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

[Maxperson]

That sort of "but actually" nonsense is the province of children and lawyers. No one here has to be Jeremy Crawford defending rules minutiae.

If a player tried to use that interpretation, the correct response is "Dude, you know that's not what it means."

It is what it means, though. If he's using cunning to be D&D tropes and also not just what thieves do, it's not "but actually" nonsense at all. If that's all he told me, I'd truly believe that it would be very broadly applicable to just about everything, because that's what cunning would mean in the context of D&D tropes and not just what thieves do.

 

[TwoSix]

But, they are an expert, just a pessimistic one! So they say "This is an ancient dungeon, so it it likely that these runes are some sort of a curse. I have a look to be sure." And like @pemerton has explained, them being expert means that their conjectures have higher chance of being true, thus it cannot be a fail condition that the bad thing happens!

If they phrased it that way, then sure.

 

[Maxperson]

I'm not sure where "map" is coming from. There's been ample discussion, upthread, of the many ways that runes might reveal a way out. Gandalf identified the Chamber of Mazarbul, and then was able to work out the way out. Without ever finding a map.

He didn't work out the way based on the chamber. He knew the way from prior travel through Moria. He had a mental map that he had and just needed to find a landmark on that map(such as the Chamber of Marzabul) so that he would be able to use his mental map to get them through.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

If they phrased it that way, then sure.

Right. But the thing is, in a game where conjectures have habit of becoming true, there is a pretty strong incentive to not make conjectures like this, but instead make ones that are beneficial, possible even weirdly specifically and conveniently so. And these are incentives the character does not have. Thus the different decision spaces.

 

[pemerton]

Character A is not an expert, they want treasure, and their hope is that the runes reveal location of such. They have 40% chance of success, 60 chance of failure, failure producing something bad (that is possibly not causally connected to the rune examination.)

Character B is a rune expert, they want a way out, and their hope is that the runes show such. They have 80% chance of success, 20% chance of failure, failure producing something bad (that is possibly not causally connected to the rune examination.)

Meanwhile the character just see some runes, They know that one character is better at reading runes, but they do not know that it matters for what the runes are who reads them first. It is blindingly obviously to me that the players are not operating epistemologically even remotely in the same space than the characters.

Because I don't know what RPG you have in mind, I don't really know how to respond.

But in MHRP, for instance, if Character A conjectures X and Character B conjectures the conflicting Y then the upshot is an opposed roll. Obviously the experts conjecture is more likely to be true: the epistemic space does not have the character that you describe.

What I do not know what is the etiquette around this in your game. Are the players supposed to ignore the rules and play the characters like such things wouldn't matter, like a player trying to pretend that their character doesn't know that fire hurts trolls even though the player does, or is it fine that they make decision based on the rules and then invent reasons for the characters to make the same decision?

Players can play from actor or author stance as they like: the player of the Scout plays more in author stance than the player of the Berserker (and not just in MHRP - this is a general truth about these two players).

If characters find themselves in disagreement, then that is resolved using the appropriate resolution mechanism.

I mean it matters once it is codified mechanic and the players know of it. Now generating high priests via diplomacy rolls becomes a valid tactic.

This is why I say that your posts seem to assume a "overcome the obstacles to make it to the finish line" style of play.

If scenes are well-framed, they speak to the players in ways that engage their PC Milestones or Distinctions/traits (in MHRP) or that engage their Beliefs and similar build elements (in Burning Wheel or Torchbearer). Neutral, exploratory scenes aren't features of this sort of RPGing.

 

[AlViking]

So if I want to know whether I should take the left road or the right road, Guidance will tell me? Like Augury but for free?

Guidance just gives you a +1d4 to a skill check. If making the decision to go right or left is influenced by a perception or some knowledge check you have a slightly better chance of success. If it's just a toss of the coin it doesn't come into play.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

That's only true if there is only one decision space happening. If there are two decision spaces happening, then the player's metadecision and the PC's fictional decision are separate. So the player would be stepping out of actor stance to attempt to author the runes, and then step back into actor stance to have his character read them in the hopes that they would help.

 

[pemerton]

But, they are an expert, just a pessimistic one! So they say "This is an ancient dungeon, so it it likely that these runes are some sort of a curse. I have a look to be sure." And like @pemerton has explained, them being expert means that their conjectures have higher chance of being true, thus it cannot be a fail condition that the bad thing happens!

But is your assertion that this action declaration can't be resolved in MHRP. Why not?

Right. But the thing is, in a game where conjectures have habit of becoming true, there is a pretty strong incentive to not make conjectures like this

What are the character's Milestones?

What is the effect die that is intended to flow from the action declaration you're imagining?

 

[pemerton]

He didn't work out the way based on the chamber. He knew the way from prior travel through Moria. He had a mental map that he had and just needed to find a landmark on that map(such as the Chamber of Marzabul) so that he would be able to use his mental map to get them through.

What you call a "mental map" some of us just call memory.

But suppose that he had never travelled in Moria, but had read a description (much like the one found in the novel). Then by learning what chamber he was in, he learned a way out.

Furthermore, you seem to contradict yourself: "He didn't work out the way based on the chamber. . . . [he] just needed to find a landmark on that map(such as the Chamber of Marzabul) so that he would be able to use his mental map to get them through." That second sentence is a description of him working out the way based on learning what chamber he was in.

So I'm really not sure what your point is here.

 

[pemerton]

Guidance just gives you a +1d4 to a skill check. If making the decision to go right or left is influenced by a perception or some knowledge check you have a slightly better chance of success. If it's just a toss of the coin it doesn't come into play.

Yes, I know. That was my point.