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

[Maxperson]

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?

This isn't D&D. It's a game where if a skill makes sense to use in a situation, you can use it. By adding keen insight to the much more commonly used meaning of deceptive to one's gain, you've made it apply to just about every situation.

 

[Enrahim]

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.

I guess you have boiled it a bit too much down if you have lost the important differences in the situations we are talking about. You seem to be proposing the structure is: player prompt (1) -> decission point (2) -> potential addition to fiction (3). The structure as presented here is indeed the same. Any differences happens when you zoom in. For instance the claim that a dice roll and a GM decission are the same can easily stir some controversy, but I think that is unimportant in this larger context.

More importantly I think is the relationship between 1 and 3. That is how strongly aligned are the player prompt with the fiction added. In the "go to temple" example the overall topic of what to add (temple stuff) is determined, but no detail beyond that. In the runes example if the player just declare "I read the runes" we would have the same relation. However we could have cases where player prompt (1) fully determines the addition to fiction (3), without that changing the structure you describe. However this could be an important difference. I am not saying your runes example is there, but this illustrates that this is a difference that is lost in your model.

And I think it is the relationship between 1 and 3 that is the key point of contention - not the proposed structure.

As a side note - I am curious how you think the case without the players knowing if the GM is authoring based on their prompt, would be structurally different from what you describe here?

 

[pemerton]

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

So, upthread I asked this:

Just to be clear: are you saying that I'm wrong about the rules of my own fantasy hack of MHRP? or are you just complaining about my use of the word "Cunning"?

And so you really are telling me that I'm wrong about the rules of my own fantasy hack of MHRP!

Don't you think that might be overreaching a little bit?

Do you think this post, from me, is relevant to understanding how a game that you only know about from me telling you about it works?

He's a Solitary Traveller, and a Cunning Expert. In a game that is deliberately playing on classic D&D tropes, Cunning includes the thief's traditional ability to deal with traps and read strange writings.

 

[pemerton]

This isn't D&D. It's a game where if a skill makes sense to use in a situation, you can use it.

I thought that in D&D I could use a skill when it makes sense in a situation. Anything else would be pretty odd, wouldn't it?

By adding keen insight to the much more commonly used meaning of deceptive to one's gain, you've made it apply to just about every situation.

This suggests that you're not familiar with how naming things works.

As I alluded to upthread, the magic-user can't use all magic. The spell "Guidance" doesn't actually tell the caster the way from here to there, or what to do more generally. Etc, etc.

 

[pemerton]

the claim that a dice roll and a GM decission are the same can easily stir some controversy, but I think that is unimportant in this larger context.

I don't claim that they are the same. But neither is an event that occurs in the fiction. They are things that happen at the table, in order to generate fiction.

player prompt (1) -> decission point (2) -> potential addition to fiction (3)

<snip>

More importantly I think is the relationship between 1 and 3. That is how strongly aligned are the player prompt with the fiction added. In the "go to temple" example the overall topic of what to add (temple stuff) is determined, but no detail beyond that.

But everyone knows that the PC is going to the temple to find a cleric! That's the whole point of the example.

If the character is going as a tourist, then the GM wouldn't be obliged to narrate the cleric.

I am curious how you think the case without the players knowing if the GM is authoring based on their prompt, would be structurally different from what you describe here?

I don't see that it is? It just has an illusion overlaid.

 

[Maxperson]

So, upthread I asked this:
And so you really are telling me that I'm wrong about the rules of my own fantasy hack of MHRP!

What I said and what you said aren't in conflict. You...

1) Allowed the use of that skill.
2) Stated that it was not only deception, but also keen insight.

Where am I telling you that you are wrong? I'm just pointing out keen insight not only applies to runes, but the construction of the dungeon, the history of the dungeon, the flora of the dungeon, the fauna of the dungeon, the treasure of the dungeon, and on and on.

Don't you think that might be overreaching a little bit?

Are you really arguing that deception and/or keen insight don't apply to a massive percentage of circumstances?

Do you think this post, from me, is relevant to understanding how a game that you only know about from me telling you about it works?

The rule was posted, and not by you.

 

[Maxperson]

I thought that in D&D I could use a skill when it makes sense in a situation. Anything else would be pretty odd, wouldn't it?

This suggests that you're not familiar with how naming things works.

As I alluded to upthread, the magic-user can't use all magic. The spell "Guidance" doesn't actually tell the caster the way from here to there, or what to do more generally. Etc, etc.

So what are the built in limitations to Cunning Explorer, because you haven't given any. I could tell you what the limitations to D&D wizards are, but you already know them.

 

[Enrahim]

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

Oh, was that the logical connection to you were claimed to not make? That cannot be right? That seem completely illogical to me? After all that contradicts logically with the well known premise that characters cannot decide the meaning of the runes?

I actually do not manage to parse that sentence that talks about "basic of logical conclusions.". And as such have no good idea what @AlViking meant by that. If I was to try to see some logical connection the first that come to mind was that players determined what the runes meant based on the character hope, and hence there was a causal relationship between character hope and meaning of runes that did not have a pure in-fiction counterpart.. Or looking at:
D&D General - [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting. that this might lead to situations that feel contrieved.

Your proposed intepretation just isn't a way I would read that post.

 

[Enrahim]

I don't claim that they are the same. But neither is an event that occurs in the fiction. They are things that happen at the table, in order to generate fiction.

Agreed.

But everyone knows that the PC is going to the temple to find a cleric! That's the whole point of the example.

If the character is going as a tourist, then the GM wouldn't be obliged to narrate the cleric.

Ah, I am sorry. I was refering to my watered down example from this this post:

A clear example is that a character can decide to go check out the temple. A player can hence declare that their character go check out the temple without any dissociation. This declaration however might prompt GM authorship of temple details. As the player don't even know if authorship happened as part of this declaration, that cannot change their experienced absence of dissociation.

This was meant to limit the example to just declaring the action of going to the temple without specifying the intent (and in potentially a completely different context). This in order to show how a prompt can happen even without the (problematic) intent part. I am sorry I didn't manage to make that clear enough. (The "check out" part was meant to discriminate it from the "seeking help" scenario, but I see now it is not a strong enough marker as it still make sense to say it that way in the seeking out help scenario)

With this in mind, is my posts clearer?

I don't see that it is? It just has an illusion overlaid.

(Ok. I thought you implied it was different given your first sentence )

 

[Hussar]

I know this is probably bad form, but, if you wanted a clearer example of the conservativism of D&D fans, just look at the reaction to the new Banneret class. That's pretty much conservatism in action. It's not bad because it's bad. It's bad because it's new. At least, according to a LOT of posters in that thread.

Why is 2024 so close to 2014? And why is 2014 such a call back to earlier editions? Hrmmmm, :hrm: