Quote from: Exploderwizard;707901Players do have things they can do within the rules, even in old school gaming.

Last night I DMed an OD&D session. The players had defeated some cultists and were searching their hideout caves. The dwarf had the ability to detect unusual stonework and so found the iron box of treasure under the altar. The elf was great at detecting secret doors and found the one made from a fake piece of wall just by moving past it.

Likewise a normal stuck door will open on a 1-2 on a d6, and so on. These are actual game rules that grant players certain chances to do things. The players used the abilities that they had and no badwrongfun was had.

The lack of a lot of pre-defined moves is also an incentive for players do to clever fun stuff that they might not consider if they are constantly staring at a list of semi-reliable menu options.

Earlier in the adventure the dwarf and elf had released some captives and sent them out with a hireling to escort them home. They then searched the small temple cave with the altar. The elf walked straight toward the altar, seeing the glow of gems encrusted and somehow walked straight over a floor trap without triggering it. After pocketing two candelabras he made his way back toward the dwarf and triggered the trap!

A cage fell and trapped the elf while sounding the alarm. Both adventurers heard the sound of approaching footsteps so the dwarf ducked behind the altar and hid. The cultists came in cackling with delight at capturing an elf. The elf taunted the cultist cleric into a rage (all done via actual dialogue). 2 of the cultists went to check on the prisoners while the cleric and his other 2 cronies decided to teach the insolent elf a lesson. One cultist went to the wall by the entrance and tripped the counterweight raising the cage. Initiative was rolled and the fight began. The dwarf peeked and saw what was happening. He called for the elf to fall back, which he did. The evil cleric advanced on the elf swinging his mace.  The dwarf then rushed out and went for the trap trigger. I assigned the trigger an AC of 7. The dwarf hit it solidly and brought the cage down trapping the evil cleric.

Just because the game doesn't make use of a slew of pre-defined mechanical options doesn't mean there aren't things the players can do using the rules.



Meaningful choice has depth beyond immediate success or failure in the campaign world. Often such choices are not binary in nature. Its not like every decision point is a right or wrong answer.

The DM who hasn't decided the possible outcomes of a player choice before the player decides is engaging in illusionism to some degree. If the DM decides that event X is going to happen IF trigger Y is tripped then player action that doesn't hit trigger Y should prevent event X. Deciding after the players have avoided trigger Y that event X is happening anyway is robbing the players of meaningful choice.

Your claim seems to be built on the assumption that any DM running an old school game is engaging in rampant illusionism. If that were the case, many of us would find ourselves without players.

Quote from: Bill;707916OMG!!!

Did you let the Dwarf Hide@ without the hide skill!?!

Badwrong!

Just because there was a stone altar there, and anyone can get behind it....

You cheating GM!!!

Quote from: Bill;707916Sounds like a great game!

Quote from: Arduin;707931If they had obtained a private primary EDU we don't encounter these problems nearly as often.  Post secondary EDU seems to have little bearing on the matter (excepting purely technical acumen).

Quote from: Arduin;707931If they had obtained a private primary EDU we don't encounter these problems nearly as often.  Post secondary EDU seems to have little bearing on the matter (excepting purely technical acumen).

So, the irreversible problem apparently stems from a wholly inadequate primary education. The foundation, as it were, is made of sand.

Quote from: ggroy;707938When I use to be an ivory tower dweller, I noticed a gradual decline of the technical acumen of freshman students.

As time went on, it seemed like many freshman engineering majors were having more and more trouble with stuff that should have been covered in high school level math.  Stuff like basic geometry, trigonometry, manipulating equations, etc ...

For example, students were still writing stuff like (A+B)^2 = A^2 + B^2

Towards the end of my time in the ivory tower, there were students writing stuff like 1/2 + 1/3 = 1/5

:banghead:

Quote from: gamerGoyf;707793This is my argument

a) in order for "player skill" to be a thing "meaningful choices" have to be enabled. Or in other words what players chose to do has to directly lead to successes or failures.

b) in rulings heavy games meaningful choices are impossible because

c) the parameters of success and failure are determined on the spot by the GM in response to player declarations.

The analogy I usually use for this is the Monty Hall problem, if Monty get's to decide if the door contains a car or goat after you pick it then that decision obviously wasn't meaningful. That's how ruling based resolution works because your success or failure is more the result of how much the GM likes your decision than the decision itself.

