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

[Enrahim]

I'd push for clarity on what is meant by "illusion" here. To my eye, this is "illusory" only the same sense that the entire enterprise is. We're obviously engaging in fiction; striving to generate the fiction independently of the players within some parameters makes the output no more or less unreal.

Nice clarification. I use the "illusion" not as a negative term. Rather I have previously found it usefull to prevent the predictable detour into "it is not really independent" counter argument.

 

[The Firebird]

Well, it depends. If I’m actually playing a PbtA game like Stonetop… one I’ve recently played a long campaign of… then no, I wouldn’t have a map and key style inventory of who’s exactly where at what times. Instead i’d have a general idea of the kinds of people or creatures that might be present, and would proceed with that in mind.

If I was running 5e D&D, I would still personally take this kind of approach because it works for me. I don’t really think that there’s anything being done that is contrary to the established rules and procedures of 5e, however. The DM can introduce any NPC pretty much whenever they want.

Yes, the DM can do a lot of things...this specific type of thing does not result in gameplay that I, as a player or GM, find satisfying. I don't see why the standard became 'what 5e permits'.

Sure, but my issue is when there are plenty of other processes that do the same thing and no one blinks an eye at them. When that’s the case, the criticism doesn’t really ring true.

---

As others have already said, it’s not the elements of what’s being introduced, it’s the method. But the same method is used in so many other ways.

It really isn't. There are other mechanics that have a resemblance, like roll to determine the presence of a creature, but none that entangle these with checks in the same way.

 

[Enrahim]

Sure, but my issue is when there are plenty of other processes that do the same thing and no one blinks an eye at them. When that’s the case, the criticism doesn’t really ring true.

Did you see this?

I am replying this far back, as your back and forth with @Maxperson is a dead end. You are right about that the roll determines the presence of the monster. However the difference is as we have sorted out hundreds of posts ago about the entanglement with player actions. A roll purely to determine the presence of a monster is generally regarded as fine for everyone seemingly (even if not all are using it). A roll entangling the presence of a creature to a player chosen skill roll is not for someone that want a feeling of a genuinely independent world.

The key difference is the feel of independence of the world is tightly related to the independence of statistics. If a seperate roll is made for the presence of the cook, that roll is statistically independent of any characteristics of the character. If the presence of the cook is determined by the skill roll, then the probability of there being a cook depends on the character skill. It is this dependence that breaks the illusion of independence

See the difference now?

EDIT: Sorry! I see now that it was @hawkeyefan that kept this reply chain going.

This go into the core why this particular technique stabs into the heart of the notion of independence i a very real way.

It isn't just random "we don't like this". It is not only lived experience of several witnesses, but even a mathematically funded explenation showing how this exact technique is hurting a certain kind of experience.

But we’re not talking about a tarrasque with ice cream… we’re talking about perfectly sensible things.

As others have already said, it’s not the elements of what’s being introduced, it’s the method. But the same method is used in so many other ways.

The point of the tarasque with the ice cream is that we are clearly not talking about what the rules allow, as those allow for even such ridiculous stuff. The point is that even if a method is ok to use in 5ed according to the rules that is not to say it is ok to use if you want the feel of an independent world. Introducing a cook on a failed pick lock roll is one such thing that is ok by the rules, but if used openly or extensively will hurt the feel of an independent world. (Success with complication on a failed roll is by the way not even allowed by the rules. But that is a completely different topic, that also have already been beaten to death and beyond in this thread)

 

[clearstream]

You not accepting the difference does not mean much, sorry. A random encounter does not create monsters. It does not add mountain lions, wolves or bears to a region. The grizzly bear was somewhere in the area all along, the odds of you encountering a bear or any other dangerous creature was uncertain.

As I've said before, if there is a cook in the house and I'm uncertain if they were in the kitchen when the break-in attempt occurs, I'll roll for it just like I would a wandering monster. I would not justify it after the fact based on a failed sleight of hand check to open the lock.

What are your thoughts on paying out a meta currency on a fail? I'm thinking of Daggerheart where failing gives GM a resource* that they can subsequently spend on trouble.

*Half the time, but assume it's always for the sake of this question.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Did you see this?

This go into the core why this particular technique stabs into the heart of the notion of independence i a very real way.

It isn't just random "we don't like this". It is not only lived experience of several witnesses, but even a mathematically funded explenation showing how this exact technique is hurting a certain kind of experience.

The point of the tarasque with the ice cream is that we are clearly not talking about what the rules allow, as those allow for even such ridiculous stuff. The point is that even if a method is ok to use in 5ed according to the rules that is not to say it is ok to use if you want the feel of an independent world. Introducing a cook on a failed pick lock roll is one such thing that is ok by the rules, but if used openly or extensively will hurt the feel of an independent world. (Success with complication on a failed roll is by the way not even allowed by the rules. But that is a completely different topic, that also have already been beaten to death and beyond in this thread)

Honestly… I think maybe the core bit of disagreement is that I don’t think the world should be independent.

