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

[TwoSix]

I'm not saying there needs to be resources to invest in such things, more that everyone fails to notice stuff on a fairly regular basis and why should the characters be any different?

Because I don’t like simulationism.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Okay... I always give out DCs or Target Numbers in games that use them. Again, I want the player informed. I see no reason to withhold that information other than keeping them less informed.

Aside from that, training in climbing is an understandable trait that may matter. I was kind of approaching it with the idea that would be factored into the DC, but either way, it's likely relevant.

I feel throwing numbers around takes me and the players out of the world. In short, it harms our immersion. It's not a rule I follow all the time. Just a tendency.

 

[SableWyvern]

"Why did you buy that specific soup instead of this other specific soup?" cannot be answered by "I am buying soup." Yes! We know you are buying soup. I am asking what differentiates soup A from soup B, and the answer is...because it's soup? That's not an answer, they're both soup!

Does the difference between Soup A and Soup B matter? If no, then pick one for whichever arbitrary reason you wish. The choice doesn't matter, the reason for the choice doesn't matter, because it will never impact play. Worrying about things that simply and literally do not matter is a waste of time. (Note that I think if the distinction is completely meaningless, you're probably better off not even distinguishing between two functionally identical items in the first place. If a player says they want soup, I'm not going to ask them to pick between brands for no reason. If I'm trying to add a bit of flavour and the player suddenly worries that there is something deeper going on, I will clarify that it doesn't matter, and we'll move on.)

If the difference between the soups does matter, then the reason it matters is likely to influence the process by which a decision is made. For example, if the character wants a spicy soup, they are likely to buy the one they believe to be spicier. Context matters, and there is no point asking "How do you decide" if you haven't specified in your example why the decision matters.

Edit: People advocating for this style of play are pretty universally advocating for GMs to be participants who are able to make context-dependent judgement calls as required. This being the case, trying to lock us into fixed, hard, universally applicable rules absent any specific context, is missing the point.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Again in an old school, the GM should base it on what they think the PC should know. And if the issue is the cliff hasn't been thoroughly set up in the notes, the GM should decide on the spot how hard it is, or roll to figure it out. And if the player is looking right at the cliff, they probably should be able to give them a description of it. I don't think I would tell teh player "It looks hard". I would tell them about what the cliff looks like and describe features that play a role in how challenging it is

But the PC could know that it's an easy climb (narrated accordingly, and any DC or TN set accordingly, etc.) or they could know it's a difficult climb (narrated accordingly, and any DC or TN set accordingly, etc.). The PC will know whatever the GM has decided.

This is why Q&A are so crucial. The players are going to be asking lots of questions as they approach so they have some say in what kind of vantage point they end up getting. Ultimately the GM will have final say, but this isn't like the GM is just decreeing everything from on high with no player input

Oh, I agree that Q&A is essential. For me, ideally, I'd like to have already provided any detail that they'd have asked about. But, yeah, any questions they ask are important for sure.

Again, we have had this conversation too many times to count. And if you won't buy one of the fundamental premises of Old school play, fair. You don't have to. But the idea is you are modeling an environment for the players to explore as if it is an objective place. The GM is not just deciding things arbitrarily. And the Q&A is a very important part of helping this process along.

Well, here's the thing... I am assuming that you don't have every cliff in your world described adequately and that you'll rely on simply narrating things as needed... is that an accurate assessment?

I don;t know why you keep going back to this. He should be considering what he thinks the player can see and giving them the information they would have. And this should be open to Q&A. There can be other considerations as well. There is nothing wrong with doing this, and trying to do other things. But the GM doesn't have to do anything beyond tell them what he thinks they would see

Because you don't provide any specific examples. All of the bolded phrases are vague.

@Micah Sweet offered the skill of the climber as a factor... that's specific.

What about a scene would make you choose option (2) as what to share instead of option (1)?

Don't say "other factors" or "what can be seen"... think of something specific.

 

[hawkeyefan]

They can. But that's a way to narrate a failed check to climb, not a separate secret roll.

Noticing stuff, as a separate mechanic, shouldn't be in any game. Gating info behind skill checks negates both player exploration of environment (in a classic dungeoncrawl) and simple clarification of setting via dialogue (in a more expansive trad, neotrad, or narrative game) to do what, reward people who invest character resources in Wisdom/Perception? Get the heck out of here with that.

Hey, I know what would be great! Let's slow down play with a bunch of low stakes rolls and push off the interesting bits till next week! After all, we can't appreciate exciting play without dull as dishwater play!

 

[hawkeyefan]

Chiming in again to say I think the exact opposite is true but I'm not sure I can explain why better than I have done previously.

To recap:

If I have a choice, then as a person I'm making an artistic statement about the situation as it strikes me.

Where that choice is, within the structure of the game, can vary wildly. So it's not as if strong personality mechanics necessarily preclude such choices from happening.

I think basing your choices on artistic expression is something different than most of what's being discussed in this thread.

I would imagine if that's the primary focus of play, then playability may not be a top priority.

Would you say that's accurate? Or am I way off?

 

[SableWyvern]

Hey, I know what would be great! Let's slow down play with a bunch of low stakes rolls and push off the interesting bits till next week! After all, we can't appreciate exciting play without dull as dishwater play!

Telling people that their method of play is predicated on avoiding interesting things and mostly being "dull as dishwater" is going to advance a civil discussion how, exactly?

 

[hawkeyefan]

There's option 3: if the PC wants to know how difficult the cliff looks, the GM makes them roll something, like Survival or Perception. Possibly with a bonus if the character has a trait or in-game history that's connected to climbing cliffs. On a success, they get the info. On a failure, they don't.

I was kind of assuming there would be a roll involved, and that would be the information the Gm would share (or not share).

But reasons the GM may choose option 2? Bad lighting (it's night and maybe nobody has darkvision or it's been ruled that darkvision isn't good for fine details so all the PC sees is shapes). The cliff is deceptively treacherous (dry and ready to crumble or covered in an illusion). The GM knows that the character has never climbed a cliff before and thus wouldn't know. The PCs have previously always had ropes, grapples, or other climbing equipment but now they have to free climb. The GM is one of those people who never say the difficulty number and thus would only describe the cliff as an easy climb or a difficult climb.

Thank you for actually offering some specifics!

Some of these things... time of day, the PCs' gear... are set ahead of the arrival at the cliff. Those seem very potentially relevant to me.

Others... the treacherousness of the cliff or the presence of illusions, etc... may be established ahead of time, or may be something the GM has to decide during play.

Sharing DCs or not seems like an GMing choice that will mostly be consistent. I view sharing DCs as preferrable, but that's just my preference... I like informed players.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I feel throwing numbers around takes me and the players out of the world. In short, it harms our immersion. It's not a rule I follow all the time. Just a tendency.

Well, don't get me wrong... I still describe things and try to do a thorough job. But at the end, I then share the DC.

I just look at it as being a precise description... a way to be as clear as possible.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Telling people that their method of play is predicated on avoiding interesting things and mostly being "dull as dishwater" is going to advance a civil discussion how, exactly?

Through the power of humor!