D&D General Fighting Law and Order

[Maxperson]

How can they, when the GM's power is absolute?

Easily. Just be proactive and tell the DM what you are trying to accomplish. Absolute power =/= DM is a jerk and won't let you do stuff.

 

[Oofta]

No, it's not even remotely the same.

If my opponent is undamaged, then it can hurt me back. I may have lost tools (spell slots, exertion) or my chance to affect it in other ways (such as if I tried to knock it prone or backwards, or if I tried to disarm it). I am affected by my failure to attack, but the combat continues.

If I failed to pick a lock... well, most GMs won't let you try to pick the lock again, or at least increase the difficulty enough to the point it becomes impossible. If I also then fail to bash down the door or teleport through it or whatever, then that area of the dungeon is lost to us and I, as the player, am left with the feeling that I just didn't play "mother may I" well enough with the GM.

This idea that something has to happen on a failure is a really odd obsession IMHO. If I try to remember where I put my book down and don't remember, nothing directly happens. At that point I have several options. I could go looking, I could ask if someone else has seen it, I could do something else.

No different than failing to open a lock. It's not like I'm just going to sit down and stare ate the wall because I didn't succeed in remembering or opening a door. Maybe that means I don't find out who done it in that mystery novel, or don't get the cheap toad statues. You can't always get what you want.

As far as actual advice that people could use when it comes to lockpicking I can relate how I handle it. If there's no time pressure I may just hand wave it or have them roll. If they roll and beat the DC it opens quickly. If the fail by 10 or less, the number they fail by times 5 is the number of minutes it takes to open. Fail by more than 10 and the lock is jammed.

There are many ways to handle these scenarios, something always has to happen is something I would never want in a game.

 

[Aldarc]

I like the way the DW version put it. That's all well said.

The Stonetop version includes a clause I'd rather not see*, about maybe giving them ideas or options as to how to get past. Those ideas are IMO on the players to come up with, and if they don't or can't then so be it - they're stuck.

* - an exception would be for brand new players who may not yet realize they're expected to think this way, but I'd note that exception in a sidebar somewhere else along with various other "dealing with brand new players" advice.

Maybe is the key word, and those maybes tend to be about forcing them to make hard choices:

“You drag the sleds northeast but, shortly past the Stream, the drifts get much deeper. It’d be grueling to wade through and there’s no way you’d get home by dark. Looks like the only path left is back through crinwin territory. What do you do?”

It's like saying that "the pass of Caradhras is blocked by Saruman's magic. It looks like the only paths left are to go past the Gap of Rohan or through the Mines of Moria. What do you do?"

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Make me a perfect rule and I can still abuse it. Perfection has never been the point of what I have said. My point was that rules(perfect or otherwise) cannot stop a bad DM from being a bad DM. When you find a DM like that, your only recourse it to get the hell out of Dodge and find a new DM.

And I keep telling you

That STOPPING this, in absolutely 100% of all cases

IS NOT THE GODDAMN POINT.

How many times do I have to say that? How many times do I have to tell you that such perfection is COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY IRRELEVANT?

How many times musr I tell you that the point is HELPING to address these problems? That the real concern is well-meaning but mediocre DMs, bull-headed but earnest DMs, DMs who haven't had a chance to go wrong yet and can thus be taught so they don't fall into bad habits in the first place?

This is one of the most utterly infuriating conversations we've ever had, and I must say, for you, that's really impressive.

 

[Lanefan]

Exactly. It is saying, "Unless we get total consensus, no effort is worth it, so don't bother."

This whole "don't bother trying to make things better" attitude is rather pervasive and deeply, deeply frustrating.

When one person's "better" is another person's "worse", you're not going to get very far unless one or the other gets overrun or overruled.

A 50% failure rate is not "great." It is terrible. Can you imagine trying to pitch something like that at your job, whatever job that might be? "We'll lose 50% of <insert thing here>," be it employees, customers, clients, vendors, whatever. You would be laughed out of the room.

50% failure rate is anything BUT "great."

Context, old chap.

A consistent failure rate of 50% for a baseball batter would be astonishingly good: he'd be batting .500, where the all-time record for a season is just a bit over .400.

A saleswoman who can close sales to 50% of the customers she interacts with would, in most cases, be doing amazingly well.