 

[Enrahim]

Honestly… I think maybe the core bit of disagreement is that I don’t think the world should be independent.

Yes, I am pretty sure that is the case. The independence of the world is in conflict with the wish to have a good story strongly focused on specific characters and themes for instance. That is something a lot of people value a lot higher than the feel of independent world, so the trade-off is a trivial choice. I suspect you might be one of them?

 

[AlViking]

What are your thoughts on paying out a meta currency on a fail? I'm thinking of Daggerheart where failing gives GM a resource* that they can subsequently spend on trouble.

*Half the time, but assume it's always for the sake of this question.

I'm not even a big fan of heroic inspiration. I understand it as a game mechanic and I see why they do it but meta currency always reminds me of what my wife and I call "The script demands it" in certain TV shows. It's where a main character says or does doesn't really fit the fiction but the authors of the series want the story to go a certain way. So the hero survives something that should have outright killed them with no explanation of how they survived or a main character does something really stupid and out of character to add "drama". Another example is letting the antagonist escape when they could have easily stopped them but don't.

Meta currency strikes me the same way, it feels "artificial" is the best term I can think of. An outside influence changing things to serve some story oriented goal and not just what should logically follow.

 

[Maxperson]

That may be because I’m not following your logic at all… but I’ll try and clarify.

Let’s say the NPCs are in location A. You’re saying they are there whether the random encounter roll is a yes or a no… that either way, that’s where they are.

You’ve also said that the roll doesn’t determine the PCs’ location either. So they are also at location A.

How can both the PCs and NPCs be at location A both when an encounter happens and when an encounter doesn’t happen?

Okay. Let me try and explain.

So if a random encounter is successfully rolled, that monster is in that spot. Period. It was always going to be in that spot. When the party goes through that area, they will encounter that monster.

If the party decides before the time of the random encounter to say teleport back to town because they forgot Millhouse the Forgettable, that monster is still going to be in that location at the time the random encounter showed, even if the party isn't there. The roll doesn't decide where the party is. The players do.

If they later teleport back past the time of the random encounter, they will not encounter that monster, because it is no longer there. It was only there at the time specified.

What plays no part of whether they encounter the monster is a failed roll to identify some fungi, or the nature skill of the one trying to identify that fungi. It makes zero sense to tie a random encounter to the skill of a PC or a failed check that has nothing to do with whether or not a monster is in the area.

 

[Pedantic]

What are your thoughts on paying out a meta currency on a fail? I'm thinking of Daggerheart where failing gives GM a resource* that they can subsequently spend on trouble.

*Half the time, but assume it's always for the sake of this question.

I proposed this kind of thing earlier, and I've been thinking about it since. I think it solves a little better for player agency than it does for sim concerns. You have a clear optimization case, and it ensures players will have enough space to make decisions to interact with and mitigate obstacles. The problem is that I think while it might work as a pacing mechanism, the very presence of a pacing mechanism tied to resolution undermines the sense of an independent world; you could make a case that the GM would simply use their stored currency to introduce a threat when appropriate arising from the situation, but then you run into the counterfactual. What if a threat could arise from the world state but the GM can't pay for it? Making the decision on the basis of the accumulated currency undermines the situation's perceived independence, even if the ultimate decision would be the same without such a mechanism.

 

[Maxperson]

Yes, I agree. But this isn't what the roll is doing. Compare three cases:

1) A master thief with fixed world abilities would get a perception check, see the obstacle, and get a chance to proceed anyway or to try a different route. They could choose to wait 20 minutes and see if the cook cleared out. A poor thief would blunder in.

2) The player tries to pick the lock, succeeds--and because there is no failure, they achieve their intent in the way they wanted. They go in, no cook. Their high lock picking skill directly influences the odds of the cook being there. That's not representing character skill--it's not showing them being a master thief--it's them getting lucky.

3) Or, we bundle the rolls while maintaining a fixed world. The thief rolls to pick the lock and gets a success. The GM says--hey, you succeed, but there is a cook here. Being a master thief, you can tell they'll clear out shortly. You wait 20 minutes until it is clear, then enter.

I'd be fine with cases (1) or (3). But ime narrative games run more like (2)--and that seems more in line with your Pattycakes example. Am I wrong?


No--see case (1).

The master thief would also note movement under the door, listen for sounds at the door, and/or look through a window to note the cook. He would also try to quietly pick the lock so as not to alert possible people on the other side.