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

[Eric V]

And yet we don't all play games that demand death by narrative only. Weird.

Sure. Some play games with death by a random dice roll. Fun!

 

[Thomas Shey]

That's only true if you think of an RPG as something you can "win". Which... they're not. RPGs are pretty famous for being games you can't win; you can only enjoy playing them.

I'd suggest that's a definitional issue; I'd certainly consider succeeding at what my character is trying to do winning, and I'd bet Pedantic does, too.

 

[Eric V]

You skipped the scene where the DM described the difficult climb up thousand foot cliff and clarified that they don't limit falling damage. The paladin's player then decided they would climb the cliff instead of summoning a flying mount because they didn't want to "waste" their 4th level spell slot.

I've seen characters die for dumber reasons.

You are no longer arguing the same thing. The argument was about death through a random roll, not player choice. I said myself that even though combat is a series of rolls, players can always choose to retreat.

P.S. The way you phrased your response was fairly illuminating, and explained your position on this topic quite well.

 

[Campbell]

Other games of course have different goals of play but I don't want to play those games and I'm just talking about my personal preference. For the games I play the only "stake" at play when trying to open a lock is whether you can open the lock. If you can't you'll have to give up on achieving your goal or try something else.

Perhaps you could keep it to the actual principles involved, rather than providing play examples that do a poor job of reflecting the actual nuances of other playstyles. Because it's not about what you do or do not like, but accurately portraying the things work when people have a firm handle on how to do this stuff in order to avoid people getting the wrong idea of how play actually looks. Perhaps we could start by assuming competence on everyone's part. That this isn't about proving that one way is better than another.

 

[Maxperson]

Sorry, I think you're making a mountain out of a mole hill. First of all players are always free to interject, "hey we want to gather some herbs along the way." Or maybe flashback or retcon in a minor way, what's the big deal? Also things like PbtA, or I'm sure BW, but even trad games potentially, can accommodate some goal-resolving play along the lines of "success, anticipating this need, I employ the herbs I've gathered" (IE being a wise healer, what better supports this RP?). Again I definitely want to hear how this can be argued against!

It's not a big deal if you are playing in a narrative game where you routinely do that sort of thing. However, if you are playing a more traditional game where the fiction is established in the moment and if it's not established it didn't happen, retconning even a small thing is a big deal.

My point isn't that it's a problem, because it's not, but just that fixing the fiction in the moment through PC declarations is very different than having the ability to retcon whatever and retroactively alter the past fiction. Neither is better or worse than the other, but they are pretty different ways to play.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Sure. Some play games with death by a random dice roll. Fun!

Hard as it may be for you to get it, there are plenty of games where, within the range of events you've chosen to get into, the risk of losing a character to a bad die roll is not considered to interfere with fun. We get that you don't feel that way, but I don't think acting like its a completely ridiculous position is doing this conversation or you position any favors.

 

[Thomas Shey]

You are no longer arguing the same thing. The argument was about death through a random roll, not player choice. I said myself that even though combat is a series of rolls, players can always choose to retreat.

"Always" makes some big assumptions about the combat system involved; not all of them have a slow pace of resolution.

 

[Eric V]

"Always" makes some big assumptions about the combat system involved; not all of them have a slow pace of resolution.

They can choose to retreat. They may or may not be successful, but they can choose it.

I can't choose to not roll a 1.

 

[The Firebird]

Sure. That doesn't mean that it's a fallacy to believe them because of their expertise. I can tell you that drivers in Australia travel on the left (British or Japanese style) rather than on the right (US or French style). Why do you believe me?

All you've got is testimony. I mean, you could travel to Australia and check it out. But most human knowledge depends upon accepting the testimony of those who are qualified to give it (ie authorities). That's why the notion that it's a fallacy to appeal to authority is a fallacy.

I think you're conflating expert knowledge (things we can't judge without extensive training) with general experience here. But not worth going that much further into.

I think if someone wants to know what Luke Crane thinks action resolution should look like, reading the rules that he wrote is a pretty good way to learn.

This is the problem -- at least in my reading, no one is asking what Luke Crane thinks about action resolution. In fact they explicitly don't care what he thinks.

So responding "Luke Crane says X" is never going to answer their question.

--

Now you could say that Luke Crane has some insight into how it works in general because he has designed the mechanic. But that should manifest as an ability to explain it in detail in a way that others find compelling. And people are telling you they don't find his explanation very good.

I remember a story of an English professor responding to Ray Bradbury's criticism of his interpretation of Farenheit 451. Quoth the professor: "you may have written it, but you don't understand it".

 

[Thomas Shey]

They can choose to retreat. They may or may not be successful, but they can choose it.

Again, only true if the first incoming arrow isn't potentially lethal.

I can't choose to not roll a 1.

Presumably you could chose not to climb in the first place. Not that I don't agree that one fumble roll is too high a chance for instant death these days, but its not like the die roll jumped on you out of the dark.