Quote from: Archangel Fascist;707949Your argument is wrong because your premises are wrong.  You're under the impression that the players say they're doing something and then the GM yells "GOTCHA!  MEANINGFUL CHOICE NEGATED."  In reality, the GM isn't an adversary to be conquered and he's not out to get you.

Quote from: Archangel Fascist;707949Your argument is wrong because your premises are wrong.  You're under the impression that the players say they're doing something and then the GM yells "GOTCHA!  MEANINGFUL CHOICE NEGATED."  In reality, the GM isn't an adversary to be conquered and he's not out to get you.

Quote from: gamerGoyf;707793This is my argument

a) in order for "player skill" to be a thing "meaningful choices" have to be enabled. Or in other words what players chose to do has to directly lead to successes or failures.

b) in rulings heavy games meaningful choices are impossible because

c) the parameters of success and failure are determined on the spot by the GM in response to player declarations.

The analogy I usually use for this is the Monty Hall problem, if Monty get's to decide if the door contains a car or goat after you pick it then that decision obviously wasn't meaningful. That's how ruling based resolution works because your success or failure is more the result of how much the GM likes your decision than the decision itself.

Quote from: TristramEvans;707965How is that a ruling?

You're obviously mixing up RvR with Illusionism, as your example clearly demonstrates

Quote from: Archangel Fascist;707949Your argument is wrong because your premises are wrong.  You're under the impression that the players say they're doing something and then the GM yells "GOTCHA!  MEANINGFUL CHOICE NEGATED."  In reality, the GM isn't an adversary to be conquered and he's not out to get you.

Quote from: Warthur;707992In particular, gG is missing out the bit where the GM says "OK, you'll need to roll (blah) to do it though, sure you wanna go ahead?" and the player either accepts because they think it's a good risk or decline because they don't like the odds.

QuoteWe enter this example in the middle of combat.
GM: "You're up on the ten-foot high ledge, and down below, the goblin is about to attack
Frank the Cleric."
John the Roguish: "I grasp my sword, blade downward, and leap off the ledge, driving
the sword blade deep into the goblin's back using the weight of my body and the fall to
cause tons of extra damage."
GM: "Seriously?"
John the Roguish" "Yeah."
Frank the Cleric: "Oh, hell, here we go again."
GM: [decides that he'll give John a to-hit roll. Success will let him get extra damage, but
failure will cause some sort of disaster.] "You leap off the ledge. Roll to hit."
John: "I rolled a 2."
GM: "Okay, you trip as you jump off the ledge and you get tangled up with the sword.
You knock the goblin down to the ground, but you don't land on your feet either. You're
both sprawled on the floor. Also, you may have hit yourself when you landed on the
goblin. Roll to hit again."
John: "I rolled a 15."
GM: "You stab yourself in the leg. Roll damage."
Frank the Cleric: "Roll high."
John the Roguish: "Screw you, Frank. I roll a 2."
GM: "Two points of damage, then. You don't take any falling damage, because the
goblin broke your fall. You're on the ground and so is he. Frank's standing there with
his mace, completely confused by what just happened."
Frank the Cleric: "While the goblin's sprawled on the ground, I slay him with a mighty
blow of my mace."
GM: "Roll to hit."
John the Roguish: "I don't see why I should be down on the ground."
GM: "You rolled a 2, that's a crappy roll, you got tangled in your sword, and you're on
the ground. You would have done double damage if you hit."
John the Roguish: "Where's that in the books?"
GM: "It's not. I just made it up. Frank, roll to hit."

Quote from: gamerGoyf;708008In this example the GM is inventing negative consequences after the roll has been made.

Quote from: gamerGoyf;708008In this example the GM is inventing negative consequences after the roll has been made.

Quote from: gamerGoyf;707793This is my argument

a) in order for "player skill" to be a thing "meaningful choices" have to be enabled. Or in other words what players chose to do has to directly lead to successes or failures.

b) in rulings heavy games meaningful choices are impossible because

c) the parameters of success and failure are determined on the spot by the GM in response to player declarations.

The analogy I usually use for this is the Monty Hall problem, if Monty get's to decide if the door contains a car or goat after you pick it then that decision obviously wasn't meaningful. That's how ruling based resolution works because your success or failure is more the result of how much the GM likes your decision than the decision itself.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;708024IMHO the only thing missing was that this:

GM: [decides that he'll give John a to-hit roll. Success will let him get extra damage, but
failure will cause some sort of disaster.]

wasn't made clear if it was communicated to the player. If the player goes for it knowing that he could be completely badass on a success or get hurt and look really foolish on a failure and STILL wants to try then more power to him.