Quote from: Cole;426814*snip*
 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.

(Interpreted your initial reply as a bit preachy/aggresive so I apologize for any escalation,my bad.)

English...? I call it "common" () and as far as it being metagamey well it would depend on the setting.

Measurements,ranges in squares/hexes and the squares/hexes themselves draw me out of the setting and into the "rules" and are aspects brought to RPG via the wargame roots and are by no means indespensible.We all are having fun with our games I hope?!

When I use minis I like to do it with a blank dry erase surface so lots of the visuals can be transmitted without the increments being displayed. I do not pay strict attention to the movement limits etc. and just eyeball it. If it is off a few cm. who cares asides from rules lawyers? (:rolleyes:)

I fully understand and embrace the various takes on immersion or whatever you like to call it. Convenience and ease of play is an important consideration and if it helps folk to think in certain terms and have scenes discribed in certain ways that is awesome as long as it serves the intent and expectations of your group.


2ed.: Most of my gaming nowadays is small group,usually 1 player!, so having definitive info for more players to keep everything clear is not so much a concern for me.

Quote from: skofflox;426832(Interprited your initial reply as a bit preachy/aggresive so I apologize for any escalation,my bad.)

English...? I call it "common" () and as far as it being metagamey well it would depend on the setting.

Measurements,ranges in squares/hexes and the squares/hexes themselves draw me out of the setting and into the "rules" and are aspects brought to RPG via the wargame roots and are by no means indespensible.We all are having fun with our games I hope?!

When I use minis I like to do it with a blank dry erase surface so lots of the visuals can be transmitted without the increments being displayed. I do not pay strict attention to the movement limits etc. and just eyeball it. If it is off a few cm. who cares asides from rules lawyers? (:rolleyes:)

I fully understand and embrace the various takes on immersion or whatever you like to call it. Convenience and ease of play is an important consideration and if it helps folk to think in certain terms and have scenes discribed in certain ways that is awesome as long as it serves the intent and expectations of your group.

It's okay, I'm just trying to be clear myself. Personally I don't favor the use of miniatures at all and prefer a fully verbal game. So for me at least, as a player, the descriptions are the one path into making that space mentally real so that my character can then act naturally in that space. The more abstracted that space is, the greater the degree to which it tends to become a backdrop for my character rather than his environment, and I don't want a backdrop. In my opinion this is part of the "magic" of D&D's dungeon game - the concrete environment of the dungeon chamber is easy for the player to mentally understand and accept as real.

Quote from: Cole;426835It's okay, I'm just trying to be clear myself. Personally I don't favor the use of miniatures at all and prefer a fully verbal game. So for me at least, as a player, the descriptions are the one path into making that space mentally real so that my character can then act naturally in that space. The more abstracted that space is, the greater the degree to which it tends to become a backdrop for my character rather than his environment, and I don't want a backdrop. In my opinion this is part of the "magic" of D&D's dungeon game - the concrete environment of the dungeon chamber is easy for the player to mentally understand and accept as real.

Good points here...interesting way to discern 'twixt "backdrop" and(/or?) "enviroment". Never thought of the distinction till now...:hmm:
Perhaps my literary leanings are informing my views in this regard?

I am planning on an all verbal direction for my next game of Atomic Highway. This is how I started RPG and it has it's magic for sure. And I can't afford to have a multi-genre mini's collection again (thank the gods) though the occasional chit might work depending on the player(s)...

Quote from: skofflox;426838Good points here...interesting way to discern 'twixt "backdrop" and(/or?) "enviroment". Never thought of the distinction till now...:hmm:
Perhaps my literary leanings are informing my views in this regard?

Could be - I am of the opinion that the RPG emulates the world depicted in the literature, rather than the literature itself. Possibly my having a lot of background in theater/performance biases me to think heavily in terms of spaces.

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.

It's really both. The thing is, the information you're conveying by saying "there's a 10-foot wide corridor to your left leaving the room from the center of the wall there" is something that, in RL, your mind grasps in the blink of an eye. Like what kind of distance you are away from someone, how high the ceiling is, and so on, so forth. But you also perceive atmosphere and features, registering unusual elements more readily, precisely because they are out of place.

