D&D General Explain Bounded Accuracy to Me (As if I Was Five)

There's no other way to respond to to this without breaking it up because you keep talking about wildly different behaviors as if they are the same

Thomas Shey said:

What makes you think your demanding he engage more isn't negatively impacting him?

Click to expand...

That only matters if the disrespectful "low commitment player choosing to behave in a way that negatively impacting the rest of the table is somehow beyond reproach or deserves to be at the table no matter how their choice to engage in extremely "low commitment" behavior despite ruining the experience for everyone else. The player you've dubbed "low commitment" can either choose to adapt to the criticism by stepping up or move on but the criticism has been earned
.

Thomas Shey said:

Only one of us is insisting that the who's just at the wrong table is the one who needs to be demonized.

Click to expand...

It's not demonizing to accurately describes poor behavior and make clear that one player behaving in such a way is negatively impacting the other players at the table. If a low commitment AL game with whatever one shot and potentially random group is all of the commitment that a player can justify then they Shouldn't be outraged when a group with higher standards criticizes their choice in behavior.

Thomas Shey said:

The worst you can say is that since he's the stand out, he should probably figure that out and go elsewhere, but if you start calling every player who isn't in a hurry to leave a game he doesn't fit at the collection of names you threw out there, you're doing a lot more than just this type--but of course you don't think it should apply to them so that's not something you feel a need to engage with.

Click to expand...

By criticizing the standout it gives them a chance to learn the consequences of their choices and do better or agree that they were wrong about wanting to play a regular game with others.

Thomas Shey said:

Or maybe you do think a player who wants to understand an engage with the rules in a group that doesn't care about that is also that collection of slurs. In which case you're at least not hypocritcal.

Click to expand...

"Slurs"?! I think you might have intended to finish posting in some other thread and accidentally appended it here. When a player behaves in a way that negatively impacts the rest of their fellow players, any descriptor of that negative behavior is going to be focused on how it is negative if the goal is to reduce or eliminate the negatives. It's long been established that there are players who don't care about understanding the rules of the game so it's strange that you'd jump to one who wants to while talking about slurs to shield players who don't care.

Vaalingrade said:

Going off on people for not learning the rules to a game so as to match one's exacting specifications is akin to what you see with gifted students.

When you're good at something and focus on it, you start to feel that your level of involvement and commitment is 'normal'. People not 'keeping up' with you starts to become frustrating and instead of empathizing with those people and the fac that they aren't on par with you, instead you see these students start to act out, viewing these other people as below them, lazy, or actively malicious and thus 'deserving' of abuse.

In the gaming world, this is all too common, leading to disdain against 'noobs' and 'filthy casuals'. The truth is, especially with its expanded fandom in recent years, other D&D players aren't going to match us, who are so invested in D&D that we post on a forum about it in our free time, in terms of prioritization and devotion to the game.

Most players don't know all the rules to the games they play. Practically no one plays Monopoly by the rules, for example, and most Dark Souls players don't even understand the stats of the weapons they main. It's unreasonable in light of this, to just assume everyone is going to learn all the ins and outs of their D&D character whom they interact with once a week at best.

Instead, it's more useful to be helpful and anticipate where they're going to not remember.

You would think we as a community would be understanding of this considering how 'important' people keep saying having a class that plays on automatic is.

Click to expand...

I have to agree with you on this one.

One of my players not only went to the fire academy and passed it qualified to be a firefighter, but worked as an EMT the entire time, and also while he was applying not just to the fire departments here in Los Angeles, but all across the state and into Oregon and Arizona. While doing all of that he went to school and passed the exam to be a paramedic. People in those fields work 24 hour shifts and he does overtime when other shifts become available. The last thing this man can be called is lazy.

When it comes to D&D, though, he plays because he loves to roleplay and hang out with us. Rules don't even rise to the level of secondary. As a result, we periodically check his sheet to see what he has missed and have him update stuff. Sometimes he is 2 levels behind the rest of us because he didn't level up when he was supposed to. The most egregious example was when he was playing a twilight cleric and at 13th or 14th level said, "Oh, hey! I have the ability to grant 1d6 temporary hit points equal to my cleric level to everyone within 30 feet of me and it lasts for 1 minute!" We were like, "Oh wow! That's amazing! When did you get that ability." He replied, "2nd level." Then the rest of us mentally facepalmed and we moved on. Nobody got upset, wanted to kick him out or demote him to playing an NPC.

Maxperson said:

I have to agree with you on this one.

One of my players not only went to the fire academy and passed it qualified to be a firefighter, but worked as an EMT the entire time, and also while he was applying not just to the fire departments here in Los Angeles, but all across the state and into Oregon and Arizona. While doing all of that he went to school and passed the exam to be a paramedic. People in those fields work 24 hour shifts and he does overtime when other shifts become available. The last thing this man can be called is lazy.

