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

[Enrahim]

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.

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.

It is sort of neccessary to absract. The playstyle involve that there are no euclidean spatial concerns going on. Think of colossal caves' "YOU ARE IN A MAZE OF TWISTY LITTLE PASSAGES"

That is it is essentially run as a point crawl, with only interesting spots (to be created on the fly) and (potentially) connecting passages.

 

[pemerton]

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.

No. I told you what the word "Cunning" means. That's all. The word cunning includes shrewdness, keen insight, craftiness etc.

And I also told you what Cunning Expert pertains to: "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." I'm not sure what you're missing.

 

[pemerton]

The rule was posted, and not by you.

No one but me has posted the rules for my Fantasy Hack of MHRP. The specialities were invented by me, based on an integration of the MHRP specialties and the 4e D&D skill list, plus my own sense of D&D-esque fantasy flavour.

So what are the built in limitations to Cunning Explorer, because you haven't given any.

Gee, if only I'd posted this before:

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.

Actually., I think this is the fourth time I've posted this in reply to you.

 

[pemerton]

there was a causal relationship between character hope and meaning of runes

There is no such causal connection. Imaginary things don't have real causal relations - that's part of what follows from them being imaginary. Anything that has real causal relations is, in virtue of that fact, not imaginary.

The player's idea about their PC's action has causal potency, of course. This is how a game works: players make decisions about their "moves", and those decisions then yield consequences for the state of the game.

 

[pemerton]

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

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

If the player has no intent other than to see what the GM says about the setting, then why are we comparing that to an action declaration that prompts the GM to narrate something?

Of course, in your example perhaps the player prompts the GM to narrate the existence of a temple!

 

[FrogReaver]

There is no such causal connection. Imaginary things don't have real causal relations - that's part of what follows from them being imaginary. Anything that has real causal relations is, in virtue of that fact, not imaginary.

If imaginary things don’t have real causal relations then how can one prompt a real player to author what the runes are?

 

[Enrahim]

There is no such causal connection. Imaginary things don't have real causal relations - that's part of what follows from them being imaginary. Anything that has real causal relations is, in virtue of that fact, not imaginary.

The player's idea about their PC's action has causal potency, of course. This is how a game works: players make decisions about their "moves", and those decisions then yield consequences for the state of the game.

Let me finish the part sentence you half quoted.

and hence there was a causal relationship between character hope and meaning of runes that did not have a pure in-fiction counterpart.

Why did you feel like saying the same as me with so many more words?

 

[pemerton]

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.

As I asked upthread, are you really incapable of cognitively grasping anyone's approach to RPGing other than your own?

EDIT:

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.

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.

Apparently the answer is "yes".

 

[FrogReaver]

No one but me has posted the rules for my Fantasy Hack of MHRP. The specialities were invented by me, based on an integration of the MHRP specialties and the 4e D&D skill list, plus my own sense of D&D-esque fantasy flavour.

Gee, if only I'd posted this before:
Actually., I think this is the fourth time I've posted this in reply to you.

I don’t think you answered @maxperson’s question here at all. Posting the skill doesn’t define what if any limitations it has from your perspective. Kind of like arguing RAW in d&d.

 

[Enrahim]

If the player has no intent other than to see what the GM says about the setting, then why are we comparing that to an action declaration that prompts the GM to narrate something?

Because that is an action declaration that prompts the GM to narrate something? (More spesifically more information about the temple in question, assuming the trip there is event-less)

Of course, in your example perhaps the player prompts the GM to narrate the existence of a temple!

No. Temple is preestablished. It is "the Temple", not "a Temple" after all.

(And whether this Temple was established by GM, a wish spell, the cleric in the previous campaign, or the pre campaign game of microscope is irrelevant in this context)