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

[Hussar]

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.

Umm, you missed the part where "and narratively interesting" has been added. Which I pointed out earlier. It is a pretty significant change actually.

 

[Hussar]

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.

Because the d20 roll is undefined. The largest part of the check is 100% undefined and, if it was defined, in any way, then it would exclude potential narrations. But, it isn't. Even the abiliity+skill isn't really defined.

 

[Pedantic]

While I don't think it can entirely be avoided without denying the fictional space in some cases, I outright say I'm pretty gamist and I tend to feel the least negotiation the better for multiple reasons, one of which is it tends to destroy a sense of consistency unless the GM is very, very good at managing that, and that's as rare as any other outstanding talent in GMing (probably moreso than some).

Right, that's how I end up backdooring into the simulation question. Maybe that's the real divide, whether negotiation is to be embraced or avoided.

I much prefer to cast what does have to happen as clarification instead of negotiation when possible. Better to at least try to have a consistent board state so that players can do things to it instead of just establishing and counter-establishing what it is.

 

[AlViking]

Umm, you missed the part where "and narratively interesting" has been added. Which I pointed out earlier. It is a pretty significant change actually.

That's in a different section. Personally I don't think it's really a big change, it still comes down to uncertainty and whether or not it matters. The actual text

"When the outcome is uncertain and narratively interesting, the dice determine the result."

 

[Faolyn]

Because the d20 roll is undefined. The largest part of the check is 100% undefined and, if it was defined, in any way, then it would exclude potential narrations. But, it isn't. Even the abiliity+skill isn't really defined.

But you were saying any info, not complete info. You insisted at any info would be acceptable. In fact, you said that repeatedly. The math provides some info. And yet you're still complaining and claiming there's none, or at least not enough.

So to answer your question, "Why does everyone take what I'm saying to the most extreme level?", it's because you, in fact, insist on everything being spelled out completely.

 

[SableWyvern]

Ok. I'm at Gencon right now, so I visited the Iron Crown booth and picked up a copy of Rolemaster Core Law. We'll see if everybody's right about how much I would like this.

There's every chance your decision about whether or not you like it won't be formed by the actual rules themselves, but how onerous you find it to have to reference the charts and tables in play.

 

[AnotherGuy]

One more time. It has nothing to do with the players having ability to manipulate the fiction, I have the same issue if the GM manipulates the fiction in a similar fashion. The players make dramatic changes in my campaigns, it's just through their characters and what the player decide to pursue. Meanwhile as DM once I establish fiction, I stick with it (unless of course I royally f*** up but that's a separate issue), even if the characters breeze through what I thought was a significant challenge.

One more time, as @pemerton has said, this is not for map-and-key
i.e. FICTION HAS NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED

And my idea is of such runes easily being used by Trad GMs being in areas where the runes FICTIONALLY CHANGE such as in areas where desires are plagued on - planes/domains of chaos, emotions and luck where the GM does NOT predetermine the function of the runes.

 

[AnotherGuy]

Oh, I'd argue the opposite, I associate negotiation with narrativism. I've been characterized as gamist a few times, and I've been pretty consistent in calling out negotiation as a pretty miserable gameplay experience. It's both parasitic and flattening; once you let negotiation about the fiction into the gameplay loop, it drives out any other form of mechanical engagement. If your explicit goal is to make an engaging game in the same sense one would describe a board game, negotiation should be rigorously avoided.

Right. So gamist would be to have the rules "set-up" so the players could wish the runes emulated a certain spell say they would be able to work out the DC themselves? i.e. no negotiation necessary with the GM and that would possibly be function of the runes on a successful skill check.

 

[Micah Sweet]

There's every chance your decision about whether or not you like it won't be formed by the actual rules themselves, but how onerous you find it to have to reference the charts and tables in play.

Well, I generally don't mind looking things up.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Right, that's how I end up backdooring into the simulation question. Maybe that's the real divide, whether negotiation is to be embraced or avoided.

I much prefer to cast what does have to happen as clarification instead of negotiation when possible. Better to at least try to have a consistent board state so that players can do things to it instead of just establishing and counter-establishing what it is.

Though I have to point out that still ends up leaving you to find out if the GM will consider the same clarification next time a parallel event comes up--and there's a reasonable chance that they may not remember what they answered this time, especially if its obscure (if its not, chances are its less a clarification than a house rule, whether written or not).