When it comes to D&D, though, he plays because he loves to roleplay and hang out with us. Rules don't even rise to the level of secondary. As a result, we periodically check his sheet to see what he has missed and have him update stuff. Sometimes he is 2 levels behind the rest of us because he didn't level up when he was supposed to. The most egregious example was when he was playing a twilight cleric and at 13th or 14th level said, "Oh, hey! I have the ability to grant 1d6 temporary hit points equal to my cleric level to everyone within 30 feet of me and it lasts for 1 minute!" We were like, "Oh wow! That's amazing! When did you get that ability." He replied, "2nd level." Then the rest of us mentally facepalmed and we moved on. Nobody got upset, wanted to kick him out or demote him to playing an NPC.

Click to expand...

This is a classic example of why the game always needs at least one dirt-simple class that doesn't require any mechanical input from the player because everything's baked in. All the player has to do is roleplay, and roll dice when asked to.

Lanefan said:

This is a classic example of why the game always needs at least one dirt-simple class that doesn't require any mechanical input from the player because everything's baked in. All the player has to do is roleplay, and roll dice when asked to.

Click to expand...

Though it would be really nice if
(a) more than one class were assigned this function,
(b) the one-and-only class meant to bear the entire load of "non-magical everyman" were not automatically assigned to this function, given there are plenty of people who want a non-magical everyman that isn't that simple, and
(c) at least one of the classes assigned this function were a spellcaster, something either no edition of D&D has done, or only one has (4e, with its Elementalist subclass for Sorcerer)

Because it gets more than a little tedious, the assertion that 100% of people who want simple classes obviously only want martial classes, and 100% of people who want martial classes obviously only want simple classes.

Where are the simple casters and the complex martials? The most maximally complex martial in 5e is simpler than the simplest caster.

And don't tell me there's no appetite for it. Folks across the web, not just on this forum, have asked for such things--including inquiring about why the Warlord wasn't carried forward to 5e, even when the poster did not play 4e themselves. Further, considering the absolutely ridiculous popularity of Harry Potter, you can't tell me there isn't appetite out there for a spellcaster who has a basic reliable bag of tricks with no conception of "slots" or needing to rest in order to perform their magic again. Just point a wand and shout "winGARdium levioSAH!"

EzekielRaiden said:

Though it would be really nice if
(a) more than one class were assigned this function,
(b) the one-and-only class meant to bear the entire load of "non-magical everyman" were not automatically assigned to this function, given there are plenty of people who want a non-magical everyman that isn't that simple, and
(c) at least one of the classes assigned this function were a spellcaster, something either no edition of D&D has done, or only one has (4e, with its Elementalist subclass for Sorcerer)

Because it gets more than a little tedious, the assertion that 100% of people who want simple classes obviously only want martial classes, and 100% of people who want martial classes obviously only want simple classes.

Click to expand...

There is flat-out no such thing as a simple caster.

A player of a martial only needs to know hit points, attack and damage rolls, and ideally that's it unless complexity-enhancers like feats and skills get dragged in.

As the player of a caster you need to know its spells, what those spells can (and can't) do, how often you can cast each one, and so forth; plus nearly everything a martial player needs to know.

EzekielRaiden said:

And don't tell me there's no appetite for it. Folks across the web, not just on this forum, have asked for such things--including inquiring about why the Warlord wasn't carried forward to 5e, even when the poster did not play 4e themselves. Further, considering the absolutely ridiculous popularity of Harry Potter, you can't tell me there isn't appetite out there for a spellcaster who has a basic reliable bag of tricks with no conception of "slots" or needing to rest in order to perform their magic again. Just point a wand and shout "winGARdium levioSAH!"

Click to expand...

If you want to have Potter-like mages (and I admit, I can see the appeal) then you pretty much have to make the campaign casters-only, because - as the Harry Potter world itself clearly shows us - there ain't no way to balance witches and wizards with muggles.

As for complex martials: I found martials in 3e more than complex enough, thank you. Far too many bloody feats and abilities for something that's supposed to just hit things till they fall down (and I say this as someone who usually plays casters; complex characters are nothing new to me).

Lanefan said:

There is flat-out no such thing as a simple caster.

Click to expand...

Only if you define "caster" by reference to the AD&D wizard as a paradigm.

There can be a simple magic-using character. They can (say) fire a blasty-bolt, fly, teleport short distances and use X-Ray vision. These abilities are spread out over their levels in some fashion that is roughly balanced with what a rogue or ranger of the same level can do.

Done!

Lanefan said:

There is flat-out no such thing as a simple caster.

Click to expand...

