Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Gilean 01-11-06, 01:49 PM	It is a quote by Vincent Baker, an RPG designer. His point is that dice shouldn't be rolled unless something is at stake. I'll give an example. PCs are crossing a river. If there is no hurry, no need to get over quickly, you can quite well agree that they make it. No need to roll for it. They'll make it, given time. If, on the other hand, the PCs must rush to save a village from bandits and they come to the same river, in exactly the same situation, it should be played out. Before they try to swim, tell that it is a DC15 check to get across fast enough; fail, and the village burns. With a really bad check result the one to roll it is going to to with the flow and land later. Now, this is stuff worth rolling. Succeeding has a benefit, failing has a price. Same with social situations. PCs are trying to find a [this removes frequently used words of suitable time, not good] to have some fun. Unless that is something you want to stop, tell "Sure, whatever. If everyone's fine with it, describe what you do to as clearly as you want.". But, if the players are trying to find a [and again; is there a list somewhere?] to help in assassinating someone, it should be played out. Gather information to find a suitable one, diplomacy (or intimidate) to persuade her for the job, and so on. Lots of rolling to do. Failed gather info and the person-to-be-killed hears of the request. Failed intimidation and the word will spread. Diplomacy and the way is closed permanently. The point is, roll dice only when there is something to win and something to lose. Rolling when nothing can be losed is not useful, as it can be retried again and again. No point rolling. This applies to combats, too. If a party of adventurers encounters a small group of goblins, "You kill them. Want to take prisoners?" is a valid thing to say. Just don't give experience for it. This applies to events that are necessary for a plot, if you use such. Someone needs to find a secret door? "Who has the highest search? Okay, you find a secret door." is completely fine. Spare the dice. Roll only when something is at stake.
revnk 01-11-06, 02:25 PM	That's one philosophy. It's a valid philosophy. There's another game-design philosophy that says "dice rolling is fun." Under this philosophy, rolling the dice is a way to keep players engaged. Which philosophy is preferrable is entirely up to individual groups, although a narrative style of "You automatically kill the orcs, you get no experience, would you like to take prisoners" seems calculated to bore and annoy players. The point of rolling to kill a 1/4 hd kobold is not necessarily because anything is at stake other than the fact that it's really satisfying for a player to play, which is presumably why he's at the table. The philosophy you outline also fails to really address the fudging issue, which is still being debated in That Other Thread (which, if memory serves, you started). The fact that something is "at stake" (or not) may be immaterial to the question of "when random things do happen, how random should they really be?" All of that said, I certainly hope younger DMs (and perhaps a few old dogs like me) will read your post and consider situations where no dice are rolled as a situational game option--that is, maybe situations arrise where a narrative resolution or merely saying "yes" is more appropriate than making a skill check. I believe that was the actual intent of the take 10/20 rule, and certainly it's a useful tool. When appropriate.
MarkB 01-11-06, 02:27 PM	This is why the Take 10, Take 20 and Aid Another rules exist. Nevertheless, good point well made.
Gilean 01-11-06, 02:34 PM	"You automatically kill the orcs, you get no experience, would you like to take prisoners" seems calculated to bore and annoy players.The assumption is that the fight won't be very exciting nor dramatic, nor really important.This is why the Take 10, Take 20 and Aid Another rules exist. Nevertheless, good point well made.They have that nasty limitation of not applying to checks that could result in harm. But, right you are. revnk, this isn't posted on That Other Thread for a reason. Which you articulated.
jagraham 01-11-06, 02:45 PM	I am all for summarizing the in town and Take 10 stuff. However, for combat, I find players gleefully pound the tar out of goblins and other weak critters. Gotta wrap all the presents for the kiddies.
Koga:The ninja trick 01-11-06, 03:31 PM	The roll only when there are stakes makes alot of sense, but sometimes the roll because it's fun philsophy can pay off, why? Because even as a DM, you can afford change and unexpected turn of events just as much if not moreso then your players. A D&D game is only really exsiting when both the DM and the players are suprised and pleased with results. And suprise comes with dice-rolls, pleasing comes with success and or good plotline..
olshanski_home 01-11-06, 03:40 PM	They have that nasty limitation of not applying to checks that could result in harm. But, right you are.You can take 10 any time that you are not immediately threatened. I take this to mean (not in combat). I regularly allow take 10 on heal, climb, diplomacy, disable device, use magic device, balance, and plenty of other skill checks that have a negative consequence for failure. As long as the person isn't rushed, they can simply concentrate and do a decent job. They will not do outstanding, but they will not bomb either. If a cliff requires a DC10 climb check, and the party is not in combat, I let them choose to "take 10", and assuming nobody has an AC penalty or negative strength modifier, they'll all make it up the cliff safely without rolling dice. I don't think that this is a houserule, I believe it is suggested in the PHB.
q'afuu 01-11-06, 03:51 PM	It's certainly something to do only with moderation, but occasionally rolling the dice simply so the players see dice are rolled is a good enough reason to roll (the same goes for asking them to roll, btw). The fact that dice are rolled keeps players on their toes. Even more important, if your players know that occasionally dice are rolled for no real reason, it's less out of the ordinary when you ask them for an unspecified roll of 1d20 and it's easier for the DM to conceal the reason for it (I usually don't want to tell the players that they're rolling a Spot or Listen check, for instance). On another note, doing combat free-form simply because it's not meant to be important or because you have something specific in mind for the outcome takes away from the feeling of going through an adventure. It's too different: the players know the outcome is fixed and that nothing really serious is going to happen to their characters. That's no fun. Better to uphold the illusion.
thought_riot 01-11-06, 04:16 PM	They have that nasty limitation of not applying to checks that could result in harm. But, right you are. revnk, this isn't posted on That Other Thread for a reason. Which you articulated. Really? You can't take 10 when there is a penalty for failure? Sure, take 20 has that limitation, but the only limitation for taking 10 is not being distracted or threatened...
MarkB 01-11-06, 04:56 PM	They have that nasty limitation of not applying to checks that could result in harm. But, right you are. As stated, this isn't quite correct as far as Take 10 goes. You can still take 10 even if the result of failure would be harmful - it's only threats from sources other than the check itself, or external distractions, that prevent you from taking 10.
a_psh 01-11-06, 06:05 PM	On another note, doing combat free-form simply because it's not meant to be important or because you have something specific in mind for the outcome takes away from the feeling of going through an adventure. It's too different: the players know the outcome is fixed and that nothing really serious is going to happen to their characters. That's no fun. Better to uphold the illusion.Indeed. Either whip out the grid and roll the dice or gloss over it completely. If we're talking about something that's a bit like the Indiana Jones red-line-on-a-map thing, then, I think, there are times when it's handy to gloss over it completely. It helps when you're doing games where a lot of time sometimes passes. If we're talking about a dungeon crawl or what have you, then it's probably going to kill the fun. I think something like "As you ride through the wastes, you cross blades with the Dark Warlord's patrols several times. Having faced his soldiers before on many occasions, you dispatch them easily with stealth and guile. Finally, after three weeks' travel, the Sea of Blood lies before you." works pretty well for skipping over what would be a session of relatively mundane battle. Something like "Okay. In this room, the walls are decorated with various aged frescos and there's refuse in the corner. There's three brown kobolds, which you butcher easily. You discover that they have a few gold peices and a healing potion. Do you want the south door or the west door?" doesn't really work for me, however. It's sort of like the difference between "fast forward" and "scene selection", if you will... I think it's fine to gloss over fighting that occurs in between disjoint scenes, but not fighting that's part of a continous set of events. I can think of one specific personal anecdote where skipping over a bunch of combat-y stuff, even very difficult and likely-to-kill you combat-y stuff, was the perfect solution: We were wrapping up a campaign where the PCs were fighting the Daask (a criminal organization) in Sharn, Eberron's great city of towers. Ultimately, after battling their way through the Temple of the Dark Six (how we handled this without making it a miserably tedious dungeon crawl is another story), the PCs decided to betray crime lord Saiden Boromar, their employer, and steal a powerful psionic artifact that he was planning to use to repay some of his allies (because it was dangerous rather than for personal gain). So the campaign ended with them ambushing a bunch of Dreaming Dark agents, stealing this giant crystal doohicky, and using the artifact's own planar powers to fling it far, far away while making a daring sky-boat getaway. Hard to explain it all, but it was an amazingly satisfying finish to the game. Anyway, we then spent a few minutes talking about what the various PCs would do afterward (go back home, go exploring, try to make a new life while guarding the artifact in a far-off plane). Then, one of the players said "I've got some questions for Boromar and I want to confront him," and the others who were still in Sharn agreed. So we jumped to a quick scene with the PCs breaking down Saidan's door, his countless dead and beaten bodyguards (which would've certainly been several hours' worth of hard fights, if we'd actually bothered) littering the hallway behind them, and having a few words with him. It ended up making the climax much more satisfying and ominous, in a way that a whole session of wrap-up stuff wouldn't have at all. It felt right, so we did it, and it worked. Sandwiching some free-form stuff in between a bunch of more by-the-book combat without a really strong separator between them, however, I think, makes the game feel a bit too arbitrary, and telling the PCs "oh, this is easy" kind of takes away a lot of the feeling of accomplishment that most of the folks I know get out of combat. As mentioned previously, "taking 10" exists specifically so that the DM can do most non-dangerous non-combat situations quickly. There's always at least some risk in combat, however, and always a resource-use challenge even when the likelihood of actual death is miniscule.
weasel fierce 01-11-06, 06:46 PM	My general rule is that there are a lot of things that plain doesnt need dice rolls. 1: A ranger in a forest, trying to find food. He's a ranger, of course he can find a bunny. 2: The party is breaking down a door, and have all the time in the world. No need to roll, they'll do it sooner or later 3: Chucking a rope and grappling hook over a wall. This is basic adventurer stuff, only the most inept character would have doubts as to whether it could be done. Admittedly, this is for AD&D, where there's no required skill system, but it holds true in every RPG I have played. A worse offender is having players roll to notice, do or find things that they need to notice, do or find, in order to actually progress in the adventure, f.x. finding a particular NPC, or hidden door. If its nescesary to find, they'll find it. If there's an alternative, then rolling is fine, if you prefer to have a random element. On the other side, I do sometimes enjoy dicing for morale or reactions of various NPC's that arent overly important, to have some random elements :)
imperialjunkie 01-11-06, 07:26 PM	This applies to combats, too. If a party of adventurers encounters a small group of goblins, "You kill them. Want to take prisoners?" is a valid thing to say. Just don't give experience for it. I totally agree with you Gilean except for the above situation. In combat there is always the risk of something being lost. Crits allow for risk in almost every combat situation. And if the encounter is so paltry that 3 crits in a row couldn't hurt a PC, then it isn't worth inserting into the adventure.
Board_Rider 01-11-06, 08:34 PM	I think that this thread is similar to the "Story vs. Rules" thread. While I would agree that, at times, glossing over combat may be good for game advancement it should never actually take place for every "easy" combat. Sometimes Goblins, as per the example, are meant to weaken the PCs before they head off to fight the BBEG by acting as cannon fodder. Sure the PCs may blow by them, however the tiny hits may accumulate which could make the PCs change tactics or actually roleplay caution and use the terrain to their favor. If the Players always expect to "gloss over" details and be given things freely (like finding secret doors) then why even play the game? If I understand this thread correctly then why not simply make 1st level characters and throw a plot hook out. Have the PCs automaticaly Gather Information and just fast foward to the BBEG. Then have a cutscene where the Players are not even involved with interaction. Hey, why even have character sheets? This thread reeks of "I didn't like what I read on my Fudging Dice Rolls is a Symptom thread so we should just scrap encounters because if dice rolls are already predetermined then why bother?". The idea of rolling over encounters and giving out locations to secret doors is ridiculous when trying to "spare the dice" . Nothing should be a pushover for your Players. The DM should strive between proper challenges and good presentation. Glossing over stuff does not induce either of these. a_psh's example is about as far as I would take it and would use it sparingly at best. Of course this is just my opinion.
Rathje 01-11-06, 08:42 PM	There are a couple reasons for using Goblins at high levels and including the combat: 1) It keeps players aware that the world does not revolve around them. I saw a quote that read "When we were younger we fought goblins and wolves. Now we're fighting liches and balors. What happened to all the wolves?" 2) It keeps them guessing when they encounter the goblins with ten levels of fighter, with two of the group substituting their fighter levels for druid. If they see the goblins and you tell them to roll up initiative, they'll know something's up from the start. The anticipation, guess-work, and everything is half the fun. The Wizard doesn't know if he should start casting Fireball or not and the Rogue doesn't know if he should risk an attack of opportunity by circling around or just stab them in the face.
weasel fierce 01-11-06, 08:46 PM	Im not sure if anyone is really saying to just not roll ever. There's a difference between the party taking on a band of goblins, that are noticeably weaker, but still able to present some limited threat, and the party deciding to execute a captured goblin. The former can be played out, for the latter, rolling initiative is just a waste of time
Dragonspirit 01-11-06, 09:39 PM	Some good points in this thread. After all, we don't need to roleplay going to the toilet or eating breakfast ("Roll: Natural 1?! Oh noes, critical fumble! You failed to slice your bagel and accidently dropped the cream cheese on the floor!!" :D) I would say, as one other poster commented, that getting to roll a few dice even in 'non essential' situations is a good way to keep the players engaged. Also, getting to roll for things like gather information, knowledges and diplomacy allow for less combat driven characters a chance to use their skills and see a tangible reward for ranking them up.
revnk 01-11-06, 09:52 PM	This thread reeks of "I didn't like what I read on my Fudging Dice Rolls is a Symptom thread so we should just scrap encounters because if dice rolls are already predetermined then why bother?". Hmmmm... y'think? :D The idea of rolling over encounters and giving out locations to secret doors is ridiculous when trying to "spare the dice" . Nothing should be a pushover for your Players. The DM should strive between proper challenges and good presentation. Glossing over stuff does not induce either of these. a_psh's example is about as far as I would take it and would use it sparingly at best. Of course this is just my opinion. No, it's not just your opinion. I tend to agree with you, and I suspect we're not alone. Some folks give the impression of having confused the willingness of some DMs to occasionally fudge with constant and compulsive fudging; on top of this has now been added an idea drawn from one of several viable game design philosophies (the idea of minimalist die rolling). I'll certainly agree that some things can be glossed over; on the other hand, good presentation can include lots and lots of die rolling, some of it "unnecessary." A key to good DMing, I think, is being flexible in one's approach to making sure everyone has a good time--and sometimes it's just fun for a player to roll dice, even if the dice aren't (or shouldn't) affect outcomes. The advice from Vincent Baker, I suspect, is really aimed at newer GMs who sometimes feel like they have to compulsively require skill checks for even the most mundane tasks. ("I'd like to look through the keyhole." "Umm... okay... uh... make a... um... I think that's a Search... uh... DC... um, let me find the page... DC25." "Can't I just stick my eye up to the hole?" "Um... okay... uh... make it a Spot check--") As you say, Board Rider, it's about balancing challenges and presentation... and also about a generous dollop of common sense and fair play.
Kuronue 01-11-06, 10:32 PM	some musings 1) glossing over combat: in killing the random soldiers, how many arrows did the ranger use? how many spells did the wizard use killing the 2 kobolds guarding the door? etc. bad idea. 2) glossing over mundane things... sometimes a trip to town, the town that hasn't changed since they left it that morning, to get supplies for a trip, when we have a limited amount of time, can be as easy as "What do you want, I'll give you prices" or, if I have more time, as complex as having an NPC shopkeeper to haggle with. Depends ont he group, the time we have, my whims. 3) travel. gloss. yes. 4) lip gloss is sparkly.... sorry, CN in me coming out ^_^ 5) this thread is not some other thread. this is a new thread. nobody's making you post, why gripe? 6) my adventurers tend to be hired, I rarely use random encounters. Thus, they gain a rep, they get hired for harder things. If you're going to put a level 15 party against 2 kobolds, will you also put a level 3 party against a red dragon? both exist.... PCs rarely retreat, they'd get TPKd.
revnk 01-11-06, 10:45 PM	5) this thread is not some other thread. this is a new thread. nobody's making you post, why gripe? Not... true... voices... in my head... telling me... must post... want to... stop... can't... redrum... mommy... stop me... before... I... post... AGAIN... AGGGGGGH! :twitch:
Horatio Hornblower 01-11-06, 11:08 PM	It is a quote by Vincent Baker, an RPG designer. His point is that dice shouldn't be rolled unless something is at stake. I agree with the original examples except combat. Encounters should be a challenge. The character's lives should be at stake. If the CR of the encounter is so low that you don't think it should be played out then don't use it. Give the players something worth rolling the dice.
Board_Rider 01-11-06, 11:12 PM	As you say, Board Rider, it's about balancing challenges and presentation... and also about a generous dollop of common sense and fair play. Exactly. I realize that my earlier post seems condescending but that was not my intent. Surely, I agree that "mundane" stuff like looking into a keyhole or riding a horse without combat involved should not require rolls. As revnk wrote, common sense should be used. However, "easy combat" can at times not be so easy if properly set up by the DM and, should, at times, be used to keep PCs on their toes. Be :cool:, BR
Phael 01-12-06, 02:50 AM	The party is breaking down a door, and have all the time in the world. No need to roll, they'll do it sooner or later I do believe they call that Take 20. It validates the reason why characters have character sheets in the first place. Stats and skill ranks mean nothing if you just hand the accomplishments to the PC without any show of effort. Senario 1: PC1: I want to break the door down. DM: Okay, it's busted, now you see . . . PC2: Thats it? But his STR is like a 8, how'd he do that? DM: Well didn't you help him? PC2: No. DM: Nevermind, he would have broken it down eventually anyways. PC2: :confused: Senario 2: PC2: I want to break the door down, can I take 20 on my STR check? DM: Sure! Lets see . . okay that's a total of 23 for your STR check . . you deal the door a solid kick and it flies open with a bang! PC1: Ooo . . I could have never kicked that door open, but now that its open . . . That, of course is assuming that the DM intends the door to be broken by the group and sets an acheivable DC. Senario 1: PC1: I want to break the door down. DM: You can't. PC1: Why? I have an 18 STR. DM: The door isn't breakable. PC2: Then I'll try to pick the lock! DM: You're unable to pick the lock. PC2: But I have masterwork tools and a +10 to my Open Lock! You haven't even let me roll yet! DM: It doesn't matter, you can't pick it. PC1 & PC2: :confused: DM: *frustrated* Look, I just don't want you to go thru that door yet. PC1 & Pc2: :rant: Senario 2: PC1: I want to break down the door, can I take 20 for a total STR check of 22? DM: Sure, you spent a couple of minutes bashing at the door with all your might but the reinforced door doesn't budge. PC2: If you can't bust it, maybe I can pick it. Can I take my time and take 20 on the lock? DM: Sure. Whats the total? PC2: Uh . . lets see, masterwork tools adds a +1 right? Okay that'll be a total of 28. DM: Hmmmm . . You spent several minutes in intense concentration trying to pick the lock, but its just too complicated and you can't seem to get the hang of it. PC1: Dangit, tough door. Lets come back to this one later, we still have the rest of the dungeon to explore. Take 10 and Take 20 sufficiently handle the non-combat non-esstial skill rolls while still validating a character's skills and abilities. And no, the characters will not always eventually break that door or find that hidden compartment. But why should they be successful at everything? Without challenge, what is the motivation to improve? And I agree with statements above about combat. If the encounter is so beneath their level that it's not a challenge, then don't bother to include it. I take that +2 flaming burst broadsword because I want to use it, dangit! DM: You ran into some goblins and can easily beat them all. Do you want to take prisoners? PC1: No, not realy . . I want to cast Fireball on them! PC2: I take out my +2 flaming burst broadsword! DM: Yes, yes, you beat them all. They're dead. Moving on . . PC1: What? Aren't you going to let us kill them? DM: *sigh* I did let you kill them, they're all dead, you said you didn't want prisoners, so moving on now . . PC2: Hey, but I want to fight them! I want to try out my Might Cleaving and see how many I can take out in a round! DM: Alot. Look, they're just stupid weak goblins, do you really have to waste time and rp the whole combat? PC1 & PC2: :ahem: :rant: :tantrum:
YRM 01-12-06, 09:13 AM	I agree with the concept presented here. The exception would be, for example, if the players are in a cave, and they have to go into dark water and swim under a small outcropping to surface on the other side... There might not actually be any danger, but, since the PCs can't tell that, it's good to make some rolls just so they don't start reading your patterns or find the DM too predictable. If the PCs were going to cross three rivers via slippery rocks, and two of them were safe, but the third river would be an ambush as the PCs were halfway across, you might want to roll all three and treat all three the same way... otherwise, when the PCs get to the final river, they'll know immediately that some danger is present and take extra precautions. Even if they refuse to metagame, they may take LESS precautions than normal simply to prove that they aren't metagaming. Keeping the PCs guessing, for me, would create exceptions. However... I agree that it's not at all required to roleplay every stream crossing our walking up a steep hill or along a narrow pass.
Roxlimn 01-12-06, 10:07 AM	Gilean: I fundamentally disagree with your unstated assumption that rolling dice is only meant to be a chance-resolution mechanic. That is - if there is no chance for any other event to happen, it's best not to roll it at all. I use dice for more than just that. Given that players usually associated dice rolling with significant events, you can use hidden dice rolling (that don't actually have meaning) to heighten suspense and imply that dangers lurk at every corner. You could also do that with descriptive comments, but I see no need to cripple myself just because of a stranger's theoretical musings. This applies to combats as well. Saying flat out "You defeat the goblins. Take prisoners?" IS a valid thing to say, but it's not always the best thing to say. You could play out a supposedly meaningless combat to instill a sense of conservation on your more wasteful players. Believe it or not, some 9th level players would actually use a fireball on a bunch of goblins that seem to all accounts to not be a genuine threat. It also allows you to mask those goblins who don't seem threatening but actually are potent NPCs. In some cases, it's a roleplaying opportunity as well. If Evoker X plays his character nice and flashy, he'll want to get in some quality moments posing for the cameras, especially when he thinks he can get away with some otherwise careless but impressive moves. The dice here don't act to resolve a chance mechanic so much as act as a highlighting mechanic. Rolling 9d6 against 1 hp kobolds doesn't change the outcome in the slightest, but it does allow the player to roll 9d6 and feel good about it. Sometimes, powerful heroes want to feel like powerful heroes, throw their weight around a bit. Rolling the dice allows you to get a close up on those powers and develop characterization. Of course, this is not to say that expediting meaningless combats is bad. If a meaningless conflict will break the pacing, there's no need to further put it under a microscope just to kill your excitement dead. Better to just sweep it under the rug ASAP. At the same time, I see no reason not to squeeze every ounce of use I can get out of my dice. If I can use dice to highlight action sequences, I'll do it.
Gilean 01-12-06, 10:39 AM	I misremembered taking 10. It solves a lot of the cases. My bad. Board Rider, I tend to be bitter, but it has nothing to do with this thread. Let the threads go their merry ways, and not merge them. YRM (and some others), keeping the players in dark is not something I tend to do. Simply because I don't play against them, in the least. I run a setting. They can do whatever they like. Roxlimn, I understand your point. Letting them roll the dice because there is a large handful of them (some people might really like dice pool games...) may be okay. But combats are long. Especially if the opponents are of any level, it will take time. Time that could be spent better. Encounters should be a challenge. The character's lives should be at stake. If the CR of the encounter is so low that you don't think it should be played out then don't use it. Give the players something worth rolling the dice.Exactly my point. Adding the encounters that are not interesting as a colour stops them from takign unnecessary time but still keeps all the wolves in the setting. And I totally support letting the players narrate what happened, within limits. That way they can be exactly as cool as they want to, and can tell how much spells they used (ammunition is not usually counted, IME) if it happens to be useful. Saying "a group of goblins, tell me what you do to them" might be more suitable then simply using two sentences in description.
Roxlimn 01-12-06, 10:52 AM	Gilean: Roxlimn, I understand your point. Letting them roll the dice because there is a large handful of them (some people might really like dice pool games...) may be okay. But combats are long. Especially if the opponents are of any level, it will take time. Time that could be spent better. 1. "Long" is subjective. If your combats are taking longer than your group wants, you need to use more shortcuts. Doesn't mean that the rest of us should, though. 2. If my players are gleefully grandstanding in a combat they're enjoying, I can't see any better use of the time. PS: You say that you don't keep your players in the dark. So what? Does that mean that the rest of us don't "run a setting?" Does it mean that we're "inferior gamers?" What exactly are you trying to get at with that statement about "not keeping your players in the dark?"
Bob Loblaw 01-12-06, 11:13 AM	Originally posted by Gilean YRM (and some others), keeping the players in dark is not something I tend to do. Simply because I don't play against them, in the least. I run a setting. They can do whatever they like. I doubt you tell your players everything. I'm sure you do keep them in the dark on some things. If you don't, why are they wasting their time playing? There would be no surprises if you didn't keep them in the dark. I'm not saying you need to take the Me v Them attitude as many DMs do, but you can't let the players in on everything. My players can do whatever they like as well, and that includes making uninformed decisions. Sometimes they think they have all the information, other times they don't even seek out the information. That's their fault; I don't give them anything without cause. As for the topic, I think you have a point. I think that the dice should only be used when some random element is needed to move the story along in a fun manner. I have run an epic party against normal kobolds. The players weren't sure if they were in any danger. They thought they could handle the kobolds, but once in a while something would happen to change their minds. They always felt like they could fail, even when I knew that they couldn't. The party still talks about the fun they had. The dice aren't necessary for anyone to have fun, but in many cases it can help by bringing the players back into the story or to lighten/increase the tension. Of course, the DM needs to be able to read his players to determine the best times to do this.
Cymraegmorgan 01-12-06, 11:15 AM	YRM (and some others), keeping the players in dark is not something I tend to do. Simply because I don't play against them, in the least. I run a setting. They can do whatever they like. So, you provide the players with your adventure, with all encounters detailed, before play starts. So as not to keep them in the dark? And I totally support letting the players narrate what happened, within limits. That way they can be exactly as cool as they want to, and can tell how much spells they used (ammunition is not usually counted, IME) if it happens to be useful. Saying "a group of goblins, tell me what you do to them" might be more suitable then simply using two sentences in description. Narration within limits. :thinks: Sounds like the D&D combat system as it stands. The player narrates an action. The dice facilitate that actions success or failure. Player narrates their response to the outcome. I narrate the response of opponents. Dice come into play again. And so on. While it may be fun for some players to sit around going all Howardesque in their descriptions of decaptitations and manly combat moves, my players expect me to interact with them, not just sit back and throw out the odd phrase. As others have mentioned "a group of goblins" should be an interesting encounter. Maybe one is a Blue Egoist. Maybe the leader is a Ranger with more levels than the party's average. Maybe they are all Paladins come to recruit the party in their fight against a black dragon. If I did what you suggested above, my players would say I was getting lazy.
Mandarbgrim 01-12-06, 11:28 AM	Narrating has a lot of benefits in my mind. There seems no need to waste a lot of time for certain unimportant plot events when you are moving toward the main objectives. So, narrating traditional cutscenes seems fine. Cutscenes such as the example given of traveling through enemy lines and dispatching enemy soldiers seem a good ide. In such there actually isn’t much of an issue of losing resources since several days are going to occur over that time period. I’m still kind of unsure about the necessity of playing out non-XP rewarding encounters. I understand both sides arguments, but as a DM I would be far more interested in glossing over that encounter. An encounter such as a 10th level party coming upon a small goblin raiding party has an obvious outcome. In a sense, the party is taking 10 <or maybe even 2 in this case.> to dispatch the goblins. There is no risk involved, no reward involved, and no importance to the storyline. But such needs to be included for reasons of realism and the flavor of a living world. I guess it all depends on whether your players consider such encounters a “waste” of time or not.
Arak the mighty 01-12-06, 12:10 PM	Just my taste, but no way in hell I'd ever "gloss over" even the most meaningless combat. If I had a dime for every time a PC was down to ONE hp in a later encounter............that could have been lost in an earlier encounter. But since the earlier encounter was "glossed over" because it "wasn't important" that one HP doesn't mean as much now. Like others have said. You're the DM. If it's that meaningless that you don't even want to *waste your time rolling the dice* (which I don't get, this is a game after all, not an interactive book), then why is it there? My players LIKE rolling their dice. They all bring their own neat-o little satiny dice bags, with oodles of fascinatingly colored dice. They like it when I'M rolling dice behind a screen, because then they think "something's up!", even if I'm not really rolling for anything. What it all comes down to though is the same thing that EVERY THREAD ON THIS SUBJECT HAS BEEN ABOUT LATELY! Style of play! Why is everyone insistent on telling everyone else how they should play? If your group is more interested in writing a point to point story with little to no deviation, then more power to ya. I'd be bored out of my mind, but that's me. There is NOT one right way to play DnD. There's some people who I read how they play, and all I can do is shake my head and say "not me", but I don't for a second begrudge them the fun they're having, because they'd likely watch me DM a session and silently shake their head and think "not me", right? Who's right? Everyone who has fun playing, I guess.
Gilean 01-12-06, 12:26 PM	There is NOT one right way to play DnD. There's some people who I read how they play, and all I can do is shake my head and say "not me", but I don't for a second begrudge them the fun they're having, because they'd likely watch me DM a session and silently shake their head and think "not me", right? Who's right? Everyone who has fun playing, I guess.Hey, calm down, I agree. Totally. On not keeping my players in the dark, I let them see die rolls. Before rolling I tell the DC (if not opposed, and sometimes even then) and what is achieved if they succeed or fail. And I ask if they are cool options. If not, we'll negotiate new ones. How's that for not keeping them in dark? My point was that it is by no means mandatory to keep them in dark. As some have implied or said.Narration within limits."My rogue sneaks behind and stabs three to the back before they as much as notice me." "I [playing a bruiser] charge them upfront to distract and kill a few." Etc. Players narrate what happens. Limits come from character abilities, so no fighters calling down heavenly wrath upon their enemies, and such.As others have mentioned "a group of goblins" should be an interesting encounter. Maybe one is a Blue Egoist. Maybe the leader is a Ranger with more levels than the party's average. Maybe they are all Paladins come to recruit the party in their fight against a black dragon.Yes, because the encounters of low level disappear mysteriously. There are no more groups of puny goblins, suddenly most of them could take at least three men in melee."Long" is subjective.Long as compared to many other RPGs, then.
revnk 01-12-06, 12:33 PM	I guess it all depends on whether your players consider such encounters a “waste” of time or not. That's a big part of it, though. As Roxlimn pointed out (and I tried to), sometimes letting your players roll a bunch of dice or beat up on an easily-vanquished enemy is fun. Indeed, sometimes it's critical. Right now I have players in a tough dungeon crawl--to escape from an enchanted wood, they have had to enter a bizarre and surreal set of rooms and halls that take them deep underground and back to a surface region that exits the wood. It's a young campaign, so the characters are low-level. Some of the encounters have been tough--a few have been tougher than they should have been because of bad rolls or planning; one encounter was demoralizing not because it resulted in injury to the party, but because they failed to achieve an obvious goal. The party is actually doing fairly well, but they don't necessarily know that or feel it. In a recent session, the players ended up in a combat encounter that, mathematically speaking, wasn't too difficult--a few good sword hits and magic missiles ended it. As DM, I would have put a low emphasis or priority on it. But I would have been wrong to do so: the players needed an opportunity to have their characters overwhelmingly succeed: the encounter was a morale builder for them, a vindication, and it became obvous by the second round that the players were getting revenge on the dungeon for some of the rough spots they'd hit. Which is good, no--it's excellent. The players needed to blow off some steam and I'm glad that particular encounter made it possible. The point I'm trying to get at is that the mechanics which make up the playing of the game aren't merely functional. Players get attached to characters, rue mistakes, take joy in triumphs; sometimes things which ought to have been insignificant become paramount. They become fond of an NPC or take a small loss too much to heart. Giving the players a chance to succeed and see their success--to take a die (or a handful of dice), roll, and add up all their bonuses--can make the players feel good, even if the DM (and even the players) know that the result doesn't matter. "Look, I can hit a 26 on a skill check despite rolling low!" "I rolled five times the kobold's hit points in damage!" "Omigosh, I need more six sided dice for the damage roll!" These are things that make the game participatory and fun, even if they are entirely irrelevant to the end result of the session. ("Yes, and if you'd taken '20' you'd have gotten a better result." "Yes, the kobold would have been unconscious if you'd rolled standard damage without the crit." "Yes, you're rolling 9d6 against monsters that average 1/2 hit die apiece, I could have just said, 'crispy fries' and moved on.") The dice are a means to an end, not an end themselves.
Roxlimn 01-12-06, 12:42 PM	Gilean: Long as compared to many other RPGs, then. Still subjective. You can truncate 3e combat in any of a number of very expedient and suggested ways to make it unbelieveably short and to the point. You can even make it narrative, as you suggested, and not roll at all. Still ok by D&D rules. "Long" is a matter of perception and your incorrect view that there's a "correct" and "incorrect" or even a "default" way of playing D&D. The only way to play D&D right is so that you have fun. If you're not having fun, there are any number of reasons why that might be so, and several options for each possible problem. And that's that, really.
Cymraegmorgan 01-12-06, 12:43 PM	Players narrate what happens. Limits come from character abilities, so no fighters calling down heavenly wrath upon their enemies, and such. So if the players narrate all action, why do they need you? Sounds like the story games we used to play in kindergarten, rather than D&D. Yes, because the encounters of low level disappear mysteriously. There are no more groups of puny goblins, suddenly most of them could take at least three men in melee. No, they do not disappear. This was just an example of why players and DMs should not take Goblins for granted. Maybe after a couple of encounters like the ones I mentioned, the party might try to avoid(i.e. hide in fear) from the next party of goblins they see, not knowing they are all stadard fractional CR mooks. If you notice the random encounter tables in the DMG, they include chances for lower level encounters. While the possibility is small, a roll on the 20th level encounter chart can net you rerolls on lower charts that could result in the 20th level party facing off against 1d4 dire rats.
weasel fierce 01-12-06, 04:12 PM	I do believe they call that Take 20. Taking 20 is just another way of doing what Im talking about. [/quote] It validates the reason why characters have character sheets in the first place. [/quote] I thought combat was the reason to have character sheets, but maybe I was wrong Stats and skill ranks mean nothing if you just hand the accomplishments to the PC without any show of effort. Rolling for something that is guaranteed to happen anyways, doesnt grant skills meaning. It just slows things down Senario 1: PC1: I want to break the door down. DM: Okay, it's busted, now you see . . . PC2: Thats it? But his STR is like a 8, how'd he do that? DM: Well didn't you help him? PC2: No. DM: Nevermind, he would have broken it down eventually anyways. PC2: :confused: Alternatively DM: Roll STR to break the door PC: I fail. Can I try again ? DM: Sure, roll again PC: I fail. Can I try again ? DM: Sure, roll again PC: I fail. Can I try again ? DM: Sure, roll again PC: I fail. Can I try again ? DM: Sure, roll again PC: I fail. Can I try again ? DM: Sure, roll again PC: I fail. Can I try again ? DM: Sure, roll again PC: I fail. Can I try again ? DM: Sure, roll again PC: I fail. Can I try again ? DM: Sure, roll again Senario 2: PC2: I want to break the door down, can I take 20 on my STR check? DM: Sure! Lets see . . okay that's a total of 23 for your STR check . . you deal the door a solid kick and it flies open with a bang! PC1: Ooo . . I could have never kicked that door open, but now that its open . . . With a strength of 3, why would the DM allow him to kick down the door at all ? We're talking about what is reasonable for the character, not giving him abilities he does not possess. Senario 1: PC1: I want to break the door down. DM: You can't. PC1: Why? I have an 18 STR. DM: The door isn't breakable. PC2: Then I'll try to pick the lock! DM: You're unable to pick the lock. PC2: But I have masterwork tools and a +10 to my Open Lock! You haven't even let me roll yet! DM: It doesn't matter, you can't pick it. PC1 & PC2: :confused: DM: *frustrated* Look, I just don't want you to go thru that door yet. PC1 & Pc2: :rant: This has nothing to do with the topic whatsoever, and is in fact directly opposite the idea of "say yes or roll the dice" that the original poster stated. Senario 2: PC1: I want to break down the door, can I take 20 for a total STR check of 22? DM: Sure, you spent a couple of minutes bashing at the door with all your might but the reinforced door doesn't budge. PC2: If you can't bust it, maybe I can pick it. Can I take my time and take 20 on the lock? DM: Sure. Whats the total? PC2: Uh . . lets see, masterwork tools adds a +1 right? Okay that'll be a total of 28. DM: Hmmmm . . You spent several minutes in intense concentration trying to pick the lock, but its just too complicated and you can't seem to get the hang of it. PC1: Dangit, tough door. Lets come back to this one later, we still have the rest of the dungeon to explore. Again, same deal as above. The task is beyond the capabilities of the characters. Whether you roll dice 20 times, take 20, or simply state that its not possible doesnt change the outcome of this scenario. And no, the characters will not always eventually break that door or find that hidden compartment. But why should they be successful at everything? Without challenge, what is the motivation to improve? Noone is talking about not challenging PC's. We're talking about not wasting 5 minutes on the trivial stuff, so you can get to the actual challenges in the module or adventure. I'd rather duel a horde of goblins next to a waterfall, than roll dice repeatedly to kill a door with my axe Cheers
YRM 01-12-06, 04:28 PM	YRM (and some others), keeping the players in dark is not something I tend to do. Simply because I don't play against them, in the least. I run a setting. They can do whatever they like. I don't keep my players in the dark about anything that their character should know. My players can do whatever they like. I get kind of frustrated talking with DMs on these boards who assume that if you use the rules, or play the game as the book describes, that you can't have a great story, or you restrict your players, or any number of other falacies. Let's say that the party is in a very tough fight on a trail near the woods. Halfway through the fight, a nimble warrior in leather armor trots up the road, sees the PCs in trouble, and jumps in to help them fight off the monsters that are attacking. After the fight, the PCs are thankful and interact with the helpful NPC. This NPC is really a member of the local thieve's guild, and he sees the party of PCs as easy marks. He only helped them so he can more convincingly ask for their help, and lead them into an ambush. The NPC gives his fake back story in as believable of a method as the DM can present. Now, if I say, "EVERYONE ROLL FOR SENSE MOTIVE AND TELL ME WHAT YOU GOT!" And one guy rolls a 20... and, out in the open, or even via note, you tell him... "Hey, that NPC is lying... REALLY lying... he seems to be setting you up." And the other guy rolls a 1, and out in the open, I say, "You feel very sure you can trust what he's saying." OF COURSE the PCs are going to know which PC is correct. This is why it benefits the party if they learn certain things at the time when that information would actually be open to the party, and they can choose to act on it however they want to.
q'afuu 01-12-06, 06:03 PM	OF COURSE the PCs are going to know which PC is correct. This would have been be a good time to have used a rolling system where the PCs don't know their individual results, just the effect of those results on their characters (pregenerated rolls, for instance, or even the DM rolling for the PCs instead of the players). I don't see what it has to do the topic at hand, or even with strictly following the rules or not.
YRM 01-12-06, 06:36 PM	This would have been be a good time to have used a rolling system where the PCs don't know their individual results, just the effect of those results on their characters (pregenerated rolls, for instance, or even the DM rolling for the PCs instead of the players). I don't see what it has to do the topic at hand, or even with strictly following the rules or not. I did roll the dice for my players in this case. The discussion has involved "auto success" vs "rolling" but also posters on this thread have questioned "hiding" anything from the players, as if that is a bad, or useless thing to do. As you can see in the quote I started my reply with, it was implied that keeping players in the dark means you are restricting and playing against them. I'm simply letting them know what their character would know (and sometimes a bit more to be honest) My players don't get auto success unless their ranks allow it on an unopposed check, (or an unopposed "take 20" in a non-rush, no stress situation) and I hide rolls like this, exactly as you described. We agree. What my response has to do with the topic is that I started out by providing you examples of times when a PC was definitely going to succeed, like swimming under what might be a small tunnel (but they don't know that when they start diving under the water). After I said that I would conduct rolls in situations where the PCs might not be assured of eventual success, based on what they see or what I know, I was criticized for keeping my players in the dark about any situation. Then, I provided examples of times when it's useful to keep a player in the dark if their PC would not know the information. (Bluff vs Sense Motive... Search for Traps, etc.) What it comes down to, is, I was trying to defend myself from things that were said, earlier in the thread, by providing useful and logical examples of why I'd roll when the PCs were guaranteed success, or, eventually, why I'd hide certain rolls from my players.
Mandarbgrim 01-12-06, 06:58 PM	I understand the need to win easy encounters on occason. I have thrown such at a party just for the express purpose of them mopping the floor with some monsters that challenged them a few levels ago. However, It seems important to retain consistency in a world. To do so means that the party *Should* encounter stuff that is grossly under their level. If this happens repeatedly it is bloody boring. I played through an entire game of this happening in an inane DM's dungeon before. Every once in awhile is alright..but if it happens repeatedly it gets old. So...options. 1. Low level encounters are rare; which stretches credability for the world. 2. Low Level Encounters are glossed over; PC's know something is up if an encounter isn't glossed over. 3. Low Level Encounters are fought out; PC's get bored after continiously not being challenged, and not earning much XP or gold. Like I said...it all depends on what everyone prefers, but I don't like option 1 or 3 any more than option 2, so option 2 seems perfectly viable to me. I don't care if the PC's manage to beat the BBEG with 1 HP left, or something similiar. Low level encounters <By which I mean encounters so far below CR that no xp is awarded for it.> are included for realism and story purposes, not for the purpose of challenging the players, degrading their resources<Although this is a purpose I could see being used.>, or rewarding the players with treasure or xp.
q'afuu 01-12-06, 07:13 PM	What it comes down to, is, I was trying to defend myself from things that were said, earlier in the thread, by providing useful and logical examples of why I'd roll when the PCs were guaranteed success, or, eventually, why I'd hide certain rolls from my players. Good call. I made an error i judgement based on your second paragraph, which mentioned adhering to the rules right before you jumped into your example. My bad.
Arak the mighty 01-12-06, 07:29 PM	1. Low level encounters are rare; which stretches credability for the world. As much as I try to maintain some semblance of reality, the point above is just not something I'm too awfully worried about. I'm more interested in the game being fun than the game being real, or being able to be equated to a novel. I won't ever gloss over combat, and if my level 10-12-15 players happen across gobbos and want to mop the floor with them, more's the better. I will spice it up a tad and either throw in an orc or gobbo leader with 10 levels of whatever, just so there's SOMEONE who can hurt the PCs.
YRM 01-12-06, 07:41 PM	I understand the need to win easy encounters on occason. I have thrown such at a party just for the express purpose of them mopping the floor with some monsters that challenged them a few levels ago. However, It seems important to retain consistency in a world. To do so means that the party *Should* encounter stuff that is grossly under their level. If this happens repeatedly it is bloody boring. What I've done to combat this problem in my world. 1 - The town has an adventurer's guild, with registered party profiles, and it matches clients/jobs to parties that can handle the job, but won't be too expensive for the job. The PCs do not have to use this service, but, it adds some credibility to how they always get hired for a job just perfect for their level. 2 - The PCs have seen monsters above and beyond their ability, but, I haven't put them in so that the PCs have to engage them. 3 - Lower level monsters that are easily handled sometimes are accompanied by a few tougher versions... so, the Goblin Warrior still exists, but he's not boring. Six Goblin Warriors is a moderately easy fight for a Level 1 party. Ten Hasted, Mass Aided Goblin Warriors with bows that split 50 +2 Arrows, made magic by Greater Magic Weapon, between them for 5 magic arrows each, are a tougher challenge. A Level 8 Goblin Mage can haste and GMW the arrows. A Level 5 Cleric can cast "Mass Aid". The Goblin Mage has cast Charm Monster on an Ogre with a level of fighter. The goblins spread out to avoid them all being affected by an area spell, and shoot. The Ogre charges in and tries to tie up the PC spellcasters or the best fighter. Now, a Level 8 party is facing base Goblin Warriors that are buffed up and supported by a few tougher allies. Sure, they'll mow through the Goblin Warriors, but, having to waste that action to kill them, and knowing that the Goblin Warriors get 2 attacks at +4 over their normal ranged bonus for 1d6+2 damage makes them a reasonable threat. They might be attacking at +8 or +9 with those bows... 20 arrows fired each round. Even an AC of 26 or 27 will take a few arrows from those basic goblins if they're not dealt with... but meanwhile, there are 3 bigger threats. Even if you don't buff weaker critters, they can be useful as screeners and fodder for a tougher foe... slowing the PC movement and just getting in the way. No reason to use weak creatures in every fight, but, there are some ways you can keep working them in, and force the players to take them seriously. Finally, my players own a keep, and the PC with Leadership has followers who man the keep. Those low level followers might be engaged and killed by low level enemies in a large scale battle (which I mix into my campaign maybe once a year).
YRM 01-12-06, 07:42 PM	Good call. I made an error i judgement based on your second paragraph, which mentioned adhering to the rules right before you jumped into your example. My bad. Understood. Sometimes I babble anyway... no big deal.
Phael 01-13-06, 03:04 AM	Wow, weasel fierce. It's amazing how you managed to completely butcher my entire post bit by bit and still manage to completely miss the entire point of my whole post. Taking 20 is just another way of doing what Im talking about. So what's the problem? If it's what you're talking about, why dispute it? The mechanic is there, use it or lose it, move on. Rolling for something that is guaranteed to happen anyways, doesnt grant skills meaning. It just slows things down The things that are guaranteed to happen can be done easily using the rules. The rule Take 20 for which you . . . wait for it . . . don't. roll. dice. Therefore doesn't slow things down. Alternatively DM: Roll STR to break the door PC: I fail. Can I try again ? DM: Sure, roll again PC: I fail. Can I try again ? DM: Sure, roll again PC: I fail. Can I try again ? DM: Sure, roll again PC: I fail. Can I try again ? DM: Sure, roll again PC: I fail. Can I try again ? DM: Sure, roll again PC: I fail. Can I try again ? DM: Sure, roll again PC: I fail. Can I try again ? DM: Sure, roll again PC: I fail. Can I try again ? DM: Sure, roll again Okay This is just getting retarded. Did you even read my post? And I mean actually read it, not just glance at it and then get all defensive because I just happened to quote your post instead of someone else's - and then feel you must find flaws in my reasoning for no other reason except that you (mistakenly) think that I was trying to disagree with you? Nothing in my post says you should roll fifty times to bash in a door. In fact my post explicitly says the exact opposite. I never once say or imply that a PC should repeatedly roll to complete something as inane as bashing open a door. My post was meant to convey that instead of automatically giving the PC a bashed in door for no other reason except that you want to hurry the game along regaurdless of what the PC is or is not actually capable on is a bad idea because it devalues the game mechanics. My post was also meant to convey that the Take 20 rule is a good way to save game time by determinding the inevitable outcome in the quickest and most simplest way possible while still using game mechanics. The very concept of Take 20 is based on the assumption that if you roll enough times, you should eventually roll 20 on a 20 sided dice. If you keep trying until you roll a 20, then 20 + all appropriate modifiers is your highest possible result, no matter how many times you roll. Thus the character can simply announce "Take 20". This saves time. The DM then only has to announce the result and move on to the next thing. With a strength of 3, why would the DM allow him to kick down the door at all ? We're talking about what is reasonable for the character, not giving him abilities he does not possess. I'm am so sad for you. Really. I am. A total of 23 means the PC must have taken 20 + 3 = 23. Where 3 = STR Modifer. A modifer of +3 means the character had at least a 16 or a 17 for his STR. IF the DC to break the door was something like a DC 12, then with a total of 23 for a STR check it is perfectly reasonable to assume that the PC kicked the door open. Again, same deal as above. The task is beyond the capabilities of the characters. Whether you roll dice 20 times, take 20, or simply state that its not possible doesnt change the outcome of this scenario. Amazing. You don't seem understand that my post was in favor of saving the player precious time in such a scenario. How could you miss that? My point was that there is already a game mechanic that both uses the character's hard-earned skills and abilities at the same time that it automatically grants the PC the outcome of a scenario that has an inevitable outcome. It saves the PC and the DM time while still using the prescribe ruleset for overcoming said obstacle. Noone is talking about not challenging PC's. We're talking about not wasting 5 minutes on the trivial stuff, so you can get to the actual challenges in the module or adventure. See the above statement. I'd rather duel a horde of goblins next to a waterfall, than roll dice repeatedly to kill a door with my axe Again, you have complete totally missed my point. Let me say it one more time just in case any of this is still a little foggy. Yes. I solomnly agree we should definately save time by not rolling dice for a simple task. I explain that the d20 system has a rule that lets me complete a simple task by not rolling dice. This rule is called Take 20. This is what the rule does: You may "pretend" you rolled a perfect 20 - the highest score possible on a 1d20. Take 20 and add your modifiers. Compare the results to the DC of the task you wish to complete. If the result is higher - you win. You. never. actually. rolled. dice. This should take less than 3 seconds of game time. I hope thats not too long for you. Ironically, weasle feirce, you should know that in my first post I wasn't trying to debate your post in particular. I wasn't even trying to "prove you wrong" or anything. I just thought that the bit about the door was a very good example to work on to explain and give credance to the Take 20 rule, so I quoted you because I thought you gave a good example of things you can quickly skip by using the Take 20 rule. I simply expanded on your idea with my own opinion on the situation. Its sad that you think just because I quoted you that I was trying to prove something wrong about your post. You should know that it is possible to agree with something while still having a somewhat different opinion about that something. Not everyone on a forum is out to disagree with everyone they meet. At least I hope not, because then this all just a waste of time.
Solidcobra 01-13-06, 03:23 AM	The take 10 and take 20 rules are usually considered to be the standard, that is, as long as the PCs aren't rushed, they will take 10 or 20 and succeed at mundane tasks. Combat however is a slightly different thing... If it's part of travel and eight CR under you, you could just speed it up to a few words ("The inexperienced bandits rush out, about five seconds later they fall down and the fighter sheathes his sword. the rest of the journey is uneventful)... But in a dungeon? No. Even the most mundane goblin guards in a dungeon can nab a HP or two off the characters with a crit. (and yes, the bandits in the above example could too. but it'd be healed after a day) Dungeons are all about resource management, in my opinion. So when in a dungeon or similar, always push the players. rush them. make them roll. disallow taking 10 or taking 20 for whatever reason. "You come upon a door. it is locked." "I pick it, taking 20" "...Remember that giant that's rushing towards your little party?" "oh right...i just pick it. it's one standard action to pick a lock, right?" *Rolling here* *Game moves on here* Overall...yeah. i'd say that the thread started smells a bit of "FINE! I WILL TAKE FIVE STEPS AND WALK INTO A WALL OR OFF A CLIFF BECAUSE YOU SAID THAT I SHOULD SOMETIMES WALK IN THE DIRECTION SUGGESTED!" ah well.
Gilean 01-13-06, 12:44 PM	The discussion has involved "auto success" vs "rolling" but also posters on this thread have questioned "hiding" anything from the players, as if that is a bad, or useless thing to do.If you are referring to me, I simply articulated my preference. No value judgement there. Yes, I understand that some people like rolling dice and having easy victories. But, it is prone to becoming boring, very quickly. There seems to be nothing utterly unsensical going on in this thread, so maybe I'll just leave.
weasel fierce 01-13-06, 08:55 PM	I think I just earned 10 ass-points. What I was trying to say, before I got caught up, is that it doesnt really matter whether you let someone do something automatically, because the rules say they can (take 20), or because the DM says they can. The outcome is ultimately the same. Im not sure what I was trying to say above, except getting caught up in things. Blech
Roxlimn 01-14-06, 09:30 AM	Mandarbgrim: Here are a couple option you might want to try out regarding low level encounters that are not rare: 1. PCs tag along lower level hirelings or cohorts who do much of the scut work for them. They clear the roads, handle hooligans, and in general, represent the PCs and screen them out from the boring and mundane challengers that get in the way. Gives the players a nice sense of accomplishment when they get to send out their own agents recover a relatively minor but important item in some low level challenge. Also, gives you options. Sometimes, players want to relive "the good old days" and they can control their own cohorts as a lower level "side trek" to the main adventure. Also gives you plausible people to rescue the PCs when they get in over their heads. 2. Low level challengers are present, but they tend to bug out pretty quickly in the presence of high level PCs. Wolves, wyverns, and animalistic predators slink away immediately. Bandits pay homage and possibly even tribute. Fanatic cannon fodder is an exception, not the rule. When fanatic cannon fodder starts getting in your way in droves, you know that getting through them ASAP is part of the challenge. 3. Low level challenges are partially glossed over. You play the rules nice and loose with an emphasis on narrative and skill-based events. Depending on the players, you may want to simulate "getting careless." A low level appearing challenge can cutscene into a significant challenge when the PCs notice that something is "not right." This can be adjudicated by the use of a Spot check, a Wis check or just Initiative, modified by either Dex or Wis. Thus, the PCs "start" the significant encounter halfway into a preexisting combat. Makes 'em think twice about how to use those short duration buffs. Gilean: Yes, I understand that some people like rolling dice and having easy victories. But, it is prone to becoming boring, very quickly. There seems to be nothing utterly unsensical going on in this thread, so maybe I'll just leave. Easy encounters are entirely subjective. Some people just like a lower difficulty setting. If they're having fun, what's wrong with that?
Gilean 01-14-06, 10:10 AM	Easy encounters are entirely subjective. Some people just like a lower difficulty setting. If they're having fun, what's wrong with that?Nothing, of course.
Bob Loblaw 01-14-06, 10:29 AM	Gilean (please don't take this as a personal attack), your posts in several threads assume that if a DM does something once in a while, then he is doing it all the time. There is nothing wrong with, once in a while, having an easy fight just to show the players how much their characters have grown. It can remind them that the world isn't growing with them, but that they are getting better. It can also serve to relieve tension or to wake up someone who is getting bored with all the narration. If the DM does this all the time, then there may be something wrong with his style; done once in a while, correctly, it is perfectly acceptable. The idea is to keep the players engaged, happy, and the game moving forward. It's a fine balancing act that requires the DM to know his players and give them what they need.
Arak the mighty 01-14-06, 11:05 AM	As the characters grow in levels, so to do their enemies. It's hard sometimes to get an idea of how much "more" powerful you as a character have become when everyone gets tougher with you. Having said that, I do like to throw a group of orcs (with maybe a few levels of warrior) or a group of level 3 thugs or whatever at my players so they CAN see the results of how much more powerful they've gotten in a very tangible way. Not very often, but often enough that they feel like they're powers and goodies that they've gained make them a "cut above" the common rabble.
Gilean 01-14-06, 11:06 AM	Bob, And I have never claimed anything contrary to that. See, letting the players narrate the events, for example, gives them the feel of power.
revnk 01-14-06, 02:11 PM	And I have never claimed anything contrary to that. See, letting the players narrate the events, for example, gives them the feel of power. You're really describing a different game at that point. I suspect that if I basically said to most D&D players, "You'll automatically beat these guys, so why don't you just describe how you did it...," they'd probably look at me as if I'd said, "Here, I found this dead squirrel smashed paper-flat on the street outside, and I'd like you to make me a paper-flat-squirrel airplane that we can throw around the living room for a few hours." I'm not sure most players would feel a sense of power. Or any sense at all. Besides which, I still don't think you're acknowledging the fact that the play itself is sometimes the point, not the narrative result. Many people (perhaps most) playing a game like D&D are doing so at least partly because they like rolling a d20, adding a bunch of numbers to it, getting a high result, and rolling a bunch of dice for damage. The mechanics of play are part of the play itself. Otherwise people might be playing Amber or something by White Wolf. Bob is right. Again.
Gilean 01-15-06, 03:45 AM	Besides which, I still don't think you're acknowledging the fact that the play itself is sometimes the point, not the narrative result. Many people (perhaps most) playing a game like D&D are doing so at least partly because they like rolling a d20, adding a bunch of numbers to it, getting a high result, and rolling a bunch of dice for damage. The mechanics of play are part of the play itself. Otherwise people might be playing Amber or something by White Wolf.The play is the point, but the play doesn't really manifest when the greats heroes are figting a bunch of inferior critters that need a 20 to hit.
Roxlimn 01-15-06, 07:31 AM	Gilean: That really depends on what you mean by "play." Game events that are boring to you isn't necessarily boring to every single one of the rest of humanity, so it may just well be possible that what you term "not play" may be "play" to someone else. It's a possibility that bears consideration, I think.
Gilean 01-15-06, 11:43 AM	Of course. To use Forge terminology, gamists generally don't find challenge in beating vastly inferior opponents. It may be okay once a while, but not the meat of play. Simulationists can very well enjoy the way combat against such foe works, or how the system works, but they could enjoy system in other circumstances, too, and it gets boring fast. For hardcore simulationists, letting them describe revelas how they see the setting, which is generally a positive thing. D&D really doesn't support narrativism, and redundant fights are the last things it needs, really. I mean that htere are some people who enjoy fighting masses of weaklings, but I just don't see people getting all excited about Yet Another Group of Mooks. Repeatedly. More than once every 6 interesting encounters, say.
a_psh 01-15-06, 05:11 PM	I mean that htere are some people who enjoy fighting masses of weaklings, but I just don't see people getting all excited about Yet Another Group of Mooks. Repeatedly. More than once every 6 interesting encounters, say.Err, so shouldn't the lesson here be "don't make adventures based around inconsequential fights" rather than "skip over inconsequential fights"? Why put this stuff in if you're just going to fast-forward through it anyway?
revnk 01-16-06, 01:40 PM	Gilean: Sometimes the point of play is the act of play itself. I'm too far removed from my undergraduate philosophy courses to remember which German philosopher drummed that into my skull, but it's one approach to all of this that you haven't quite acknowledged because of your reliance on GNS theory/terminology. Thus, as Roxlimn wrote, what is boring to you may not be boring to the rest of humanity. Or, as Arak wrote: My players LIKE rolling their dice. They all bring their own neat-o little satiny dice bags, with oodles of fascinatingly colored dice. They like it when I'M rolling dice behind a screen, because then they think "something's up!", even if I'm not really rolling for anything. These are players who are engaing in play. It may not fit anywhere into your game-design theory, but that doesn't mean your theory is wrong. It may mean that your theory is not all-encompassing or that it isn't always applicable at all places and times. I can personally see a great deal of merit when discussing how to design a game but a great deal less applicability when discussing how to play a game. To the extent that a DM is a designer of games and challenges for players, I can see where GNS theory isn't useless--but a DM isn't solely a designer. He is also a host and a player (in the sense of one-who-is-playing), and to those ends a DM perhaps doesn't need to be a design theoretician. Finally: no one is ignoring your posts, Gilean. Several of us, it appears, respectfully disagree with you and think you are wrong on several points. That does not mean your ideas are being overlooked or are so radical that our minds have been blown like clergymen looking through Galileo's eyepiece. You might at least consider the possibility that your ideas have failed to persuade because they are wrong or have less utility than you appear to assume.
