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

[AlViking]

Why would it be different if the player had rolled a specific result, and as a result you knew there would be terrain or a situation that was logical?

It does not matter who made the roll, it's the purpose of the roll and what the roll represents. A sleight of hand to open a lock is simulating the act of picking a lock, nothing more. A random encounter roll is used to resolve uncertainty, a monster could be encountered in this area over this period of time but it is uncertain whether or not they will so we roll for it.

But that has quite literally been a core point for the thread for hundreds and hundreds of pages at this point. That it IS simulating reality, that it IS trying to do that thing.

Whether it works fine for what you want it to do is not the same as whether it is well-constructed for the purpose of simulation. As pemerton has now explicitly said just above.

D&D is simulating a world independent of but influenced by the characters.

 

[Enrahim]

So DMs never factor in, for example, the party's stealthiness for what results might come up on a wandering monster roll? I can literally say I have seen more than one DM apply such a thing (e.g. the party scout's Stealth bonus reducing the result of a wandering-encounter roll so that lesser or even empty encounters are more likely). So like...even that isn't the absolute hard-and-fast line you seem to think it is.

Yes, I was noticing this. I hence updated my post slightly, but you replied too quickly! (Thank you by the way). I think this is really an interesting topic! In the wilderness it might for instance make perfect sense to adjust the encounter rate with survival skill based on if the group try to find or avoid encounters.

So the issue is clearly even more nuanced than who rolls the dice, and what factors into the roll. In my edit I threw out "unrelated" and more than one thing hinging on a single roll as possible nuances of importance, but this rings hollow. It is too simple, and I am sure there are important counter examples; like if entering a part of the dungeon that is random generated on the fly, then the result of orcs as wandering monster might also determine that there are going to be an orc lair nearby without that ticking off anyone.

The best fallback I can find is the concept of "weird". We are having an outcome that is connected with either a skill bonus, or another outcome that seem like it should be unrelated. Like the pick lock skill seem related to if it is picked before a guard show up, but seem unrelated to if the cook happens to have started preparing breakfast half an hour ago.

And that boils down to a sort of subjective notion. If something make you go "huh, that doesnt feel right" then that is a moment that calls for suspension of disbelief. In a living world setting this is moments we want to minimise, so employing a technique that is known to at least for some make them go "huh?" Seem ill adviceable.

I think a rule of thumb of not having a roll affecting more than one as isolated thing as possible within the granularity level of the described actions is a good advice in this regard. This should make it easy to relate modifier to effect, and there are no correlations that could be weird. Breaking this rule of thumb should be done with preventing any correlations that could be seen as weird in mind, but can make sense some times.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

It does not matter who made the roll, it's the purpose of the roll and what the roll represents. A sleight of hand to open a lock is simulating the act of picking a lock, nothing more. A random encounter roll is used to resolve uncertainty, a monster could be encountered in this area over this period of time but it is uncertain whether or not they will so we roll for it.

...

How on earth is the picking-a-lock roll not resolving uncertainty?????

D&D is simulating a world independent of but influenced by the characters.

That literally does not answer the question. What does simulating mean? You've made clear that "simulating" is perfectly compatible with genre conventions, gameplay contrivances, and thematic/dramatic patterns rather than, if I may use my own words, fidelity to the physical processes of a world.

 

[AlViking]

...

How on earth is the picking-a-lock roll not resolving uncertainty?????

Did I say it was not? It's simulating the attempt to open a lock. Nothing more, nothing less.

That literally does not answer the question. What does simulating mean? You've made clear that "simulating" is perfectly compatible with genre conventions, gameplay contrivances, and thematic/dramatic patterns rather than, if I may use my own words, fidelity to the physical processes of a world.

It's obvious there's nothing I can answer. I can simulate any system or process that I can imagine, it doesn't matter if that system or process is real. The Toon RPG is a simulation of a Bugs Bunny cartoon.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

The best fallback I can find is the concept of "weird". We are having an outcome that is connected with either a skill bonus, or another outcome that seem like it should be unrelated. Like the pick lock skill seem related to if it is picked before a guard show up, but seem unrelated to if the cook happens to have started preparing breakfast half an hour ago.

I guess I don't understand why the guard is related, but the cook isn't. Both are people inside/around the house who could be a peril for the lock-picker if something goes wrong while they're picking the lock. Both could be revealed to be approaching.

And that boils down to a sort of subjective notion. If something make you go "huh, that doesnt feel right" then that is a moment that calls for suspension of disbelief. In a living world setting this is moments we want to minimise, so employing a technique that is known to at least for some make them go "huh?" Seem ill adviceable.

Though that seems to rather tug against the "independence" part, doesn't it? Now the contents of the world are dependent on the players' perceptions--specifically, the "huh?" perception. The players' sentiments are now vitally necessary for correctly developing the world. Things that conflict with those sentiments are a problem. Things which conform to them are not a problem. Different people will have very different ideas.

I think a rule of thumb of not having a roll affecting more than one as isolated thing as possible within the granularity level of the described actions is a good advice in this regard. This should make it easy to relate modifier to effect, and there are no correlations that could be weird. Breaking this rule of thumb should be done with preventing any correlations that could be seen as weird in mind, but can make sense some times.

