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

[ezo]

Sure, but you seemed to generalize more than a bit past that.

I like to think (but could be wrong ) people are intelligent enough to understand proper boundaries when it comes to a hobby (however seriously you take it), and things which take precedence over it.

Everything mentioned as "exceptions" can be handled in appropriate and civil terms without being disruptions to the game and the group's fun. It is when such things become disruptive that actions need to be taken.

Cell phones are the ban of my existance. When it comes to gaming, players in our groups know if you "have something going on" you let the group know and handle it (if it happens) quietly and discretely. For things like ordering food, etc., yeah, those can wait until a break.

Hopefully that is specific enough?

 

[pemerton]

The bottom line here is player agency, if you expect something specific out of me as a player you need to state it, otherwise anything which is not anti-social or malicious is acceptable.

If I join (say) a book club, I think it's reasonable to expect that I will read the books. It's not acceptable just to turn up to book club and not be unpleasant.

If I join a choir, I have to be prepared to sing, to do whatever warm-ups we do in choir, probably to do some exercises and practice in my own time.

Obviously every RPG group has its own standards, but I don't think there's any general assumption that no one is expected to take it seriously, or that it atypically demanding to expect more from a player than not being unpleasant to others.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Perhaps. I remember vividly when as a DM I TPKed my daughters party when she was 13. She cried all night. I chalked it up to age.

I would argue though that this sort of emotional attachment, while real, is not healthy for gaming and should not drive the play of other players.

Its a valid position perhaps, but none the less its not at all uncommon, and I think it'll be more useful to you if you accept that it is, and a number of people are liable to find you chastising them for it as condescending at best. If, given that, you still care to do it, that's on you.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I don't find full casters particularly complicated and I think keeping track of class and subclass abilities is far more difficult than keeping track of spells.

The most complex character I have played as a player is the current 19th level Drow Fighter11/Paladin6/Warlock2 I am playing. For the first time in a long time I am having some difficulty remembering everything, but it is all the abilities not the spells that I am finding difficult.

I think it depends. I've played a considerable bit of PF2e, and a campaign of D&D4e, and I'm not going to claim keeping track of what my characters could do at upper levels was exactly trivial (insert my usual rant about exception based design).

The difference is that there tends to be a lot more moving parts within many spells than within most class abilities or feats in many cases, so you need to not only remember what spells you have but what they each do. This is even more complicated if you're playing (and actually getting full value) out of prepared casters. This has historically been most pronounced with clerics because they had access to their full spell list.

There are ways you can minimize this--play fixed spell knowledge casters and keep most of your usage to a small handful of spells, but that's very deliberately simplifying your usage in a way that the game system doesn't. That sometimes has some social/group dynamic impacts as has been noted in an earlier post, so some people might prefer to convey that yes, really, they're not going to use every option possible and for people to expect what they're going to do, which is the advantage of an intrinsically simplified spellcasting class.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I like to think (but could be wrong ) people are intelligent enough to understand proper boundaries when it comes to a hobby (however seriously you take it), and things which take precedence over it.

I would be willing to place money on the fact some people making statements similar to yours draw no such lines, and would expect people who couldn't assure that simply not to play.

I mean, let's be real: some people's employers have little sense of boundaries, so this could happen with some frequency. Same with people with complicated home lives and things involving children. How much tolerance should they be extended? I'm betting the answers there would vary considerably if people were honest.

Everything mentioned as "exceptions" can be handled in appropriate and civil terms without being disruptions to the game and the group's fun. It is when such things become disruptive that actions need to be taken.

So, let's use my example one above: someone wants to play but mentions he's subject to unpredictable emergency calls from his work. Now what?

Cell phones are the ban of my existance. When it comes to gaming, players in our groups know if you "have something going on" you let the group know and handle it (if it happens) quietly and discretely. For things like ordering food, etc., yeah, those can wait until a break.

Hopefully that is specific enough?

Mostly.

 

[Maxperson]

Perhaps. I remember vividly when as a DM I TPKed my daughters party when she was 13. She cried all night. I chalked it up to age.

I would argue though that this sort of emotional attachment, while real, is not healthy for gaming and should not drive the play of other players.

There's nothing unhealthy about forming an attachment to a character. Mourning it like the death a loved one is likely unhealthy, but what is being described goes nowhere close to that level.

Whether it should or should not drive play is a table decision. There's nothing inherently wrong with it driving play.

 

[ezo]

I mean, let's be real: some people's employers have little sense of boundaries, so this could happen with some frequency. Same with people with complicated home lives and things involving children. How much tolerance should they be extended? I'm betting the answers there would vary considerably if people were honest.

People with such concerns rarely can commit to our schedule of weekly games, so it isn't an issue. We try, again and again, but ultimately they realize the constant interruptions and/or absences are interfering with the group's fun, so they bow out. If they are otherwise decent players, there is always an opening if their concerns change and they want to try again.

So, let's use my example one above: someone wants to play but mentions he's subject to unpredictable emergency calls from his work. Now what?

He probably doesn't play. He might hang out, or if it is a lone individual who is otherwise committed to playing, often another player or myself will run his PC in his absence, even texting him for important decisions if necessary.

For example, we had an engaged couple. The guy had a job where is would frequently be late or call to say it couldn't make it. His partner would play the PC as a second character until he showed up or for the session. So, because another player was willing to shoulder the responsibilty of a second PC, it worked out fine. Outside of game time, she could update him on everything, so it wasn't an issue.

So, if someone wants to play, is actually taking the time to learn how to play, shows up (when the actually show up), and is all-around a good player otherwise, we try to make it work. Sadly, there are times when such a player decides to bow out anyway. And course, there are times when no matter what we try, it is evident the player isn't doing what they can to in order to make it work, it's disruptive, and we let them go.

Mostly

Whew... I am so relieved!

 

[Vaalingrade]

Only if you're supposed to be at work at the time.

Your off hours are your own, and if (other than legitimate emergencies) a boss can't respect that it might be time to look for a different boss.

Being on call is... not all the uncommon for certain careers. Just from the people I play with, we've got doctors, and IT folks that sometimes NEED to be reachable or bad things happen, not just to them, but lost of other people as well.

Like maybe we shouldn't assume a game is always going to take priority for people.

 

[tetrasodium]

Being on call is... not all the uncommon for certain careers. Just from the people I play with, we've got doctors, and IT folks that sometimes NEED to be reachable or bad things happen, not just to them, but lost of other people as well.

Like maybe we shouldn't assume a game is always going to take priority for people.

Instead of looking for possible justifications to excuse what might otherwise be poor behavior, why not accept that it's possible that others could rightfully be talking about players acting inexcusablly when describing inexcusable behavior?As someone who has been on call and among those professions I'm s bit insulted at the implication that being on call means that someone is incapable of balancing the possible call with polite consideration of others in a social setting. I think that you are confusing "on call" with "on the clock call center employee" or something.

 

[MonsterEnvy]

Instead of looking for possible justifications to excuse what might otherwise be poor behavior, why not accept that it's possible that others could rightfully be talking about players acting inexcusablly when describing inexcusable behavior?As someone who has been on call and among those professions I'm s bit insulted at the implication that being on call means that someone is incapable of balancing the possible call with polite consideration of others in a social setting. I think that you are confusing "on call" with "on the clock call center employee" or something.

That's not what people were talking about.