D&D General Renamed Thread: "The Illusion of Agency"

[Mort]

In addition to spells, I could see a class or subclass (or Feat?) that gives players a mechanical ability to detect lies, as long as it is clearly defined how that works.

That said, I don't think it's a good idea to enable general purpose, available-to-everybody detection of lies without it having a cost (such as a spell slot, or a meaningful consequence of failure if you try it and fail).

It's NOT available to "everyone," not the least bit reliably. For it to be something that could actually be relied on, you need a decent WIS, an investment if you're not a WIS based character, the proper skill, and, realistically, expertise in the skill to have it not be too random.

That's already a lot. A lot more than the spellcaster just take a spell resource.

 

[zakael19]

By this logic, GMs should never use dice because any dice roll, even ones required by the rules, can nullify the players' ability to make meaningful decisions with their characters. The only way to effectively play would be to ditch the dice and just let the players' characters do whatever the players want, right?

Decisions without consequence are meaningless.

 

[Bill Zebub]

This is 100% on the DM. Failure to detect a lie means the character is convinced they are being told the truth. If there is no consequence there, that is the fault of the scenario.

I mean, that's one way of adjudicating a game, but the above statement is not an absolute truth about RPGs in general, and definitely not 5e in particular.

 

[Bill Zebub]

It's NOT available to "everyone," not the least bit reliably. For it to be something that could actually be relied on, you need a decent WIS, an investment if you're not a WIS based character, the proper skill, and, realistically, expertise in the skill to have it not be too random.

That's already a lot. A lot more than the spellcaster just take a spell resource.

I didn't say reliably, I said it's available to use. If a successful roll means you know, with certainty, that the NPC is lying, then every PC in the game will at least sometimes be able to do something superhuman: know with certainty that somebody is lying. You said you wanted some characters to be able to do that.

 

[zakael19]

I find all those solutions acceptable, depending on the judgment of the DM and the style of the table.

What bothers some people is probably that the Wizard just gets to Bamf through without relying on GM adjudication, because that fits a pattern about casters vs. martials that some people find objectionable.

Doesn't bother me at all. I don't feel that way about casters vs. martials. (And I pretty much always play martials; I hate relying on spell slots, and would have hated having "martial spell slots" in 4e.)

Assuming the barbarian can't get the gates open, I see a few things happening:

• The barbarian can hand the eggs through the bars. So even if he goes down in a blaze of glory, at least they (the party) gets the eggs.
• The barbarian can rage and duke it out with the owlbear while the wizard casts through the bars. The owlbear can't change targets because the bars in the way.

No, which one of those most aligns with what you're getting at with your OP (or some secret 6th thing?)?

 

[Bill Zebub]

Decisions without consequence are meaningless.

That I agree with, and have been arguing for this whole time.

 

[Bill Zebub]

No, which one of those most aligns with what you're getting at with your OP (or some secret 6th thing?)?

Oh, I see. Yeah and looking again I see there are some I wouldn't use. Give me a few minutes (I'm in a meeting) but I will try to break it down.

 

[Umbran]

Decisions without consequence are meaningless.

Tell that to someone who decided to order anchovy pizza, but got ham and pineapple instead.

"Meaning," is a very safe word to bandy about, because... well, what's the meaning of anything we do in the hobby? "Meaning" is a personal, idiosyncratic thing.

More concrete are human expectations - and our decisions help to set our expectations. If we make a decision, meaningful or not, and the according expectations are not met, that becomes an issue of player satisfaction with play.

 

[TiQuinn]

Right, my example was a white room to just draw a contrast between options available to a barbarian to proactively declare & a wizard to proactively declare when it comes to obstacle bypassing.

Let's set some stakes: there's two owl bears chasing them (dire owl bears? whatever) - the barbarian just stole some eggs for an alchemist back in town. The wizard sees the bars and bamfs through. What options do you allow the barbarian to take, and what in the system says to do so? (Some scattered potential options off the top of my head:

a) something like "my prep says this a rusted portcullis sealed shut with age. It's a DC18 strength check to slam it up, or with a DC15 passive perception (or active check) the party can spot a lever in the corner. It's a DC15 strength check to snap it up"
b) "uhhh, yeah cool - you want to what, try and lever it up? what's your strength again? 20? heck ya, that thing can't stop you. You heft it up and off you go, the owlbears in pursuit."
c) "um, yeah, ok, roll athletics (mentally uses the default DC15 for standard checks)"
d) "Right, you skid to a halt in front of the gate - you can hear the owl bears bellowing as their claws skid off the stone floor. ....oh, yeah, ok so you see the gate and what might be some old machinery in the corner? ok yeah, looking close at the machinery you can see its like old levers and stuff - probably to seal the gate from this side. rusty as heck. Yeah, you can totally see if that lever will open, um - strength check please? but they're going to be on you in a second if you fail."
e) "Right, yeah, roll +STR but I'll tell you right now an obvious consequence if you don't pick "it doesn't take long" they're gonna be on you."

Rough attempt to do:

• Classic AP deisgn
• Permissive DMing based on passive
• Ad-hoc dice rolling
• something approximating OSR where the ref felt an ability check was required
• DW: the player narrates that they're Bending Bars, Lifting Gates and the move triggers based off the fiction.

I think another option so that it doesn't appear to be that the barbarian only has one shot at this is that the owlbears don't want to damage the eggs either.

So if the barbarian fails to lift the gates or throw the lever the first time, the owlbears are now present, but seem hesitant. The barbarian could try to Intimidate them by threatening the eggs with his battle axe, causing the owlbears to back off further, potentially giving him another attempt at the gate or the lever.

 

[zakael19]

Tell that to someone who decided to order anchovy pizza, but got ham and pineapple instead.

"Meaning," is a very safe word to bandy about, because... well, what's the meaning of anything we do in the hobby? "Meaning" is a personal, idiosyncratic thing.

More concrete are human expectations - and our decisions help to set our expectations. If we make a decision, meaningful or not, and the according expectations are not met, that becomes an issue of player satisfaction with play.

Ok, I figured that quoting a post in response would preserve context and allow continued discussion on a singular thread, but:

By this logic, GMs should never use dice because any dice roll, even ones required by the rules, can nullify the players' ability to make meaningful decisions with their characters. The only way to effectively play would be to ditch the dice and just let the players' characters do whatever the players want, right?

My statement was in specific response to the statement "nullify the player's ability to make meaningful decisions with their characters." If there's no potential for consequences to the decisions you make, how do you assign meaning? Yes, you can get all creative with "well we've got a social contract around the table and we're great role-players & etc" but again, contextual.