Gilean 01-16-06, 01:45 PM	Err, so shouldn't the lesson here be "don't make adventures based around inconsequential fights" rather than "skip over inconsequential fights"? Why put this stuff in if you're just going to fast-forward through it anyway?Why do include anything that is not there to be a challenge? For colour. That is all they are. A party (high level) walks through the goblin-infested woods, and you tell them that there are some goblins tryign to sneak on them, what will you do to them? Like you could say that it is clod and foggy. Big trees. Lots of moss everywhere. A few hostile goblins that are on no threat to you. Colour.
Arak the mighty 01-16-06, 01:51 PM	I can personally see a great deal of merit when discussing how to design a game but a great deal less applicability when discussing how to play a game. 100% dead on. As I said (maybe 18 times in all these different threads) there IS no one *right* way to play DnD. It seems that a lot of people really really really really really want to try to explain to others that THEIR way is the RIGHT way, and if you're not playing THAT way, then you're doing something intrinsicly wrong. That's just not the case. In my example, that revnk quoted........my players like to PLAY. Sure, they *do* get immersed in the story that gets created along the way, but they like to create the story with the randomness of the dice. Some players and DMs don't fit that style of play, and go so far as to say it's "wrong" in some aspects to play that way. Lastly, I'm not trying to be a jack-ass here at all, but it's almost mind boggling to me that there's so many threads on this subject, and people just don't have the ability to sit back and say to each other, "hey, you like to play (this way), and that's fine, that doesn't work for me and my group though" Peace. And have FUN gaming.
Gilean 01-16-06, 02:01 PM	Sometimes the point of play is the act of play itself. I'm too far removed from my undergraduate philosophy courses to remember which German philosopher drummed that into my skull, but it's one approach to all of this that you haven't quite acknowledged because of your reliance on GNS theory/terminology.I know other theories. That I fail to present one is not a fault of said theory, but my communicative skills. Yes, playing is the point of playing. I just don't see people sitting next to the table and just rolling dice. Rolling dice to walk. To breathe (don't roll a 1). All for the pleasure of rolling the dice. There needs to be something the dice are rolled for. Be it is non-sequitur as seeing who has the best die.These are players who are engaing in play. It may not fit anywhere into your game-design theory, but that doesn't mean your theory is wrong. It may mean that your theory is not all-encompassing or that it isn't always applicable at all places and times.I prefer "focused on different matters", personally.I can personally see a great deal of merit when discussing how to design a game but a great deal less applicability when discussing how to play a game. To the extent that a DM is a designer of games and challenges for players, I can see where GNS theory isn't useless--but a DM isn't solely a designer. He is also a host and a player (in the sense of one-who-is-playing), and to those ends a DM perhaps doesn't need to be a design theoretician.I am a theoretician. In all things it can be applied to. And I throw some thigns here to be discussed.Finally: no one is ignoring your posts, Gilean. Several of us, it appears, respectfully disagree with you and think you are wrong on several points. That does not mean your ideas are being overlooked or are so radical that our minds have been blown like clergymen looking through Galileo's eyepiece. You might at least consider the possibility that your ideas have failed to persuade because they are wrong or have less utility than you appear to assume.I assumed no less. To post these hear and find that someone agrees with me was more of a surprise. But this is the way I learn. In addition to reading and playing RPGs.As I said (maybe 18 times in all these different threads) there IS no one *right* way to play DnD. It seems that a lot of people really really really really really want to try to explain to others that THEIR way is the RIGHT way, and if you're not playing THAT way, then you're doing something intrinsicly wrong. That's just not the case.I agree. Totally.
Roxlimn 01-17-06, 08:41 AM	Gilean: To use Forge terminology, gamists generally don't find challenge in beating vastly inferior opponents. It may be okay once a while, but not the meat of play. Simulationists can very well enjoy the way combat against such foe works, or how the system works, but they could enjoy system in other circumstances, too, and it gets boring fast. For hardcore simulationists, letting them describe revelas how they see the setting, which is generally a positive thing. D&D really doesn't support narrativism, and redundant fights are the last things it needs, really. To be perfectly frank, Gilean, I find your use of GNS terminology to do no justice to the theory, and the theory itself is too weak to account for everything that goes on in a D&D game, despite its best efforts. D&D can and does support "narrativism" as GNS theory describes it. There are even very specific manners in which to do so, expounded on at length in several D&D articles. Your understanding on D&D, IMO, is too superficial for you to describe it in anything but the simplest of terms, and even then, you are only describing facets of the game, not the game in totality. The fact that you say that D&D "really doesn't support narrativism," when there are several articles on D&D that touch on precisely that kind of play only serves to indicate where you lack. I don't contend that D&D is the best system for a purely story-driven game, but it can be used to play in that fashion, nonetheless. I mean that htere are some people who enjoy fighting masses of weaklings, but I just don't see people getting all excited about Yet Another Group of Mooks. Repeatedly. More than once every 6 interesting encounters, say. That's precisely the point I've been trying to make, Gilean. You don't see it. Just because you don't see it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. In my opinion, you're being quite contrary in insisting that several forms of play and enjoyment don't exist just because you don't see it, when there are several people on this thread who are already informing you of the existence of said event. If you don't see a cow on the road, but several motorists driving the other way tell you about it, would you disbelieve what they're telling you just because you haven't actually seen this cow? Whyso? Where's all this contrariness coming from? I think the problem here is that you are focusing too much on existing theory rather than on the data laid out before you. One concocts theories to take facts into account, not the other way around. We are informing you of styles of play that are wholly outside the boundaries of what you understand about GNS theory (and I strongly suspect from my own perusal that you don't even understand that completely). Don't throw away the facts because your theory doesn't make sense of them. Take the facts and make your own theory. This is precisely why I said GNS theory is weak.
Gilean 01-17-06, 09:04 AM	To be perfectly frank, Gilean, I find your use of GNS terminology to do no justice to the theory, and the theory itself is too weak to account for everything that goes on in a D&D game, despite its best efforts.The first case I admit, the second at least partially comes from your misunderstadings, if I understood you correctly.D&D can and does support "narrativism" as GNS theory describes it.Umm, no. Almost any, or any, RPG can be drifted and used in any creative agenda, which is not a sign of support. It is a sign of drift. The only thing that could be said to resemble supporting narrativism is action points (if you happen to know, how are they recovered?).There are even very specific manners in which to do so, expounded on at length in several D&D articles.Could you give a link or elaborate on some of the points?Your understanding on D&D, IMO, is too superficial for you to describe it in anything but the simplest of terms, and even then, you are only describing facets of the game, not the game in totality.I could take that as an insult. I have played the game, too, and other games besides that. What I am discussing is what the game supports. Not what it must be used to do.The fact that you say that D&D "really doesn't support narrativism," when there are several articles on D&D that touch on precisely that kind of play only serves to indicate where you lack.Pray give links. Also, giving paladins those moral dilemmas is often considered bad etiquette. PCs are loathe to have families because they can be attacked, and attacking such relationships is, again, often considered unfair and discouraging RP.I don't contend that D&D is the best system for a purely story-driven game, but it can be used to play in that fashion, nonetheless.Of course, story-driven game is not even nearly always narrativism. Narrativism produces a story, stories are not only produced by narrativism.That's precisely the point I've been trying to make, Gilean. You don't see it. Just because you don't see it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. In my opinion, you're being quite contrary in insisting that several forms of play and enjoyment don't exist just because you don't see it, when there are several people on this thread who are already informing you of the existence of said event.Are there people here who enjoy frequent unchallenging encounters, as opposed to challenging ones? Because I must have missed them.I think the problem here is that you are focusing too much on existing theory rather than on the data laid out before you. One concocts theories to take facts into account, not the other way around. We are informing you of styles of play that are wholly outside the boundaries of what you understand about GNS theory (and I strongly suspect from my own perusal that you don't even understand that completely). Don't throw away the facts because your theory doesn't make sense of them. Take the facts and make your own theory.Now, this is completely outside the scope of this thread. Anyway, I have played "standard" D&D. I have somewhat liked it. There is a very short game going on once a while that I GM. That doesn't mean that I claim it does something it clearly does not do, or even attempt to.This is precisely why I said GNS theory is weak.I believe you misunderstood at least narrativism. Prove me wrong.
Roxlimn 01-17-06, 09:38 AM	Gilean: Umm, no. Almost any, or any, RPG can be drifted and used in any creative agenda, which is not a sign of support. It is a sign of drift. The only thing that could be said to resemble supporting narrativism is action points (if you happen to know, how are they recovered?). Actually, the way most adventures are packaged strongly implies strong narrativist tendencies on the part of many authors, although there are usually hints at simulationist accomodation as well. This is not just drift. It's a highlighted agenda in many ways. Could you give a link or elaborate on some of the points? Most of the material is published in articles. Several Dungeoncraft articles in Dungeon concentrate on how to game in a narrativist manner. There are also suggestions in DMGII on how this can be accomodated in D&D. I could take that as an insult. I have played the game, too, and other games besides that. What I am discussing is what the game supports. Not what it must be used to do. Just because you've played the game doesn't mean you know how other people, particularly me, have played it. Since you assume that your manner of playing D&D is the only manner of playing it, I can only assume that your exposure of aspects and styles of playing D&D is limited. Also, giving paladins those moral dilemmas is often considered bad etiquette. PCs are loathe to have families because they can be attacked, and attacking such relationships is, again, often considered unfair and discouraging RP. That's the purest tripe. Articles in Dungeoncraft explicitly advise DMs to look for narrativist Paladin players who go for the Paladin class for the story opportunities. At the same time, you should also not confuse narrativists with gamists. Giving Paladins moral dilemmas is good when the player enjoys that, it's bad otherwise. All quite explicit, I assure you. Similar suggestions occur for family relationships. Many D&D articles suggest using family as a source of powerful moral and story-based conflict, but while powerful, this must be used sparingly on several different accounts. For the gamist, it gets irritating, for the simulationist, it gets improbable, and for the narrativist, it gets trite. For all kinds of gamers covered in GNS theory, targetting family gets old very fast. Good DMs (such as Monte Cook for one) do not suggest never doing it, nor does he ever imply that it's unfair. This is exactly what I mean when I say that your information base regarding D&D is shallow. You have no familiarity with commonplace authors and articles that many D&D fans are familiar with. If you can familiarize yourself with the usual usages of D&D in the depth that you wish to discuss, then we can further discuss D&D in a productive fashion. Otherwise, you are simply advertising your ignorance. I pray for you to cease for the preservation of your own reputation. There are some number of internet sites you can peruse to gain more familiarity with D&D. Monte Cook writes excellent articles and maintains a respectable message board community at www.montecook.com. SeanKReynolds also has a site you might want to take a look at. Gary Gygax is notoriously simulationist when it comes to D&D, and more than a little gamist as well. You might find his input interesting. Older issues of Dragon contain his sentiments in his "Soapbox" articles. Likewise, you can also find examples of styles of D&D in various group and personal sites. I know that there exists several on Dark Sun and Dragonlance campaigns, but I have not saved the links. You can always google those until you find suitable examples (much as I did myself). Of course, story-driven game is not even nearly always narrativism. Narrativism produces a story, stories are not only produced by narrativism. Semantics. I meant narrativist stories. The context should have made that obvious. Are there people here who enjoy frequent unchallenging encounters, as opposed to challenging ones? Because I must have missed them. Indeed you must have. Of course, you missed that unchallenging encounters are useful in the first place, so that's really quite forgivable. Now, this is completely outside the scope of this thread. Anyway, I have played "standard" D&D. I have somewhat liked it. There is a very short game going on once a while that I GM. That doesn't mean that I claim it does something it clearly does not do, or even attempt to. The fact that you think that there is a "standard" D&D only shows further how inexperienced you are with the usages of the system. I've played in several different games (under several different DMs) and the focus is almost always different, if only in small particulars between specific DMs. Games of D&D can differ widely and cater to a wide variety of gamer archetypes. In fact, D&D lore includes a great many types of players (such as I have enumerated) keyed to specific strategies for appeasing them at the table (not theoretical nonsense). D&D lore also includes various techniques and methods for deducing the kind of player and how to cater to them more and more specifically, and even manners in which to chart how much of what kind of gamer a specific player is. Successful gamer group play is determined just as much by the tastes of the players at the table just as much as the tastes of the DM who DMs it. Particular games can play nothing alike. There is no "standard" way to play D&D. The fact that you think that there is shows how much more you need to know about D&D to speak about it materially. As previously, I would advise further research prior to further posts.
Gilean 01-17-06, 10:11 AM	Actually, the way most adventures are packaged strongly implies strong narrativist tendencies on the part of many authors, although there are usually hints at simulationist accomodation as well. This is not just drift. It's a highlighted agenda in many ways.Drift, as in using a system for an agenda it does not support.Most of the material is published in articles. Several Dungeoncraft articles in Dungeon concentrate on how to game in a narrativist manner. There are also suggestions in DMGII on how this can be accomodated in D&D.I'll take your word on it.Since you assume that your manner of playing D&D is the only manner of playing it, I can only assume that your exposure of aspects and styles of playing D&D is limited.Excuse me. Where did that come from?That's the purest tripe. Articles in Dungeoncraft explicitly advise DMs to look for narrativist Paladin players who go for the Paladin class for the story opportunities. At the same time, you should also not confuse narrativists with gamists. Giving Paladins moral dilemmas is good when the player enjoys that, it's bad otherwise. All quite explicit, I assure you.My comment came from the player demographic I have met or read about over the 'net. What GMs are supposed to do can greatly vary from what players want.This is exactly what I mean when I say that your information base regarding D&D is shallow. You have no familiarity with commonplace authors and articles that many D&D fans are familiar with. If you can familiarize yourself with the usual usages of D&D in the depth that you wish to discuss, then we can further discuss D&D in a productive fashion. Otherwise, you are simply advertising your ignorance. I pray for you to cease for the preservation of your own reputation.I am not too considered about my reputation. And this is a way of learning, as much as reading said articles would be.There are some number of internet sites you can peruse to gain more familiarity with D&D. Monte Cook writes excellent articles and maintains a respectable message board community at www.montecook.com. SeanKReynolds also has a site you might want to take a look at. Gary Gygax is notoriously simulationist when it comes to D&D, and more than a little gamist as well. You might find his input interesting. Older issues of Dragon contain his sentiments in his "Soapbox" articles.Your link is broken, as is the site, currently. Some of Reynold's rants I have read. Some of them made a point.Likewise, you can also find examples of styles of D&D in various group and personal sites. I know that there exists several on Dark Sun and Dragonlance campaigns, but I have not saved the links. You can always google those until you find suitable examples (much as I did myself).True. Some of the old settings put focus on something that is not gamist. The rules, however, did not. And do not (save for narrativist potential in action points, which is very minor).Indeed you must have. Of course, you missed that unchallenging encounters are useful in the first place, so that's really quite forgivable.Pray tell, then.The fact that you think that there is a "standard" D&D only shows further how inexperienced you are with the usages of the system. I've played in several different games (under several different DMs) and the focus is almost always different, if only in small particulars between specific DMs. Games of D&D can differ widely and cater to a wide variety of gamer archetypes.Of course the games are different. The standard style I was referring to is the niche D&D does best, or Core Story in someone's theory, if you will. Get a mission, usually kill stuff accomplishing it, grow in power, get more difficult missions. Rinse and repeat. That is what the system does best, and what it was intended to do, hopefully.In fact, D&D lore includes a great many types of players (such as I have enumerated) keyed to specific strategies for appeasing them at the table (not theoretical nonsense). D&D lore also includes various techniques and methods for deducing the kind of player and how to cater to them more and more specifically, and even manners in which to chart how much of what kind of gamer a specific player is."D&D lore" can say whatever it wants to. I don't particualrly care, in fact. The system is very explicit at what it says. This discussion is off-topic. Make another thread or respond in PM if you want to continue it.
Roxlimn 01-17-06, 10:47 AM	Gilean: You know what? No. The buck stops here. You've been seeding the forums with all sorts of threads discussing mostly the same things. If we happen to wander to a topic that is tangential to your very limited thread topic description, then so be it. Threads have wandered on related points in the past, and they will do so again. As long as the topic at hand is relevant ultimately to the central topic, I think it will do to discuss it here. There is no need to create a gazillion threads to talk about very similar topics. Drift, as in using a system for an agenda it does not support. That assumes that D&D does not support a narrativist agenda. Excuse me. Where did that come from? I'm sorry but I gathered that you are concluding that your perceptions of how to play D&D are the only valid ones, based on your own experience. So much is apparent from your previous post. The next comment only makes it more apparent: My comment came from the player demographic I have met or read about over the 'net. What GMs are supposed to do can greatly vary from what players want. See that? Only your player demographic is valid. Apparently, the player demographics of other people are not. It doesn't matter where your player demographic is coming from. It's not the only one, and I hope you're astute enough to realize that. I am not too considered about my reputation. And this is a way of learning, as much as reading said articles would be. Yes, but when you read those articles, you don't get newbies to read your uninformed opinion and spread misinformation. True. Some of the old settings put focus on something that is not gamist. The rules, however, did not. And do not (save for narrativist potential in action points, which is very minor). Disagree. Ron Edwards himself stated quite explicitly that D&D divorced itself centrally from other kinds of wargames by including strong and very obvious simulationist components. In fact, all of the old settings and all of D&D rulebooks focus on gaming that is at least partially simulationist. The drift towards narrativist components occurred sometime during 2e when D&D gamers began to use D&D material to concoct commonly authored narratives, focusing more on the narrative than on either the simulationist or the gamist components of the game. There are rules in the old Dragonlance campaign, in fact, that promote narrativist play. There is even a breakaway rule set of Dragonlance that catered not at all to gamist play, but centered strongly on narrativist play. I cannot recall offhand the system involved. Later rules in Player Options strongly encouraged both simulationist and narrativist play by "allowing you to play the character (concept) that you wanted," with only a token effort given to balancing the class generation system with competitive building in mind. In some ways the rank system used for skills in 3e is more than just a way to bring simulationist and narrativist components to the gamist sphere - it also allowed gamist DMs a method to more concretely cater to their simulationist and narrativist players. Most importantly, it formally introduced narrativist style play to D&D, even though most published adventures already leaned towards that style very strongly at the close of 2e. Of course the games are different. The standard style I was referring to is the niche D&D does best, or Core Story in someone's theory, if you will. Get a mission, usually kill stuff accomplishing it, grow in power, get more difficult missions. Rinse and repeat. That is what the system does best, and what it was intended to do, hopefully. I respectfully disagree. That is what the system used to do best. It still does that quite well, IMO. These days, however, it is not necessary to play in that style to get the best of what the system has to offer. Many long running games do not have clear missions, do not involve killing, and do not necessarily involve increases in power. The use of strong simulationist elements in the game to create worlds for exploration, for example, coupled with strong support in the sense of numerous fan based material and official product can allow D&D players to play almost exclusively in the simulationist mode of play, never actually completing a substantial amount of what you call "missions," or only completing them incidentally as part of the dream experience. Moreover, powerful thematic and setting elements strongly lend themselves to crafting common narratives based more on the simulationist than on the gamist side of the game, leading to games that have nothing to do with what you consider "standard." The combat system itself is not limited to use for combat, and can be used for a variety of situations not related to physical combat. The game is intended to cater to a wide variety of gamers, and that it does. It doesn't only cater to the kind of game you have experienced, though it does that well enough. "D&D lore" can say whatever it wants to. I don't particualrly care, in fact. The system is very explicit at what it says. I believe that it is only "explicit" at what you think it says. Again, you do not seem to know enough about D&D to comment on it in this fashion, without endangering your rep. There are better ways to learn than this.
