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

[Thomas Shey]

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.

Yeah, in the version I most tried to engage with (Spacemaster), it wasn't the tables but certain parts of character gen that ended up killing me.

 

[SableWyvern]

Yeah, in the version I most tried to engage with (Spacemaster), it wasn't the tables but certain parts of character gen that ended up killing me.

This is fair. Most versions of RM involve front-loading a lot of work into character gen.

 

[Pedantic]

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.

That's directionally a good start, but you'd also need to spell out the consequences and risks preemptively and absolutely. I suppose you could have a bundled read runes action, but I think you're losing more than you're gaining by not having a pre-specified board state.

 

[Pedantic]

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).

I'm talking about situations, ("where is the bookshelf in relation to the table?") not rules clarification there. I'm of the opinion every ruling a GM makes is a design failure.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I'm talking about situations, ("where is the bookshelf in relation to the table?") not rules clarification there. I'm off the opinion every ruling a GM makes is a design failure.

Eh, can't follow you there unless the gamespace is really narrow, there are always going to be weird corners that at least require extrapolation of how the rules set applies to them. That's true of really comprehensive rules, really. At least any I'm familiar with, and my palette here is not small.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I want games where the character I'm playing can only change the world based on what I say and do. I don't want the GM nudging the game in a specific direction in order to follow their previously defined story or because it will be more "interesting". I'm okay with linear games if I know it ahead of time, just let me know that I need to follow the cookie crumbs.

You don’t think a GM having predetermined as much as possible ahead of play is nudging things?

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.

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.

I’ve only played MHRP a couple of times, and I’ve never really engaged with Cortex beyond that… but I’m reasonably sure that using the runes to address the “lost in the dungeon” condition (affliction? Bot sure what term the game uses) plays a big part in the process.

Like, that’s the situation… the characters are “lost in the dungeon”. How can they resolve that?

Again, my experience with the game is limited (at best) but I feel like that is an important element that just about everyone who’s objected to the game process in some way has ignored.

Obedience is submission to authority when that person is using the authority on you. Your assertion that absolute authority passively causes everyone to be obedient to you at all times is where you go wrong.

Yes, yes… it’s only when they want to have their characters pick their nose that absolute authority rears its ugly head.

This is my issue as well. Different games work differently? I'm glad, life would be boring if everything was the same. Saying that narrative games and D&D-like games work exactly the same is the issue. Embrace the difference, celebrate the uniqueness, find your joy. I don't understand why people are insisting that apples and oranges are exactly the same fruit.

Because many of the complaints about apples are that they’re round and have seeds.

 

[Maxperson]

Yes, yes… it’s only when they want to have their characters pick their nose that absolute authority rears its ugly head.

Which thankfully is rarer than hen's teeth.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

My cat sneaks up on me all the time. The other day I was looking for my keys and they were right in front of me. I don't expect any explanation for it other than I didn't notice. Take a look at this article to see how much we miss on a regular basis Why We Stop Noticing the World Around Us.

Why would I need a detailed explanation in a game when there is no explanation in real life? Why would it matter? How would it work?

So it is acceptable, now, to have no reason at all for why the system tells you a particular result happened?

It's now okay for some things to just be handwaved without even being explained?

Because if that's a position you're taking--even if it only happens some of the time--that makes for an extremely different conversation compared to...basically the entire rest of the thread, doesn't it?

Because now we can have the abstractions telling us what is true and we just roll with it.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

The DM isn't reality in that manner. The DM is reality in that they play the game universe and everything in it. That doesn't mean that everything the DM says is true and correct.

Wait wait wait wait.

So now it's okay to use pithy sayings that seem straightforward but have more complicated meaning and actually might diverge quite heavily?

Because, as with my previous post, a whole mess of arguments previously made by folks in this thread are directly opposed by this line of thinking. So--can I proceed on the grounds that sometimes, pithy phrasing is acceptable even if the literal meaning isn't obvious?

Otherwise, I'm not gonna be super happy about how a LARGE portion of this conversation has been conducted. As in, most of it would have been extremely disingenuous.

Can get. Not gets. Can get. If they don't force the issue......................it's not an issue. You keep conflating "can do" with "does" and that makes you wrong with these statement. Just because I can be a jerk and force all kinds of bad things to happen, doesn't mean that do or will ever do that sort of thing.

A power that must not be used doesn't exist. That is, quite literally, a LIMIT ON POWER. That's what it means--something you must not do.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Obedience is submission to authority when that person is using the authority on you. Your assertion that absolute authority passively causes everyone to be obedient to you at all times is where you go wrong.

Obedience is submission to authority whenever that authority exists.

That's what obedience IS.

That's why objecting to a specific law, but otherwise obeying all other laws, is called civil disobedience. You are not objecting to the idea of authority; you are objecting to one specific application thereof, and showing your respect for the system by breaking the one rule you allege to be wrong, but otherwise adhering to the rule of law.

Obedience is submission to authority even when that authority is not actively looming over you with the threat of force.