Charlaquin
Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
She, by the way.
She, by the way.
You really need to re-read that passage. It’s not at all what he said. Not even close.
I blocked this poster months ago for this very reason. I suggest just letting him or her rail against what he or she thinks I'm saying because there is no way to change this mindset. It's sad and not worth spending time on in my view, plus anyone who is not already in his or her camp will see it for what it is. Any good points he or she might actually make will always be overshadowed by these antics and that's a self-inflicted loss to him or herself. When an opponent is doing this, it's often best to just let them keep doing it until they defeat themselves.
I do appreciate your efforts to clarify my position though.
He was quoting Charlquin. And apparently not actually reading what she wrote.
But, yeah, I think there are two (more) people in this thread I need to put on "manual Ignore."
“More refined” is what I was saying Hussar was mistaking his playstyle preference for, as opppsed to simply a preference. By saying that the playstyle the 5e rules promote is for inexperienced players, it was him suggesting that his playstyle was more refined. It’s the equivalent of saying “[thing I don’t like] is for babies.” I was merely pointing out the bias in Hussar’s wording. I don’t think either of our tastes are more refined, or “for more experienced players,” I think they are simply different preferences.Huh? I'm not better than you, you're just worse? He literally says playing his way leads to a more refined play style. You may as well replace "more refined" with "better" as far as I'm concerned.
In any case I was just trying to give some feedback on how he was expressing himself. Take it or leave it.
I don't deny the rules can be ignored or changed.
Would it be reasonable to say that you consider all of the rules books simply to be advice? That they contain no rules at all? Even the parts that specifically use the word "rules?"
If that is indeed my tactic, and I don't say it is, wouldn't you rather be aware of your unreasonableness or inconsistencies so you can take steps to address them?
You don't have to use it for any trap if you don't want to. My preference is to use some degree of telegraphing for every trap. I personally don't think it's fair to my players to spring traps on them that they couldn't have seen coming. Again, it doesn't have to be obvious, but in my opinion if it wasn't possible to realize it was coming, it wasn't a fair challenge.
*shrug* I don't agree.
I guess, but that doesn't sound like a very fun dungeon. And it's pretty trivial to come up with a reason the Lich might have decided to leave clues. Maybe he does have living minions. Or maybe he has a sense of sportsmanship and wants to make sure the adventurers have a chance. Maybe he (wisely, in my opinion) assumes his gauntlet of death won't be able to lure in very many adventurers if they don't think they'll be able to find their way through it. This comes back to what I said about the chandelier. Sure, if the reason the chandelier is unstable is because the wood that holds it up has rotten in a place that the characters can't see... Yeah, it doesn't make sense to tell them the chandelier might break. But, as DM it is your decision to set the scenario up that way. If, like me, you think it's important that players have information, you can set it up in such a way that it is reasonable for the character to know the chandelier might break.
...That's a mystery, not a trap. That's is a very different situation than what we've been discussing. I also don't generally run mystery adventures because they're not my favorite, and frankly, I'm not very good at writing them.
No. Stumbling into consequences you didn't see coming is a mistake. Taking a risky action when you know the risk and potential consequences is not a mistake, it's a calculated risk. A gamble. If a player declares an action that has an uncertain outcome and potential consequences, I will tell them the odds and potential consequences (within the bounds of what it is reasonable for the character to know, of course). If the player was already expecting the consequences and expected the difficulty to be in the same ballpark that I gave, no harm done. If the player expected lesser consequences or a much lower risk of failure, then we've successfully avoided a mistake. Now that player can adjust their expectations and proceed accordingly. Maybe they still think the gamble is worth it and proceed, in which case, great. Maybe they think twice and decide the risk is too great, in which case, also great. As long as nobody is accidentally taking risks that are far greater than they anticipated or have far worse consequences than they thought (again, within the bounds of what it is reasonable for the character to know).
Coulda fooled me.
When I'm asked where I get all these strange ideas like only DMs calling for rolls, players describing what they want to do, and the necessity of meaningful consequences for failure before dice are thrown, I point to the rules because that's the truth. And for some reason it seems to confound about a half-dozen vocal posters on these forums.
Perhaps the wondering should be turned inward as to why.
