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

[Enrahim]

I mean don’t attack rolls determine fiction not yet settled? Or is fiction not yet settled intended to be more narrow in scope?

Fair. Language got sloppy at some point. I was having in mind the distinction proposed in post #19,991. There utilising a in fiction feature was set up against determining the functionality of that feature. The functionality of a feature tend to be strongly associated by it's properties, so I guess that was the kind of unsetled fiction I had in mind. So objects/creatures and properties thereof would be within the scope I had in mind, but not events happening in the fiction as outcomes based on utilisation of such established features.

 

[pemerton]

I mean don’t attack rolls determine fiction not yet settled?

Yes they do.

 

[FrogReaver]

You posted "The players is, if I successfully interpret these runes what do I want them to mean (given whatever constraints are in the game)." That's not accurate. As I've posted repeatedly, from when I first posted the example, and most recently in reply to you in post 20205, the player was making a roll to reduce or eliminate a d12 Lost in the Dungeon Complication.

If the player really isn’t authoring the runes meaning, why wasn’t this pointed out from the begginning? That’s been a huge part of the underlying assumptions since the example was brought up? If he is authoring the meaning of the runes, then I’m not sure why any of this new info would matter.

 

[pemerton]

The conjecture causes the reality rather than the reality causing the conjecture.

The player authors a fiction. The character discovers a reality. How is that hard?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

The player authors a fiction. The character discovers a reality. How is that hard?

It's not. They are just completely different things resulting different decision spaces. How is that hard?

 

[pemerton]

Yet the player did.

Yes. The player is playing a RPG. As part of that, the player authored some fiction. That's what happens when someone plays a RPG!

It's not. They are just completely different things resulting different decision spaces. How is that hard?

The player calculates to hit bonuses, and estimates ratios of damage to hit points. Their PC, meanwhile, is fighting for their life and trying to read the Orc's footwork and anticipate the Orc's feints.

The player is authoring, via a complex mechanical process. The PC is actually at risk of being skewered. Completely different decision spaces!

Or if they're not, then nor is the one I described. You can't have it both ways.

Thus the player and character decision spaces were divergent.

The character conjectured that the runes could reveal a way out, and read them hoping that they would do so.

The player conjectured that Strange Runes could reveal a way out, and decided that his character would read them hoping that they would do so. Of course the player knows it's a fiction, but that is because the player knows they are playing a RPG.

You want to argue that because the player contributes to the authorship of something (the meaning of the runes), whereas their character does not causally affect the authored thing (ie the meaning of the rune), their decision space must be different. But you're wrong. It's not. That's part of the measure of good RPG design - it allows a player to contribute to the fiction without having to step outside of their PC. 40 years ago that was a design puzzle, but it got solved in the intervening years.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Yes. The player is playing a RPG. As part of that, the player authored some fiction. That's what happens when someone plays a RPG!

The character conjectured that the runes could reveal a way out, and read them hoping that they would do so.

The player conjectured that Strange Runes could reveal a way out, and decided that his character would read them hoping that they would do so. Of course the player knows it's a fiction, but that is because the player knows they are playing a RPG.

You want to argue that because the player contributes to the authorship of something (the meaning of the runes), whereas their character does not causally affect the authored thing (ie the meaning of the rune), their decision space must be different. But you're wrong. It's not. That's part of the measure of good RPG design - it allows a player to contribute to the fiction without having to step outside of their PC. 40 years ago that was a design puzzle, but it got solved in the intervening years.

Of course is different! The player operates under knowledge that they can dictate reality, the character does not. Like if you knew your hopes and conjectures would have high chance of becoming reality without you taking actions that causally make them so, would that not affect what you hope or conjecture?

And I have several times given more specific examples, (which you have ignored) how it matters by the rules who examines the runes, yet in fiction it doesn't. You can keep pretending that this disconnect does not exist, but you're simply wrong.

 

[pemerton]

Authoring/creating the meaning of is not interpreting the meaning of. The player and character are doing different things here.

Performing mental arithmetic, and working out what fiction is dictated by feeding those numbers into the rules engine, is not the same thing as fighting an Orc. The player and character are doing different things. I'm not sure why this is supposed to be revelatory, or relevant.

If the player really isn’t authoring the runes meaning, why wasn’t this pointed out from the begginning? That’s been a huge part of the underlying assumptions since the example was brought up? If he is authoring the meaning of the runes, then I’m not sure why any of this new info would matter.

isn’t the whole point that on a success the player gets to author (create) the runes meaning? The character certainly isn’t authoring or creating the runes meaning. The character is simply interpreting runes that have been there for centuries.

You posted that "The players is, if I successfully interpret these runes what do I want them to mean (given whatever constraints are in the game)." And I pointed out that that's not accurate.

The player is not making a roll that, if the player succeeds, permits the player to decide what the runes mean. It is not dicing for narration rights, which I think tends to make for a fairly mediocre RPG experience.

