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

[pemerton]

That suggests to me that you didn't read the spell Guidance. Guidance means aid or information aimed at resolving something. You know, what Guidance the spell does when it gives you a bonus to help you resolve an ability check.

So if I want to know whether I should take the left road or the right road, Guidance will tell me? Like Augury but for free?

 

[TwoSix]

So if I want to know whether I should take the left road or the right road, Guidance will tell me? Like Augury but for free?

Absolutely. It's right there in the word!

 

[Maxperson]

Gee, if only I'd posted this before:
Actually., I think this is the fourth time I've posted this in reply to you.

Gee, if that's the limitation, then you ARE doing the rule wrong in your own game. I already quoted to you from the PHB what the 1e thief means by cunning. It's the cunning ability to take things. The tertiary ability to read runes has nothing to do with the 1e thief being cunning. So if Cunning Expert is what you were basing the runes knowledge on, it was based on your misunderstanding of the 1e thief abilities.

That said, you telling me that you are basing the game on D&D tropes and that cunning INCLUDES the 1e thief abilities, doesn't say that Cunning Expert is ONLY limited to the 1e thief. D&D tropes include keen insights being much more than that, and "includes" just means that the 1e thief is included with the vast number of things cunning would apply to.

So in short, you gave no real limitation.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

When you make assertions, I'm not obliged to agree with them just because you make them.

Yes. It would be a lot easier if you did though, and it would benefit you as I am usually right!

You don't like player authorship, direct or mediated via rules, unless the thing the player authors (directly or indirectly) is also something that the player's character produces, via their actions, in the fiction. This seems pretty obvious. Ron Edwards talked about it over 20 years ago (but for some reason all the people who agree with Edwards about simulationism feel obliged to assert that he was wrong about it - I've never understood that).

It would be too strong to say that I do not like it. It is not my favourite. I can play that way, I have played that way. I understand how it works, I understand what it does and what it doesn't.

This doesn't entail the other things you assert though, like different "decision spaces" or author stance rather than actor stance.

Those are perfectly logical conclusions. (And I also have first hand experience.) All you have is the claim that your players just ignore the incentives created by the rules. This might be true, though I have my doubts. But even if it was they, it doesn't mean the incentives are not there.

I mean, how can you claim to know what stance a player was in in an event that you have no knowledge of other than what I tell you - and I'm telling you that he was in actor stance!

I know what stance the rules you describe incentivise.

I trust my own experience, over conjectures that are not founded on experience. I know what the incentive structure of the RPGs I play is, because I've seen it at work.

You very obviously don't know. It might be that you have some "unwritten rules," social contract, etc in place which fights these incentives though. Probably worth exploring, and I have asked about things related to it couple of times, but you've ignored it.

 

[Enrahim]

The player just played their character.

How do you know?

"Look, there's some weird runes over there. We've been stuck down in the dungeon for a while, maybe those runes can give us a clue to the way out!"

How do you know?

And then the game goes to the mechanical resolution step.

Yes, and the argument is that this mechanical resolution step is designed so that just playing your character become a bit more tricky than in certain other mecanical resolution schemes. That both in terms of required player input, and related incentive structures.

I grant it appear possible to play it just playing your character. I am not sure if I would be able to aquire that skill though, even if I tried. (And it is not obvious to me why I would like to try. The game seem more fun to me if I am "allowed" to embrace the meta).

 

[Maxperson]

So if I want to know whether I should take the left road or the right road, Guidance will tell me? Like Augury but for free?

Have you never received useless Guidance before? I have.

 

[TwoSix]

You don't like my play. You'd rather it not be? Its existence irks you? Wrongs you? Quite odd to me.

It almost seems like some of these threads cause some sort of "narrative panic", where posters can't help but look at and respond to narrative mechanics posts over and over again. But they have to continually assert that they're "just looking" and definitely don't have any sort of "narrative orientation" themselves, that would be totally wrong and incorrect to play that way at their table!

Myself, I take some pride that I'll try any game once.

 

[TwoSix]

So in short, you gave no real limitation.

You don't need to give a textual limitation when you're comfortable with the fact that the player is going to be a partner in helping to create the correct fiction.

We're not talking about a @Lanefan game where trying to push the rules to the edge to give your character an advantage is considered correct play.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I grant it appear possible to play it just playing your character. I am not sure if I would be able to aquire that skill though, even if I tried. (And it is not obvious to me why I would like to try. The game seem more fun to me if I am "allowed" to embrace the meta).

Right. This is what I've asked @pemerton couple of times. In his game are that players supposed to try to ignore the meta knowledge when making decisions for their or embrace it? Because I think it is pretty important distinction here.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

This how I read 4e skill challenges, which was ultimately a reason why we decided to drop the system.

This is what they were unless the GM adds a lot more structure than the rules suggest.