Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Model-Based Testing for Dungeons & Dragons

loskutoff.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 78 posts

Re: Model-Based Testing for Dungeons & Dragons

#51

Post by jghn »

chuckadams wrote: post #42
jghn wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I never fully understood the rules I played from the early 80s through early 90s. Mostly AD&D 1e but earlier on the red/blue boxes and later on 2e. Recently I've taken to reading r/adnd for nostalgia reasons. One thing become abundantly clear real fast, no one I ever played with ever truly understood the rules. Even the "rules lawyers" among us. And I played with a large variety of people from different friend grou…

House rules are part of the appeal of the game. RPGs are supposed to be something that you make your own, to whatever degree you want. D&D did have some really incoherent rules that accreted over time though... I grew up with AD&D (the gold book), and I don't think anyone ever used all the rules from that.

Right, but there's a difference between choosing not to use some subsets of the rules and just not understanding that they're supposed to be there in the first place. The ones that stand out the most to me are what I'd bin as administrivia, such as maintenance of kingdoms and such. But as a more pertinent example, I don't recall even once playing a session where things like distances and location were tracked during combat. It was always done in the theater of the mind.

Re: Model-Based Testing for Dungeons & Dragons

#52

Post by jghn »

elphinstone wrote: post #45
jghn wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I never fully understood the rules I played from the early 80s through early 90s. Mostly AD&D 1e but earlier on the red/blue boxes and later on 2e. Recently I've taken to reading r/adnd for nostalgia reasons. One thing become abundantly clear real fast, no one I ever played with ever truly understood the rules. Even the "rules lawyers" among us. And I played with a large variety of people from different friend grou…

Same experience mostly. I distinctly remember trying and then ignoring Unarmed combat and Psionics as cumbersome nonsense. Encumbrance was only enforced for a huge hoard, range penalties were usually irrelevant, and any sort of weapon factor was out. Most important was hp, AC, attacks/round, spells, magic items, STR, DEX, and saving throws.

Particularly in my earlier days we used psionics a lot, but it's because we were young and recognized them as being OP. So of course everyone just happened to have rolled their way into psionic powers when no one was looking.

Like yourself, encumbrance was one I rarely saw used. There was usually a rough sense of "too much" but otherwise no one cared.

Re: Model-Based Testing for Dungeons & Dragons

#53

Post by bluefirebrand »

randallsquared wrote: post #4

The "Grapple Leapfrog" is like the peasant railgun, and I think the "real" solution would be a recognition that order of conflict resolution in real time is not the same as ordering linear activities in game time.

The peasant railgun has always annoyed me because real world physics have never been modelled by DnD.

So yes, your peasant railgun spear would fire at the speed of light in reality. But the game simulation doesn't care. The last peasant in the line throws the spear for 1d8 damage.

Re: Model-Based Testing for Dungeons & Dragons

#54

Post by Firfi »

cammasmith wrote: post #19

One of my biggest issues with playing DND is that I never fully understood the rules. I'd play with people who had been playing for years, and they didn't explain things very well, and that made it hard to play. Hopefully, this will help with that.

That's the plan! D&D combat can be a slog sometimes, and when it is, that kills a lot of fun for me as a story-first approach adept. I'd really just ask about that or that rule from a chatbot, or have a list of weighted actions presented to me at my turn. That's where I'm moving towards - a good spec is hopefully what should enable that direction. Hopefully...

Re: Model-Based Testing for Dungeons & Dragons

#55

Post by bluefirebrand »

pigpop wrote: post #36
weregiraffe wrote: post #6

Shit like this results from a severe misunderstanding of what's enjoyable in a table-top RPG. It's not a fucking video game.

I agree, tabletop RPGs should be 2/3 Role Playing and only 1/3 Game.

This is why I don't play TTRPGs much anymore. If I wanted to really get into character and roleplay my heart out I'd join an improv group...