OK, but I'll start a new thread in General, as it's not a specifically D&D point, is not really about truth-telling or lying NPCs, and won't be terribly brief.
You really need to re-read that passage. It’s not at all what he said. Not even close.
“More refined” is what I was saying Hussar was mistaking his playstyle preference for, as opppsed to simply a preference. By saying that the playstyle the 5e rules promote is for inexperienced players, it was him suggesting that his playstyle was more refined. It’s the equivalent of saying “[thing I don’t like] is for babies.” I was merely pointing out the bias in Hussar’s wording. I don’t think either of our tastes are more refined, or “for more experienced players,” I think they are simply different preferences.
There isn't much daylight between Charlaquin's position and mine, plus I have the other poster blocked, so my mistake there. But that poster has been continually railing about my position as well or what he or she can read of it in quotes from others or perhaps logging out and logging back in. This seems like a self-imposed misery to me that this person is welcome to wallow in as far as I'm concerned and is a poor approach to the goal of winning anyone over in my view.
Alright, man. If you want to give your players unfair challenges on purpose and they're cool with it, you have fun with that.That's fine for you. I'm just trying to say, sometimes having a fair challenge isn't the point. When the players are confronted by 50 of the Churches Elite Paladin's because of some prophecy, it isn't fair. But, between Divination, Commune, and Divine Intervention, it makes sense they could be tracked down and ambushed if the Church is truly afraid of something.
-.-You can not agree, but people still play games other than Dark Souls.
I didn't offer any reasoning because it doesn't matter. Obviously we're never going to agree on this, and it seems clear at this point that you are understanding my position here, and simply hold a different one. So, I'm satisfied with that. You see where I'm coming from re: telegraphing, and you have a different preference, and that's fine. I'm not interested in trying to change your mind.(Obviously I know you meant you don't agree that telegraphing doesn't always make sense. I disagree with that, and you offered no reasoning, so I can't address it. The closest I could come is you are probably going to say I am engineering the scenario, so it only does not make sense because I say it doesn't, but I feel like that ignores some details on how building a world and furnishing it with people works)
You say that like it's an objective fact, but this lich and his dungeon don't actually exist. You made the scenario up. You didn't have to set it up specifically to make any telegraphing not make sense, that was a conscious choice. Maybe you think that's more fun. I don't.I see you misunderstood the scenario. I can tell because of the bolded part.
This is the gauntlet that leads to the lich's lair, his home. They want to dissuade people from trying to get through it, the entire point is that it is a security measure. You don't post the code to your home security system on the front lawn, why would a Lich who is willing to devour and destroy souls to extend their life risk anything that could lead to their death?
Have you tried asking your players if they would prefer a fair challenge or an unfair one? I have a feeling which one they'd pick.As for fun... I don't know. It would certainly be a challenge to get through a lich's gauntlet to finally destroy them once and for all. Be kind of anti-climatic if it was fair and the players felt like they could tell where all the traps and tricks are. It would feel like beating an equal, not destroying a great threat.
Look, man, I don't think you need to telegraph the identity of your elf or whatever. I've been talking about traps and hazards here, you're the one who decided to extend it to mysteries.Everything you've said applies to mysteries and puzzles as much as it does traps. It wasn't an important plot point that this lady existed, in fact I think the players are still unaware of her all these years later, but it was there if they chose to pursue the various criminal gangs they kept running into and try to track down their boss. But, even action games can have elements of mysteries, if players choose to engage in them, so I'd say it is kind of hard to cut all mysteries and puzzles out of this discussion.
I've been saying all along that I wouldn't tell the players consequences it wasn't reasonable for their characters to know. I've also been saying that my preference is to set challenges up in such a way that it is reasonable for the characters to know the potential consequences of their actions, because that leads to a gameplay experience I think is more enjoyable for most players.I like how you are now adding "within the bounds of what it is reasonable for the character to know". Of course, by your own arguments what is reasonable to know is only reasonable because you have determined it to be reasonable, and the unreasonable is the same way, so in the end, you are doing the same thing I am doing.
It's impossible for you as a player to mistakenly blunder into unexpected consequences. Because doing so isn't fun. Again, this is not a controversial thing at my table. I've never had a player express that they wish I wouldn't let them know what consequences their actions might lead to.I'm also really curious why you've decided to prevent your players from ever making a mistake. I'm still pinning down exactly what is a mistake in your games, but if we go with your current definition of it only occurring when you stumble into a consequence with no warning, then it is impossible to make a mistake in your games. You have decided no one can ever make a mistake.
