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

[Maxperson]

And yet, you have zero problem with a method that just says "=100, make up any math you want to so long as it equals 100". And then claim that this is simulation.

That's what I just don't get. If method matters, and I agree that it does, then why do you have no problems with systems that provide no method. That don't "show their work" as was pointed out some time ago.

It really is baffling to me.

I think you're baffled, because that has never been my argument.

I've already repeatedly shown that D&D does provide information, even if it's sometimes minimal information. You don't want to accept that, but that doesn't mean that I don't see it and use it.

 

[clearstream]

Not even going to touch the meaningfulness thing. I should not have to accept that "well it was done on Tuesday" (to invent an intentionally obtuse example) is a meaningful difference.

I wouldn't say that you have to accept that which is meaningful to someone else, although at first glance I'd resist the possible implication that your withholding acceptance could make that which is meaningful to someone else, not meaningful to them.

That noted, it seems you're asserting some sort of normative understanding of meaning, which is needed to come to the right (or at least useful) understanding of words and rules. However, I don't know that it is needed when discerning one rule from another on some grounds and then counting said grounds meaningful or not-meaningful.

That would require some normative understanding of preferences. The preferences at issue here are those held toward how well a process or abstraction sustains or disrupts (where against preferences) what someone wishes to playfully imagine or experience. Bringing the notion of "acceptance" in as a requirement seems to entail forcing others to value the same play that I do... or perhaps more mildly hoping they do and comparing their preferences with my own. One would then ideally say why one's preferences will lead to better play... yet surely cannot be surprised if others don't find that to be true for them.

 

[clearstream]

I would argue that what you describe isn’t what is happening.

Instead, what you get is more akin to “Trad DMs would never add setting details. Adding setting details is inconsistent with trad DMing”

“But what about Jim. He describes himself as a trad DM and all other posters recognize him as a trad DM and he’s adding details.”

My conclusion so far is that "Trad" labels more than one mode of play. The label gathers family resemblances rather than identifying a single and definitive set of traits.

I would thus accept Jim's application of that label to himself even if Jim added setting details, just so long as Jim did some sufficiency of other things associated with "trad" (and not if he did not, obviously.) I don't know that there is any easily specifiable bar that can be set for "sufficiency" here: it's probably in different places for different posters, and the weight given each trait varies... again probably per poster.

 

[FrozenNorth]

My conclusion so far is that "Trad" labels more than one mode of play. The label gathers family resemblances rather than identifying a single and definitive set of traits.

I would thus accept Jim's application of that label to himself even if Jim added setting details, just so long as Jim did some sufficiency of other things associated with "trad" (and not if he did not, obviously.) I don't know that there is any easily specifiable bar that can be set for "sufficiency" here: it's probably in different places for different posters, and the weight given each trait varies... again probably per poster.

I think this would be fine, if the proponents of the playstyle didn’t denigrate anything they perceived as outside the playstyle “changing the world” or “quantum cooks”.

 

[clearstream]

I think this would be fine, if the proponents of the playstyle didn’t denigrate anything they perceived as outside the playstyle “changing the world” or “quantum cooks”.

I feel like I have had somewhat similar conversations relating to the label "simulationism". Where traits that I do not see as falling outside the broad label are denigrated.

One way to make progress in these arguments could be to get more specific. That is, to accept that labels like "trad" and "simulationism" apply to families of related but non-identical modes of play, and then to define more specific labels, like "process-simulation" by a more focused set of traits.

 

[Faolyn]

If their presence makes sense given the surrounding fiction, I've got no problem with this.

But if the PCs have reason to believe there's only five plus the captain on board, having an extra five come up from below-decks doesn't make sense; even less so if their presence would have been somewhat obvious due to the boat riding lower in the water than it otherwise would have.

And that level of fanatic support is something the PCs could learn about beforehand, and prepare for. Again, fine with this.

I don't know what that means.

Is this functionally the same as D&D's Monster Summoning spells? Failing that, where do the extra raiders come from and-or where were they before; and could the PCs have known about them ahead of time and thus maybe decided to take them out first?

That's up to the GM and players to decide. Maybe they were hiding below decks the whole time. Maybe a second boat appears out of the fog--far range is anywhere from 30-100 feet away, but you can always say they come from Very Far or Off The Battlefield, as DH puts it. That would just give likely the PCs some extra time to prepare (assuming that one of them didn't roll with Fear and give the GM a chance to take the spotlight, as per the rules). Daggerheart isn't the type of game where everything needs to be spelled out exactly; it wants the GM and PCs to work together to determine the story.

Could the PC have known about them ahead of time? No. It's not that type of game. But if the GM doesn't feel like it makes sense for a pirate horde to appear--like it's been established that the Pirate Captain is really alone, or the PCs have taken actions which would prevent the Captain from calling for help--then they GM shouldn't use that ability.

If the extra baddies are already present somehow in the fiction and can potentially be learned about by the PCs, all is good. Having them show up out of the blue "just because" is bad. If for example the PCs do some pre-scouting and determine there's ten baddies camped out in the dockside warehouse and five more plus the captain on the boat, then they've every reason to expect that's what they have to deal with.