Gilean 01-17-06, 11:28 AM	You know what? No. The buck stops here. You've been seeding the forums with all sorts of threads discussing mostly the same things. If we happen to wander to a topic that is tangential to your very limited thread topic description, then so be it. Threads have wandered on related points in the past, and they will do so again. As long as the topic at hand is relevant ultimately to the central topic, I think it will do to discuss it here. There is no need to create a gazillion threads to talk about very similar topics.Three with similar themes. Anyway, I am used to having one subject per thread. Mybe my desire for organisation. But have it your way.That assumes that D&D does not support a narrativist agenda.It does not. Please tell me one aspect (save for AP), one single aspect, of the rules that supports narrativism. If it is of any consequence, I will admit being wrong. If not, I will maintain my position: D&D does not support narrativism. It can be drifted, but has no rules that support it.I'm sorry but I gathered that you are concluding that your perceptions of how to play D&D are the only valid ones, based on your own experience. So much is apparent from your previous post.I have never explicilty stated it, have I? I will naturally refer to my own experience. I don't see a lot of actual ply posts around here. I can point a few at the Forge, and possibly more at RPG.net, if you like. What this does not mean is that I don't acknowledge what others say. I want to continue this argument of sorts, and questioning my credibility with ad hominems doesn't contribute to that.Yes, but when you read those articles, you don't get newbies to read your uninformed opinion and spread misinformation."Misinformation"? I don't claim my words to be the true thing, usually. And if I don't explicitly claim something, I am not saying it.Disagree. Ron Edwards himself stated quite explicitly that D&D divorced itself centrally from other kinds of wargames by including strong and very obvious simulationist components. In fact, all of the old settings and all of D&D rulebooks focus on gaming that is at least partially simulationist. The drift towards narrativist components occurred sometime during 2e when D&D gamers began to use D&D material to concoct commonly authored narratives, focusing more on the narrative than on either the simulationist or the gamist components of the game.D&D is still very gamist. The reward cycle encourages it. A lot of supplemental material encourages it. The GMing advice in DMG meshes it with sim, that much is true. Also, note that detailed rules in no way promote sim, in and of themselves. But this is not Forge canon.There are rules in the old Dragonlance campaign, in fact, that promote narrativist play. There is even a breakaway rule set of Dragonlance that catered not at all to gamist play, but centered strongly on narrativist play. I cannot recall offhand the system involved.Not enough data to comment.Later rules in Player Options strongly encouraged both simulationist and narrativist play by "allowing you to play the character (concept) that you wanted," with only a token effort given to balancing the class generation system with competitive building in mind.That does not encourage narrativism, or necessarily sim. It makes everythign easier for munchkins. Who are often gamists.In some ways the rank system used for skills in 3e is more than just a way to bring simulationist and narrativist components to the gamist sphere - it also allowed gamist DMs a method to more concretely cater to their simulationist and narrativist players. Most importantly, it formally introduced narrativist style play to D&D, even though most published adventures already leaned towards that style very strongly at the close of 2e.Skill ranks have nought to do with narrativism. Sim, probably moreso. But not narrativism. At all. And skills expand the scope of gamist concepts the game can handle, which is a good thing.I respectfully disagree. That is what the system used to do best. It still does that quite well, IMO. These days, however, it is not necessary to play in that style to get the best of what the system has to offer. Many long running games do not have clear missions, do not involve killing, and do not necessarily involve increases in power. The use of strong simulationist elements in the game to create worlds for exploration, for example, coupled with strong support in the sense of numerous fan based material and official product can allow D&D players to play almost exclusively in the simulationist mode of play, never actually completing a substantial amount of what you call "missions," or only completing them incidentally as part of the dream experience.D&D is easy to drift to sim. It has elements that work with it. Still, primarily gamist. I could argue on premade and comprehensive settings (and rules) to actually hinder simulationism, but it again is not Forge canon, and I am not sure enough about beign correct, so I'll refrain unless you expliccitly ask for it.Moreover, powerful thematic and setting elements strongly lend themselves to crafting common narratives based more on the simulationist than on the gamist side of the game, leading to games that have nothing to do with what you consider "standard." The combat system itself is not limited to use for combat, and can be used for a variety of situations not related to physical combat.Note that narratives do not imply narrativism, to say it using logic. Though I am not sure that you are even implying it. Are you? Sim is viable, but again not as supported by the rules as gamism is. Material, probably more so. (As a side point, the common misconeption of "role"players not rolling dice comes from the rules not being that supportive of sim, I'd say.)The game is intended to cater to a wide variety of gamers, and that it does. It doesn't only cater to the kind of game you have experienced, though it does that well enough.D&D is quite good at gamism as demonstrated in combat and character building. I happen to dislike it. D&D can do sim without overt troubles, as long as the entire group knows what is happening. That is what I am doign at the moment (as in previous week last time), in fact. Narrativism would be figting the system, or ignoring it.I believe that it is only "explicit" at what you think it says. Again, you do not seem to know enough about D&D to comment on it in this fashion, without endangering your rep. There are better ways to learn than this.What the rules say is not dependant on Dragon articles. I am good enough at reading rules.
Bob Loblaw 01-17-06, 11:40 AM	Roxlimn, you are doing such a great job that anything I have to say would be a "Me too" post. I would like to address this: There are rules in the old Dragonlance campaign, in fact, that promote narrativist play. There is even a breakaway rule set of Dragonlance that catered not at all to gamist play, but centered strongly on narrativist play. I cannot recall offhand the system involved. I believe it was called Saga. Gilean: It does not. Please tell me one aspect (save for AP), one single aspect, of the rules that supports narrativism. If it is of any consequence, I will admit being wrong. If not, I will maintain my position: D&D does not support narrativism. It can be drifted, but has no rules that support it. Skills, ad hoc experience, story awards, roleplaying... Oh, and you definately need to exapand your demographic. Any statistician will tell you that limiting yourself to the internet for non-internet activities is a really poor demographic and has absolutely no meaning.
Gilean 01-17-06, 11:57 AM	I believe it was called Saga.That one with card resolution system? It had some potentially inspiring features. It really had absolutely nothing to do with D&D, if we are thinking about the same thing, and I not committing any great errors.SkillsDo not promote narrativism in any significant way.ad hoc experienceis ad hoc. Generic enough to be used for almost any purpose. Here's a difficult challenge: find a way to promote sim through experience.story awardsNarrativism does not come from stories, but it creates them. This might be true, in very vague sense.roleplayingSpecify. See my sig, it has a link to one thread where I separated roleplaying, as it is commonly used, in two distinct parts.Oh, and you definately need to exapand your demographic. Any statistician will tell you that limiting yourself to the internet for non-internet activities is a really poor demographic and has absolutely no meaning.Probably. It is tangential, anyway.
Roxlimn 01-17-06, 12:28 PM	Gilean: It does not. Please tell me one aspect (save for AP), one single aspect, of the rules that supports narrativism. If it is of any consequence, I will admit being wrong. If not, I will maintain my position: D&D does not support narrativism. It can be drifted, but has no rules that support it. Excellent! You have hit upon it yourself. The AP system is meant to emphasize the narrativist in the gamist - that is, that the players do not necessarily agree to the whim of the dice. Expressly, D&D combat is both Fortune-at-the-End and Fortune-in-the-Middle in that the system and the rules leave you to decide for yourself how to narrate the sequence of events. AP rules emphasize Fortune-in-the-Middle play. Not that Fortune-in-the-Middle necessarily implies narrativist play. It merely suggests it. Ron Edwards, in espousing his theory, quite clearly knows his stuff. Narrativist play is not a recent phenomenon, nor is it limited to the Drama mechanic. You can have a game that is mostly centered on the Fortune mechanic (as D&D is), but still have a game that supports Narrativist play. In fact, Ron Edwards "does not think" that Drama-heavy RP is especially narrativist in application. He mentions the Fortune-heavy and (apparently) tactical Riddle of Steel, in fact, as a sample of a game that "struggles towards Narrativist play." Clearly, you can do "Fortune-in-the-Middle" play in D&D and play narrativist on that basis. Moreover, D&D also contains the Explorative elements you need to begin and sustain narrativist play. The issues of class selection (which classes to portray) and task selection (which kinds of combat to model and why) in game design were not based solely on competitive cohesiveness, although it does focus on that to a certain extent. The Paladin, for instance, as you like to point out, contains premade Character Premises that also help define Setting and Situation, which themselves can be made to be sources of other Premises. The rule that Paladins cannot associate with Evil aligned beings has practically no bearing in combat, and was not taken into account at the balance of character abilities. It is "purely flavor," or in other words an Explorative element for Narrativist play. The same can be said to a lesser extent for classes like the Bard and the Ranger. It's not unbalanced competitively for a Bard to have so and so spells but not so and so spells, but these limitations set up Explorative elements in the Setting, allowing players to take on Setting based Premises, again for Narrativist play. There is, in fact, a wealth of such material in D&D books such as the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting, and the Living Greyhawk Gazetteer, material that is meant to be used in conjunction with the rules set of the D&D Core Books as Narrativist supplementation. The DMG itself contains elements that allows and advises the DM to create these elements himself, or to tailor exising such material to allow for the groups's particular brand of collaboration. These are not incidental inclusions. These are intentional sim elements of the D&D game developed eventually into pro-Narrativist rules sometime during the late 1990s. What this does not mean is that I don't acknowledge what others say. I want to continue this argument of sorts, and questioning my credibility with ad hominems doesn't contribute to that. If you want to acknowledge your limitations, then do so explicitly and with no uncertainty. my reply was not an ad hominem attack, but advice to say precisely what you mean, and no less. "Misinformation"? I don't claim my words to be the true thing, usually. And if I don't explicitly claim something, I am not saying it. Again, if you wish to emphasize that what you say is only from your own experience, preface all such references for clarity. D&D is still very gamist. The reward cycle encourages it. A lot of supplemental material encourages it. The GMing advice in DMG meshes it with sim, that much is true. Also, note that detailed rules in no way promote sim, in and of themselves. But this is not Forge canon. It's not about detailed rules. It's about sim rules, period. Rules for how to create towns and cities and background NPCs and such have no relevance in a gamist sense. They are explicitly, and wholly simulationist. The players are not trying to create towns of their own, with better descriptions and bigger demographics. It's not Sim Town. The PHB is itself full of simulationist rules. Overland movement is usually simulationist rather than gamist, though it can also be used in a gamist fashion. Rules for how much clothing costs is immaterial to the gamist. Same for the purchase cost of card games and expensive wines and ales. Alignment is both simulationist and gamist, but more simulationist. Same goes for rules on weight, height, and age. There are likewise guidelines for which color hair and eyes are appropriate for which races - that's almost exclusively simulationist. As far as I can tell, D&D is more] simulationist than it is gamist. If you want to pursue your gamist goals, there are better games to do it in than D&D. That does not encourage narrativism, or necessarily sim. It makes everythign easier for munchkins. Who are often gamists. Those rules made the game too easy, and thus boring, for powergamers. In a very real and practical sense, it was anti-gamist. It did not make the game more enjoyable to play in a competitive way, because you won too easily. That does not make for a good competitive game. It wasn't really simulationist, either, in that it presented no real material to explore, or rules in which to make new materials to explore. All the abilities were, to a greater or lesser extent, already present in the game. If you try to think of it as a functional rather than a broken system (which it was under gamist principles), you will realize that the class customization scheme was meant to allow players to pursue the character concept they wanted to roleplay in the game. It was made to broaden the interpretation and range of Character driven Premises in Narrativist play. Skill ranks have nought to do with narrativism. Sim, probably moreso. But not narrativism. At all. And skills expand the scope of gamist concepts the game can handle, which is a good thing. Skills? Gamist? Don't be absurd. There is very little competitive play in skill ranks, and poor play at that, wherever it exists. One rank, one roll, and there's take 10 and take 20 options, even. Where the competition in that? Where's the thrill? What kind of gamist fun can be had in taking Craft (cooking) ranks, I ask you? It is expressly simulationist in that it allows you to more fully explore the world as a player character. More importantly, it allows you to concretely mold your desired character's concept as a real person, with real normal skills, and wants, and preferences, as a platform for Narrativist play. D&D is easy to drift to sim. It has elements that work with it. Still, primarily gamist. I could argue on premade and comprehensive settings (and rules) to actually hinder simulationism, but it again is not Forge canon, and I am not sure enough about beign correct, so I'll refrain unless you expliccitly ask for it. Some D&D gamist rules can inhibit simulationist play, and that is why you get a lot of threads complaining about how high level fighters can jump off of ledges and not die - these complaints are from ardent simulationists who prefer even more simulationism in the game than is already in there. Still, D&D contains many, many rules that are completely simulationist, with only the barest of nods to gamist content, often not even then. It is not a drift. D&D actively supports simulationism more than it supports any of the other styles of play. Indeed, you often have to tell newbies in the Combat forums that the Combat system isn't supposed to be simulationist in order to get them to understand why it is the way it is. Obviously, the system's primary focus on simulationist play misleads them into thinking that the entire game is simulationist, which of course it is not. Sim is viable, but again not as supported by the rules as gamism is. Material, probably more so. (As a side point, the common misconeption of "role"players not rolling dice comes from the rules not being that supportive of sim, I'd say.) I disagree. You do not have to have a Fortune element to play a game. Simulationist play in D&D is very strong, the central element these days, in my estimation. Gamism is less on-focused than it used to be, and I believe that gamist rules occupy the minority of pages and content in D&D rules. D&D is quite good at gamism as demonstrated in combat and character building. I happen to dislike it. D&D can do sim without overt troubles, as long as the entire group knows what is happening. That is what I am doign at the moment (as in previous week last time), in fact. Narrativism would be figting the system, or ignoring it. Not so. Important elements in the game, and moreso, in the DMG and related material such as setting materials, strongly support (actively promote) narrativist play. "The DM decides how the play group plays the game." If the DM decides that you play the game as a collaborative exploration of narrativist Premises, then that's how the game will be played, and there's abundant support in the game for that style of gaming. You won't be using much of the gamist rules when you play narrativist, but in the same vein, you ignore narrativist elements when you play gamist style. D&D isn't even the best as the gamist style of play. There are better games that cater to that. More balanced, no fudging necessary, absolutely. Settlers of Catan strikes me as an excellent gamist game. It's better for that style than D&D. By that measure, D&D is actually quite poor at catering to the gamist style of play. If you have problems doing narrativist play, there are plenty of people on the Character Development Boards (not the Character Optimization Boards) who will be glad to give you assistance and refer you to excellent D&D material. What the rules say is not dependant on Dragon articles. I am good enough at reading rules. The D&D game is not limited to the 3 Core Books. You can play using only those rules, but that presumes that your DM is reasonable adept at captaining a session. D&D supports a great deal of different flavors of simulations for simulationist play, and contains a great deal of possible conflicts for narrativist play. These are not contained in the Core Books. These books are D&D also.