 

[Enrahim2]

Huh? You know all those posts I've made over the past day or so, explaining how I regard it as a railroad unless it is the players who establish what the stakes are, what dramatic needs will be addressed, etc? That is what being a fan of the characters means: the GM's job is to follow the players' lead, as manifested in the players' build and play of their PCs, as to what is at stake, what dramatic needs are addressed, etc.

And clearly it's not meaningless - your reaction to, and rejection of, my posts show that it is very meaningful and that you (and @Lanefan and @Micah Sweet) don't accept it as a principle.

I think the problem is not with the principle, but with the heading. The phrase "be a fan of the characters" is also completely unintelligible for me taken out of context. You need to have the extra explanation connected to it in the rulebook or as you gave now to make it make sense. As such, referencing to the rule by that name make sense to someone familiar with the game, but is highly problematic in a public forum where someone might read this without context, and try to find some meaning in it at face value. After all "be a fan of the characters" seem like a sentence that has a shape that could stand on its own.

 

[Oofta]

I don't see what that's got to do with anything. I'm talking about who gets to establish certain elements of a shared fiction, not who will say yes if you ask them to a dance.

Like, in a RPG when I tell the GM "I search the upper floor of the tower; do I find any spellbooks?" I, pemerton, am not actually looking around a tower floor seeing what's there. What I'm actually doing is sitting at a table with my friend, and we're both imaging Thurgon searching the upper floor of the tower of the evil wizard Evard. And then we both have to imagine what happens as a result of that search.

There are different ways of working that out: and I prefer the ones that are not railroads.

Yes. Like, when I GM I am constrained by not railroading my players, because otherwise I'd (i) be breaking the rules of the games we are playing, and (ii) not having a good time.

Calling a DM alone determining what is in the library is not a railroad by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

When one person's "better" is another person's "worse", you're not going to get very far unless one or the other gets overrun or overruled.

Context, old chap.

A consistent failure rate of 50% for a baseball batter would be astonishingly good: he'd be batting .500, where the all-time record for a season is just a bit over .400.

A saleswoman who can close sales to 50% of the customers she interacts with would, in most cases, be doing amazingly well.

And in education, which is explicitly the relevant context?

50% of your students failing your classes consistently would be absolutely terrible, and almost certainly lead to Issues. 50% of employees burning out and quitting because of your training would get you fired. 50% of residents giving up medicine as a career because of working with you would get you blacklisted by most medical schools. Driving away 50% of new customers because of your abrasive attitude would destroy most businesses.

That's the relevant context here. I don't think the context helps Bloodtide. At all.

 

[Maxperson]

And I keep telling you

That STOPPING this, in absolutely 100% of all cases

IS NOT THE GODDAMN POINT.

And my point is that it stops it in 0% of the cases. That's what makes these DMs bad. If they weren't bad then they would be in the groups below that will learn from their mistakes and use the advice given in the books.

How many times do I have to say that? How many times do I have to tell you that such perfection is COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY IRRELEVANT?

Until you understand that perfection isn't anywhere in what I am saying. It's a huge Strawman, rather a Strawarmy at this point since you've repeated it so many times.

How many times musr I tell you that the point is HELPING to address these problems? That the real concern is well-meaning but mediocre DMs, bull-headed but earnest DMs, DMs who haven't had a chance to go wrong yet and can thus be taught so they don't fall into bad habits in the first place?

That's what the DMG advice is for, not RULES. The DM advises the DM not to do X and to try Y or Z instead. And heck, the 5e DMG already advises DMs to listen to what their players have to say and take them into consideration, so nothing new is even necessary on that front. Clearly the OP is ignoring that advice already.

It's only a problem if the DM is a bad one, since the average and good DMs can be taught and will correct their mistakes.

 

[Enrahim2]

And in education, which is explicitly the relevant context?

50% of your students failing your classes consistently would be absolutely terrible, and almost certainly lead to Issues. 50% of employees burning out and quitting because of your training would get you fired. 50% of residents giving up medicine as a career because of working with you would get you blacklisted by most medical schools. Driving away 50% of new customers because of your abrasive attitude would destroy most businesses.

That's the relevant context here. I don't think the context helps Bloodtide. At all.

This is very of topic, but want to try to cool this tangent. Teacher here. A teaching method that could indeed be shown to be is the best there is for 50% of all students would indeed be a revolutionary discovery and would immediately be adopted everywhere.

The claim that experience works best for half his players are likely not scientific, is not very well supported, and I am quite surprised it could spawn a tangent about statistics.