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

[Enrahim]

No it is not, or at least not any more than the player ability to accept any fact presented to them.
Like I said earlier, either the spell levels are diegetic in the setting, or they aren't. It is about the relationship between the rule and the fiction, and that certainly can be determined objectively rather than subjectively.

(I think as experienced by the player was meant as opposed to as experienced from the fiction, that was that it wasn't a subjectivity argument, but rather a clarification about point of view)

 

[clearstream]

For the cleric example to be the same the following would need to be true

1) the fictional constraints on the cleric (who he is, what he can do, what level he is, which god he serves, what they are a god of, what kind of people will the cleric or his god help, what’s his position in the church, etc), all of that would need to be so unconstrained that the cleric could be anything.

Setting aside that there is surely more than one cleric in many settlements, I assume exactly the constraints on clerics that the latest version of the D&D rules specify. Remove curse is on the core spell list for clerics. I suppose some gods might forbid their clerics access to it, but I cannot think of a single one that does in the normal Faerun pantheon.

**note this isn’t an argument that being unconstrained leads to silly results, something you mistook this point for earlier.

I did indeed, but am reading it now avoiding any assumption of a degenerate free-for-all.

2) on a success the players ‘intent’ would author some of those details about the cleric (which we’ve established are essentially unconstrained) such that the details would be ‘convenient’ for the player/character goal (probably the same but could theoretically be different).

The player intent authors that the cleric casts remove curse and thus their friend does not transform into a dreadful monster at sunset, by following the written mechanics for influencing. (With the parallels I have already pointed out.)

3) then after all this, the dc of the persuasion check would need to independent of whatever is being asked for, as the dc for the runes is independent of whatever the player/character wants/hopes/conjectures them to be.

I'm not sure what you intend here? In both cases the DC is decided by GM's perception of the circumstances plus applicable factors already stipulated. In the latest version of 5e, the DC by default is 15 or the INT of the target.

"Diplomancy" has over several editions been notorious for allowing players to help themselves to outcomes they desire, and multiple forums host discussions on how best to manage it. Acknowledging it takes the form I describe might prove fruitful in seeing ways to successfully handle it.

If you are going to elide all these details and claim the runes and persuasion as typically occurs in d&d are the same because on some extremely high conceptual level they both determine fiction not yet settled as if viewing things from that sole high level conceptual perspective is the only perspective that matters, or even a relatively important perspective, then there’s no wonder this conversation goes no where.

I mean at that point it’s essentially

Frogreaver: ‘There’s differences’

Counter: ‘They don’t matter because I can find some high level conceptual description that applies to both cases making them the same’

Hopefully the logical problem with this framing is apparent. Even if they are the same in some some way, that doesn’t mean they are the same in all ways.

I'm not dismissing that there are differences, I am resisting wrongly attributing those differences.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Yep. It’s one reason I view d&d combat as more of a fun minigame. It’s also why I don’t give much weight to critiques relying on combat mechanics.

Also why I bristle when someone suggests that the rest of the game should be structured more like the combat, wanting some tactical "social conflict" mechanics and whatnot. No thanks! The combat minigame is fun and I'm fine with it, if it is just a part of the game, but I absolutely do not want the whole game to be like that. And the combat minigame of course is just an optional extra. RPGs function perfectly fine without one.

 

[Emerikol]

I like this take. However I find the features I consider important do not really align much with these at all. I can like board games, GM less, railroad and sandbox alike. The structure of the game setup just isn't that important to me.

However some things that I think I have identified as important to me independent of structure:

• Taking the fiction somewhat seriously. Doesn't matter if we are even talking about Paranoia, Fiasco or even Munchausen. All participants should respect the fiction based on the fictional premises. Holy Grail references might be ok now and again as part of table talk, but don't make it diegetic!

I can agree here. I want my players taking the game seriously. That means trying to act as though they really are their characters and it's not a "game piece".

• Group cohesion over individualism. The game is a group activity. I find many modern euro board games hard for me to engage in as they feel like everyone is basically playing their own game with no interaction. There might be internal conflicts, and colorful characters - but when push come to shove the game is about the group. I have low tolerance for sequences where individual characters are spending significant alone time in the spotlight doing "their" thing.

I never experienced individualism as you describe it "in game". Obviously I have in the world. My groups knew early on that only effective team cohesion would lead to survival.

• Cerebral over emotional. I want any heavy-hitting emotional moments to be few and far between. Deduction, optimalisation, and creative uses of game elements are much better for engaging me than tense drama.
• Variation over familiarity. I want a broad range of experiences. For long term play, dynamic campaigns suits me much better than episodes following a given formulae.

For some reason I have rarely seen these dimensions seriously discussed.

My game is probably more cerebral than emotional. Not sure about the second one. I prefer what I would call ascending sandboxes. At some level the idea of a sandbox is too limiting perhaps but I conceptually still operate from that framework.