Gilean 01-17-06, 01:03 PM	Excellent! You have hit upon it yourself. The AP system is meant to emphasize the narrativist in the gamist - that is, that the players do not necessarily agree to the whim of the dice.Actually, the way they hint as narrativism is that they move the game towards conflcit resolution. Move towards. Not quite there. Besides, they are specific to a setting or part of a supplemental product. Eberron is comparatively little more narrativist than the rest of the system.Expressly, D&D combat is both Fortune-at-the-End and Fortune-in-the-Middle in that the system and the rules leave you to decide for yourself how to narrate the sequence of events. AP rules emphasize Fortune-in-the-Middle play.That never was my point. Nor do I intend to take it as one. Signs of D&D being FatE: situational modifers for higher ground, expertise, and such. They are very FatE. In FitM, you roll the dice and then tell why it worked out as well as it did.In fact, Ron Edwards "does not think" that Drama-heavy RP is especially narrativist in application. He mentions the Fortune-heavy and (apparently) tactical Riddle of Steel, in fact, as a sample of a game that "struggles towards Narrativist play."In which the main contributing factor are Spritual Attributes, which extremely significantly improve odds of survival in combat (which are deadly) and generally success at conflcits that are improtant to the player. Which promotes narrativism. AP go to this direction, but so very lightly.Moreover, D&D also contains the Explorative elements you need to begin and sustain narrativist play. The issues of class selection (which classes to portray) and task selection (which kinds of combat to model and why) in game design were not based solely on competitive cohesiveness, although it does focus on that to a certain extent.Elaborate on what you mean as "task selection", please.The Paladin, for instance, as you like to point out, contains premade Character Premises that also help define Setting and Situation, which themselves can be made to be sources of other Premises. The rule that Paladins cannot associate with Evil aligned beings has practically no bearing in combat, and was not taken into account at the balance of character abilities.Yes, paladin has thematic potential. Paladin also loses powers if the potential in question is addressed in any way save for playing as good. Which stifles narrativism.It is "purely flavor," or in other words an Explorative element for Narrativist play."Pure flavour", as in Colour. Colour contributes to no specific agenda.The same can be said to a lesser extent for classes like the Bard and the Ranger. It's not unbalanced competitively for a Bard to have so and so spells but not so and so spells, but these limitations set up Explorative elements in the Setting, allowing players to take on Setting based Premises, again for Narrativist play.Arbitrary, or genre-appropriate in this case, restrictions or abilities have again absolutely nothign to do with narrativism.There is, in fact, a wealth of such material in D&D books such as the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting, and the Living Greyhawk Gazetteer, material that is meant to be used in conjunction with the rules set of the D&D Core Books as Narrativist supplementation.An example or two? I don't have the items in question.The DMG itself contains elements that allows and advises the DM to create these elements himself, or to tailor exising such material to allow for the groups's particular brand of collaboration.I don't recall any advice that would further narrativism in the DMG. But maybe I misremember. Care to point out some?These are not incidental inclusions. These are intentional sim elements of the D&D game developed eventually into pro-Narrativist rules sometime during the late 1990s.Sim, potentially. Narrativism, nope.If you want to acknowledge your limitations, then do so explicitly and with no uncertainty. my reply was not an ad hominem attack, but advice to say precisely what you mean, and no less.I'll sig something soon.Again, if you wish to emphasize that what you say is only from your own experience, preface all such references for clarity.Everything everyone says comes from direct experience, or is at least filtered through it.It's not about detailed rules. It's about sim rules, period. Rules for how to create towns and cities and background NPCs and such have no relevance in a gamist sense. They are explicitly, and wholly simulationist. The players are not trying to create towns of their own, with better descriptions and bigger demographics. It's not Sim Town.I disagree, but canon Forge theory does not. I personally see detailed rules as stifling sim. But I am one of the grand total of two people who I know to think like that.The PHB is itself full of simulationist rules. Overland movement is usually simulationist rather than gamist, though it can also be used in a gamist fashion. Rules for how much clothing costs is immaterial to the gamist. Same for the purchase cost of card games and expensive wines and ales. Alignment is both simulationist and gamist, but more simulationist. Same goes for rules on weight, height, and age. There are likewise guidelines for which color hair and eyes are appropriate for which races - that's almost exclusively simulationist.Colour does not simulationism make. Colour such as hairs, eyes, height, etc.As far as I can tell, D&D is more] simulationist than it is gamist. If you want to pursue your gamist goals, there are better games to do it in than D&D.Rune is very explicitly gamist and has no fear for incoherence.Those rules made the game too easy, and thus boring, for powergamers. In a very real and practical sense, it was anti-gamist. It did not make the game more enjoyable to play in a competitive way, because you won too easily. That does not make for a good competitive game.True. But I have trouble classifying munchkins. I think it is a dysfunctional gamist technique.It wasn't really simulationist, either, in that it presented no real material to explore, or rules in which to make new materials to explore. All the abilities were, to a greater or lesser extent, already present in the game. If you try to think of it as a functional rather than a broken system (which it was under gamist principles), you will realize that the class customization scheme was meant to allow players to pursue the character concept they wanted to roleplay in the game. It was made to broaden the interpretation and range of Character driven Premises in Narrativist play.They are neutral as far as CA are concerned, IMO.Skills? Gamist? Don't be absurd. There is very little competitive play in skill ranks, and poor play at that, wherever it exists. One rank, one roll, and there's take 10 and take 20 options, even. Where the competition in that? Where's the thrill?That is why traps aren't used as challenges, and why no one tries to sneak on anyone, or avoid it. Why no rogue ever has Used Magic Device to further his exploits. Feinting and intimidation (which, BTW, is too weak) are not useful in combat, either.What kind of gamist fun can be had in taking Craft (cooking) ranks, I ask you?Crafts do not exactly rank among the most popular skills, as far as I know.It is expressly simulationist in that it allows you to more fully explore the world as a player character. More importantly, it allows you to concretely mold your desired character's concept as a real person, with real normal skills, and wants, and preferences, as a platform for Narrativist play.They are simmy, but have nothing to do with nar.Some D&D gamist rules can inhibit simulationist play, and that is why you get a lot of threads complaining about how high level fighters can jump off of ledges and not die - these complaints are from ardent simulationists who prefer even more simulationism in the game than is already in there. Still, D&D contains many, many rules that are completely simulationist, with only the barest of nods to gamist content, often not even then.Many gamists like "realism", too. Many like immersion. Ephemera and techniques do not CA make.It is not a drift. D&D actively supports simulationism more than it supports any of the other styles of play. Indeed, you often have to tell newbies in the Combat forums that the Combat system isn't supposed to be simulationist in order to get them to understand why it is the way it is. Obviously, the system's primary focus on simulationist play misleads them into thinking that the entire game is simulationist, which of course it is not.Total disagreement.You do not have to have a Fortune element to play a game. Simulationist play in D&D is very strong, the central element these days, in my estimation. Gamism is less on-focused than it used to be, and I believe that gamist rules occupy the minority of pages and content in D&D rules."Gamist rules" is very misleading, BTW. Rarely can anything be said about single rules. Oh, and I never claimed anything about fortune being needed for absolutely anything.Important elements in the game, and moreso, in the DMG and related material such as setting materials, strongly support (actively promote) narrativist play.Examples. Because the next quote is not such, and prmotes absolutely no creative agenda.If the DM decides that you play the game as a collaborative exploration of narrativist Premises, then that's how the game will be played, and there's abundant support in the game for that style of gaming.Not quite that easy. And, by abundant, do you mean virtually none?D&D isn't even the best as the gamist style of play. There are better games that cater to that. More balanced, no fudging necessary, absolutely. Settlers of Catan strikes me as an excellent gamist game. It's better for that style than D&D. By that measure, D&D is actually quite poor at catering to the gamist style of play.CA apply to RPGs. Only them.If you have problems doing narrativist play, there are plenty of people on the Character Development Boards (not the Character Optimization Boards) who will be glad to give you assistance and refer you to excellent D&D material.They can create backgrounds, sure. If I had problems with narrativism and D&D, I'd head to the Forge, where people could actually help me.The D&D game is not limited to the 3 Core Books. You can play using only those rules, but that presumes that your DM is reasonable adept at captaining a session. D&D supports a great deal of different flavors of simulations for simulationist play, and contains a great deal of possible conflicts for narrativist play. These are not contained in the Core Books. These books are D&D also.I prefer to stay focused on core, or SRD, to make sure everyone knows what others are talking about. Note that mere material does not promote any agenda. Colour is neutral.
Roxlimn 01-17-06, 02:00 PM	Gilean: I confess that I'm getting tired trying to inform you of very elemental D&D details. If you cannot be bothered to read common texts, I'm at a loss for how you can claim your positions the way you do. Actually, the way they hint as narrativism is that they move the game towards conflcit resolution. Move towards. Not quite there. Besides, they are specific to a setting or part of a supplemental product. Eberron is comparatively little more narrativist than the rest of the system. It's there, but it's not just the AP. That never was my point. Nor do I intend to take it as one. Signs of D&D being FatE: situational modifers for higher ground, expertise, and such. They are very FatE. In FitM, you roll the dice and then tell why it worked out as well as it did. Yup, you do that in D&D, too. I would advise you to take my word for it. In which the main contributing factor are Spritual Attributes, which extremely significantly improve odds of survival in combat (which are deadly) and generally success at conflcits that are improtant to the player. Which promotes narrativism. AP go to this direction, but so very lightly. I would tend to agree with Ron Edwards on this one. In this case, as you have described it, Riddle of Steel is confusedly trying to promote narrativist goals in gamist senses. It doesn't strike me as an effective tool except for a diehard narrativist or a diehard gamist, both of whom will probably ignore one part for the other. A gamer will either prioritize his gamist game, or his narrativist game, Gilean. There's no two ways about it. This game seems to me to struggle towards narrativism, but fails. Elaborate on what you mean as "task selection", please. What you can actually do in the game. Yes, paladin has thematic potential. Paladin also loses powers if the potential in question is addressed in any way save for playing as good. Which stifles narrativism. I don't see where it does that. A Paladin losing powers should be extremely satisfying for a narrativist. Real consequences for real actions in real conflicts. I can hardly find a mechanic anywhere that's more suited. Whereas Riddle of Steel apparently gives you gamist benefits for narrativist leanings, the D&D Paladin gives you narrativist rewards for narrativist leanings. You do something evil, you fall, you deal with your fall. What can constitute a more satisfying series of conflicts? I think you're confusing narrativist mechanics with gamist mechanics. "Pure flavour", as in Colour. Colour contributes to no specific agenda. Didn't I say it was an exploratory platform? Which part of that didn't you understand? It's not just Color. Arbitrary, or genre-appropriate in this case, restrictions or abilities have again absolutely nothign to do with narrativism. I beg to differ. A Character driven Premise needs the correct character to pull it off or it's just not as interesting. You can't go around trying to spread the value of music if you're no good at it, or if the setting makes no sense of it. An example or two? I don't have the items in question. In the FRCS, you can, for example, join the Red Wizards of Thay, and act in accordance with their agendas, or have agendas of your own. This brings you in conflict with practically everyone on the continent. There's the Rashemen vs. Thay conflict (not the narrativist sense), which encompasses several possible character explorative options. They also allow the player to explore Setting drive Premises. There's also the Zhent-Dalesmen conflict, and really, one or two on practically every page. I don't recall any advice that would further narrativism in the DMG. But maybe I misremember. Care to point out some? Pacing the Game Session strongly lends itself to narrativist play, and strongly emphasizes the narrativist role of the DM. Obviously, you don't need to control game and excitement pacing if you're playing either a gamist or a simulationist game. Interesting Combats (page 17) also strongly supports the narrativist in the gamist. Again, you obviously don't need terrain features to be interesting if you're playing in a gamist sense and it even occasionally stretches simulationist play. There are strong narrativist elements in "Motivation" page 43. "Greed, fear, revenge, need, morality, anger, and curiosity are all powerful motivators." The D&D games outright tells you to recruit PC character concept attributes and narrativist conflict to move the game forward to whatever end you wish. I disagree, but canon Forge theory does not. I personally see detailed rules as stifling sim. But I am one of the grand total of two people who I know to think like that. Great. So you disagree on the basis of your own opinion and definitions. You're free to do so, of course, but it strikes me as indulgent and needlessly contrary. Colour does not simulationism make. Colour such as hairs, eyes, height, etc. I disagree. I think that details are important in forging a coherent simulationist experience. Rune is very explicitly gamist and has no fear for incoherence. I think incoherence is the term people use when they don't know what the game is all about. True. But I have trouble classifying munchkins. I think it is a dysfunctional gamist technique. They are neutral as far as CA are concerned, IMO. Substantiate. I told you how they can be considered narrativist. Comments? That is why traps aren't used as challenges, and why no one tries to sneak on anyone, or avoid it. Why no rogue ever has Used Magic Device to further his exploits. Feinting and intimidation (which, BTW, is too weak) are not useful in combat, either. You must be trying to be cute. Please don't. As I said, just say what you mean. Message boards are already difficult enough mediums for communication without the complication of snide remarks and sarcasm. Don't do it. All the instances of skill checks you mention are only a small part of what makes the Rogue "function" as a character class in the gamist sense. If these skill checks could truly stand alone as gamist concepts, the Rogue would not need to be as skilled in combat as he is. Crafts do not exactly rank among the most popular skills, as far as I know. Then you are only acquainted with gamists, and that is a poor sample indeed to be taking for finding out about narrativist and simulationist play in D&D. Seek more data. They are simmy, but have nothing to do with nar. HAHAHAHA! "Simmy?" Skills, eh? Skills are hardly simulationist in that they do not truly form a cohesive body of tools with which ti simulate the skill content of a population, which you would need to acheive some degree of meaningfulness when determining the skill level of you character with regard to the world. They're also ridiculously distributed between the professions, for gamist purposes, presumably. No. If you're taking "fringe" skills, it's probably for character interpretation for the purpose of narrativist play. Many gamists like "realism", too. Many like immersion. Ephemera and techniques do not CA make. You're getting confused, Gilean. When a gamer strives for "realism," he is pursuing a simulationist aspect of his gamist game. A game that prioritizes accuracy instead of balanced and enjoyble competitive play is necessarily simulationist, not gamist. Thus, when you say that "many gamists like 'realism,'" all you are managing to say is that there is a definite simulationist element in D&D games, as preferred by D&D gamists. That is not the issue here. What I am pointing out is the obvious confusion newbies experience when they first realize that combat is not realistic. It's not that they want more realism. They do not realize that it is meant to be a competitive game, not a realistic portrayal of combat. The rules for simulationist play are many and varied. If you cannot recognize them in D&D, I must again question your understanding of GNS theory. CA apply to RPGs. Only them. To a certain extent, yes. That's why the theory is so weak. They can create backgrounds, sure. If I had problems with narrativism and D&D, I'd head to the Forge, where people could actually help me. They don't seem to be helping you much now. I prefer to stay focused on core, or SRD, to make sure everyone knows what others are talking about. D&D is not only the SRD. We can discuss the SRD, if you wish, but do not work under the misapprehension that the SRD is coincident with D&D.
revnk 01-17-06, 02:40 PM	Gilean: :nonono: There is an old Monty Python sketch about a man who goes to an "Argument Clinic," where he pays a man to argue with him. The man is diasappointed when, instead of an argument, all he gets from the fellow at the desk is an automatic gainsaying of what the man just said, including the fact that he just paid for an additional five minutes of time. "An argument," the man protests, "isn't just the automatic gainsaying of what someone else said." You keep writing in your numerous threads that you're here to learn, but then fail to accept instruction. You ask for examples, and when they're provided you either respond that you're not familiar with them and ignore them, or you try to act like anything that was said on a previous page of posts was never said at all. Posters have given you examples of play styles, group preferences, design theories, supporting articles... and instead of responding with a reasoned argument or a concession that you were wrong, you simply post the equivalent of sticking fingers in both your years and shrieking the "Marseilles" at the top of your lungs. If you're interested in learning, stop with the mere contradictions and inform yourself before posting a reply or admit that you're wrong here and move on. Re-read this bloody thread for crying out loud. Or the other threads you started in the apparent hope that the people who trounced you in one thread wouldn't bother to read the others. You have retreated to the point where the only thing you're allowing as "D&D" is the stripped-down outline of the d20 SRD, a vanilla document that is only the bare root of a gaming system. As Roxlimn points out, the SRD isn't all of it. Nor, as Roxlimn has also pointed out, is the SRD all that ever was. D&D may have started as a simulation--a fantasy wargame--but the game was evolving well beyond that as early as the first hardcover AD&D editions: thieves and druids were not given their own languages out of any special rules need for thieves and druids to have specialized languages. Nor did the level names serve any particular function beyond allowing a magic-user to boast that he was a thaumaturgist or a paladin to describe himself as a chevalier. I bring this up because one of the issues I have with your theoretical leanings, Gilean, is that you're too theoretical: I mentioned this earlier and you responded by saying you were a theortician. Fine. But, as Roxlimn pointed out, theories explain facts. One of the realities of the D&D rule system is that the original system was assembled in a very ad hoc way based on what the writers thought was fun or useful: this often resulted in odd rules and contradictions: high combat rolls vs. low save rolls, for example. During the first wave of RPG design in the 70s and early 80s, the writers didn't necessarily sit down and say "Well, is this more simulationist or should we cover narrativist elements?" What they said (more likely) was, "Hey, wouldn't it be cool if you could telepathically make someone's brains come out of their nose?" But during this process people started trying to explain why doing these things was fun and how to make it more fun. And this is where these theories you're talking about were adopted or invented; but notice the sequence--the theories were being used to explain the fact that AD&D and other RPGs were fun, and to try to predict what would be more fun. The theories weren't an abstraction as you basically treat them to be. They served an explanatory purpose. AD&D became a mess, and 2E came about at least partly to streamline the rules. And 3.x evolved from that to create a coherent system; the authors who undertook the project clearly understood the theory. But D&D is an evolved animal: there are some things still present in the system that are there like vestigal fingers in a whale fin or the modified wrist bones that make up a panda's "thumb": the rules for falling, for instance. What I'm getting at is that D&D was not written from the ground up based on abstract theories; it grew organically over 30 years before being polished by folks who were familiar with theories that had been used to explain why the game grew in a particular way. In the course of that organic growth, D&D absorbed and developed some rules that served a particular function or purpose, but it also gained some rules that simply seemed fun at the time and weren't written with any other agenda in mind (GNS or otherwise). Other rules were necessary, but were more convenient than agenda-driven ("Well, we need to know what happens when a dragon flames someone... um... roll less than a '9' and from now on that's your save vs. 'Breath Weapon...'"). And given the nature of that organic growth, it should be emphasized that millions of players played the game thousands of ways, some of which became official (critical hits, e.g.) while others remain quirky. The point being, Gilean, that the GNS theory has limited utility. It's not useless, but to say that the game is designed around "x" agenda is to miss the fact that the game grew only out of a "Hey, this is fun" agenda, with the GNS used by some observers to explain why the fun was occuring. Alright, I'm out of steam.
Twisted Puppy 01-17-06, 03:18 PM	*Walks in and nails up a sign* PLEASE STOP FEEDING THE TROLL :bored:
The White Sorcerer 01-18-06, 11:23 AM	They have that nasty limitation of not applying to checks that could result in harm. According to your philosophy, those checks should be rolled anyway, because there is something to lose.