Or like here, where there can be plenty of other places where extra baddies can be stored. It's unlikely that this is the only warehouse around, after all. Imagine a movie where the Captain seems to be alone, only for a dozen corsairs, curvy swords clenched between their teeth, pop up from behind all the rocks, foliage, and debris.

Which means if they sneak into the warehouse and quietly knock off the ten in there before pressing on to the boat, the warehouse can't provide any reinforcements...unless there's a secret area below it, but then the PCs would in theory have had a chance to find that too.

The problem with adding extra baddies on the fly "just because" is that all too often there should have been some sign of their existence and-or presence earlier, except because they didn't exist yet in the DM's mind no such sign was provided. And that's not fair to the players.

First, this assumes that the players are on the lookout for these signs to begin with. From looking at a pirate vessel, how would you know, just from the signs, if there was five pirates or ten? Ten beds? On a pirate ship? Nah--they'd be hot racking it most likely. (My super-quick research suggests that in real life, it would be anywhere from 100-200 crew on a pirate ship). Carefully counting them? Sure, the PCs can do that, if they want to take the time (and during combat where everyone is running around is not the time--although I'm pretty sure there was a spell somewhere in 2e that did exactly that).

The same is true for any sort of encounter. How do the players actually find out how many goblins are in the lair? Watch the entrance for days and hope they don't get caught? Knock on the door and pretend they're census takers?

Fortunately, in Daggerheart, the GM often has to spend a resource for a leader to summon aid like this, or has a limitation on how often they can do it (or both, like with the Pirate Captain here). Even if the Captain wasn't limited to one summoning per scene, they still only have five stress total, and there's plenty of PC abilities that will reduce that number. And despite the name, a horde in Daggerheart is treated as a single entity, and not a terribly strong one either. There are some leaders who can summon freely, but all of them (I think) can only summon minions, which not only has only one hp, but a single blow may even take out extras who are nearby.

So it may not seem fair, but the fairness is actually built into the system.

Now, (A)D&D doesn't have those sort of restrictions. However, I don't think it's necessarily unfair unless the GM is being actively antagonistic, and they can do that even without sending in more minions, without cheating, just by playing the adversaries intelligently and giving them what they logically should have access to--which most GMs don't, because they tend to think of the adversaries as monsters who exist to be killed and not as people who have spent generations having to deal with home invasions.

And while some people will say "Oh, so it's OK if the players don't know what you're doing?" how would the players actually, really know how many pirates there are to be able to claim it's "unfair"? Did they read your adventure notes?

 

[Faolyn]

No, this is exactly what Hussar is saying. @FrozenNorth has it exactly right. Perhaps, since someone else clearly understood my meaning, it might be you that is mistaken?

So all those times you've said "but I've been told, lots of times by lots of people, that you can't do this!" is actually you... what? Not getting that it's pointless and counterproductive trying to pigeonhole gamers and games into just a few types?

Because if you got that, then why on earth would you say "You do X? But Bob said you can't do X!"

 

[AlViking]

I feel like I have had somewhat similar conversations relating to the label "simulationism". Where traits that I do not see as falling outside the broad label are denigrated.

One way to make progress in these arguments could be to get more specific. That is, to accept that labels like "trad" and "simulationism" apply to families of related but non-identical modes of play, and then to define more specific labels, like "process-simulation" by a more focused set of traits.

Make progress? That's not really the point is it? I feel like I have a better understanding of some narrative game techniques but at the same time there are things that as far as I can tell nobody agrees on. I did a quick search on "fail forward" and the first four blog posts basically had different definitions. It seems to depend on who is answering.

I don't really see that as a huge issue for any of this unless you go from trying to understand other ways to play to prove others are wrong, trying to prove that others are inconsistent or somehow saying others are playing wrong.

I'm tired of explaining my preferences, that they're only preferences, and no I don't think what I do is exactly like X.

So I don't see anything changing or moving forward.

 

[Lanefan]

That's up to the GM and players to decide. Maybe they were hiding below decks the whole time. Maybe a second boat appears out of the fog--far range is anywhere from 30-100 feet away, but you can always say they come from Very Far or Off The Battlefield, as DH puts it. That would just give likely the PCs some extra time to prepare (assuming that one of them didn't roll with Fear and give the GM a chance to take the spotlight, as per the rules). Daggerheart isn't the type of game where everything needs to be spelled out exactly; it wants the GM and PCs to work together to determine the story.

Could the PC have known about them ahead of time? No. It's not that type of game.

"Not that type of game" in that PCs don't do (or are prevented from doing) any pre-scouting or info-gathering before wading in to a situation?

But if the GM doesn't feel like it makes sense for a pirate horde to appear--like it's been established that the Pirate Captain is really alone, or the PCs have taken actions which would prevent the Captain from calling for help--then they GM shouldn't use that ability.

One would hope, yes.

