D&D General Supposing D&D is gamist, what does that mean?

[pemerton]

Why doesn't the player simply specify that the item they want is the dirt? If that's how their GM is running it.

Do you see what I mean? What heads that off? Why would they need to open the safe?

Are you still talking about Streetwise in 1977 Traveller? Here is the key rules text:

Streetwise expertise allows contact for the purposes of obtaining information, hiring persons, purchasing contraband or stolen goods, etc.​

So what sort of contact does the player want their PC to make. With someone who knows where the dirt is? It's in a safe . . .. Or with someone who has the dirt? Those would be different difficulties, I think. (The latter being harder.)

 

[pemerton]

I think these examples do an excellent job of showing why mechanics designed to enable Story Now play do not translate well to games where players are free to move about the setting and poke at it without it poking back forcefully.

Right. That's why I have noted the lack of advice on failure narration for 1977 Traveller's Streetwise. (There is a notable contrast here with the Vacc Suit skill.)

 

[clearstream]

Are you still talking about Streetwise in 1977 Traveller? Here is the key rules text:

Streetwise expertise allows contact for the purposes of obtaining information, hiring persons, purchasing contraband or stolen goods, etc.​

So what sort of contact does the player want their PC to make. With someone who knows where the dirt is? It's in a safe . . .. Or with someone who has the dirt? Those would be different difficulties, I think. (The latter being harder.)

So when you are GM, difficulty is set by your fiat.

 

[FrogReaver]

Are you still talking about Streetwise in 1977 Traveller? Here is the key rules text:

Streetwise expertise allows contact for the purposes of obtaining information, hiring persons, purchasing contraband or stolen goods, etc.​

So what sort of contact does the player want their PC to make. With someone who knows where the dirt is? It's in a safe . . .. Or with someone who has the dirt? Those would be different difficulties, I think. (The latter being harder.)

I'm confused, you previously said it had nothing to do with information and yet here you quote it talking about information.

 

[Campbell]

@clearstream

What are you hoping to get out of this conversation? I'm not seeing much actual engagement on differences in play structure and their implications.

 

[clearstream]

@clearstream

What are you hoping to get out of this conversation? I'm not seeing much actual engagement on differences in play structure and their implications.

I'm pointing to points in the play structure where it should be uncontroversial that someone at the table makes a decision. I'm questioning whether characterising such decisions as "fiat" and associating them with force and railroading, is always right. Decisions have to be made at many points in conduct of RPGs, and there are constrained, principled ways of doing that; even where in the end someone at the table has to just say something. (As I put it, they can say something that follows.)

 

[FrogReaver]

@clearstream

What are you hoping to get out of this conversation? I'm not seeing much actual engagement on differences in play structure and their implications.

I'm curious, what were you hoping to get out of this question?

 

[FrogReaver]

I'm pointing to points in the play structure where it should be uncontroversial that someone at the table makes a decision. I'm questioning whether characterising such decisions as "fiat" and associating them with force and railroading, is always right. Decisions have to be made at many points in conduct of RPGs, and there are constrained, principled ways of doing that; even where in the end someone at the table has to just say something. (As I put it, they can say something that follows.)

You've made me ponder. Why aren't players ever accused of 'player fiat'. Or is that what is technically happening when the DM or another player questions whether their decisions were due to roleplaying or expediency or some other reason?

EDIT: Thinking some more on this I have seen players react rather badly to other players doing 'dumb stuff' in combat and putting the other PC at great risk of death and it's an especially bad reaction when it does result in PC death. I think the issue there is fiat decisions that lead to negative consequences for some player, whether performed by another player or by the GM. Players don't tend to react to fiat decisions that don't negatively impact them but they do to ones that do.

 

[pemerton]

They certainly aren’t very disruptive in story now games even if achieved. But there’s still the basic genre, setting and background the players have entering this fictional world and if something too implausible happens in relation to those then that can detract from the game for certain players.

Why would players declare actions that they find implausible?

 

[clearstream]

Why would players declare actions that they find implausible?

That is one point upon which I feel a sense of hope that we can find ourselves in easy agreement