Gilean 01-18-06, 02:43 PM	Yup, you do that in D&D, too. I would advise you to take my word for it.Some rules actively oppose it. Generally, that would be the situational modifiers.I would tend to agree with Ron Edwards on this one. In this case, as you have described it, Riddle of Steel is confusedly trying to promote narrativist goals in gamist senses. It doesn't strike me as an effective tool except for a diehard narrativist or a diehard gamist, both of whom will probably ignore one part for the other. A gamer will either prioritize his gamist game, or his narrativist game, Gilean. There's no two ways about it. This game seems to me to struggle towards narrativism, but fails.It can be used either way. The problem with playing gamist with it is that characters practically require spiritual attributes to survive. The rules do enourage narrativism.What you can actually do in the game.Okay. Elaborate on different types of combats or conflicts.I don't see where it does that. A Paladin losing powers should be extremely satisfying for a narrativist. Real consequences for real actions in real conflicts. I can hardly find a mechanic anywhere that's more suited. Whereas Riddle of Steel apparently gives you gamist benefits for narrativist leanings, the D&D Paladin gives you narrativist rewards for narrativist leanings. You do something evil, you fall, you deal with your fall. What can constitute a more satisfying series of conflicts?In tRoS, a character pursuing premises (as determined by spiritual attributes) gains benefits in game. One who fails to do so loses nothing. In D&D, a paladin not being good loses powers. One being good gains nothing. See the difference?I think you're confusing narrativist mechanics with gamist mechanics.A rule can enhance combat effectiveness, or general influence over the setting, without beign gamist. I think you are too bogged down on single rules.Didn't I say it was an exploratory platform? Which part of that didn't you understand? It's not just Color.My gnome has blue eyes! The premises! I am a fighter! I like swords! Or, I don't see a lot of the features having thematic potential. Even if they do, it is easily turned into or used as mere colour. Cyberpunk is notorious for this, as an example.I beg to differ. A Character driven Premise needs the correct character to pull it off or it's just not as interesting. You can't go around trying to spread the value of music if you're no good at it, or if the setting makes no sense of it.Yes. But merely having such elements happens in almost every game I can think of. Every setting has thematic choices there. If you know about the relevant philosophy of Wittgenstein or Levinas, I should have no need for explaining this further. Do you?In the FRCS, you can, for example, join the Red Wizards of Thay, and act in accordance with their agendas, or have agendas of your own. This brings you in conflict with practically everyone on the continent. There's the Rashemen vs. Thay conflict (not the narrativist sense), which encompasses several possible character explorative options. They also allow the player to explore Setting drive Premises. There's also the Zhent-Dalesmen conflict, and really, one or two on practically every page.I somewhat follow. But see nothing that wouldn't be present in almost any setting created. Unless the designer tries to turn it into a very specific kind of paradise (what is the word; utopy?).Pacing the Game Session strongly lends itself to narrativist play, and strongly emphasizes the narrativist role of the DM. Obviously, you don't need to control game and excitement pacing if you're playing either a gamist or a simulationist game.Okay. Many, and I mean most of them, narrativist games reduce GM power from the standard and stress scene framing. Scene framing is a technique that leads into interestign play. Some simulationists may not think it necessary. Most of the others savour it. I have read one actual play about narrativists who enjoyed continuous play akin to that commonly identified with sim, for an example to the contrary.Interesting Combats (page 17) also strongly supports the narrativist in the gamist. Again, you obviously don't need terrain features to be interesting if you're playing in a gamist sense and it even occasionally stretches simulationist play.You still don't get narrativism. Interesting story is not the focus. It is a by-product. Gamists get a lot of diverse challenges and probably greatly appreciate it. They can enjoy an interestign setting, but that is not the focus. But the narrativism. Nothing about interesting combat settings particularly promotes it. Nothing.There are strong narrativist elements in "Motivation" page 43. "Greed, fear, revenge, need, morality, anger, and curiosity are all powerful motivators." The D&D games outright tells you to recruit PC character concept attributes and narrativist conflict to move the game forward to whatever end you wish.One piece that may meet the requirement, depending on context. Note that "relationship simulationism" or some sorts of "high-concept sim" also greatly benefit from the advice.Great. So you disagree on the basis of your own opinion and definitions. You're free to do so, of course, but it strikes me as indulgent and needlessly contrary.IIRC it was you who said to build my own theories. Might very well have been someone else.I disagree. I think that details are important in forging a coherent simulationist experience.A fair warning: this my theory. It is less than a week old, in its current incarnation. Details are important. Pre-set details are poison. I'll elaborate. Creative agenda is about the aesthetic principle that provied the greatest enjoyment in RPing. If there is nothing to do, there is nothing to do. A gamist equivalent would be cheating, while a narrativist one would be having a pre-defined answer to the premise. There is nothign left to do, as far as a simulationist is concerned, if everything is done already (side note: this is part of the reason why I dislike published settings).I think incoherence is the term people use when they don't know what the game is all about.Incoherent rules promote multiple CAs in a way that is prone to dysfunction. Incoherent gaming consists of attempts at multiple CAs but with a large chance of dysfunction.Substantiate. I told you how they can be considered narrativist. Comments?There is nothing there that encourages one to seek out narrativist moments (as far as I know) and nothign that would reward of addressing the premise.All the instances of skill checks you mention are only a small part of what makes the Rogue "function" as a character class in the gamist sense. If these skill checks could truly stand alone as gamist concepts, the Rogue would not need to be as skilled in combat as he is.I was talking of skills, not of rogues. Skills do have a lot of weight in many situations. A lot of them help in the prime avenue of stepping on up, or combat. They grant more ways of winning the challenge. Then you are only acquainted with gamists, and that is a poor sample indeed to be taking for finding out about narrativist and simulationist play in D&D.Seek more data.So, how many PCs in your group take crafts? How many take skills like survival, sense motive, spot and listen, when they are class skills?"Simmy?" Skills, eh? Skills are hardly simulationist in that they do not truly form a cohesive body of tools with which ti simulate the skill content of a population, which you would need to acheive some degree of meaningfulness when determining the skill level of you character with regard to the world. They're also ridiculously distributed between the professions, for gamist purposes, presumably. No. If you're taking "fringe" skills, it's probably for character interpretation for the purpose of narrativist play.Second edition. Nonweapon proficiencies. Third edition. Skills. Note the change? Anyway, skills are quite neutral. They do not particularly reward any play style, nor do they hurt them. All applications thus far have been neutral, with a possibilty of slight sim focus (diverse character archetypes, greater ability for characterisation).You're getting confused, Gilean. When a gamer strives for "realism," he is pursuing a simulationist aspect of his gamist game. A game that prioritizes accuracy instead of balanced and enjoyble competitive play is necessarily simulationist, not gamist. Thus, when you say that "many gamists like 'realism,'" all you are managing to say is that there is a definite simulationist element in D&D games, as preferred by D&D gamists.Noooope. In this field I have an edge. Having read through many a conversation on the Forge where people continuously, and erroneously, seeked to identify CAs by highlighting small parts of systems of play experiences. So, realism. Let me see. Simulationists want to build realism and test it, see how well it works, what kinds of settings the rules support, and stuff like that. Gamists want to be able to use their RW experience in the system, or plain just enjoy realistic combat. Narrativists feel that their addresses have greater weight in more realistic settings. For a few examples. It does not define simulationism. As an in-game goal, it might hint at it. Nothign more.The rules for simulationist play are many and varied. If you cannot recognize them in D&D, I must again question your understanding of GNS theory.Do not focus on the rules. Focus on the reward system. Becaus we do not have access to extremely large quantities of actual play accounts, the focus must be placed on reward cycles in the system itself.To a certain extent, yes. That's why the theory is so weak.Focused woul be the word I use. Not weak. Is D&D weak for not coping well (without house rules) with things that are not of high magic fantasy?They don't seem to be helping you much now.Might be because I am not asking for it?D&D is not only the SRD. We can discuss the SRD, if you wish, but do not work under the misapprehension that the SRD is coincident with D&D.As I said that is the default assumption.It's not useless, but to say that the game is designed around "x" agenda is to miss the fact that the game grew only out of a "Hey, this is fun" agenda, with the GNS used by some observers to explain why the fun was occuring.The definition of functional RPGing is that it is fun. Creative agenda are distinct categories of exactly what is the fun part. There is a significant history on the Forge, which includes the threefold model, for instance. I am aware of this. But the rules still have quite profound leanings; they support some agenda more than the others. Some not at all. This is not a fault, it is a feature. As for my learning, this works, for me. That is enough for me. Your mlage may, and probably does, vary.According to your philosophy, those checks should be rolled anyway, because there is something to lose.Yes, but that doesn't mean that they should be rolled multiple times, with single roll being capable of canceling the entire achievement.
The White Sorcerer 01-18-06, 03:07 PM	Yes, but that doesn't mean that they should be rolled multiple times, with single roll being capable of cancelign the entire achievement. Could you give me an example? I'm not sure I understood.
Gilean 01-19-06, 11:17 AM	Could you give me an example? I'm not sure I understood."Make a climb roll." "20" "Make a climb roll" "21" "Make a climb roll" "22" ... Until the character fails. It is a technique of railroading. Ask for rolls until the player fails. In which case nothing need have rolled. See my thread of Letting it Ride for more on this.
The White Sorcerer 01-19-06, 12:02 PM	"Make a climb roll." "20" "Make a climb roll" "21" "Make a climb roll" "22" ... Until the character fails. It is a technique of railroading. Ask for rolls until the player fails. Ridicilous. In truth, it's "Ask for rolls until the player fails or succeeds." Why would a DM ask for rolls until the player fails? It makes no sense.
Gilean 01-19-06, 12:07 PM	Ridicilous. In truth, it's "Ask for rolls until the player fails or succeeds." Why would a DM ask for rolls until the player fails? It makes no sense.It is a technique used by some railroading GMs to get the story where they want. I don't support it. In fact, I can't enjoy games that use it. But, it is an example of a single bad roll canceling all the previous efforts. It can be used in a proper way, too. This is in contrast with, for example, combat, where every succesful attack moves you closer to victory, and failed rolls only stop progress. Instead of putting one to the beginning. I'm not making any sense, am I?
The White Sorcerer 01-19-06, 12:15 PM	It is a technique used by some railroading GMs to get the story where they want. I don't support it. In fact, I can't enjoy games that use it. Has ANYONE on this thread actually suggested playing like that?
Gilean 01-19-06, 01:52 PM	I don't remember. Do you have a point?
The White Sorcerer 01-19-06, 02:00 PM	Do you have a point? Maybe. Do you? And no, you're not making any sense. What does the "ask for rolls until the player fails" method have to do with take 20 not working when harm can come from failure?
The White Sorcerer 01-19-06, 05:13 PM	I don't know about others, but to me a "You kill them. Wanna take prisoners" encounter doesn't add any color. At all. It's boring. Even if I narrated how my barbarian cleaved through the goblin ranks, and the wizard narrated how he scorched them with his well placed fireball, there wouln't be any satisfaction. Describing something is not as good as actually DOING something (in game, of course). And if I cleaved through the goblins, wouldn't the wizard have hit me with his fireball? Or did he cast his spell before my brave charge? If so, what goblins did I have left to cleave? Then there's the issue of resources. How many spells did the wizard cast? How many arrows did the ranger shoot? How many hit points did my brave barbarian lose? No fun, I tell you.
revnk 01-19-06, 05:59 PM	It is a technique used by some railroading GMs to get the story where they want. I don't support it. In fact, I can't enjoy games that use it. But, it is an example of a single bad roll canceling all the previous efforts. It can be used in a proper way, too. This is in contrast with, for example, combat, where every succesful attack moves you closer to victory, and failed rolls only stop progress. Instead of putting one to the beginning. I'm not making any sense, am I? No, you're not. I have no idea where you found a DM who uses that "technique," but it's not a technique, it's bad refereeing. If that's the kind of DM you're used to dealing with, I can see why you have some odd ideas about game definitions and mechanics. I doubt that lousy play is the norm, however. I assume that you are not talking about compound rolls where a player rolls at the key moments of an action (e.g. free climbing a really big cliff might require a skill check at the 1/3 and 2/3 marker, or fixing a machine might require a PC to make skill rolls on three individual components) or allowing a player to re-roll a failure in order to get a success (not really good form or something I'd do/encourage, but I can imagine situations where it would be an act of kindness). If you are, I think you may be a mite confused. A good DM does not want players to fail.
Gilean 01-20-06, 10:54 AM	What does the "ask for rolls until the player fails" method have to do with take 20 not working when harm can come from failure?In those cases the technique is "fine" by rules. The original quote, for reference:Yes, but that doesn't mean that they should be rolled multiple times, with single roll being capable of canceling the entire achievement.Climbing is an example of single roll canceling the entire effort. And all such situations can be used for railroading, with ease. And players might not even notice it at first.A good DM does not want players to fail.I wasn't talking of good GMs. But, generally, I agree.Then there's the issue of resources.Something is at stake if the resources matter. So, roll the dice.No fun, I tell you.From my point of view, approximately as fun as playing through boring and irrelevant fights. I guess we disagree.
The White Sorcerer 01-20-06, 11:05 AM	Climbing is an example of single roll canceling the entire effort. And all such situations can be used for railroading, with ease. That doesn't mean that it actually IS a method of railroading. If one climbs a really tall cliff and is unable to do it by taking 10, then it is LOGICAL that he might at some point fall.
Tzor 01-20-06, 11:55 AM	The fact that climbing is as you describe is the real reason why in the real world people came up with the idea of hammering in pitons into mountain surfaces and attacing themselves with a rope. It turns a failure -> death to failure -> painful annoyance. Part of the fun of the game is playing the razor's edge. Sure people like to win, but they want to win ... or die trying! Remember that the purpose of the game is first and foremost to have fun! When players gather and talk about fun they almost always recall in all the gory detail about the great deaths as much if not more than their great sucesses, and even the latter is always based on those experiences where the posibility of failure was known to the players at the time.
DanjaNinja 01-20-06, 01:02 PM	Gilean, correct me if I'm wrong, but what you seem to be saying is that if a DM knows with certainty the outcome of a situation, that he should quickly wrap it up and get to a real challenge. That seems like a particularly narrow interpretation to me. I enjoy D&D for numerous reasons. A lot of it is the process of overcoming or failing to overcome a challenge. Sometimes the DM knows there really isn't a challenge, but the player's don't--in that case, it's the illusion of challenge that is enjoyable, and it is indispensable for building up tension. Is it possible to do these things badly? It is. It's difficult to create the illusion of a challenge, and to balance "real" challenges with "fake" challenges. A poor or inexperienced DM will invariably make mistakes. I don't see this as a fatal flaw of the system, as I understand you to be arguing.
The White Sorcerer 01-20-06, 01:12 PM	Which is more satisfying: The feeling of power after wiping out a group of puny goblins because the DM says so. OR The feeling of power after wiping out a group of puny goblins by actually doing it.
Roxlimn 01-21-06, 03:03 AM	Gilean: First off, I would like to address this, right now: D&D is not only the SRD. We can discuss the SRD, if you wish, but do not work under the misapprehension that the SRD is coincident with D&D. As I said that is the default assumption. It is not the default assumption, and I have not been aware that it was until this point. I do not agree with your assumption. Unless we can come to an agreement here, there is no point in addressing the other issues which you are not familiar with. Stressing ignorance as a way of discussing a game system seems quite novel to me.
Gilean 01-21-06, 07:04 AM	If one climbs a really tall cliff and is unable to do it by taking 10, then it is LOGICAL that he might at some point fall.Logical doesn't mean desirable from a rules-point of view, always. But the point is that greater difficutly can easily be simulated (which has nothing to do with simulation as a CA) by increasign the DC.Which is more satisfying: The feeling of power after wiping out a group of puny goblins because the DM says so. OR The feeling of power after wiping out a group of puny goblins by actually doing it.For me, both are equally dull. I don't do power-tripping. some may enjoy other more than the other. One option is, again, to let the players narrate it. Tzor, we agree.Gilean, correct me if I'm wrong, but what you seem to be saying is that if a DM knows with certainty the outcome of a situation, that he should quickly wrap it up and get to a real challenge.You almost got it. The play should be focused on what is fun. If it is the challenges, play the challenges. There is no obligation to keep doing other stuff. If you enjoy something else, play that. Frame scenes, or ask the GM to do so, to the interesting stuff. Whatever it is. Roxlimn, you are free to use nonSRD material, as long as your points can be made independentaly of the material in question. As examples and reinforcing material, no problems. I have no reason to not trust you.
The White Sorcerer 01-21-06, 08:01 AM	Logical doesn't mean desirable from a rules-point of view, always. But the point is that greater difficutly can easily be simulated (which has nothing to do with simulation as a CA) by increasign the DC. But by increasing the DC, how do you know the round-by-round progression (when necessary), or how far the character got before falling? Also, CA? Complete Arcane?
Roxlimn 01-21-06, 09:19 AM	Gilean: Roxlimn, you are free to use nonSRD material, as long as your points can be made independentaly of the material in question. As examples and reinforcing material, no problems. I have no reason to not trust you. Nope. The SRD is not D&D. It's only the system reference material for many d20 Fantasy rules. It's not the entirety of the system, nor is it the entirety of D&D. Please disabuse yourself of this notion, now. Much of the material I quote for core and supplementary material are important to what D&D is and has become. They are completely independent of the SRD in most respects, particularly with some of the points you raise. This is why I said that you are operating with ignorance. You are simply choosing to ignore much of what makes D&D the game that it is. If you are choosing to ignore it as such, then you aren't really talking about D&D, but some game you think encompasses the whole of D&D, but is really only your own limited experience of it. I refuse to accept your limited experiences as representative of what D&D is.
Gilean 01-22-06, 05:21 AM	But by increasing the DC, how do you know the round-by-round progression (when necessary), or how far the character got before falling?Margin of failure, for example, if GM fiat is distasteful.Also, CA? Complete Arcane?Creative agenda.The SRD is not D&D.I reread my post. I don't claim this.Much of the material I quote for core and supplementary material are important to what D&D is and has become.Yup. That is why I say that you are free to use them, to reinforce an argument. Like so: there are rules that promote nar in D&D. For example, Eberron's action points, that work like [this]. Where [this] gives a summary on how they work. Now, I happen to to know it in this specific case, or have a good approximation. But, generally, when referring to such a rule, provide a short summary.
