Quote from: skofflox;426773Exact room dimensions are not the first thing I notice when entering a room. The feeling of being cramped etc. is a more personal take on things and a generalized description would work well. Movement,colors,odd shapes etc. are the most noticable things right off the bat and this makes sense from a survival standpoint. Perhaps measurements could be convayed by terms like Strides,spans, etc. or just "large" "small" "Medium" as a first impression. If the players take time to actualt measure the room then more exact terms would be proper. (immersive anyone?)

Strides, spans? That's just being deliberately obtuse about the same information. The "be vague in the room descriptions, you aren't measuring!" meme is one of the worst pieces of DM advice to come out of the formative 2e era. Interaction with this world is verbal. The DM's description should convey the automatic information a person passively recieves through his visual and spatial cognition. No, you don't know the exact measurements of a room you walk into, but you don't have to, because you can see how big the room is, and you know how far you have to walk to cross it, for example. Room dimensions is the quickest and easiest way for a player to see what his character immediately, effortlessly does, in words.

Quote from: Cole;426779Strides, spans? That's just being deliberately obtuse about the same information. The "be vague in the room descriptions, you aren't measuring!" meme is one of the worst pieces of DM advice to come out of the formative 2e era. Interaction with this world is verbal. The DM's description should convey the automatic information a person passively recieves through his visual and spatial cognition. No, you don't know the exact measurements of a room you walk into, but you don't have to, because you can see how big the room is, and you know how far you have to walk to cross it, for example. Room dimensions is the quickest and easiest way for a player to see what his character immediately, effortlessly does, in words.

Well said, thank you.

Quote from: Cole;426756There is nothing you can put in a set of rules that will fix the problem of a player who is willing to hit another player.

Another advantage of boxed sets is that you can include a taser in the box.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;426793Another advantage of boxed sets is that you can include a taser in the box.

One of the awkward little nuances of my days tending bar was keeping a straight face while interacting with people you've seen tasered by the police.

Quote from: Cole;426779Strides, spans? That's just being deliberately obtuse about the same information. The "be vague in the room descriptions, you aren't measuring!" meme is one of the worst pieces of DM advice to come out of the formative 2e era. Interaction with this world is verbal. The DM's description should convey the automatic information a person passively recieves through his visual and spatial cognition. No, you don't know the exact measurements of a room you walk into, but you don't have to, because you can see how big the room is, and you know how far you have to walk to cross it, for example. Room dimensions is the quickest and easiest way for a player to see what his character immediately, effortlessly does, in words.

Quote from: Drohem;426787Well said, thank you.

:hmm: thought immersion was the goal not convenience and metagame...but to each their own.
 I have never walked into a room and thought "yeah...30x25 man..."but I do feel cramped or dwarfed etc. and have a sense of things spatialy. Especialy so if in a dank hole with the threat of slavering ghouls etc. As I aluded to in my earlier post...perhaps if the characters have measuring devices and employ them then that info is apropos.

If in your setting folk use those measurements ie. feet etc. then by all means let the info be convayed that way if it fits your take on emulation or whatever. Never heard of setting spacific terms refered to as "obtuse" but I understand your view.
Which obviously is not immersive...but perhaps you did not read all my post where I suggested using other vague terms at least initialy?

What's wrong with describing the room in more visual, less precise terms and then providing the dimensions if/when the players ask for them? We all can envision a room if described well enough without resorting to the exact measurments (although the specifics might vary slightly from person to person). That's generally how I handle it in my games - I'll have a very precise map, but don't go into squares/feet/etc. unless it is important to what is happening at the moment. This is also generally how things are done in fiction, and I don't recall people complaining about not knowing the precise dimensions of the rooms in Saurman's tower, for example.

Quote from: Cole;426750I'm not sure what you mean here; it sounds like you are saying that "say yes" both eliminates fiat, and is overruled by fiat. Do you have a more specific definition of "will damage the integrity of the game?"

In practice, I have always found that it is good policy not to flatly disallow any given PC action unless it seems completely unreasonable for the character to actually do so - an ordinary person lifting a boulder too huge for a man to lift, "fixing" a magical artifact by kicking it (though there might be a comic campaign where this was plausible), etc. But I think phrasing the rules as "The dungeon master MUST either accede to a player request or allow the player a roll. Except when he decides he doesn't," is weird.

