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

[Maxperson]

The example shows that there are parallels between determining what the runes could indicate, and determining what an NPC does. It doesn't show that NPCs are runes.

I'm just not seeing what being an expert on deception has to do with what runes in a dungeon are most likely to be.

But to be serious, @AnotherGuy made a worthwhile observation, showing that the runes shouldn't be directly compared to something with a static nature like a trapdoor (unless it had dynamic features). I responded by expanding the stock of examples to including determining what NPCs do. I suspect that there are more examples available from among knowledge skills.

Yes, that was why it was a joke with the and everything.

 

[AlViking]

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?

The success or failure of an action is determined by whether or not the D20 rolled by the player plus the modifiers to that roll meet or exceed the target number. That's where the simulation ends. Anything else is just fluff for the purpose of adding color to what is happening in play.

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.

How detailed would the rules have to be to make it a simulation for you? In this case the GM made a bad call, but I don't see how the rules of any game could go into enough detail for you. Another example would be the difference between the sound of a rifle and a shotgun, something movies, TV and video games get wrong all the time. I don't expect perfection, although if someone is an expert on something I'll typically ask for clarification before making a call.

 

[Maggan]

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.

Wouldn't there be plenty of steps inbetween?

Like, I could see it going like this:

1. You explain to the GM that a horse probably would make another type of noise. Maybe you say "but a horse with a rider would sound very different ... do I hear any difference?"
2. The GM says "no, you don't hear any difference".
3. You could accept the GM's call, maybe it's not beastmen, but a small horse with no rider, or it's another type of mutant. Or it's beastmen, but your character can't hear the difference even though you as a player would have.
4. Or you double down, explaining that you feel the GM is making a bad call, and that your character should most certainly hear the difference.
5. The GM might have a think about it, and then decide that "ok, you hear that it is not a horse with a rider", or the GM might also double down and say "your character doesn't hear any difference."
6. Now, you might accept the GM's call, or continue arguing about it, probably ruining the session for the GM and the other players, as well as potentially ruining the self-confidence of the GM. Or the GM might take it with good humour, taking it as a learning opportunity, but not changing their call because she planned the encounter in a certain way and doesn't want to change it mid-stride.
7. You might even plead to the other players to support you, setting up a conflict between the group and the GM.
8. Having exhausted all options of challenging the GM's call, it is now up to you as a player to decide what is most important to you: playing the game, or being correct about your character's ability to hear the difference between beastmen and a horse.

If being correct is more important than playing the game, you should walk away from that game.

Were I the GM, I would have listened to you and had taken your character's background into consideration, then I would in all probability said "yes, as you listen more intently, you can hear the jingle of a rider on a galloping horse" or "you only hear the hoofs of what might be beastmen, or maybe a riderless horse."

But then again, I've made so many mistakes when GMing, and GMing WFRP in particular, that I don't feel that me making another one is a big deal, and I rely on the players to help me making the right call.

But my final call is final ...

 

[AlViking]

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?

I can hope that the junk email I receive really is going to reward me with a million dollars if I click the link but it's probably not going to happen. I can convince a friend to loan me lunch money because I forgot to stop and get cash.

Player A is changing the reality of runes that were created by long ago, player B is convincing another individual in the fiction to do something for them. How do those things even compare?

edit - typo.

 

[AlViking]

My goals are the same as they are every night Pinky: Try to take over the world!

Per what I've said - I need to be honest with myself about them. That does not mean I should open them up for public discussion, review, or critique.

 

[AlViking]

Yeah. We have understood that from the beginning.

We're saying that the DM is constrained by what the mechanics tell us and what the prior narrative has been up until that point. If the PC is climbing a cliff face, I can't narrate him falling down a building wall. If the cliff is super crumbly and that was described to them before the climb, the narration for a failed climb and fall should involve some sort of crumbling of the cliff face, whether it's a rock in hand crumbling away, or a piton coming loose from a weak part of the cliff.

And since in 5e(not sure what 5.5e says) says the ability check = skill, it should be a failure of skill as well. Such as failing to skillfully keep the rope away from a sharp rock or hammering the piton into a weak point of the cliff that should have been noted with your skill.

From the 2024 PHB, it hasn't changed.

Ability Checks​

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.

 

[FrogReaver]

l

The example shows that there are parallels between determining what the runes could indicate, and determining what an NPC does. It doesn't show that NPCs are runes.


But to be serious, @AnotherGuy made a worthwhile observation, showing that the runes shouldn't be directly compared to something with a static nature like a trapdoor (unless it had dynamic features). I responded by expanding the stock of examples to including determining what NPCs do. I suspect that there are more examples available from among knowledge skills.

I’m confused here. The runes don’t have dynamic features?

 

[clearstream]

I’m confused here. The runes don’t have dynamic features?

@AnotherGuy pointed out that the runes through being settled in play could turn out to have a variety of features. Whereas the stone trapdoor had essentially one feature. They used words like "determined" versus "utilized" to get at that. That is why I expanded the stock of examples to include NPCs, switching to Charisma (Persuasion) etc.

 

[AlViking]

@AnotherGuy pointed out that the runes through being settled in play could turn out to have a variety of features. Whereas the stone trapdoor had essentially one feature. They used words like "determined" versus "utilized" to get at that. That is why I expanded the stock of examples to include NPCs, switching to Charisma (Persuasion) etc.

You don't see any difference between persuading someone and determining what the runes mean?

 

[Micah Sweet]

I tried to "cut the cord" with WotC.

I literally didn't find games. The absolute, overwhelming hegemony of D&D is too much.

Sorry to hear that. I told my group I wanted to play Level Up, and they were nice enough (and/or I was convincing enough) for them to accommodate me.