If an NPC is telling the truth, what's the Insight DC to know they're telling the truth?

iserith · May 1, 2019

Tony Vargas said:
If you assume a position is the default, but the system offers no impetus to take up that position, is it really the default position?
It might be more cogent to say that 5e 'forces' the /players/ to accept the central role of the DM by default. But DM Empowerment is not some empty buzzword, it's strongly informs the design of the system, which robustly supports it.

It's not clear to me you're following the chain of the conversation. My post was a response to an objection that D&D 5e forces the DM into a central role, as if the DM not being in a central role isn't always the case by the rules of any edition of D&D.

I do think "DM Empowerment" is an empty buzzword. Just like "Player Entitlement" is an empty buzzword. They are the weapons of the edition war as far as I'm concerned. It's used by one camp or another as a means of attack and you'll have to forgive me if I'm very suspicious of your use of it considering your stated positions in the past.

Tony Vargas · May 1, 2019

lowkey13 said:
Yes, but again, "force" is often viewed as a pejorative or loaded term.
Neither the players nor the DM is forced to play D&D (or a particular edition of D&D) as opposed to some other RPG

(as an aside, D&D (typically the current ed, or maybe PF or OSR), is very often the only game a group can all agree on) but, no, of course not, not forced to play, forced to accept the central role (Empowerment!) of the DM.

And, yeah, forced is definitely a loaded term with a bit of a negative connotation. But, hey being 'forced' to do the right thing or the best thing for the game experience, that seems a lot less negative to me.

iserith said:
I do think "DM Empowerment" is an empty buzzword. Just like "Player Entitlement" is an empty buzzword.

You may not care for the spin that's been put on them, sure, and maybe they're a tad disingenuous or exaggerated at times, but they are getting at very real differences between 5e/TSR-era D&D and the other two WotC versions of the game. Until 5e, WotC's tenure with the D&D IP had been marked by very player-centric rules and offerings. 3.x/4eE were very player-choice-rich systems, 3.x loaded the DM with player expectations that his monsters and NPCs would follow the same rules and the same level of build detail as the PCs, leveling the player-DM dynamic to a degree, 4e, while very different in approach, still pushed the DM off his pedestal a bit, lending itself to very in-the-open play with the mechanics an open book the players could audit pretty easily, and the process of DMing simplified and streamlined to the point that the role felt less critical & central.

5e's return to a more DM-centric attitude in system, presentation, and, thus, player expectations is a major accomplishment, metaphorically putting a genie back in it's bottle, even.

lowkey13 · May 1, 2019

*Deleted by user*

Satyrn · May 1, 2019

lowkey13 said:
So ... this is really about a different battle ... or should I call it a WAR?

Are you implying that Tony is one of the Four Horsemen?

Because if you are I'm gonna have to do my own implying, something about those pestilent do-gooders.

Also, I'm hungry.

lowkey13 · May 1, 2019

*Deleted by user*

Tony Vargas · May 1, 2019

Satyrn said:
Are you implying that Tony is one of the Four Horsemen?

No horses were harmed in the making of this post.

lowkey13 said:
It's all good- and no force.

Sure, OK, we can completely avoid using the word 'force,' while still saying/meaning the same thing.

...or not...

... if you know it's a loaded term with a negative connotation, STOP USING IT. Because otherwise, you're just going to get called out on it, repeatedly, instead of having more productive discussions.

IDK, I guess I just feel like taking the connotation, itself, on. Like, a game should 'force' (require? encourage? support? deliver?) certain things, if it's, y'know s'pose'ta have 'em.

So ... this is really about a different battle ... or should I call it a WAR?

I'm not aware of a quasi-edition war in which 3.x/PF & 4e/E are facing off against 5e. It'd certainly be a strange alliance if there were one.

Charlaquin · May 1, 2019

I don’t think connotations are the issue here, context is. “Force” is being used here to mean, making something happen by way of force that would not otherwise happen. Like forcing a square peg through a round hole, or forcing someone to give you their wallet under threat of violence. Regardless of what connotations the word may have, I don’t think the way in which it is being used here is an accurate description of the way 5e defines the role of the DM.

Hussar · May 2, 2019

lowkey13 said:
Again, no force. Choice does not equal force.

But, [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION] is saying that there is no choice. That DM centric is the default state and the presumed state of the game. If I'm playing 5e by the rules, then, by default, the rules place me front and center of the game.

