Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Balesir" data-source="post: 5773006" data-attributes="member: 27160">But they can't, really, though - that is my major issue with the "DM fiat" thing all along.If I face those obstacles in real life, I have my own conception of how difficult it might be to overcome them. That view - part of my world model - might be accurate or inaccurate, but I also have some view on how accurate or inaccurate they might be.Contrast that with a game where the DM links a (secret) system assignment of difficulty to a verbal description. From the verbal description, I have an idea of how difficult I think the challenges would be, based on my world-model. But that is only peripherally related to what the actual, in-game difficulty will be. What I will actually face, in game, will be related to what the DM thinks the real world difficulty would be, modified by the DM's understanding of how the probabilities of the game mechanics work out and how "difficult" a given DC really represents.At best, my handle on how accurate (or otherwise) my assessment of the difficulties is in the real world is replaced by how well I know the DM, what my view is of how hard s/he will judge those obstacles to be to overcome (given his or her view of the genre and tenor of the current game campaign) and what value he or she places on the probabilities and character assets to be tested in the challenge.In other words, unless both the DM and I have some significant sports climbing experience and know each other pretty well, I may as well roll a random number for all the good it will do me. The information given purports to be telling me something, but actually it tells me hardly anything useful at all.This is why I generally consider this sort of "real world proxy" information as a feed into player skill based decision making dysfunctional. I would far rather have:- For games where the main aim is a skill contest to be overcome by the players, the information should be the actual DCs/ACs etc. - or some approximation of them, the quality of which is determined by the character's skills.- For games where immersion and world experience are the aim, a feedback mechanism of explicit probability information and opportunities to change plan/correct/adjust based on the character's skill (i.e. high skill characters give detailed information and advice from DM to player and many chances to revise plans, low skill characters give vague information and revision generally only after trouble has reached waist depth or higher)."Covered in steel" could mean anything, depending on the genre we are playing, the detailed knowledge the DM has of the effectiveness of medieval armour, the form of the armour (are we talking Gothic plate or Roman maille? Or Chinese scale?) and what "magical strengthening" is assumed to have taken place (if PCs "covered in steel" can range from AC14 to AC25, wouldn't NPCs armour, logically, do the same or more?)  If this is your idea of an "informed decision", I guess we just have different definitions of that phrase.Yes - every single one. The twist is, though, that "reward" is not defined in exclusively material terms. Expand the rules to encompass non-material goals/rewards and I think you're golden.Simulationist goals (which is what are described here by ByronD, almost to a 'T') are perfectly fine RPG goals - but not the only ones. And, in my view, D&D does not suit (and never really has suited) those goals well. Not that I begrudge anyone trying, but I think the level span, the reward mechanisms, the injury mechanism ('hit points'), the level of assumed magic and a laundry list of other elements in the "core" of D&D really mitigate against it.Outside of that, creating a 'challenge' - be it a combat challenge, a social challenge or an exploration challenge - is a perfectly valid and interesting design goal. It may not be one you value, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have value.</blockquote>

Verification