Roxlimn 01-22-06, 08:44 AM	Gilean: Good. Just trying to be clear. Now let's tackle this. Some rules actively oppose it. Generally, that would be the situational modifiers. Not oppose. Just suggest FitE. D&D is both FitE and FitM, depending on how you want to play it. Situational modifiers allow people to "model" the "known variables" of how a blow may or may not connect, but there's a heck of a lot of unmentioned variables that are abstracted in the random roll to hit. You're quite free to narrate any of these variables affecting your character's action after determining the fact that he missed or hit. In "Describing the Action" on page 16 of the 3.5e DMG, the DMG gives DMs and players a great deal of leeway on how to retroactively describe why their attack or action failed or succeeded. It says: "Remember, too, that an attack that does not deal damage is not always a miss in the ordinary sense of the word. Heavily armored characters may be frequently hit but their armor protects them. If you say "His short sword glances off your plate armor," this not only describes the action (Roxlimn's note: retroactively, you notice), but makes the player feel good about his choice to spend extra gold on the good armor." Note that no rule in D&D actually has hit placement for most hits, and none at all for practically all misses. There is a variant rule about "hitting the cover," but that's about it. Any description (and plenty of material focuses on this, especially in Dragon articles) that the players and the DM concoct, as encouraged in that section, including various explanations for hits and misses, are purely narrative. It can be used either way. The problem with playing gamist with it is that characters practically require spiritual attributes to survive. The rules do enourage narrativism. I disagree. The game encourages gamists to imitate narrativist play. It doesn't actually reward players in a manner consistent with narrativist agenda. By giving out gamist rewards for narrativist elements, the game rewards narrativist players with gamist rewards. That doesn't make sense to me. If you have gamist players, you let them play gamist, and give them gamist rewards for it. If you have narrativist players, you let them play narrativist, and give them narrativist rewards for it. It's really as simple as that. Okay. Elaborate on different types of combats or conflicts. Whether you can cast a spell or not. What kinds of weapons are available. What you can and cannot do with those weapons. None of these elements of task representation are necessary for gamist play. As far as gamists are concerned, it's all just color. In tRoS, a character pursuing premises (as determined by spiritual attributes) gains benefits in game. One who fails to do so loses nothing. In D&D, a paladin not being good loses powers. One being good gains nothing. See the difference? Better than I think you realize. In tRoS, a character pursuing Narrativist Premises (all styles have Premises) gains Gamist benefits. One who fails to do so does not elicit anything from the system. There's no real reason to pursue Narrativist elements (unless you're after gamist rewards) because they don't really affect the system or the character in a narrativist sense. In D&D, not being true to being a Paladin means you stop being one. There is a conflict, and there are real consequences (both gamist and narrativist) for pursuing a particular path. If you remain Good as a Paladin, your reward is that you continue to be one. There is no Narrativist conflict there because you were a Paladin to begin with. There may be game-instituted conflicts in the Narrativist sense in that they cause the Paladin to doubt or act precipitously, but when the Narrativist chooses to stay a Paladin, he stays a Paladin and reaps the consequences based on his alignment choices. The way I see it, any outcome is satisfying for the Narrativist player as long as his choices actually affect his character (or setting or situation), in particular for his moral and/or personal conflict choices. The only penalty here is if he, for example, refuses to behave the way a Paladin is supposed to behave, and yet nothing happens. What's the fun in that? Where's the point of this conflict? Narrativists live for the character conflict. If their character conflict has no narrativist based consequences, I don't think they're being properly rewarded. A rule can enhance combat effectiveness, or general influence over the setting, without beign gamist. I think you are too bogged down on single rules. Not at all. A +1 to hit is a very gamist reward, for example. If the system rewards pursuing "spiritual attributes" with such rewards, then it's rewarding pursuing narrativist elements with gamist rewards. It's quite simple, really. A Paladin losing his powers usually isn't thought of as a reward because in the gamist sense, it's a pretty big hit. From a narrativist perspective, it can be a reward. The player chose to act a certain way, and thus, his character developed a certain way, with real interactive changes in how the character exists and is treated in the game world. Likewise, if he stayed a Paladin, that is in itself a reward, because Paladins are treated in very particular ways in D&D (and he will receive continual reaffirmation of the potency of his choice). My gnome has blue eyes! The premises! I am a fighter! I like swords! Or, I don't see a lot of the features having thematic potential. Even if they do, it is easily turned into or used as mere colour. Cyberpunk is notorious for this, as an example. Well, you see, gnomes normally have blue eyes. There's no thematic potential there because there's no potential conflict. There's no conflict in how you played the gamefor a narrativist to build upon. If you instead said that your gnome has black eyes - well, there's quite a bit more for building there. Why are his eyes black? How does he feel about his eyes being black? Do other gnomes regard him with suspicion? In Faerun, humans are segregated according to height, skin color, language, and other such details. More on this in Races of Faerun. For that matter, Dwarves and Elves are similarly splintered. Each group behaves in particular ways and treats other people also in particular ways. For example, being of the Mulan human strain (with associated details) in Thay is a big advantage in procuring government favors and such. On the other hand, how would you feel about your fellow Mulan if you knew that the very evil Thayvian nation is of mostly Mulan stock? They can be turned into color, if the player groups does not like narrativist play. That's an advantage, not a fault. On the other hand, they can also serve as platforms for narrativist play, as I have described. Yes. But merely having such elements happens in almost every game I can think of. Every setting has thematic choices there. If you know about the relevant philosophy of Wittgenstein or Levinas, I should have no need for explaining this further. Do you? 1. No, I don't believe that it's as significant or has the same potential in many games. 2. I don't know who Levinas is, and I really can't stand any more useless theorycrafting. I somewhat follow. But see nothing that wouldn't be present in almost any setting created. Unless the designer tries to turn it into a very specific kind of paradise (what is the word; utopy?). The word is "utopia," and no, the thematic elements are nowhere near as strong in games that do not focus on narrativist elements. Marvel Super Heroes, for example, mostly pits Heroes against Villains. There's a bit of a Mutant thing going on, but that's pretty weak overall, as you might expect from a comicbook based game. Okay. Many, and I mean most of them, narrativist games reduce GM power from the standard and stress scene framing. Scene framing is a technique that leads into interestign play. Some simulationists may not think it necessary. Most of the others savour it. I have read one actual play about narrativists who enjoyed continuous play akin to that commonly identified with sim, for an example to the contrary. page 8, DMG. "Players talk about the 'story' that they are collectively creating." More exposition in other D&D articles and sites. I believe that Dragonlance in 2e, in particular, contains many suggestions that might confrom to what you label is "scene framing." You still don't get narrativism. Interesting story is not the focus. It is a by-product. Gamists get a lot of diverse challenges and probably greatly appreciate it. They can enjoy an interestign setting, but that is not the focus. But the narrativism. Nothing about interesting combat settings particularly promotes it. Nothing. If you actually read the entry instead of focusing on the title, we might get somewhere. I presume you have a DMG? I read your Forge articles, it seems only, well, normal to read what we're talking about, regardless of how you feel about reading more about D&D in general. Interesting Combat scenes allow narrativists situation-based platforms on which to play narrativist. An "Interesting Combat" isn't always about the gamist, you know, so stop assuming it. The existence of narrativist elements on which to play in that manner promotes that style of play. One piece that may meet the requirement, depending on context. Note that "relationship simulationism" or some sorts of "high-concept sim" also greatly benefit from the advice. Wow. Like that matters. There's an interesting article in Dragon about how to create adventures that adhere to movie-making and TV-making principles. It stresses the nature of the TV character, how to present various characters and their conflicts to best effect, pacing, and all that. IIRC it was you who said to build my own theories. Might very well have been someone else. Not me. A fair warning: this my theory. It is less than a week old, in its current incarnation. Details are important. Pre-set details are poison. I'll elaborate. Creative agenda is about the aesthetic principle that provied the greatest enjoyment in RPing. If there is nothing to do, there is nothing to do. A gamist equivalent would be cheating, while a narrativist one would be having a pre-defined answer to the premise. There is nothign left to do, as far as a simulationist is concerned, if everything is done already (side note: this is part of the reason why I dislike published settings). Your theory is even weaker than GNS! I have no wish to discuss such hogwash. Incoherent rules promote multiple CAs in a way that is prone to dysfunction. Incoherent gaming consists of attempts at multiple CAs but with a large chance of dysfunction. I don't believe that D&D promotes multiple CAs in a manner that's prone to dysfunction. There are many aids to D&D play that spell everything out in almost a "Guide to Dummies" fashion. In fact, there's a D&D self help book of the popular line. If your group is prone to playing D&D in a dusfunctional manner, then I'm quite sorry for you, but please realize that your experience is not necessarily the same as everyone else's. There is nothing there that encourages one to seek out narrativist moments (as far as I know) and nothign that would reward of addressing the premise. Then you need to reread GNS theory again. Try to get someone from the Forge to help you through it. I was talking of skills, not of rogues. Skills do have a lot of weight in many situations. A lot of them help in the prime avenue of stepping on up, or combat. They grant more ways of winning the challenge. Then you are only acquainted with gamists, and that is a poor sample indeed to be taking for finding out about narrativist and simulationist play in D&D. Skills can be a gamist elements, but they're a rather poor one. They carry weight, but they're not really all that fun without simulationist or narrativist elements. Please read more material on story-based D&D addressing alternatively narrativist and simulationist agendas. I'm afraid that I have no interest in furthering your education when you adamantly refuse to accept basic facts. So, how many PCs in your group take crafts? How many take skills like survival, sense motive, spot and listen, when they are class skills Most PCs in my group take some sort of Craft or Profession skill. Sense Motive, Spot, and Listen may or may not be taken depending on concept and party requirements. So, realism. Let me see. Simulationists want to build realism and test it, see how well it works, what kinds of settings the rules support, and stuff like that. Gamists want to be able to use their RW experience in the system, or plain just enjoy realistic combat. Narrativists feel that their addresses have greater weight in more realistic settings. For a few examples. It does not define simulationism. As an in-game goal, it might hint at it. Nothing more. I'm quite sorry but Ron Edwards disagrees with you, particularly on what Simulationists, Gamists, and Narrativists seek out and want. I have no wish to discuss your own theories or personal expositions on GNS theory by members of the Forge. Ron Edward's GNS is pretty much all I can tolerate. Simulationists participate in "The Dream." Building realism may matter to certain players (particularly certain DMs). The role of builder in D&D is given exclusively to the DM. The players participate in Simulationist play by "exploring" the built-up world. When a gamer is striving for "realism," he's exploring that part of the built up dream for his simulationist agenda. It matters not at all to winning the challenge how "real" or what kind of world the PCs are in. Gamists who are looking for "realistic" elements for its own sake are also pursuing non-gamist goals. In that instant, for that gaming element, they are effectively playing a simulationist game. If you doubt this, reread GNS theory again. Gamist who wish to bring their own RW experiences into the game in order to elicit advantages are strongly discouraged by the D&D system. The D&D system is explicitly not made to allow gamers to use RL knowledge to advantage in terms of RL melee fighting and such, although it make help experienced gamists to decode the game system faster. Go reread the section on Simulationist play in GNS theory again. Do not focus on the rules. Focus on the reward system. Because we do not have access to extremely large quantities of actual play accounts, the focus must be placed on reward cycles in the system itself. I can't discuss the system with you meaningfully because you are ignorant regarding it! I am continually referring you to all sorts of quotes from the core books and documents regarding D&D. Acquaint yourself with the game before trying to talk to other people about it. Focused would be the word I use. Not weak. Is D&D weak for not coping well (without house rules) with things that are not of high magic fantasy? No. It's weak, just as your analogy is weak. GNS is a theory that tries to determine how and why role-playing games are fun. In that sense, and it being a theory, it should take previous theories into account, particularly theories on what constitutes "fun" and how it's elicited in every other activity other than roleplaying. Armed with this perspective it can then try to determine what RPGs have in common with other such activities and what essential fundamentals in RPGs elicit the "fun" response. Conversely, it can determine what activities in RPGs are graded as "fun" and how this is unique to RPGs. In particular, GNS works with no data other than personal account, which is the weakest possible data on which to base theory. It's even weaker than expert opinion. By this standard, it's scientifically provable that men can fly, UFOs exist, and that Santa Claus goes to billions of homes every December 25. Of course, science accepts none of those as factual, which should tell you how much credibility this GNS crap has.
Gilean 01-22-06, 10:39 AM	Not oppose. Just suggest FitE.Agree with the latter. But they are mutually exclusive.In "Describing the Action" on page 16 of the 3.5e DMG, the DMG gives DMs and players a great deal of leeway on how to retroactively describe why their attack or action failed or succeeded. It says: "Remember, too, that an attack that does not deal damage is not always a miss in the ordinary sense of the word. Heavily armored characters may be frequently hit but their armor protects them. If you say "His short sword glances off your plate armor," this not only describes the action (Roxlimn's note: retroactively, you notice), but makes the player feel good about his choice to spend extra gold on the good armor."Irrelevant to the matter at hand. That logic can be applied to higher ground as well. Which is very much not Fortune at the End.Note that no rule in D&D actually has hit placement for most hits, and none at all for practically all misses. There is a variant rule about "hitting the cover," but that's about it. Any description (and plenty of material focuses on this, especially in Dragon articles) that the players and the DM concoct, as encouraged in that section, including various explanations for hits and misses, are purely narrative.Yes.I disagree. The game encourages gamists to imitate narrativist play. It doesn't actually reward players in a manner consistent with narrativist agenda. By giving out gamist rewards for narrativist elements, the game rewards narrativist players with gamist rewards. That doesn't make sense to me.It is incoherent, but more narrativist than D&D.If you have gamist players, you let them play gamist, and give them gamist rewards for it. If you have narrativist players, you let them play narrativist, and give them narrativist rewards for it. It's really as simple as that.For this purpose, GM is one of the players. Otherwise, I agree.Whether you can cast a spell or not. What kinds of weapons are available. What you can and cannot do with those weapons. None of these elements of task representation are necessary for gamist play. As far as gamists are concerned, it's all just color.Of these, only the first one I see as conflict of any sort. And it is very often very relevant to gamists. Note that colour is almost necessary to roleplaying. Kind of like black-and-white movies with stick figures wouldn't be that interesting to a lot of people.Better than I think you realize.Sometimes.In tRoS, a character pursuing Narrativist Premises (all styles have Premises) gains Gamist benefits.First, under the current Big Model, only narrativism uses the term premise. I'll elaborate on this later. The premise in tRoS is "What is worth fighting for?". It practically requires a heavy risk of death or other permanent cost to be even approximately functional. The spiritual attributes tell the GM what kinds of oppotunities for addressing a premise he should present the players with. The premises increase when relevant premises are addressed. This means that an average character won't, by default, assault a random group of bandits. If the bandits are on the way to save his love (one of spiritual attributes) the attribute in question will help, but not make the victory certain. Here's the question: Is your loved one worth risking your life for in a fight agaisnt the bandits? Answer is yes or no, generally. That is the second thing tRoS does: it gives feedback on which actions are good and which are not. Whether it should or shouldn't is somethign I won't argue here.In D&D, not being true to being a Paladin means you stop being one. There is a conflict, and there are real consequences (both gamist and narrativist) for pursuing a particular path. If you remain Good as a Paladin, your reward is that you continue to be one. There is no Narrativist conflict there because you were a Paladin to begin with. There may be game-instituted conflicts in the Narrativist sense in that they cause the Paladin to doubt or act precipitously, but when the Narrativist chooses to stay a Paladin, he stays a Paladin and reaps the consequences based on his alignment choices.There is conflict if GM sets one up. Paladin is thematically potent. But questions like "Is it worth losingyour paladinhood for nothing?" are really not very effective. This is me just confirming that we are on same page.The way I see it, any outcome is satisfying for the Narrativist player as long as his choices actually affect his character (or setting or situation), in particular for his moral and/or personal conflict choices. The only penalty here is if he, for example, refuses to behave the way a Paladin is supposed to behave, and yet nothing happens. What's the fun in that? Where's the point of this conflict?Here you are getting the model. We agree.Narrativists live for the character conflict. If their character conflict has no narrativist based consequences, I don't think they're being properly rewarded.I am not quite certain on what you mean by the bolded (by me) part. Clarification, please.A +1 to hit is a very gamist reward, for example. If the system rewards pursuing "spiritual attributes" with such rewards, then it's rewarding pursuing narrativist elements with gamist rewards. It's quite simple, really.A +1 to hit can be used in gamist ways. But credibility is something everyone needs to fully express a creative agenda. And that is what system provides. +1 to hit gives credibility to statements about hitting things. Narrativist may say that "I am a great and powerful warrior. But I am risking all of this for my companions.". To be able to make such a statement, one needs to be a great and mighty warrior. And weapon focus is one of the ways in which that can be achieved in D&D. Heroquest is especially good at creating this kinds of premises.A Paladin losing his powers usually isn't thought of as a reward because in the gamist sense, it's a pretty big hit. From a narrativist perspective, it can be a reward. The player chose to act a certain way, and thus, his character developed a certain way, with real interactive changes in how the character exists and is treated in the game world. Likewise, if he stayed a Paladin, that is in itself a reward, because Paladins are treated in very particular ways in D&D (and he will receive continual reaffirmation of the potency of his choice).Nothing very controversial here.If you instead said that your gnome has black eyes - well, there's quite a bit more for building there. Why are his eyes black? How does he feel about his eyes being black? Do other gnomes regard him with suspicion?I hope you don't think of those as encouraging narrativism? 'cause they don't. Simulationism, as much as any other stuff.On the other hand, how would you feel about your fellow Mulan if you knew that the very evil Thayvian nation is of mostly Mulan stock?Neutral when it comes to CA.They can be turned into color, if the player groups does not like narrativist play. That's an advantage, not a fault. On the other hand, they can also serve as platforms for narrativist play, as I have described.Those descriptions have, thus far, only had narrativistic relevance when paladins were involved. Yes, colour is very fleeting. When something is relevant in a conflict, it becomes part of the situation. This is, in essence, what describing an armour's effect does; it moves armour into situation in addition to being stealthily involved through AC only.No, I don't believe that it's as significant or has the same potential in many games.The games that support narrativism may not have predefined settings. In fact, most are free of such detail. Becaus it is at best irrelevant. The games have rules that ease or encourage or force one to make thematic statements. Everywhere there are people there also are these situations. In real life, we try to dodge them. Because they are hard. That is also an easy instinct to fall on when gaming. Which is why the rules should support it, if narrativism is the goal.I don't know who Levinas is, and I really can't stand any more useless theorycrafting.No one with anything to do with RPGs, to be sure.The word is "utopia," and no, the thematic elements are nowhere near as strong in games that do not focus on narrativist elements. Marvel Super Heroes, for example, mostly pits Heroes against Villains. There's a bit of a Mutant thing going on, but that's pretty weak overall, as you might expect from a comicbook based game.Spiderman. Loved one falling to her death, a bus full of people fallign to their deaths. Which one does he save? You can let the Evil Supervillain escape and save a lot of people. Or, you can catch the evil one and let the people die. What do you do? Sure, I buy that. Comics never have thematic content.page 8, DMG. "Players talk about the 'story' that they are collectively creating."Often misguided simulationism. Narrativism always creates a story, but is not defined by creating it. Sim and gam may create stories. But there is this persistent misunderstanding that goes by the name of "the Impossible Thing Before the Breakfast". Namely, GM controls a plot and players the protagonists. Which is impossible. I am rambling, again. The point is that the sentence does nothing to facilate narrativism. Or scene framing. If the term is confusing, here's a short definition of good scene framing: Cut to the interesting stuff. Which, as you can see, I have been advising in a thread or two.If you actually read the entry instead of focusing on the title, we might get somewhere. I presume you have a DMG? I read your Forge articles, it seems only, well, normal to read what we're talking about, regardless of how you feel about reading more about D&D in general.My DMG is at friend's house. I have read it through twice or thrice. But not memorised.Interesting Combat scenes allow narrativists situation-based platforms on which to play narrativist. An "Interesting Combat" isn't always about the gamist, you know, so stop assuming it.I didn't. My poitn was that interesting combats can be interesting to a gamist.The existence of narrativist elements on which to play in that manner promotes that style of play.The existence of narrativist elements promtoes narrativism. I believe that is commonly known as tautology.There's an interesting article in Dragon about how to create adventures that adhere to movie-making and TV-making principles. It stresses the nature of the TV character, how to present various characters and their conflicts to best effect, pacing, and all that.Or one could just play PrimeTime Adventures. But whatever. I don't see your point.Your theory is even weaker than GNS! I have no wish to discuss such hogwash.Thanks for critique. To be more exact, this is the standard GNS (fixed a spelling error, I write too fast):Creative agenda is about the aesthetic principle that provides the greatest enjoyment in RPing.The rest are mine, as it applies to sim. Or, to wit: If everythign is done already, there is nothign to do, which means that there is no CA to be expressed.I don't believe that D&D promotes multiple CAs in a manner that's prone to dysfunction. There are many aids to D&D play that spell everything out in almost a "Guide to Dummies" fashion. In fact, there's a D&D self help book of the popular line.Why do you think that all of that is necessary? Many emotional lashes against "munchkins" or powergamers or disruptive players, etc., are signs of CA incoherence. It happens. Then there is the thing called Geek Social fallacy: Because we paly together, we must be friends. Or: Because we are friends, we must also play together. Which is so fallacious partially because not everyone likes the same things.If your group is prone to playing D&D in a dusfunctional manner, then I'm quite sorry for you, but please realize that your experience is not necessarily the same as everyone else's.I have said this before: do not personalise my arguments. I explicitly state experiences when it is relevant.Then you need to reread GNS theory again. Try to get someone from the Forge to help you through it.Or you could go and read the three more specific articles, each focusing on given CA. Or, you could read the start of Forge provisional glossary, which explains the most current way of thinking that has been articulated.Skills can be a gamist elements, but they're a rather poor one. They carry weight, but they're not really all that fun without simulationist or narrativist elements. Please read more material on story-based D&D addressing alternatively narrativist and simulationist agendas.Story and sim have nothing to do with each other. Which means that they can happen at the same time, but have no great need to do so. Again, stop focusing on signle rules. The reward system is the key.I'm afraid that I have no interest in furthering your education when you adamantly refuse to accept basic facts.You are emphasising the irrelevant points, too. And I roll with it, saying where you err. The process is mutual.I have no wish to discuss your own theories or personal expositions on GNS theory by members of the Forge. Ron Edward's GNS is pretty much all I can tolerate.I'll change a few words: I have no wish to discuss Dragon magazine's theories or personal expositions on D&D lore in gaming sessions. SRD is pretty much all I can tolerate. See? You are doing exactly the same thing you so much say I should not do. To which I can only post: read and learn. Ignore and don't. Much as you have.Simulationists participate in "The Dream." Building realism may matter to certain players (particularly certain DMs). The role of builder in D&D is given exclusively to the DM. The players participate in Simulationist play by "exploring" the built-up world.Yes, as it applies to overtly GM-centric games, like D&D.When a gamer is striving for "realism," he's exploring that part of the built up dream for his simulationist agenda.Note that exploration is inherent part of all RPGing. All of it. And I provided reasons for people of other CAs likign realism.It matters not at all to winning the challenge how "real" or what kind of world the PCs are in.It can matter to that, or to how satisfying the experience is.Gamists who are looking for "realistic" elements for its own sake are also pursuing non-gamist goals. In that instant, for that gaming element, they are effectively playing a simulationist game. If you doubt this, reread GNS theory again.Can I assign reading too? This thread (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=13560.0) should teach you a lot about RPGs, sociology and stuff.Gamist who wish to bring their own RW experiences into the game in order to elicit advantages are strongly discouraged by the D&D system.And it is not rare to make house rules to make it mroe concrete.I can't discuss the system with you meaningfully because you are ignorant regarding it! I am continually referring you to all sorts of quotes from the core books and documents regarding D&D. Acquaint yourself with the game before trying to talk to other people about it.Is the concept of "reward cycle" alien to you?No. It's weak, just as your analogy is weak. GNS is a theory that tries to determine how and why role-playing games are fun. In that sense, and it being a theory, it should take previous theories into account, particularly theories on what constitutes "fun" and how it's elicited in every other activity other than roleplaying.I trust you have read about the threefold theory. The one that GNS is result of. And threeway thery before that. There probably were others, too.Conversely, it can determine what activities in RPGs are graded as "fun" and how this is unique to RPGs.This is not rare. It has been done.In particular, GNS works with no data other than personal account, which is the weakest possible data on which to base theory. It's even weaker than expert opinion. By this standard, it's scientifically provable that men can fly, UFOs exist, and that Santa Claus goes to billions of homes every December 25.December 24th here. I am not following your argument. If you wish to continue it, please rephrase.Of course, science accepts none of those as factual, which should tell you how much credibility this GNS crap has.You do not understand the theory. Do not make value judgements about what you do not know. Science is not the proper point of comparison. Cultural studies are.