I'm more than a little concerned that this rule of thumb is flagrantly violated on the regular, but (as usual) my sleep meds are kicking in so I don't think I have the braincells to dredge through the rules. But, well, at the very least, reaction rolls and surprise rolls--especially those that could lead to a conflict or a lack of a conflict--couldn't possibly be narrowly-tailored to "one isolated thing", and that the concession about the "granularity level of the described actions" functionally acts as a perfect excuse for not really having a standard at all. Anything can be let through because "well that's below the level of granularity".

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Did I say it was not? It's simulating the attempt to open a lock. Nothing more, nothing less.

But you contrasted it against the GM's roll, by describing how it removes uncertainty!

Both things resolve uncertainty. Both things address parts of the world. Part of picking a lock is that, y'know, you want to do it as successfully as possible: nobody discovers you, nobody notices damage to the lock, you don't walk through and bump into someone, etc., etc. Just like an attack roll or a reaction roll or all sorts of other rolls you seem perfectly comfortable with having wide, broad, spreading consequences.

There simply isn't this hard-and-fast distinction you're asserting. It isn't there. You're just upset that this specific roll is being treated as broad, while other specific rolls being broad is perfectly fine or even necessary.

It's obvious there's nothing I can answer. I can simulate any system or process that I can imagine, it doesn't matter if that system or process is real. The Toon RPG is a simulation of a Bugs Bunny cartoon.

......

So "simulate" literally doesn't mean anything. It literally just means "running a game". Wow, what an entirely useless descriptor.

 

[FrogReaver]

That's not the comparison class I'm working with.

As far as I could tell your statement didn’t include any comparison class.

 

[AlViking]

But you contrasted it against the GM's roll, by describing how it removes uncertainty!

Both things resolve uncertainty. Both things address parts of the world. Part of picking a lock is that, y'know, you want to do it as successfully as possible: nobody discovers you, nobody notices damage to the lock, you don't walk through and bump into someone, etc., etc. Just like an attack roll or a reaction roll or all sorts of other rolls you seem perfectly comfortable with having wide, broad, spreading consequences.

There simply isn't this hard-and-fast distinction you're asserting. It isn't there. You're just upset that this specific roll is being treated as broad, while other specific rolls being broad is perfectly fine or even necessary.

They are representing two different things. One is an action the character is taking, the other is the chance that something will occur that is completely independent of the character's action.

It's like saying that if I turn on my radio and hear that there's a tornado warning in my area that the tornado warning is dependent on my turning on the radio. It's not. They are two separate things that coincidentally happen at the same time but are unrelated.

......

So "simulate" literally doesn't mean anything. It literally just means "running a game". Wow, what an entirely useless descriptor.

I can't help it if you don't understand what the word simulation means.

 

[CreamCloud0]

I could be here (and am) or could be elsewhere (but am not), so am both here and not there? That doesn't make sense to me.

I also don't see how this is different from a wandering monster roll.

it's very simple

it's different from a wandering monster roll whether they are here or there because with a wandering monster roll it is not determined where they are by someone else's skill at picking a lock.

 

[Enrahim]

I guess I don't understand why the guard is related, but the cook isn't. Both are people inside/around the house who could be a peril for the lock-picker if something goes wrong while they're picking the lock. Both could be revealed to be approaching.

The approaching cook is less of a problem*. The cook in the middle of putting newly cooked food into aproperiate containers is a much more pressing problem.

Though that seems to rather tug against the "independence" part, doesn't it? Now the contents of the world are dependent on the players' perceptions--specifically, the "huh?" perception. The players' sentiments are now vitally necessary for correctly developing the world. Things that conflict with those sentiments are a problem. Things which conform to them are not a problem. Different people will have very different ideas.

Yes, and hence the importance of "illusion" of independence A good illusion can work on most people, but fail on a few. Like the example we had previously about how characters falling while climbing was immersion breaking for a player having other expectations regarding how unlikely it was to fall given more than average exposure to climbing. Maintaining the illusion of independence is indeed a group endeavour that has a subjective component. I think this is an important point you bring up, but it is a nuance I do not think changes the big picture.

I'm more than a little concerned that this rule of thumb is flagrantly violated on the regular, but (as usual) my sleep meds are kicking in so I don't think I have the braincells to dredge through the rules. But, well, at the very least, reaction rolls and surprise rolls--especially those that could lead to a conflict or a lack of a conflict--couldn't possibly be narrowly-tailored to "one isolated thing", and that the concession about the "granularity level of the described actions" functionally acts as a perfect excuse for not really having a standard at all. Anything can be let through because "well that's below the level of granularity".

Yes, I am not fully satisfied myself. This is a new direction, and I hope our fellow forumers can help chisel out something more solid Thank you so much for your inspiring replies, and sleep well!

(Edit: * The approaching guard and the approaching cook is potentially a bit problematic. The level of how problematic it is depends on how the probability of failing the pick lock compares to the probability of them being encountered on a random encounter roll in a relevant time frame. For this to be ok the system would require a bit unusual relationship to time. It would likely be safer to seperate up the rolls where the pick lock check represents time, and then a number of wandering monster rolls are done machine that time. Purist would definitely want it that way, but I think many would accept baking these two together as a practical trick as long as the probabilities do not get too skeewed, and this do not happen too often. As such an example of a possible exception as long as you are mindfull of the ramifications. Player buy in could be essential here as well ref subjectivity)