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

[The Firebird]

I said house. Do you flesh out each and every single house in your world, just in case the players decide they want to break into one? Do you flesh out every single person who lives in the world, just in case the player says "Hey, you there!" to one and starts asking personal questions.

Imo--the platonic ideal would be to have everything fleshed out ahead of time. Obviously this is not practical, so instead the DM will focus on high likelihood areas.

So if the PCs are trying to stealth somewhere so the NPCs don't hear them, and they fail, indicating they make noise, you won't have the NPCs react to the noise?

The point isn't that it's bad for the NPCs to respond. But that the NPCs should be specified ahead of time so that the players have meaningful choices, rather than after the roll where the most important thing is the dice.

 

[FrogReaver]

I posted actual examples, in reply to you. Here they are again:

IMO. What would be more helpful would be an example of breaking into the house and what would be the minimum requirements to narrate the cook screaming for help.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

What I saw of skill challenges was that they're fine for high-level fairly quick resolution of things but come at a cost of detail and granularity I'm not willing to pay.

That seems a bit odd to me. Like, an SC could be a 500 mile overland trek, or it could be haggling with a dragon. Like, granted larger scale SCs generally have more scope for different skills to be used and whatnot, but there's no inherent level of detail/granularity. Interestingly, the other issue that people often had was that the resolution process got out of step with the story. Narrativist 4e play makes that issue irrelevant, there IS NO preexisting set of things/situations/terrain that needs to be addressed by the SC in most cases. It also has an impact on the scale/granularity thing, as you can kind of transition. Like, I had an SC where the starting part was stocking up on supplies, maps, etc. and the 2nd half was a journey. That hung together fine, even though the first part was 5 or 6 checks that were fictionally taking place in a small area over a day or two, and the next dozen checks was 2 months worth of traveling and exploration. In a dramatic sense, though, the two pieces had pretty similar weight, and it was quite easy to make the fiction work; "yeah, that water you procured on that failed check, contaminated! You all drank some, that'll be 1 HS apiece..."

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

And yet qualified electricians make mistakes, take cheap routes, etc. leaving folks with unsafe houses all the time. Perhaps people would be better served not Appealing to Authority on that matter.

There's a reason why people who go to doctors get second and sometimes third opinions.

Sure, but that doesn't make consulting an expert, or accepting the opinions of one on a matter in their field, as a fallacy, or foolish. Quite the contrary, a certain politician simply looked foolish when he insisted he knew better than the NWS where a hurricane was going to go, right? How'd that work out?

I mean, it is fine to get a second opinion when you are asking someone to do something for you. It is fine to look at the opinions of several experts vs one. That doesn't make experts a bad bet, you should listen to them.

 

[Maxperson]

No protagonists? Do you just mean characters?

It sounds like he means NPCs.

So a cook is very likely to be found in a kitchen, right? But the cook will not spend their entire day there. The cook needs to sleep and use the privy and maybe go down to the stables and chat with the farrier. Possibly something else entirely unexpected.

You're assuming a cook is there. He's saying a cook isn't there, so won't be added in due to a failed roll.

Does a sandbox GM actually track all that movement and then cross reference the time the cook is in the kitchen with the time the PCs pick the lock to enter the kitchen?

No, of course not. You decide where she is, or maybe you roll. But you don’t determine her exact location until you need to. Sure… the kitchen is a logical default for a cook, but this is a living, breathing world we’re talking about, she’s gonna move around.

This is true, but in a traditional sandbox the failed lockpicking roll isn't going to determine that. The DM will know if there's a cook in the house, and then assign a chance of the cook being in that room regardless of the lockpicking roll. Both of those things will be discreetly different events in a traditional sandbox.

So why not include that in the roll? This way, if the player rolls well and succeeds, things go well, and if they roll poorly, you have more options than just “you can’t pick the lock”.

Because the cook being there or not has absolutely nothing to do with a lockpicking attempt.

 

[Maxperson]

Sure, but that doesn't make consulting an expert, or accepting the opinions of one on a matter in their field, as a fallacy, or foolish.

It makes relying on the expert solely on his word and no other evidence a fallacy. The expert's word does not mean that the expert is correct.

Quite the contrary, a certain politician simply looked foolish when he insisted he knew better than the NWS where a hurricane was going to go, right? How'd that work out?

I'll provide a non-political counter example. Every single year for the last 20+ years, there have been many articles about scientists(experts) finding something new that throws off everything they knew about something or other.

I never, ever take what a scientist says as truth. I look at what he is saying and showing vs. what other scientists who disagree are saying and showing, and then I still won't believe it as hard truth, but I will lean one way or the other based on my independent research into all sides of it.

I love many sciences and read many articles and papers on them, but they can't be believed just because they are authorities. Experts are very often wrong. Just look at the dueling experts in almost every trial that happens. They testify to opposing interpretations of what happened or what something means. Either one of them is wrong or both are wrong. Both cannot be right. That's a pretty high failure rate for authorities.

 

[Faolyn]

Imo--the platonic ideal would be to have everything fleshed out ahead of time.

I disagree. That makes everything feel scripted and unchanging.

Obviously this is not practical, so instead the DM will focus on high likelihood areas.

The point isn't that it's bad for the NPCs to respond. But that the NPCs should be specified ahead of time so that the players have meaningful choices, rather than after the roll where the most important thing is the dice.

So, what, the PCs can't interact with NPCs unless you have deemed them "meaningful" in some way?

How is that not incredibly railroading?

 

[Micah Sweet]

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

Often, yes.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

Never mind. Thought you were someone else.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

It makes relying on the expert solely on his word and no other evidence a fallacy. The expert's word does not mean that the expert is correct.

Nope: you may be attempting to articulate the Appeal to Authority fallacy, but you have it wrong. Appeal to Authority is a fallacy when the person you are appealing to is NOT AN EXPERT in the field you are discussing. So, appealing to Gary Gygax, a legitimate expert in the field of RPG design, is not a fallacy! Appealing to Barack Obama about RPG design WOULD be a fallacious Appeal to Authority (as far as I know).

I'll provide a non-political counter example. Every single year for the last 20+ years, there have been many articles about scientists(experts) finding something new that throws off everything they knew about something or other.

Obviously nobody can effectively refute such a statement, though I would point out it is in no way shape or form an 'example'. In fact it appears to be more of a fallacy itself, a kind of false generalization. "A man once stumbled, therefor all men must stumble." Well, sure, all scientists are probably wrong about something at some point. Science isn't even about being RIGHT, it is about following the evidence. So, claiming that a fact about science tells us something about game design, or the nature of expertise, is a different fallacy, False Analogy seems appropriate.

I never, ever take what a scientist says as truth. I look at what he is saying and showing vs. what other scientists who disagree are saying and showing, and then I still won't believe it as hard truth, but I will lean one way or the other based on my independent research into all sides of it.

Yes, but if you have ONE expert opinion, it is far more likely to be correct than your own guess.

I love many sciences and read many articles and papers on them, but they can't be believed just because they are authorities. Experts are very often wrong. Just look at the dueling experts in almost every trial that happens. They testify to opposing interpretations of what happened or what something means. Either one of them is wrong or both are wrong. Both cannot be right. That's a pretty high failure rate for authorities.

There is almost no similarity between expert testimony and scientific reasoning. This is simply a False Analogy, coupled with False Generalization. People are paid to testify in court!