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

[AlViking]

The rune case has no "meta-decision". The player says "Maybe these runes will help us get unlost", and puts their dice pool together, and the declared action is resolved. Where is the alleged "meta"?

I mean, of course the player knows that the result of the declared action will effect the fiction. But the player in your game knows that your decision about the fiction will affect the result of the declared action. Why is one "meta" and the other not?

From wikipedia "In tabletop role-playing games, metagaming can refer to aspects of play that occur outside of a given game's fictional universe." Frequently used for metagame knowledge such as knowing that in D&D you need to use fire to stop a trolls regeneration, it can also refer to players changing the state of the fictional world through actions not taken by their character.

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)

I may not have been clear because it wasn't exactly clear what the rules of the game allowed and how it was explained at the table. But I thought I referred to meta-points and tokens which are things spent by the player that has nothing to do with the in-world fiction or the character themselves. On the other hand pemerton doesn't seem to understand (accept?) what the word "meta" means in this context. I thought it was common verbiage.

 

[AlViking]

It's in the SECTION YOU QUOTED!

Several paragraphs down from the text I originally quoted if I remember correctly. But as I said, I don't see that it makes any real difference because it's just stating what was explained in the DMG in a different way.

 

[TwoSix]

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.

The limitation is that the DM and Player have discussed this phrase beforehand, and have come to an understanding of the extent of its meaning.

Just off the top of my head, FATE, 13th Age, and Daggerheart all allow for the creation of short, pithy phrases to describe a character's capabilities, and all of those texts also have similar guidance as to the need for the player and DM to make sure the phrases are bounded properly and that the understanding of their breadth of capability is shared.

 

[Micah Sweet]

@clearstream may have a different reply to make from this one.

But as I read @clearstream's posts, the point is quite simple: players in RPGs are capable of (i) establishing immediate goals relating to the removal of afflictions, conditions etc, and (ii) declaring actions that, if successful, will those goals. And those action declarations will often contribute to shaping the shared fiction.

The reason for choosing a generic cleric using a pretty generic spell is to point out that the fictional constraint on the player's declared action is pretty modest, and that the real determiner of whether or not their affliction-removal goal is achieved is the result of their roll. I take that to be the import of this post:

​

And of course, "established cleric" just means GM-authored cleric. That is the difference, that for some reason cannot be acknowledged!

I would say that "agency over the fiction", in a generic sense, is secondary.

The most immediate point is to support player-driven rather than GM-driven play. For instance, in the rune example, play is not as you and @Lanefan and other posters have posited is the better way to do it -the players trying to work out what the GM has in mind with the dungeon, and the PCs being lost, and so on. Rather, it is driven by the players' ideas, which include that strange runes might indeed reveal a way out.

And the runes need to say something to be read. And they did!

You get irritated when I post that people seem to confuse fiction and reality, but this is exactly an example of that. In the fiction, a cleric can only be found and persuaded if they can exist.

But at the table, a player can trivially declare "I am going to find a cleric to persuade" without any cleric having yet been authored. And if the GM replies "OK, there are clerics at the temple but it will be DC 18 to persuade one of them to help you", that is completely bog standard. It is unremarkable that the player's action declaration prompts the GM to author some clerics.

More generally, it is utterly commonplace, in RPGing, for fiction to be authored in response to action declarations, although in the fiction that existence of those fictional elements predates the action declaration and is something on which the success of the declared action depends. (Eg a person can't find a cleric if no cleric exists.) The difference between the runes case and the cleric case I described in the previous paragraph is simply that in the runes case there is a mechanical procedure that the player contributes to whereas in the cleric case the GM is responding to a player prompt.

Neither is more or less "meta" or more or less "dissociated". But one is more player-driven than the other.

Has it occurred to you that those who object to this arrangement simply don't want the player authoring these things?

 

[pemerton]

From wikipedia "In tabletop role-playing games, metagaming can refer to aspects of play that occur outside of a given game's fictional universe." Frequently used for metagame knowledge such as knowing that in D&D you need to use fire to stop a trolls regeneration, it can also refer to players changing the state of the fictional world through actions not taken by their character.

The player didn't change the state of the fictional world. The fictional world was in a constant state - there were runes before the PC read them, and runes after, and what they mean didn't change.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I'm just a bit fed up with you (and other posters) misdescribing it.

I mean, you say it's not hard to understand that it is not map-and-key, GM-authority-over-backstory based. And then you say that the character "manipulated reality" and talk about "quantum runes".

It's doubly frustrating because you post apologetics and special pleading for similar phenomena in your own play.

From a map and key perspective (which is my preference) it absolutely is "manipulating reality" to have the player author stuff like that, which in fiction is outside the PC's control. I understand what you're doing in your game, but do not care for it in mine, and for me it feels wrong. It's clearly not wrong for you. And we are both ok with this (or should be). How is that frustrating? Is there a reason I have to agree with your way of doing things?

 

[TwoSix]

@Enrahim

I view imaginary things and player ideas of imaginary things as the same exact thing. Do you? I think that’s been a major disconnect in conversations with @pemerton.

The contents of a player's imaginings are of course imaginary (by definition). But the act of imagining is a real thing.

What's real isn't what's in the players' minds, it's their acts of volition.

 

[pemerton]

The limitation is that the DM and Player have discussed this phrase beforehand, and have come to an understanding of the extent of its meaning.

Just off the top of my head, FATE, 13th Age, and Daggerheart all allow for the creation of short, pithy phrases to describe a character's capabilities, and all of those texts also have similar guidance as to the need for the player and DM to make sure the phrases are bounded properly and that the understanding of their breadth of capability is shared.

In MHRP specialities are chosen from a list. Distinctions are free descriptors.

The specialties in my Fantasy Hack are:

Acrobatics; Arcana; Combat; Crafting; Cunning; Healing; Intimidation; Lore; Outdoor; Performance; Religious; Riding; Social; Trading​

Drawing the boundaries is, in my experience, about what's fun and what's fair. I don't think we had a PC with Lore, and so there seemed no need to quibble over the boundary between systematic knowledge (Lore) and intuition and knack (Cunning).

Marginally related: I've never played 13th Age, but its use of free descriptors in place of skills is in my view one of its more appealing features.

 

[pemerton]

Has it occurred to you that those who object to this arrangement simply don't want the player authoring these things?

Obviously they don't. What makes you think I haven't worked that out?

From a map and key perspective (which is my preference) it absolutely is "manipulating reality" to have the player author stuff like that, which in fiction is outside the PC's control. I understand what you're doing in your game, but do not care for it in mine, and for me it feels wrong. It's clearly not wrong for you. And we are both ok with this (or should be). How is that frustrating? Is there a reason I have to agree with your way of doing things?

So you really are incapable of understanding play using methods different from your own? You're like a soccer fan who literally can't grasp how players of American football aren't cheating every time they pick up and carry the ball.

 

[TwoSix]

In actor stance the actor doesn’t impact fiction outside his character other than what his characters actions could fictionally cause. In the runes example he does and with the knowledge he’s doing so.

If I walk into a tavern and describe, in-character, an NPC in the tavern without waiting for the DM to narrate what the NPC looks like, I am still in actor stance.

"Describing things in character" is orthogonal to "the DM authors everything in the setting outside of the character".