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

[robertsconley]

I might have to pick this book up!

That and the Dungeoneer's Survival Guide go hand in hand. It also expands the Oriental Adventures skill system to AD&D 1e using non-weapon proficiencies. It is the prototype of what made its way into AD&D 2e.

 

[robertsconley]

I imagined that they were talking about the core books.

I figured that which is why I prefaced my reply with technically no. The best kind of correct.

 

[Umbran]

I absolutely do know what it means and you are absolutely wrong when you say that logic can't exist when I create the setting in the first place.

I mean, unless you start from the Big Bang and evolve a model dr om that point on, you have any number of fiat choices - those are not driven by logic of the setting, because the setting doesn't exist yet to have logic!

Little Timmy wasn't thinking logically when he decided to shoplift from the grocery store, but getting in trouble when he was caught was a logical consequence of an illogical action.

Problem- much of what happens as consequence are the reactions of fictional people who are not logic-driven themselves. Their reactions are chosen. Not logical consequence.

 

[robertsconley]

Problem—much of what happens as consequence are the reactions of fictional people who are not logic-driven themselves. Their reactions are chosen, not logical consequence.

In the real world, we can gather data about people, say, from my hometown, and generate statistics, like “68% of homes within the city limits are rented.” That includes behavioral data about people. Of course, applying such statistics to individuals is poor reasoning. For individuals, we verify specifics.

But in tabletop roleplaying, we're creating fictional characters and roleplaying their behavior. There's nothing wrong with modeling human behavior and assigning odds to different reactions and outcomes, including the odds that someone might act irrationally under the circumstances. In fact, I recommend doing just that.

It doesn’t need to be elaborate just sufficient and good enough. And that is enough to convey the impression that the setting has a life of its own.

And again, for others reading this, this is not the only way of doing this nor it is THE way. It is A way.

 

[Old Fezziwig]

If you remove probability from plausibility and simply reduce it to possibility, then just about anything becomes plausible. It would be plausible that if I buy a Powerball ticket today I will win.

That's too much a stretch for me and seems to render plausibility useless as a word. Possible or impossible would be all that would be necessary to use.

If you go the other way you can see it in action as well. In criminal court you need to find someone guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. A lot of people misunderstand that and treat any possible doubt as reasonable. If someone is 99.9% likely to have done it, but there's that 1 in 1000 chance that it was someone else, is that doubt reasonable? I would say no, but if you divorce probability from things like you are doing with plausible, then that 1 in 1000 chance becomes reasonable/plausible.

Anyway, I doubt we will change each others opinions here. I'm glad to have had this discussion and I wish others here on the site were as pleasant to speak with. It makes conversations much more enjoyable.

I'm probably cheating a little in my use of Pedro in my examples. For me, he's the best pitcher since Sandy Koufax, so we're kind of already operating at the tail end of the distribution. If we were talking about the four pitchers that have pitched recent no-hitters for the Sox (Nomo, Lowe, Bucholz, and Lester), I would categorize them as entirely implausible (especially Bucholz).

Regarding criminal court standards for reasonableness, I'm picking up what you're putting down. I negotiate contracts for a living, and the way I use "reasonable" in my day job is certainly stricter than how I'm using it in this conversation. A reasonable efforts standard has teeth, and I want it that way. I don't think I want to apply the same standard for fiction (either in literature/film or in gaming), but I reserve the right to change my mind the next time some damn fool thing happens in a book I'm reading and I want to throw it across the room.

Anyhow, cheers, this was fun.

 

[AlViking]

I mean, unless you start from the Big Bang and evolve a model dr om that point on, you have any number of fiat choices - those are not driven by logic of the setting, because the setting doesn't exist yet to have logic!



Problem- much of what happens as consequence are the reactions of fictional people who are not logic-driven themselves. Their reactions are chosen. Not logical consequence.

The question for me is not whether or not the GM chooses what an NPC does because obviously they do. It's how they decide what option is most likely and how they choose. That's where my notes on the NPC come in, what kind of person do they represent. A sociopath who enjoys manipulating others is going to have a far different reaction than the matriarch with a heart of gold who just wants what's best. If I have an idea of who the NPC is and what drives them it informs my decisions as much or more than what I think would make for a more interesting game. It's not about my guiding the campaign in certain directions, although obviously I made a decision about who the NPC is because I thought it made sense for their role.

 

[Umbran]

There's nothing wrong with modeling human behavior and assigning odds to different reactions and outcomes, including the odds that someone might act irrationally under the circumstances. In fact, I recommend doing just that.

I think there is something... maybe not "wrong"... but not exactly accurate, in saying that, "I, who am not a human behaviorist, made up a random behavior chart, and rolled dice on it" is significantly different from just choosing a result.

The thing we sometimes fail to recognize is that whether the GM "just decides" or makes decisions on odds of results and rolls, the responsibility for the decision part is still with the GM.

 

[robertsconley]

I think there is something... maybe not "wrong"... but not exactly accurate, in saying that, "I, who am not a human behaviorist, made up a random behavior chart, and rolled dice on it" is significantly different from just choosing a result.

The thing we sometimes fail to recognize is that whether the GM "just decides" or makes decisions on odds of results and rolls, the responsibility for the decision part is still with the GM.

The existence of the table, or even just rough notes, is a tool for consistency. Yes, I’m still making a decision, whether I’m designing a table or making a judgment call in the moment. But I’m also making a decision about how decisions get made. That’s important.

By committing to a model or a process, even one with odds for irrational outcomes, I create stability in how the world behaves. Players can recognize that stability and use it as a foundation for their own choices. That’s what distinguishes a sandbox with internal logic from one driven purely by a referee's whim.

 

[Pedantic]

The underlying disagreement here seems mostly to be not actually about the decision making process, so much as the player relationship to that process, right? Seemingly no one disagree that "trying to simulate plausible results from a world in motion" does not narrow all decision down to single, discrete outcomes.

The point of contention seems to be about whether or not the narrowing that does occur is useful to players. "Is the DM just making arbitrary decisions" is too broad a criticism, I think what actually matters is "can players have sufficient insight into decision making to use that information in their play?" The real test for me is whether or not a player can make plans around specific results with a sufficiently consistently level of reliability. Plausibility is an attempt to constrain results to a level a player can play around.

 

[Thomas Shey]

The existence of the table, or even just rough notes, is a tool for consistency. Yes, I’m still making a decision, whether I’m designing a table or making a judgment call in the moment. But I’m also making a decision about how decisions get made. That’s important.

By committing to a model or a process, even one with odds for irrational outcomes, I create stability in how the world behaves. Players can recognize that stability and use it as a foundation for their own choices. That’s what distinguishes a sandbox with internal logic from one driven purely by a referee's whim.

This is why I say I'd rather have more extensive rules that may not always make sense than a GM extensively making decisions on the fly; the former may have problems (but that can be addressed with houseruling if its worth one's while) but its at least transparent and predictable in process, where the ad-hoc GMing decisions are so, at best, only to to the GM.