I liked the crunchy bits of TTRPGs like charting dungeons and running kingdoms and shit. Can't find many groups interested in that anymore

Re: Model-Based Testing for Dungeons & Dragons

#56

Post by Firfi »

bluefirebrand wrote: post #53
randallsquared wrote: post #4

The "Grapple Leapfrog" is like the peasant railgun, and I think the "real" solution would be a recognition that order of conflict resolution in real time is not the same as ordering linear activities in game time.

The peasant railgun has always annoyed me because real world physics have never been modelled by DnD. So yes, your peasant railgun spear would fire at the speed of light in reality. But the game simulation doesn't care. The last peasant in the line throws the spear for 1d8 damage.

In my view, the edge cases like so (I think peasant railgun even mentioned in dm handbook) are more of a community problem than the game's. If it can be called a problem, of course - some tables enjoy those shenanigans, some don't.

What players and DMs are forgetting more often than not is the wording somewhere in the start of dm book: dm can overrule any rule. [to facilitate the game mood and direction that the table has agreed upon] [and a larger overarching problem is probably that there's often no such agreement before the game]

Re: Model-Based Testing for Dungeons & Dragons

#57

Post by nz »

Firfi wrote: post #50
jaen wrote: post #9

Maybe the content is great, but the AI writing style is really grating with its staccato sentences and faux-"profoundness". Can't bear it any more, stopped reading. "You’re not checking logic. You’re checking shape.". Ugh.

Sorry for that, everyone. I did use the AI to help me with structure and English. I thought I'd proofread and edited that enough to be readable, but apparently it still smells. I'll update the wording soon.

Or you can just write in your native language, and let us machine-translate it? Just a thought. We are, perhaps, letting ourselves be held back by norms that no longer bear any load.

Re: Model-Based Testing for Dungeons & Dragons

#58

Post by Firfi »

nz wrote: post #57
Firfi wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry for that, everyone. I did use the AI to help me with structure and English. I thought I'd proofread and edited that enough to be readable, but apparently it still smells. I'll update the wording soon.

Or you can just write in your native language, and let us machine-translate it? Just a thought. We are, perhaps, letting ourselves be held back by norms that no longer bear any load.

That's a great idea, in fact. I'll try it out next time. Maybe even a mix, because I do sometimes want to be very specific about some expressions and experiment with wordplay

Re: Model-Based Testing for Dungeons & Dragons

#59

Post by bluefirebrand »

Firfi wrote: post #56
bluefirebrand wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The peasant railgun has always annoyed me because real world physics have never been modelled by DnD. So yes, your peasant railgun spear would fire at the speed of light in reality. But the game simulation doesn't care. The last peasant in the line throws the spear for 1d8 damage.

In my view, the edge cases like so (I think peasant railgun even mentioned in dm handbook) are more of a community problem than the game's. If it can be called a problem, of course - some tables enjoy those shenanigans, some don't. What players and DMs are forgetting more often than not is the wording somewhere in the start of dm book: dm can overrule any rule. [to facilitate the game mood and direction that the tabl…

> [and a larger overarching problem is probably that there's often no such agreement before the game]

Agreed

I personally think Rule 0 enables bad DMs a lot more frequently than good ones. I think it's a bad rule

Re: Model-Based Testing for Dungeons & Dragons

#60

Post by jghn »

gglitch wrote: post #41
cammasmith wrote: post #19

One of my biggest issues with playing DND is that I never fully understood the rules. I'd play with people who had been playing for years, and they didn't explain things very well, and that made it hard to play. Hopefully, this will help with that.

There's a community and play-style called OSR or "old school renaissance," that recreates versions of the earliest editions of D&D, and encourage a style of play that's heavily oriented around few rules and the DM making quick decisions/rulings on the spot, rather than lots of rules and lots of time spent mining the rulebooks. In fact, the expression is "rulings over rules." This might appeal to you.

There's a dichotomy here that I have always found amusing. To me, the older style of play felt crunchier, despite there being less of a rule focused. The most common style of play back then was more of a dungeon crawl, closer to "roll playing", low fantasy, usually lower level, murder hobos were very common, and all of that.

Whereas today's game is far more complicated rules-wise by most measures yet it tends to be more storytelling & *role* playing focused: flower-y, superhero-y, high fantasy

Post reply on HN