Yes, there is. That you do not find the idea credible is not a particularly persuasive argument that it can't be done--particularly given, as I mentioned, the 4e Elementalist Sorcerer, which really was a pretty friggin' simple spellcaster.

Lanefan said:

If you want to have Potter-like mages (and I admit, I can see the appeal) then you pretty much have to make the campaign casters-only, because - as the Harry Potter world itself clearly shows us - there ain't no way to balance witches and wizards with muggles.

Click to expand...

Uh...no? You just need a better design concept, and better-constructed design goals, than the absolute hodgepodge mess that is D&D spellcasting.

Shadowrun has Harry Potter-like mages (they must resist Drain, but can do basic magic that inflicts minimal Drain pretty much without limit). It also has Faces and Street Sams whose cybernetic augmentations are effectively equivalent to magic items, and Deckers that are effectively cyber-thieves with cyber-thieves'-tools, just with more bits and bobs.

It's really not as hard as you're claiming.

Lanefan said:

As for complex martials: I found martials in 3e more than complex enough, thank you. Far too many bloody feats and abilities for something that's supposed to just hit things till they fall down (and I say this as someone who usually plays casters; complex characters are nothing new to me).

Click to expand...

Note: I did not, at all, say that EVERY martial had to be this way. I phrased it the way I did for a reason. Why is it that, if a class is martial, it must be simple? Why can't we have just one--just a single class--that actually appeals to folks who like complex stuff? It quite clearly wouldn't be for you. But we've already established that things can be in D&D and not be for everyone; Druid is one of the least-popular classes in D&D (per WotC's own polls during the Next playtest) but it's still part and parcel of what D&D is today. Likewise, dragonborn and tieflings are a turn-off for some folks, but they're inarguably part of D&D now, and folks that don't like them can just ignore them.

So: Why is it martial classes are required to be simple, while caster classes are forbidden to be simple? We know the former isn't mandatory, and I've argued for why the latter isn't either (if you're familiar with Avatar: the Last Airbender, the 4e Elementalist Sorcerer is basically "pick what kind of bender you are: Earth, Water, Air, Fire. You get an elemental blast attack, a versatile utility cantrip, some reliable at-wills, and...that's pretty much it." It never grows particularly complex; it's about throwing elements around and being a master of your element's quirks and benefits.)

Maxperson said:

When it comes to D&D, though, he plays because he loves to roleplay and hang out with us. Rules don't even rise to the level of secondary. As a result, we periodically check his sheet to see what he has missed and have him update stuff. Sometimes he is 2 levels behind the rest of us because he didn't level up when he was supposed to. The most egregious example was when he was playing a twilight cleric and at 13th or 14th level said, "Oh, hey! I have the ability to grant 1d6 temporary hit points equal to my cleric level to everyone within 30 feet of me and it lasts for 1 minute!" We were like, "Oh wow! That's amazing! When did you get that ability." He replied, "2nd level." Then the rest of us mentally facepalmed and we moved on. Nobody got upset, wanted to kick him out or demote him to playing an NPC.

Click to expand...

And that's awesome that it works for you and the rest of the players don't become frustrated with his disregard for those aspects of the game. Over 10 levels late he discovered a key feature to a class, that no one noticed beforehand and pointed out to him, despite periodically checking his character sheet? Seems a bit odd, but if no one ever felt the impact, affected their fun, or whatever, then there would be no reason to take resolve it---because there was nothing to resolve.

If you don't mind my asking some (genuine) question?

• How often do you play in the game that includes him?
• You help him with his character sheet, but what else do you do to help him be better prepared?
• Does he miss sessions regularly or is he often late due to his busy life? If so, how do you handle his character or does everyone wait?
• Does he pay attention when it is other players' turns or do you regularly have to remind him what is going on when his turn comes up?

As long as his behaviors aren't negatively impacting the fun of the game for you and everyone else (which they obviously aren't), then you'd have no reason to take action.

pemerton said:

Only if you define "caster" by reference to the AD&D wizard as a paradigm.

There can be a simple magic-using character. They can (say) fire a blasty-bolt, fly, teleport short distances and use X-Ray vision. These abilities are spread out over their levels in some fashion that is roughly balanced with what a rogue or ranger of the same level can do.

Done!

Click to expand...

You could basically just give a lot more invocations and use the Warlock without spell slots.

However, you still have to know what all those "spells" (i.e. invocations) can do. Now, it is much simpler if they don't change, must like a rogue or ranger whose features are constant.

you could almost definitely make a pretty darn simple caster if you made it a baseline 1/3 progression caster, focus mostly on having a large array of cantrips and a carefully selected list of levelled spells chosen around the idea of being able to cast them infinitely, like the warlock’s invocation that do the same thing, no resource management, no worrying about upcasting, a familiar set of spells that they can just spam all day long and know in-and-out.