So, where's the choice there?

Again, this is just another case of playing silly buggers with semantics. It's not forcing you to be front and center, it's "defaulting" to front and center. :erm:

Gimme a break. It's not "better", but, it's "smoother". On and on and on. Any criticism is immediately deflected with this sort of pedantry.

There would be a lot less accusations of misunderstanding points if folks would actually stick to plain English instead of trying to dodge any potential issue with this sort of garbage. Several criticisms of arguing in bad faith and then every time there is any criticism, a complete retreat into bad faith pedantry.

Like I said in the other thread, if folks were willing to accept that no approach is 100% perfect and contains both strengths and weaknesses, these conversations would be a whole lot shorter.

Guest 6801328 · May 2, 2019

Hussar said:
But, [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION] is saying that there is no choice. That DM centric is the default state and the presumed state of the game. If I'm playing 5e by the rules, then, by default, the rules place me front and center of the game.

So, where's the choice there?

Again, this is just another case of playing silly buggers with semantics. It's not forcing you to be front and center, it's "defaulting" to front and center. Gimme a break. It's not "better", but, it's "smoother". On and on and on. Any criticism is immediately deflected with this sort of pedantry.

There would be a lot less accusations of misunderstanding points if folks would actually stick to plain English instead of trying to dodge any potential issue with this sort of garbage. Several criticisms of arguing in bad faith and then every time there is any criticism, a complete retreat into bad faith pedantry.

Like I said in the other thread, if folks were willing to accept that no approach is 100% perfect and contains both strengths and weaknesses, these conversations would be a whole lot shorter.

No, sorry Hussar, but this is total B.S.

"Better" and "Smoother" do have different meanings. Go look them up. It's not hard to understand.

As for acknowledging "weaknesses", sure, goal-and-approach has weaknesses. Poorly implemented, or misunderstood, players may try to "talkie talkie" the DM or think it's "mother may I." Of course, those sorts of DMs and players will try to do that anyway, so honestly I'm not sure how much of a weakness it is.

But never once have I heard you say that the problem is that these things might happen. You basically defined goal-and-approach, over and over again, as being these things. So don't give us any disingenuous crap about sober discussion of flaws. You have been pouring gasoline on this conversation for 150 or so pages.

I should have stopped engaging with you a long time ago. Consider yourself on my analog 'block list'.

Charlaquin · May 2, 2019

Hussar said:
But, @iserith is saying that there is no choice. That DM centric is the default state and the presumed state of the game. If I'm playing 5e by the rules, then, by default, the rules place me front and center of the game.

So, where's the choice there?

The choice to play in a manner contrary to the game’s default assumptions. No one is forcing you to play by the default assumptions, and if you want to play contrary to them, by all means go ahead.

Hussar said:
Again, this is just another case of playing silly buggers with semantics. It's not forcing you to be front and center, it's "defaulting" to front and center. Gimme a break.

Those words aren’t even synonymous though. This isn’t linguistic sleight of hand, it’s plain English. The game doesn’t force you to play the way it presents as default, and in fact encourages you to change or ignore any rules that don’t suit you. “Forcing” a playstyle is straight up not an accurate way to describe that.

Hussar said:
It's not "better", but, it's "smoother". On and on and on. Any criticism is immediately deflected with this sort of pedantry.

“Smoother” is an evaluation of a tangible quality of gameplay. “Better” is a subjective value judgment. The game runs smoothly when you play it the way it suggests. That doesn’t guarantee that you will find the experience of playing the game the way it suggests to be a good experience. You may find that a different way of playing the game creates a better experience, despite the places where that way of playing creates friction with the rules. Again, you’re free to change or ignore any rules you wish, so any friction that playing a different way might cause can be pretty trivially corrected for.

Hussar said:
There would be a lot less accusations of misunderstanding points if folks would actually stick to plain English instead of trying to dodge any potential issue with this sort of garbage. Several criticisms of arguing in bad faith and then every time there is any criticism, a complete retreat into bad faith pedantry.

There would be a lot less misunderstanding if folks would actually read the words other people were using instead of trying to interpret malicious intent into them.

Hussar said:
Like I said in the other thread, if folks were willing to accept that no approach is 100% perfect and contains both strengths and weaknesses, these conversations would be a whole lot shorter.

I’m sorry, has anyone said that there is a 100% perfect approach with only strengths and no weaknesses?