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

[Lanefan]

It seems hard to understand, because posters - eg @AlViking - keep posting that the character determined what the runes mean.

Because some of us take the player and the character to be one and the same when engaging with the fiction in situations where the required degree of abstraction is minimal or nonexistent, as it easily could be here. Actor stance.

If the player at the table caused what the runes to say what they did - regardless of how this was done - then so did the character in the fiction.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Oh, I must have missed that!? I have not recognised that at all!

I tought they repeatedly stated the character cannot determine the meaning of the rune, but the player can, and hence there is a difference? (This seem to strongly contradict the notion that the character determined the meaning of the runes, as the claim is they plain cannot do such a thing)

this may be a result of confusion between people using both the uses of determine?

between the process of finding the equivalent meaning of the runes in a language they understand, and deciding the meaning of the runes they want AKA "hope for"

 

[Crimson Longinus]

On the contrary: you are ignoring the role of epistemic uncertainty, which makes the metaphysical aspect of the situation secondary.

The character does not know what the runes say; but they have a conjecture and a hope. For them, epistemically, it is possible that the runes reveal a way out.

The player does not know what the runes say, but they also have a hope. For them, epistemically, it is possible that the runes reveal a way out.

What resolves the epistemic uncertainty for the character is reading the runes. What resolves the epistemic uncertainty for the player is a resolution process that tells them what happens when the PC tries to read the runes. The fact that the underlying metaphysics are different in each case - in the fiction, the fact about what the runes say becomes known to the PC; in the play of the game, the fact about what the runes say is established via the resolution procedure - is irrelevant. It doesn't change the epistemic situation of either the player or the character.

In a GM-authored-backstory game, nothing changes for the player in respect of their epistemic uncertainty: they don't know, but they hope. And so it remains epistemically possible for them that the runes reveal a way out. What does change is that the uncertainty is resolved not solely by a dice roll, but rather by GM decision-making. For some RPGers this may make for better play - for instance, it permits the game to be a puzzle-solving one - but it doesn't change the basic epistemic situation, nor the relationship between the epistemic and metaphysical situations.

No mate. A player has an ability to shape the fictional reality in a significant way that the character doesn't. These are different decision spaces. This is just a fact. You stringing here big words together in attempt to argue that red is blue.

The only meaning of those terms that I'm familiar with is [URL='http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/4/this one[/url]:

• In Actor stance, a person determines a character's decisions and actions using only knowledge and perceptions that the character would have.
• In Author stance, a person determines a character's decisions and actions based on the real person's priorities, then retroactively "motivates" the character to perform them. (Without that second, retroactive step, this is fairly called Pawn stance.)

And the player is fully in Actor stance.

The player has knowledge, that the action declarations can shape the reality far beyond what is possible to the character. Thus when making decisions based on this knowledge, the player is not operating in the actor stance. You know, epistemically. This directly follows from the definitions you just gave.

I assume you now graciously accept that you were wrong and I am right. Thank you in advance.

 

[Lanefan]

From Gygax's PHB, p 18: "Thieves use cunning, nimbleness, and stealth."

None of which goes any distance toward explaining the rather odd "Read Language" ability 1e Thieves pick up around 4th level and that steadily improves thenceforth; which would seem to be the (relatively) closest analogy to the rune-deciphering example.

 

[Enrahim]

this may be a result of confusion between people using both the uses of determine?

between the process of finding the equivalent meaning of the runes in a language they understand, and deciding the meaning of the runes they want AKA "hope for"

That is a potential ambiguity that can cause confusion in some cases, but that didn't seem to be the issue here.

 

[Lanefan]

I make it up! It's not hard.

I used to think that. Then I learned that it's very hard indeed, if one wants things like adjoining rooms and-or assorted disparate pieces of the fiction to literally and figuratively fit together properly.

The players aren't drawing a map. If they want their PCs to make a map, they could do that by using a Specialty to create an appropriate Resource, which would then contribute a die to the dice pool for appropriate actions.

Ah, no. If the PCs are drawing a map then the players are drawing a map. There's absolutely no need to abstract that process.

 

[Lanefan]

The only meaning of those terms that I'm familiar with is [URL='http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/4/this one[/url]:

• In Actor stance, a person determines a character's decisions and actions using only knowledge and perceptions that the character would have.

Which can't possibly be the case if I-as-player am able to affect the fiction beyond what my character can know about, as seems to be the case with the runes example.

Even as defined here, I have to think and as as my character would and therefore I don't get to author anything other than by the actions of my character; and my character can't act against Schroedinger's backdrop. Things have to be fixed in place before my character interacts - or reasonably can interact - with them. Narrating "there's runes here" isn't good enough unless you-as-GM already know what those runes are there for, otherwise it'll just feel like my character is constantly casting minor wishes all the time with some of them coming true now and then (i.e. when I succeed on the associated roll).

And yes, this makes the runes more or less a puzzle to be solved. That's the point, because that's how they're going to appear to the characters in the fiction.

• In Author stance, a person determines a character's decisions and actions based on the real person's priorities, then retroactively "motivates" the character to perform them. (Without that second, retroactive step, this is fairly called Pawn stance.)

And the player is fully in Actor stance.

So what do you want us to call it when a player is trying, as far as reasonably possible, to think exactly as the character would think; completely eschewing the metagame and denying or ignoring any knowledge the character wouldn't have. To me, that's Actor stance (or maybe Method-Actor stance).

 

[Lanefan]

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?

"I didn't just get the contents of his pocket, dammit, I got the pocket as well!"

 

[Lanefan]

Why is 2024 so close to 2014?

That's an easy one: because 2014 was wildly successful and they'd rather not kill the golden goose quite yet.

 

[Enrahim]

On the contrary: you are ignoring the role of epistemic uncertainty, which makes the metaphysical aspect of the situation secondary.

The character does not know what the runes say; but they have a conjecture and a hope. For them, epistemically, it is possible that the runes reveal a way out.

The player does not know what the runes say, but they also have a hope. For them, epistemically, it is possible that the runes reveal a way out.

What resolves the epistemic uncertainty for the character is reading the runes. What resolves the epistemic uncertainty for the player is a resolution process that tells them what happens when the PC tries to read the runes. The fact that the underlying metaphysics are different in each case - in the fiction, the fact about what the runes say becomes known to the PC; in the play of the game, the fact about what the runes say is established via the resolution procedure - is irrelevant. It doesn't change the epistemic situation of either the player or the character.

In a GM-authored-backstory game, nothing changes for the player in respect of their epistemic uncertainty: they don't know, but they hope. And so it remains epistemically possible for them that the runes reveal a way out. What does change is that the uncertainty is resolved not solely by a dice roll, but rather by GM decision-making. For some RPGers this may make for better play - for instance, it permits the game to be a puzzle-solving one - but it doesn't change the basic epistemic situation, nor the relationship between the epistemic and metaphysical situations.

How is the epistemic state in terms of the posibility regarding the posibility of the runes revealing something positive that isn't a map? How is the epistemic state in terms of the posibility that trying to read would yield absolutely no result beyond the character not being able to read them?

From my understanding of the way the game is described, and the players awareness of the process, they would recognise both of these as practically impossible. While I would think the character very well might be in a position to believe that the latter might be the most likely outcome.

That is there seem to be a significant difference in terms of epistemic uncertainty when it come to these aspects of the situation?