As I've posted repeatedly, from when I first posted the example, and most recently in replies to you and others over the previous few pages of this thread, the player was making a roll to reduce or eliminate a d12 Lost in the Dungeon Complication. The player is, as their PC, forming a conjecture as to what the runes might say (ie that they might reveal a way out of the dungeon, or at least help the PC understand where in the dungeon he is). And then the dice are rolled.

Upthread you asserted - with no basis, in my view - that there was no relevant fiction other than Strange Runes. That's not correct. The PC is lost, and that is hugely relevant fiction as the previous paragraph explains (again). There is everything else, too, that has happened in play. And there is also the players decision-making about what it means to be a Solitary Traveller, expressed via action declarations that include the die for that distinction. These all contribute to the table's shared sense of what makes sense.

 

[FrogReaver]

It is not really beside the point. The persuasion check also seem inadequate for representing the process of finding an applicable priest. I would have expected being expert in gather information would be more helpful in that regard. (And the example explicitely did not allow for time required for such rememorisation)

The issue at hand is that you are proposing charisma checks are in use for determining fiction that is not yet settled, but gave an example where it is easy to see how alternative ways of determining this piece of fiction would be better according to the standards proposed that objects to player determination.

So I think you are onto something with the observation that checks might be used to determine not settled fiction also in trad. But I am sceptical to the example used, as it allows for too many and too easy objections of the form here. I think knowledge related checks like gather information is a better candidate.

-------------

However I think this entire point is beside the larger point. Even if we in trad actually might at occation determine something not settled via skill check, there is as far as I know nowhere where this procedure is required. There is always an option for the GM establish the relevant fiction in advance with no skill check involved. Importantly they can do so without informing the players about having done so. This means the players can never rely on any ability to determine the relevant fiction.

This I think is an essential observation in terms of the decission space theory, that I think so far is the most promising attempt at formulating what makes the runes example feel off to many. (The map and key theory I find too simplistic as I think the relevant objections would be valid also in a game where the DM is known and expected to just come up with things on the fly based on the current vibes of the table)

Knowledge checks would be a better

Yes. The player is playing a RPG. As part of that, the player authored some fiction. That's what happens when someone plays a RPG!


The player calculates to hit bonuses, and estimates ratios of damage to hit points. Their PC, meanwhile, is fighting for their life and trying to read the Orc's footwork and anticipate the Orc's feints.

The player is authoring, via a complex mechanical process. The PC is actually at risk of being skewered. Completely different decision spaces!

Or if they're not, then nor is the one I described. You can't have it both ways.

Rolling dice and adding bonuses is not a decision space. It is certainly things a character isn’t doing that a player is, but there’s no decision there. It’s also the part where the simulation discussion starts to matter.

The character conjectured that the runes could reveal a way out, and read them hoping that they would do so.

The player conjectured that Strange Runes could reveal a way out, and decided that his character would read them hoping that they would do so. Of course the player knows it's a fiction, but that is because the player knows they are playing a RPG.

Additionally the player knew that if he had his character hope for X that He would have a chance to author just that. That’s not just players doing out of game activities like rolling dice that characters are not, it’s making different decisions about different things than the character would.

You want to argue that because the player contributes to the authorship of something (the meaning of the runes), whereas their character does not causally affect the authored thing (ie the meaning of the rune), their decision space must be different. But you're wrong. It's not. That's part of the measure of good RPG design - it allows a player to contribute to the fiction without having to step outside of their PC. 40 years ago that was a design puzzle, but it got solved in the intervening years.

If this is your proposed solution I’d suggest you go back to the drawing board.

 

[pemerton]

Of course is different! The player operates under knowledge that they can dictate reality, the character does not.

The player can't "dictate reality".

They can contribute to a shared fiction. That's called playing a RPG.

You seem to be thinking of the backstory (the "reality") as some sort of constraint that the players have to learn and navigate their way through. But that is not the only way to play a RPG.

As I posted not too far upthread in reply to @FrogReaver, you seem to be assuming something like the following:

I've posted clearly, throughout this thread, what the principal differences are:

*GM authority over backstory and setting;

*An important activity in play is for the players to declare relatively low-stakes actions that will prompt the GM to reveal setting/backstory details to them;

*As those setting/backstory details are revealed, the players will be able to conjecture (with more or less confidence) as to what is at stake in the situation their PCs are in;

*The players will try to overcome the challenge/obstacle that the situation presents, so as to win whatever is at stake - this will consist in some combination of manipulating setting elements revealed by the GM and using mechanically-defined PC abilities;

*As the players overcome challenges/obstacles via the play of their PCs, they get closer to the "finish line" which is the attainment of some or other overarching goal.​

This is a very, very mainstream approach to play. It's well known. The most recent poster to describe a version of this play in this thread (I'm somewhere around post 20040) is @Emerikol. But Emerkiol is not the only poster in this thread to approach play in basically this fashion.

When RPGing does not look like this, the notion of "manipulating reality" has no purchase.