest) will produce a benefit (casts remove curse for them)​

are not equal in correlating player decision space with character decision space?

 

[Maxperson]

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.

It seems to me that there really isn't any limitation other than good faith behavior on the part of the player. Especially since being an expert on deception to achieve your goals seems to be sufficient to know what runes in a dungeon are.

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.

Yeah. We'd have to allow the guy to expertly deceive the trap door into opening itself.

 

[FrogReaver]

I am saying that descriptions of 1000 pages of headbutting that amount to, "It is all THEIR fault," are transparently inaccurate.

As a wise man once said, ‘Okay, So what?’

 

[Maxperson]

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.

While there might be one or two people here who feel that way, the vast majority of those on my side of this issue don't believe that at all. We're fine with players bringing things up briefly during the game, and then if it's not resolved to their satisfaction during the game, having a more lengthy and detailed discussion after the game.

What we consider to be poor play is a lengthy disruption to play for things less than the PC being at risk of death if the ruling goes the way they disagree with. Disruption is poor play, not talking to the DM about disagreements.

 

[clearstream]

An exit makes sense in that it may have been used in construction of the dungeon or some other purpose. Perhaps it was used as an exit for the workers until it was sealed and they were either transformed into the undead or used in some dark ritual to create the undead, something I might hint at and describe the trap door as having old scratch marks from people that had previously tried to escape. But there's no reason for a temple dedicated to evil and undead would have a "By the way if you're trapped and about to be eaten by our glorious undead the exit is this way." It might be logical if this is a temple dedicated to balance, the idea that we need both darkness and light. But I would want there to be hints of that throughout the entire dungeon.

TBH I like @Gimby's proposal that through placing the runes historically the character realizes the layout will follow a formal pattern. I can readily picture the Expert reporting - "Oh, this means we're in elven catacombs dating back to the Crown Wars... Regents' period if I'm not mistaken... that means we go East."

I don't care for additions to the fiction that don't fit the previously revealed facts. There are exceptions of course, but the reveal of some hidden truth needs to be convincing and hopefully hinted at previously.

Surely there is at some point a first fact that says, for example, that these are elven catacombs dating back etc. Isn't the catch more about the when and who of its authorship?

 

[FrogReaver]

I like the notion of making this distinction, yet am still left wondering why

player A and character A hope an action (study the runes) will produce a benefit (they indicate a way out)​

player B and character B hope an action (persuade a priest) will produce a benefit (casts remove curse for them)​

are not equal in correlating player decision space with character decision space?

Well start by defining the decision space separately for the player and for the character.

What is at stake in the players decision and what is at stake in the characters decision? What is the basis for each? Etc.

The characters decision is can I interpret these runes. The players is, if I successfully interpret these runes what do I want them to mean (given whatever constraints are in the game).