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

[Micah Sweet]

Did you not read any of my posts in which I said that this is not a game about solving puzzles or overcoming GM-authored challenges so as to get to the "finish line"?

Anyone who is playing MHRP and thinks this seems to be as confused as a person who turns up with their bag of dice to a chess tournament.

This is why we won't be coming to an accord. We don't want the same things out of the game.

 

[Thomas Shey]

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.

Its one of those things that seems to vary considerably. I've never had any trouble with convincing people to play other things than D&D, but then, I've been playing with at least overlapping groups I've known for 40+ years in some cases, but even back in the day (and it wasn't like D&D was small potatoes then) when I hadn't yet established those groups, I could usually find people interested in other things.

Yet its hard for me to say other people don't struggle here, because I've heard of it too many times to blow it off.

(Edit: Though, I do have to point out in your case you were selling people on something pretty D&D-adjacent).

 

[AnotherGuy]

No. They do not. They cannot say priest give me all your churches riches, that is the thing i want. Or priest I want you to cast foresight on me for the upcoming battle (making the priest a 9th level caster). The priest and his abilities are established independently of the persuasion roll and if he doesn’t have the capability of performing the action hoped for then at least in 5e there wouldn’t even be a roll.

I think we have to be practical here, the player may also not determine the runes give them mad-xyz. The xyz would have to be measured against the fiction and the game rules in the same way the priest would be willing to do a measured abc and not the examples you sighted.

 

[AlViking]

There is a bit of switching back and forth among posters between what is happening in the game as such and their forms in the imagined world.

In the game as such player and character are aligned in wanting to overcome a complication. They are aligned in understanding their approach being uncertain... not sure to succeed. In one possible world, the form that takes is that they investigate some runes. In another possible world, the form that takes is that they influence a priest.

Are we talking about what is allowed in the rules for a specific game or what would generally be considered a sim? Because I'm talking about it from the sim side of things, different games will of course allow different approaches. There is no one true way, not even when playing D&D.

 

[Thomas Shey]

True, but I find having the genre mechanics helps with feeling the four-color. You're right though, you still have to want to.

Or, in some cases, understand it well enough to be able to. To some people superhero stories are just kind of weird and alien; they can't get in the heads of superheroes.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

In my view, the player should not be making these proposals if they change backstory outside the PCs control, particularly since the meaning of the runes has nothing to do with them, and in fact was determined in-setting quite some time ago. Those are my preferences.

 

[Pedantic]

In the game as such player and character are aligned in wanting to overcome a complication. They are aligned in understanding their approach being uncertain...

This seems insufficient. You could as easily port that understanding to any board game that involves dice in resolution; the point is the congruity in the fictional layer, not the gameplay. The whole reason to harmonize the two is to drag the incentives caused by the gameplay for the player into alignment with the character's incentives and capabilities in the fiction.

 

[Faolyn]

Why does everyone take what I'm saying to the most extreme level?

ANY.

Must provide ANY information. Doesn't matter how small. Doesn't matter how accurate. It just has to provide ANY information to guide the narrative.

How is this "extreme"? How is that "clearly spells out"?

This is the most frustrating thing about this thread. The ridiculous strawmen arguments that are getting made here.

How many times do I have to clarify my position?

Because the game does provide "any" information. It's quite clear how the stat, skill, and other modifiers affect your roll to show you how you succeed or fail. But you continue to say it doesn't provide any info at all. And the only reason I can see for that is that its not specifically written out.

 

[FrogReaver]

I think we have to be practical here, the player may also not determine the runes give them mad-xyz. The xyz would have to be measured against the fiction and the game rules in the same way the priest would be willing to do a measured abc and not the examples you sighted.

There is no more fiction to measure the runes against. We’ve got some runes on a wall, we’ve got a cunning expert and some genre constraints. In the practical sense the fiction established is just enough that the player can say the runes mean anything.

 

[Faolyn]

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.

If the player rejects the DM's narrative, then they should have a mature discussion, either there or after the session.

As for the rope breaking, or not breaking, don't forget that your equipment goes through all the same stuff you do in the game, meaning it's also been subject to all the same magical attacks that you've gone through. Hemp rope may be strong, but how strong is it going to be after you've been hit by an acid arrow, doused in dragon-fire, and so on?