The Game for Non-Gamers: (Forked from: Sexism in D&D)

[Ariosto]

The only alternative resolution method is DM Fiat.

The dichotomy is doubly false:

1) There are alternatives that in fact do not involve DM fiat (or even a DM).

2) As things stand, the DM sets the probability, whether 100% or 0% or somewhere in between, by setting the DC.

What does the player do? The player rolls dice.

 

[Bumbles]

1) There are alternatives that in fact do not involve DM fiat (or even a DM).

Like?

2) As things stand, the DM sets the probability, whether 100% or 0% or somewhere in between, by setting the DC.

Except there is a difference between the DM determining probability (and there are alternatives to that as well) and the DM determining the result.

What does the player do? The player rolls dice.

And in my view, picks the immediate result if they succeed, assuming they're allowed to do it.

Intimidating a door won't happen too often.

 

[Ariosto]

The action has been explained clearly enough to go forward. Scaring the NPC away from his girl.

Capturing all the enemy grunts. Killing their leader. Getting a Rod of Rulership. Flying to the moon. Making Zeus my shoeshine boy.

Details? We don' need no stinking dee-tails!

 

[Bumbles]

Capturing all the enemy grunts. Killing their leader. Getting a Rod of Rulership. Flying to the moon. Making Zeus my shoeshine boy.

If you said any of that to me in the hypothetical circumstances, I'd have to say I have no idea what you're talking about, and that I was unable to proceed. In fact, I'm pretty sure that's the case now. I don't think I'm understanding what you're attempting to express with these phrases at all.

Details? We don' need no stinking dee-tails!

Not all the time, no. Sometimes it's fine to work without them.

I'm quite comfortable with a player saying they're going to try to bluff the rival, or intimidate them, without requiring them to specify their words. If they do, more power to them, it might get them a bonus to the roll, but I won't absolutely refuse to let them try if they all they've given me is a general course of action, rather than specifying exactly what they're doing.

Apparently there's some objection to that though.

Let's try another example. Imagine a player wants to bash down a door. Do I need to ask how they're doing it? No. If they say they're going to get one of the pillars from the room and use it as a battering ram, well, I can just give them a bonus to the roll. I don't have to ask them to detail it completely. Of course, if it's a magic door with a riddle on it, I can let them solve it, or I can accept the results of an insight roll and a knowledge check. And if it's something even more special, I could have Perception, Knowledge, Arcana, and Thievery checks involved.

I see the situation with the rival as a similar case. I certainly can set things up in advance to be more complex, but if I do, it'll be intentional, and even then, I can have a lot of flexibility as to the exactness of the PC's actions. Not every conflict has to be a real challenge.

 

[Ariosto]

I'm not understanding what you're attempting to express with these phrases at all.

That's odd. To me they appear as plain English as, "Scaring the NPC away from his girl."

 

[Ariosto]

Perhaps the difficulty lies in confusion between

an action

and

an objective (or goal, desire, hope, wish, etc.).

 

[Bumbles]

That's odd. To me they appear as plain English as, "Scaring the NPC away from his girl."

And your intent would be then?

I'm still not sure.

Perhaps the difficulty lies in confusion between

an action

and

an objective (or goal, desire, hope, wish, etc.).

So you were confused about what I meant? You should have just said so instead of spouting off random phrases. I might have been able to explain it to you. So what do you not understand?

 

[Ariosto]

"Scaring the NPC away from his girl" is, as are the examples I gave, not an action but an objective.

 

[Bumbles]

"Scaring the NPC away from his girl" is, as are the examples I gave, not an action but an objective.

Sorry, I don't understand your concerns. In the context of the game, "Scaring the NPC away from his girl" can describe an action well enough for me to know how to proceed. Why do you think it doesn't?

 

[Hairfoot]

If it were to change from "Epic Battle and Politics in a Magical Society" to "Shopping, Landscaping and The Power of Love in a Fey Society"...I'd probably opt out.

Or you could change it to "Epic Battle and Politics in a Magical Society, With Elements of Stronghold Management, Diplomacy, Criminal Investigation, Intelligence-Gathering and Research". It doesn't have to be an either/or choice.

And can I ask why you reduced the non-combat possibilities of the game to shopping, landscaping and love? Considering that this is an extension of the "is D&D sexist?" discussion, that seems like a resounding "yes"!

Sorry, I don't understand your concerns. In the context of the game, "Scaring the NPC away from his girl" can describe an action well enough for me to know how to proceed. Why do you think it doesn't?

I think LostSoul covered that in post #148.

It depends on how important you want that event to be in the overall game. I enjoy more specificity, so that I have the option of bringing it into a rivalry subplot, but if it's just an event for the PC to demonstrate his ballsiness, a simple roll may suffice.