Yeah, we've been through this here a few times before. Here's an oldie but goodie. The upshot is: the maxim is a reaction to retarded GMing, presented as dogma; and taken as dogma, it's crap. It's especially awful if you don't acknowledge the importance of context. By "context" I mean not only the fictional environment (like, the GM must say "no" if the player's in a dungeon and asks if there's a bazooka in the corner) but also the sense of purpose of the game. Generally a game with more emphasis on exploration and puzzle-solving should have more "fixed" elements; otherwise, "find your way to the treasure chamber" or "figure out who killed the mayor" both become dice-rolling exercises.

Quote from: skofflox;426800:hmm: thought immersion was the goal not convenience and metagame...but to each their own.
 I have never walked into a room and thought "yeah...30x25 man..."but I do feel cramped or dwarfed etc. and have a sense of things spatialy. Especialy so if in a dank hole with the threat of slavering ghouls etc. As I aluded to in my earlier post...perhaps if the characters have measuring devices and employ them then that info is apropos.

If in your setting folk use those measurements ie. feet etc. then by all means let the info be convayed that way if it fits your take on emulation or whatever. Never heard of setting spacific terms refered to as "obtuse" but I understand your view.
Which obviously is not immersive...but perhaps you did not read all my post where I suggested using other vague terms at least initialy?

Well, I wasn't commenting on your post, but on what Cole said in response.  

Perhaps having a room described in specific measurements is not immersive for you, but please don't presuppose that it's also not for me.  I did, in fact, read your post and vague terms don't suffice for me and would, inevitably, lead me to ask for more detail about the dimensions of said room.

Quote from: Werekoala;426803What's wrong with describing the room in more visual, less precise terms and then providing the dimensions if/when the players ask for them? We all can envision a room if described well enough without resorting to the exact measurments (although the specifics might vary slightly from person to person). That's generally how I handle it in my games - I'll have a very precise map, but don't go into squares/feet/etc. unless it is important to what is happening at the moment.

Sure. Put me in a room that's more than 20'x20' and I doubt I could estimate its size immediately to within 10'.

But this is all very old--it's really a case of later D&D going backwards from lessons learned and common practices from the early days of the RPGing.

If this is what it takes to de-MMOize the "flagship" game, though, great.

Quote from: Werekoala;426803What's wrong with describing the room in more visual, less precise terms and then providing the dimensions if/when the players ask for them? We all can envision a room if described well enough without resorting to the exact measurments (although the specifics might vary slightly from person to person). That's generally how I handle it in my games - I'll have a very precise map, but don't go into squares/feet/etc. unless it is important to what is happening at the moment. This is also generally how things are done in fiction, and I don't recall people complaining about not knowing the precise dimensions of the rooms in Saurman's tower, for example.

:hatsoff:

exact measurements in modern terms pulls me out of the game every time and is not indicative of the literature or an aid to immersion in the fantasy genre.

I prefer smells and sounds to be the first clues if apropos then generalized visual stuff as it comes to the fore...no hurry in my games as the feeling of it all is paramount.
Great to build atmosphere with the sensory bits...and I dont sense 15 x 15... though it may feel cramped and rough hewn with dripping dank...

Quote from: Drohem;426805Well, I wasn't commenting on your post, but on what Cole said in response.  

Perhaps having a room described in specific measurements is not immersive for you, but please don't presuppose that it's also not for me.  I did, in fact, read your post and vague terms don't suffice for me and would, inevitably, lead me to ask for more detail about the dimensions of said room.

:cool:...I was more questioning Coles response...and as far as immersive etc. I am refering to what the character would vibe not myself,though in some cases they are the same.

Perhaps an engineer or Dwarf type of character would have a grasp of spatial details in more exact terms (though still setting specific) but a woodsman? If a bowman then "paces" or "flights" or whatever setting spacific term would apply is more immersive IMO.

Quote from: skofflox;426800:hmm: thought immersion was the goal not convenience and metagame...but to each their own.
 I have never walked into a room and thought "yeah...30x25 man..."but I do feel cramped or dwarfed etc. and have a sense of things spatialy. Especialy so if in a dank hole with the threat of slavering ghouls etc. As I aluded to in my earlier post...perhaps if the characters have measuring devices and employ them then that info is apropos.

If in your setting folk use those measurements ie. feet etc. then by all means let the info be convayed that way if it fits your take on emulation or whatever. Never heard of setting spacific terms refered to as "obtuse" but I understand your view.
Which obviously is not immersive...but perhaps you did not read all my post where I suggested using other vague terms at least initialy?