So it's really not an either/or proposition to me, but something that most often will involve both types of descriptions, or more of one or the other given the actual situation the PCs are in, whether they are running through an area or carefully walking in, etc etc. You can see that in the Ptolus AD&D game.

I think the suggestion that all this information is "needless" according to Ryan really is in the eye of the beholder. It really depends what you actually do when playing the game, and what you actually do when designing your dungeon. The sign that a ceiling is higher up here than it is there, that the corridor is not in the middle of the wall, may be an important clue as to what's going on with the layout of the place. The fact that the corridor is 5-foot wide instead of 10 will tell you how many PCs can stand next to each other and walk through the area with weapons in hand, etc.

What Ryan is basically arguing, sounds like to me is that these aspects of exploration are useless, as is the simulation of the world. I just can't agree to that. Rather than formulating blanket statements of "this is vital" and "this is useless," I think one has to look at how the game itself is played first, and what information is relevant to what types of situations, and how they unfold.

In other word, Ryan's second new-D&D commandment is bullshit, from where I'm standing.

Quote from: Benoist;426840It's really both. The thing is, the information you're conveying by saying "there's a 10-foot wide corridor to your left leaving the room from the center of the wall there" is something that, in RL, your mind grasps in the blink of an eye. Like what kind of distance you are away from someone, how high the ceiling is, and so on, so forth. But you also perceive atmosphere and features, registering unusual elements more readily, precisely because they are out of place.

Well said. It's so easy for us to take for granted the sophistication and the layeredness of our cognitive processes. We get so much sensory information to process a space we experience in real life - the room dimensions are less than that, not overgenerous.

Absolutely. The same way, descriptions will vary enormously depending on particular situations. If you tell me for instance "Ulas Xegg enters the room cautiously, checking the floor as he walks, careful to not spring any trap as he proceeds" I'm going to describe the floor, how wet it is, the light of the torch you carry and how the flames are reflected by the puddles on the ground, that kind of thing. If you look around, I'm going to give you the dimensions of the room, where the exiting corridors are, and so on. If you check the walls, I'm going to describe the stones, the corridors and where they are, etc, whether there are cobwebs there, or holes, or whatnot. But if you are running through the room, I'm not going to give you this information, rather pointing out maybe one or two main features of the room that you notice as you are running through.

My point is that it is situational, and that as a DM, you pick up on the PCs cues to act as their interface with the game world, blending what actually is there with the subjective perspective the players imply by role playing their characters. Sometimes, it'll involve all sorts of details and dimensions and mapping and so on, and other times, that'll be more about mood, ambiance, and details standing out from the surrounding darkness.

Quote from: Benoist;426840It's really both. The thing is, the information you're conveying by saying "there's a 10-foot wide corridor to your left leaving the room from the center of the wall there" is something that, in RL, your mind grasps in the blink of an eye. Like what kind of distance you are away from someone, how high the ceiling is, and so on, so forth. But you also perceive atmosphere and features, registering unusual elements more readily, precisely because they are out of place.

So it's really not an either/or proposition to me, but something that most often will involve both types of descriptions, or more of one or the other given the actual situation the PCs are in, whether they are running through an area or carefully walking in, etc etc. You can see that in the Ptolus AD&D game.

I think the suggestion that all this information is "needless" according to Ryan really is in the eye of the beholder. It really depends what you actually do when playing the game, and what you actually do when designing your dungeon. The sign that a ceiling is higher up here than it is there, that the corridor is not in the middle of the wall, may be an important clue as to what's going on with the layout of the place. The fact that the corridor is 5-foot wide instead of 10 will tell you how many PCs can stand next to each other and walk through the area with weapons in hand, etc.

What Ryan is basically arguing, sounds like to me is that these aspects of exploration are useless, as is the simulation of the world. I just can't agree to that. Rather than formulating blanket statements of "this is vital" and "this is useless," I think one has to look at how the game itself is played first, and what information is relevant to what types of situations, and how they unfold.