 

[FrogReaver]

Really? The player doesn't (in 3E) pull out their Power Attack spreadsheet? Or (in any version of the game) check that the cleric has enough cure spells to keep their PC up? Or draw inferences from previous damage rolls made by the GM for the opponents, so as to inform decisions about which PC risks taking which blows?

I don’t pretend those activities are the same decision space for player and character. They are clearly not.

I can’t tell if your counterpoint is, the decision space for player and character is the same in the runes example or if it’s that I have separate player and character decision spaces too. Can you help?

The player of any RPG knows that they are contributing to a shared fiction. That's not special to the runes case.

They also know if they are doing so via their characters or via outside character authorship.

The player knows that their action declaration can succeed. But that can hardly be an objection!\

It can be part of establishing an objection though. Remember this is about player vs character decision spaces. The notion that the player get to author what happens is an additional decision the character doesn’t make. There’s totally different considerations going on for that decision than anything the character would need to consider as well.

Solution to what?

The design puzzle from 40 years ago you spoke about.

I mean, I don't know what you need a solution to. But I know my own RPGing. The fiction is vibrant, the characters too, and the play is active, engaging and immersive.

Isn’t everyone’s?

 

[Emerikol]

But, according to what's being said here, I'm not supposed to question this. I am supposed to accept it or walk.

I think that even an impartial flawed judge is better than letting those involved in the events become judges themselves. Of course it is certain that some player will have more knowledge about some subject than the DM at some point in the campaign. I'd say yes you are supposed to just run with it. It's not ideal but it is for the best. You could mentioned it outside the game to the DM and explain your position. I'd also have to ask if your character has the same knowledge you have. Many people might hear different sounds but make no distinction because unlike you they don't have. your experience. Your character may not have your experience.

I've seen groups argue about the height of a tree. It is far better to ask the DM questions about the environment than make assumptions. It is an imperfect form of communication but it is all we have.

And really, the final straw is the DM is the final authority. I've never seen arguments between players and the DM profitably affect the game. I would be fine with you saying..."I'm a beast master and know beasts. Does this sound like four legged creatures or two legged creatures." If the DM says you still can't distinguish then your character cannot distinguish for whatever reason. The DM is the world reality interface.

 

[AlViking]

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.

One more time - it's not an issue of the player adding to the fiction when you stated "because of the fictional manipulation it provides players". That's what the false accusation I was objecting to.

 

[AlViking]

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.

I have no reason at all why I don't notice my cat sneaking up on me other than as mere mortals we don't pay attention to 100% of our surroundings at all times. A specific character may be more likely to notice something because they have a natural aptitude and have trained themselves to be more observant as is reflected by ability score modification and skill proficiency. Other than that why should we need more detail than what we have in real life?

 

[FrogReaver]

Setting aside that there is surely more than one cleric in many settlements, I assume exactly the constraints on clerics that the latest version of the D&D rules specify. Remove curse is on the core spell list for clerics. I suppose some gods might forbid their clerics access to it, but I cannot think of a single one that does in the normal Faerun pantheon.


I did indeed, but am reading it now avoiding any assumption of a degenerate free-for-all.


The player intent authors that the cleric casts remove curse and thus their friend does not transform into a dreadful monster at sunset, by following the written mechanics for influencing. (With the parallels I have already pointed out.)


I'm not sure what you intend here? In both cases the DC is decided by GM's perception of the circumstances plus applicable factors already stipulated. In the latest version of 5e, the DC by default is 15 or the INT of the target.

"Diplomancy" has over several editions been notorious for allowing players to help themselves to outcomes they desire, and multiple forums host discussions on how best to manage it. Acknowledging it takes the form I describe might prove fruitful in seeing ways to successfully handle it.


I'm not dismissing that there are differences, I am resisting wrongly attributing those differences.

It’s not clear what you see established about the cleric before the persuasion check. If it’s just that this is a level 5 cleric that can cast remove curse and then the persuasion check determines whether he does then I’d say that’s significantly different than the runes.

The character has the fictional ability to persuade. The decision space for player and character remains the same. And maybe most importantly, a check to persuade isn’t a guarantee depending on the backstory or other in play established fiction.

Contrast to the runes. The character only had the fictional ability to read the runes. The player decides what they mean. That’s a different decision space and as far as I can tell a guaranteed check.

On the DC the runes example doesn’t appear to have a variable or dm determined dc that depends on the intent, only on the interpreting. The clerics persuasion check dc would depend on the intent of what you wanted the cleric to do in d&d.

 

[AlViking]

No. No more than you, as a GM writing up a dungeon description, are "changing the reality" of the imaginary world you are writing about.

The player is resolving a declared action in the play of a RPG. The character knows that there are no runes, just people sitting around a table imagining runes.

The character is reading runes that (in that character's world, which is an imaginary one) were created long ago. And all that the character changes is their own knowledge - by reading the runes the character learns something.

You're playing a different game than I do. A character changing their knowledge of the runes wouldn't change what the runes mean which, in the games I play, the character has no control over. For that matter the GM would have decided what the runes meant before the character ever saw them.

Different games, different approaches, different resolution. Embrace the difference don't pretend our games work the same.