I read your post, I just disagree with it. Different things are "immersive" to different people; I try to avoid the term myself. Is it a metagame convenience to have NPCs speak english? Well, yes, but it allows the players to understand the situation, and for the character to react as if they were there. Much as it often helps to translation in language, it usually is helpful to have a translation of visual or spatial information into the verbal. I think measurements translate that information in a clear and concrete way. This helps me as a player to recreate my character's perspective mentally and decide in the place of my character.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;426806But this is all very old--it's really a case of later D&D going backwards from lessons learned and common practices from the early days of the RPGing.

What is the 'backwards?' I'm not clear on what you're pointing out.

Quote from: Werekoala;426803What's wrong with describing the room in more visual, less precise terms and then providing the dimensions if/when the players ask for them? We all can envision a room if described well enough without resorting to the exact measurments (although the specifics might vary slightly from person to person). That's generally how I handle it in my games - I'll have a very precise map, but don't go into squares/feet/etc. unless it is important to what is happening at the moment. This is also generally how things are done in fiction, and I don't recall people complaining about not knowing the precise dimensions of the rooms in Saurman's tower, for example.

Absolutely nothing, really.  However, if my character is in Saurman's Tower and is in a precarious situation, then I'm going to want the GM to give me some concrete details so that I have as much information as possible to make character decisions.

Quote from: skofflox;426813:cool:...I was more questioning Coles response...and as far as immersive etc. I am refering to what the character would vibe not myself,though in some cases they are the same.

Perhaps an engineer or Dwarf type of character would have a grasp of spatial details in more exact terms (though still setting specific) but a woodsman? If a bowman then "paces" or "flights" or whatever setting spacific term would apply is more immersive IMO.

Cool.  I get what you are saying, and I agree with you to a point.  In my experience, having these kind of details expressed helps with everyone involved to be as close to mental image that the GM is trying to convey.

Quote from: Cole;426814I read your post, I just disagree with it. Different things are "immersive" to different people; I try to avoid the term myself. Is it a metagame convenience to have NPCs speak english? Well, yes, but it allows the players to understand the situation, and for the character to react as if they were there. Much as it often helps to translation in language, it usually is helpful to have a translation of visual or spatial information into the verbal. I think measurements translate that information in a clear and concrete way. This helps me as a player to recreate my character's perspective mentally and decide in the place of my character.

Dude, get the hell out of my head.  This is exactly how I feel.  Giving this kind of detail, although it might be considered 'meta-gamey' to some, is a tool that helps all participants involved reach the same point while cutting down on confusion that may arise from various different mental images of the same scene.

Quote from: RSDancey;426725"Say yes, or roll dice".
...

Frankly this is just dogma. As a general principle, if players want to contribute ideas to the game, I'm happy to encourage that, and if they want to try stuff, I'm happy to give it some chance of success. But I am not straitjacketing myself into "say yes, or roll dice".

For starters, my games have a certain internal logic and pre-envisaged atmosphere to the setting. If every time the players demand something which appeals to them I give it at least a chance of success, it's only a matter of time until one thing after another happens which little by little erodes the consistency and internal logic of the setting or prevents me from building up the atmosphere I've had in mind.

Secondly, it's not necessary.

Thirdly, what actually happens in my game is more like>>>

"Can I find a master-wrought arbalest?"

"Um, it's only a small town - the guards might have a spare arbalest, or you might be able to find a master-wrought heavy crossbow for sale - which would you prefer?"

"Oh, I'll just have a regular arbalest thanks if I can find one."

The players might not have appreciated what a small town it is. Sure, there might be a CHANCE of there being a master-wrought arbalest there, but it would be a very, very slim chance - so slim there's hardly any point even rolling.

The point is, I have to have a consistent internal picture of the game-world in my mind. If everything the players dream up has to have some chance of going the way they first think of, my internal picture of the world is going to get broken down and lose its integrity, maybe in initially non-obvious ways.

I do not buy this "say yes, or roll dice" crap. It's about Shared Narrative Authority. I do not want that.

Positivity and encouragement about players' ideas, I am all in favour of. An OBLIGATION for the GM to accept players' ideas unless he has a positively good reason for rejecting them which he can articulate and is analytically clear about - no. He needs to draw on the power of his subconscious organising the setting. He needs to do so freely, without impediment. Even if all he's forced to do is roll dice. No no no no no no no no no.