In other word, Ryan's second new-D&D commandment is bullshit, from where I'm standing.

Having detailed information about the dimensions of a room is important if the situation demands it. If you continuously find yourself playing out situations which demand that kind of information and it's consistently numerical, you may have a dull, repetitive game. You can have fights going on where because there are only a small number of combatants involved and there is plenty of space, exact dimensions are not important, at least unless missile weapons are being used. On the other hand, nothing wrong with detailed info if it's pertinent. To me, it's a judgement call for the GM. But if you're going into details of all the dimensions of the room, that would seem to me to be a situation where the use of minis is called for.

Really though, the question of whether you use detailed dimensions or not is such a trivial question. The GM should be able to figure out the answer to that to his satisfaction without guidance from the rules.

Quote from: Omnifray;426844If you continuously find yourself playing out situations which demand that kind of information and it's consistently numerical, you may have a dull, repetitive game.

That's not what I'm saying. Read my previous post above yours.

Quote from: Omnifray;426844Really though, the question of whether you use detailed dimensions or not is such a trivial question. The GM should be able to figure out the answer to that to his satisfaction without guidance from the rules.

D&D is about exploration. This sort of information might actually be critical for your survival, depending on particular circumstances. How much D&D are you playing nowadays, exactly? I'm getting the feeling you're starting to talk about some random XX role playing game instead of D&D. Let's not get all mixed up here. We're talking about D&D specifically.

Quote from: Omnifray;426844Having detailed information about the dimensions of a room is important if the situation demands it. If you continuously find yourself playing out situations which demand that kind of information and it's consistently numerical, you may have a dull, repetitive game. You can have fights going on where because there are only a small number of combatants involved and there is plenty of space, exact dimensions are not important, at least unless missile weapons are being used. On the other hand, nothing wrong with detailed info if it's pertinent. To me, it's a judgement call for the GM. But if you're going into details of all the dimensions of the room, that would seem to me to be a situation where the use of minis is called for.

This has next to nothing to do with combat. The world isn't there to serve the combat rules.

I'm getting the feeling we are "that close" from getting all sorts of rants about how straight dungeon crawling is "boring" and "repetitive" and that "D&D could be so much more interesting if only it had this or that." Yeah. OK. So you want to make D&D into yet another fantasy heartbreaker out there. What a fucking stroke of genius. *shakes head*

Quote from: Cole;426849This has next to nothing to do with combat. The world isn't there to serve the combat rules.

I dunno, I think dimensions are mainly relevant when physical challenges are likely, and the main kind of physical challenge in most games is fighting. OK so there could be rivers to cross, traps to negotiate etc. But I'm not sure how much detail I bother going into with dimensions when there's no physical challenge likely. E.g. the players enter a tavern. I'm not sure I'd often even describe the size of the tavern in abstract terms, let alone its dimensions, unless there's some likelihood of combat. But if combat's likely, one of the players might draw me a map of the tavern*, or I might do it myself if the layout is important.**

* because I'm naff at art
** in the sense that I want it to be a certain way which only I can do

Quote from: Cole;426816What is the 'backwards?' I'm not clear on what you're pointing out.

Sorry, I meant "backwards" in the sense that "modern" D&D's focus on the board is (a) crap (IMNSHO), and (b) taking the game in the opposite direction from one of the fundamental innovations of RPGs, namely: they're not board games.

The same goes for the invocation of "say yes or roll the dice". Again, I don't have the DMG in front of me but there's a passage that clearly advises the GM to use dice to resolve uncertain situations, instead of arbitrarily saying "you can't do that".

If you look beyond D&D, these approaches have been even more widespread, going back to the 1970s. However, they shouldn't be confused with the dogmas of "mechanical conflict resolution", "social combat", or "shared narrative authority".

Quote from: Omnifray;426856I dunno, I think dimensions are mainly relevant when physical challenges are likely, and the main kind of physical challenge in most games is fighting.

I am interested in interacting with an imaginary environment, not a series of "challenges."