You're conflating "mistakenly blunder into an unexpected consequence" with "fail to notice a trap." My playstyle does not prevent players from failing to notice traps. Players get nailed by traps with some frequency in my games, even with the telegraphing I do. They just don't unknowingly spring traps as results of failed rolls to disarm traps they have spotted. Sometimes they knowingly do so though.Now imagine all those times you played Dark Souls. How many times have you had a playthrough with zero mistakes? How many times did those zero mistake playthroughs happen on your first game?
What the heck are you babbling about?Well that's a problem, if I can fool you into thinking you have no biases and aren't using language that seems loaded with meanings you don't want to convey, then I could make you look quite bad.
Yes, a judgment Hussar is implicitly making by calling out the clear delineation between player's and DM's rolls as an example of a place where the 5e rules are written for inexperienced players. Something I disagree with.Really?
"There is an implicit value judgment here that a clear delineation between player and DM roles is something “for inexperienced players.” (There is a clear judgement that marking the line between player and DM is something for new players)
Yes, he is making the mistake of thinking that his preference (a "give and take" style) is a more refined one than the one the 5e rules present as standard, when in reality it is simply a preference that is neither more or less refined.You are mistaking your preference for more give-and-take of narrative control between the players and the DM for a more refined taste that players and DMs will naturally grow into with experience. (You are mixing up your preference for a "give and take" style for a more refined style that players will grow into with experience)"
It is saying that his preference is not more refined, as his statement seemed to suggest it was.How is "your preference" vs "a more refined style" not saying that their preference is less refined?
I agree, that was a pretty bold thing for Hussar to suggest!Add in that this more refined style naturally comes from experience and there is an implication that lacking that more refined style is either choosing to play as if you were inexperienced, or comes about from being inexperienced.
That's a pretty impressive misreading of what I said.Seems pretty dang close to what @Oofta was saying about @Charlaquin coming across as feeling superior in their style.
And yet you left in your mis-analysis of my post for some reason.Ah, I see that now. Be easier to spot with some clearer subject-verb usage, it gets a little muddled and I think it could be read either way.
You are correct that taking parts of the books as "advice" and part as "rules" would be cherry-picking, though I'd say the books generally intend to include both.
However, if we must choose one and only one set, why not have it all be advice? It works surprisingly well, and is consistent, and it changes nothing about our discussion. We aren't discussing mechanics or probabilities, we are discussing styles and table cultures. Whether the material in the books is a "rule" or "advice" has little bearing, and freeing myself from being constrained by "the rules" has made some of my sessions far more enjoyable than if I had played everything exactly by the book.
How far is the journey between indigo and violet?
Looking at a gradient scale of colors you can clearly find different colors on each end, but finding the exact point where one becomes the other is impossible. That's how people are, you can lay out point by point your path, but that doesn't mean the nuance doesn't exist and doesn't change the color at the end of the journey.
Since I'm probably one of those half dozen, I think I should point out I've never asked you where you get these "strange" ideas (I've also never said they were strange). In fact, you've told us so many times where you got them from I'm actually shocked I don't have the page numbers memorized. As such, it does not "confound" me.
What "confounds" me, is why you seem so strict on something that is so flexible. You seem dismissive of the idea that our games run as well as yours even though we let the players ask for rolls, or have rolls with no meaningful failures. You seem "confounded" that people can have fun while not following the letter of "the rules" and keep insisting that the only way forward is following those rules exactly, even when it is unnecessary.
(and since I'm probably going to get some commentary on them being rules now, just trying to match your language.)
Oho, so now even your way of posting is better than ours!I blocked this poster months ago for this very reason. I suggest just letting him or her rail against what he or she thinks I'm saying because there is no way to change this mindset. It's sad and not worth spending time on in my view, plus anyone who is not already in his or her camp will see it for what it is. Any good points he or she might actually make will always be overshadowed by these antics and that's a self-inflicted loss to him or herself. When an opponent is doing this, it's often best to just let them keep doing it until they defeat themselves.
I do appreciate your efforts to clarify my position though.