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

[pemerton]

No, but that's also a non-exhaustive list. The 1e PHB also says this under thief.

"Thieves are principally meant to take by cunning and stealth."

Cunning and stealth are meant for taking, because you can deceive someone into giving you their goods or into leaving goods open to your theft.

Crafty also means deceitful. You have to reach pretty deep to get to keen insight, which if you do, turns that ability into a god ability. You can have keen insight into.....................just about everything. Players should take cunning expert in all your game so that they always have an ability to use no matter what the situation.

Sure. That's why I always play magic-users in classic D&D, too, because there's no magic that they can't use! (It's all in the name, after all.)

Alternatively: as I already posted, the Cunning specialty is intended to capture a good chunk of classic thief abilities. You are the one who is trying to argue that it is an inapt word. I've refuted you. That's it.

 

[pemerton]

On the quantum runes part, not sure what they meant at it or how you feel it is musdescribed, to my mind the framing you've given said their were runes, their nature was not yet defined / authored, and the play process allowed them to be defined / authored, and by my understanding of what you've described, if the roll failed they may have stayed undefined as the scene may have changed enough that they were no longer relevant.
But until defined, there were a whole lot of possibilities of what the runes may have represented, and the play process determined what it actually was, but until that point, there nature was uncertain, and so perhaps could have been described as quantum, given a usage of quantum that has entered common speech as such as describing uncertainty of nature until properly observed (and I dont know enough to comment on how a accurate a usage of quantum that is).

My objection to "quantum" is that it is never applied to the myriad "quantum" things that those who deploy it as rhetorical device include in their own play - quantum clerics, quantum farriers, quantum sharp rocks, quantum crumbling rocks, quantum etc.

Similarly though, on this basis could describe the outcome of a declared attack in dnd to be quantum, albeit with potentially narrower range of possibilities, until roll made and outcome determined - is it about hit, strong hit, killing hit, miss, fumble etc.

I don't think that any of the posters who use "quantum" as a pejorative will agree that resolution in D&D has "quantum" characteristics.

 

[Maxperson]

Sure. That's why I always play magic-users in classic D&D, too, because there's no magic that they can't use! (It's all in the name, after all.)

Alternatively: as I already posted, the Cunning specialty is intended to capture a good chunk of classic thief abilities. You are the one who is trying to argue that it is an inapt word. I've refuted you. That's it.

Yep. It's a god ability in your game as it applies to pretty much everything. Want to climb a mountain? I have great insight into climbing it due to cunning explorer. Want to talk someone into ratting out his boss? Cunning explorer! Want to win at cards? Cunning explorer! Want to carve a wooden figurine? Cunning explorer! Give extraordinary insight into things.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Yep. It's a god ability in your game as it applies to pretty much everything. Want to climb a mountain? I have great insight into climbing it due to cunning explorer. Want to talk someone into ratting out his boss? Cunning explorer! Want to win at cards? Cunning explorer! Want to carve a wooden figurine? Cunning explorer! Give extraordinary insight into things.

And you know this how?

 

[Enrahim]

My objection to "quantum" is that it is never applied to the myriad "quantum" things that those who deploy it as rhetorical device include in their own play - quantum clerics, quantum farriers, quantum sharp rocks, quantum crumbling rocks, quantum etc.

I don't think that any of the posters who use "quantum" as a pejorative will agree that resolution in D&D has "quantum" characteristics.

This helped me realise: The "quantum ogre" and the "quantum runes" are both players "deciding" something. In the first case they don't know that they are deciding it, and this is said to be a problem. In the second case they know they are deciding it, and this is said to be a problem. Looking at this it might seem like players deciding anything in any way could be said to be a problem.

I think an important observation is that neither is a problem as long as there are not other factors contradicting the use of these techniques. If we have play where players really do not want any autorship, then the runes is contradicting that wish. If we have play where the GM advertises a heavily planed out world where everything important is fixed in advance to be explored, then both the runes and the ogre is contradicting that claim. If the players are expecting their choice of path would be important for what happens next, then the ogre contradicts with that expectation.

Many of these factors and the consequential contradictions might not be obvious. Identifying these like we have in this thread can help us know what might be important to be explicit and out and bring into the light when advertising our game, during session zeros, or when such possible techniques are being considered introduced for an existing game.

(This is not a justification for using words like "quantum" pejoratively)

 

[pemerton]

The GM could very well tell openly if they are actually authoring or not, without that materially changing the situation as I see it. The absence of this information flow just makes the key point in the example clearer. (In the scenario with that information flow, philosophical questions regarding differing level of dissociation in the case of the prompt triggering authoring vs not triggering authoring could be raised to muddle the water. By narrowing the example the way I did it is clear there cannot be any added dissociation from the implicitely prompted autorship)

If the GM tells the player they are authoring, the player then knows that their action declaration prompted the GM to author something. I don't see how that is structurally different from the action declaration leading to a dice roll that then prompts everyone to agree that something has been established in/about the fiction.

 

[pemerton]

Yes? I see the verb "hope" used quite consistently for what the character is doing? Not author or determine? I think noone questions a character's ability to hope?

Edit1: That the participants of the game then used this hope to determine the outcome is on them, not the character?

Edit2: And it is also a player that determined what the hope was..

Edit3: Ah, I found this "in no way did they decide what the runes would be or do." used as a contrast. So ok, I think you can manage to extract something similar to "there could be contrieved a way in which it could be said that the character decided what the runes would do". That was not my reading of this passage though. I would rather pass that of as a fairly ok and simple way to say something that would require significantly more words to state precisely. (Edit 4: And your linked to post appear to be exactly an attempt at such a more precise formulation)

Also, my ostensible inability to draw the logical connection that the character is making the runes mean <this> rather than <that>.

 

[pemerton]

Looking at this it might seem like players deciding anything in any way could be said to be a problem.

That's how it looks to me!

 

[pemerton]

And you know this how?

Everyone knows that thieves were god PCs in classic D&D! I mean, does it get any more overpowered than a 17th level thief having a better than 100% chance to pick pockets?

 

[Maxperson]

And you know this how?

Because he quoted the definition he uses and the rule was posted upthread. If the skill makes sense to apply to a situation, it can be used. That skill makes sense to apply to just about everything. Keen insights and/or deceptions work very, very, very often in just about every circumstance