First, this assumes that the players are on the lookout for these signs to begin with. From looking at a pirate vessel, how would you know, just from the signs, if there was five pirates or ten? Ten beds? On a pirate ship? Nah--they'd be hot racking it most likely. (My super-quick research suggests that in real life, it would be anywhere from 100-200 crew on a pirate ship). Carefully counting them? Sure, the PCs can do that, if they want to take the time (and during combat where everyone is running around is not the time--although I'm pretty sure there was a spell somewhere in 2e that did exactly that).

The same is true for any sort of encounter. How do the players actually find out how many goblins are in the lair? Watch the entrance for days and hope they don't get caught? Knock on the door and pretend they're census takers?

IME if they want that sort of info it's almost inevitable that they'll pick off and capture a straggler, then question it via persuasion or charm or bribe or pain or (if available) Speak With Dead. Higher-level groups would also throw Detect Lie if they have it. In a pirate setting they might follow one up to the tavern and make the capture when said pirate leaves said tavern in a less-coherent state.

And once it's established in the fiction via that questioning that the ship's crew number about 45 plus 8 others (captain, cook, bo'sun, etc.) it would be unfair of the DM to change that without a good, and potentially PC-learnable, in-fiction explanation. For example, the PCs might approach the ship and see 100 pirates on deck as they are entertaining an allied crew for the night; or they might approach and find nobody other than a skeleton watch as most of the pirates are away on a shore mission.

Fortunately, in Daggerheart, the GM often has to spend a resource for a leader to summon aid like this, or has a limitation on how often they can do it (or both, like with the Pirate Captain here). Even if the Captain wasn't limited to one summoning per scene, they still only have five stress total, and there's plenty of PC abilities that will reduce that number. And despite the name, a horde in Daggerheart is treated as a single entity, and not a terribly strong one either. There are some leaders who can summon freely, but all of them (I think) can only summon minions, which not only has only one hp, but a single blow may even take out extras who are nearby.

Daggerheart uses 4e-style minions? Any interest I might have had in the system pretty much just vanished.

Now, (A)D&D doesn't have those sort of restrictions. However, I don't think it's necessarily unfair unless the GM is being actively antagonistic, and they can do that even without sending in more minions, without cheating, just by playing the adversaries intelligently and giving them what they logically should have access to--which most GMs don't, because they tend to think of the adversaries as monsters who exist to be killed and not as people who have spent generations having to deal with home invasions.

Fair.

I try to think of how monsters and people would defend their homes, and the PCs sometimes suffer for this. Very first adventure in my current game, a 1st-level party wandering in the forest stumbled on to the lair of an Ogre. As said Ogre lived fairly close to the Caves of Chaos and was constantly being annoyed by the inhabitants there he'd rigged up a simple landslide trap as a defense, and when the PCs entered he set it off. Natural 20. 4 PCs instantly dead, the rest fleeing for their lives. Meanwhile the Ogre has a very nice lunch while re-setting his trap...

And while some people will say "Oh, so it's OK if the players don't know what you're doing?" how would the players actually, really know how many pirates there are to be able to claim it's "unfair"? Did they read your adventure notes?

If they do some questioning (and get verifiably true answers) they don't need to read my notes.

 

[Alzrius]

I try to think of how monsters and people would defend their homes, and the PCs sometimes suffer for this. Very first adventure in my current game, a 1st-level party wandering in the forest stumbled on to the lair of an Ogre. As said Ogre lived fairly close to the Caves of Chaos and was constantly being annoyed by the inhabitants there he'd rigged up a simple landslide trap as a defense, and when the PCs entered he set it off. Natural 20. 4 PCs instantly dead, the rest fleeing for their lives. Meanwhile the Ogre has a very nice lunch while re-setting his trap...

This reminds me of a debate I once had several years ago with someone about the tactical options that PCs use when assaulting a dungeon complex (in the context of D&D).

I'd posited that, for a stronghold where the native monsters were both intelligent and unified (in the sense that they were working together) they'd have some sort of alarm system in place—regardless of how rudimentary it might be—which the rest of the denizens would react to by preparing themselves for danger. So, for instance, the guards in the first room of a dungeon complex would immediately hit a gong that had been set up in the corner to let everyone else know when they were being invaded, to which everyone else would drink potions, cast buff spells, set up defensive checkpoints, etc.

The guy I was arguing with insisted that this would make the monster weaker.

When I expressed disbelief, he explained that canny PCs would invade, let the monsters sound the alarm, and then they (the PCs) would immediately fall back. Then, after waiting an hour or two—letting those buff spells and defensive potions, etc. all wear off—invade again, at which point the monsters would have expended their short-term defenses, and would now be easier to deal with.

Naturally, I was skeptical that the dungeon denizens would be quite so static (i.e. that they'd send out trackers and skirmishers of their own in response to an alarm being sounded after the PCs were reported to have left), and derided his line of thinking as a "booga booga tactic," a name that—to my chargin—he found hilarious, and apparently still uses when discussing this type of scenario.