I want my actions to matter

[pointofyou]

Of course, agreeing on how to lump and split things is where the rubber hits the road and the arguments over who's got the hotter hot rod begin.

Lumper-splitter arguments are the worst.

 

[bloodtide]

Yes, a game that some of us use to try to simulate a fictional reality as best we can.

Agreed.

I'd say a big problem with a lot of people is that they think reality is what they see on TV/the movies.

 

[Manbearcat]

Agreed.

I'd say a big problem with a lot of people is that they think reality is what they see on TV/the movies.

I’d say a big problem with a lot of people is that they have internalized a gibberish mental model of D&D world and convinced themselves with piles of spackle and strategically-averted eyes that their D&D mental model is causal-logic credible.

Then they try to peddle their contortions as credible and cast “the other side” as playing a silly, non-credible game. When “the other side” points out the piles of spackle and strategically-averted eyes, the counter-move is to take all the offense and lash out at people who don’t buy into the contortions and don’t accept the “it’s your game that is silly…it’s not D&D-world…we need to keep it safe from the vile influence of <we all know the various bogeymen>” tar and feathers.

---

It’s totally ok that D&D-world is silly and non-credible. It’s really fine (perhaps better than fine because it allows, demands really, each of us to have our novel D&D).

It’s also totally fine that you have developed hacks and an internalized mental model to help you deal with those oddities. What isn’t fine is trying to compel my (and others who disagree with you and have the experience and knowledge to backstop that disagreement) dissent into silence with either of things or gamified offense-taking. I’m not going to buy in and the more folks try to keep current and future D&D safeguarded from ideas that don’t comport with their hacks and internalized mental model, the more pushback they’ll receive…and the more community rancor it will generate.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I’d say a big problem with a lot of people is that they have internalized a gibberish mental model of D&D world and convinced themselves with piles of spackle and strategically-averted eyes that their D&D mental model is causal-logic credible.

Then they try to peddle their contortions as credible and cast “the other side” as playing a silly, non-credible game. When “the other side” points out the piles of spackle and strategically-averted eyes, the counter-move is to take all the offense and lash out at people who don’t buy into the contortions and don’t accept the “it’s your game that is silly…it’s not D&D-world…we need to keep it safe from the vile influence of <we all know the various bogeymen>” tar and feathers.

---

It’s totally ok that D&D-world is silly and non-credible. It’s really fine (perhaps better than fine because it allows, demands really, each of us to have our novel D&D).

It’s also totally fine that you have developed hacks and an internalized mental model to help you deal with those oddities. What isn’t fine is trying to compel my (and others who disagree with you and have the experience and knowledge to backstop that disagreement) dissent into silence with either of things or gamified offense-taking. I’m not going to buy in and the more folks try to keep current and future D&D safeguarded from ideas that don’t comport with their hacks and internalized mental model, the more pushback they’ll receive…and the more community rancor it will generate.

Seems a little harsh. Any reason you can't just let people have their preferences here? So what if you think any simulation in D&D is delusional (which is what I'm getting from you here). A non-zero portion of the community disagrees with you, and has done so for decades. There's no need for either camp to be insulting.

 

[Manbearcat]

Seems a little harsh. Any reason you can't just let people have their preferences here? So what if you think any simulation in D&D is delusional (which is what I'm getting from you here). A non-zero portion of the community disagrees with you, and has done so for decades. There's no need for either camp to be insulting.

You’re inverting where the harshness is coming from here Micah.

D&D has been intensely safeguarded for decades against anything that pushes back against a very specific, novel approach to simulation. Decades. Since late 80s through today.

You can have your novel approach to simulation. I’m quite happy for you to have it (and that you have had it). But don’t safeguard D&D from framing and play that disagrees with your mental model and don’t try to compel folks like me to buy into it or compel my dissent into silence (like when new iterations and playtests are either on the horizon or in full-go) to protect your conception of the brand from my influence.

 

[Lanefan]

Not at all. I want skills that encourages PCs to have a niche they can feel proud of rather than hsn ones that encourage a chorus of "oh I'm proficient too". Climbing the rigging is not relevant to nautical d&d campaigns because it doesn't really come up due to the difficulty in tracking movement in 3 dimensions

Truth be told, climbing the rigging can be/become very important in maritime campaigns. That said, rigging was-is usually made so as to be intentionally quite easy to climb; with the bigger challenges coming when you have to balance on a spar or hang on to a rope while at the same time trying to furl or release a heavy canvas sail once you're up there.

 

[Campbell]

Seems a little harsh. Any reason you can't just let people have their preferences here? So what if you think any simulation in D&D is delusional (which is what I'm getting from you here). A non-zero portion of the community disagrees with you, and has done so for decades. There's no need for either camp to be insulting.

It's not just having a preference or preferred aesthetic. It's the constant shaming of those who prefer different sorts of aesthetics by claiming their preferred model of how things work is nonsensical and lacks coherency when it is no less coherent than your games. Shaming others is not about preferences. Claiming you have the only coherent vision of how this stuff can work is not a preference. It's bullying.

 

[bloodtide]

It’s totally ok that D&D-world is silly and non-credible. It’s really fine (perhaps better than fine because it allows, demands really, each of us to have our novel D&D).

It is totally ok for some people. Also totally not ok for others.

D&D has been intensely safeguarded for decades against anything that pushes back against a very specific, novel approach to simulation. Decades. Since late 80s through today.

Too bad this safeguard can't stop all the "modern" changes....

 

[Micah Sweet]

It's not just having a preference or preferred aesthetic. It's the constant shaming of those who prefer different sorts of aesthetics by claiming their preferred model of how things work is nonsensical and lacks coherency when it is no less coherent than your games. Shaming others is not about preferences. Claiming you have the only coherent vision of how this stuff can work is not a preference. It's bullying.

Shaming goes both ways. I've seen it.

 

[pemerton]

I think it is true actually. Being in "reasonable shape" for something is not the same as being "even competent at something, let alone high-performing".

Back in the day, I was into cycling to the point where I was somewhat "above the herd". Then I got into running to the point where I was performing at what might be considered a reasonably high level.

And yet, I can't swim. Never learned as a kid. Took adult lessons, but clearly that doesn't replace the time and energy a kid can spend on this activity, because I am barely competent.

I would say that the CON developed from my cycling and running helps my swimming but only to the point where I don't drown in a pool because I have to cheat and hold my breath whilst front crawling through a lap. It makes me better at swimming than I should be, but nowhere near basic competence.

You can run forever and if you've never been on a bike in your life, you won't be good at riding it. You will need dex to learn the balance. You will need dex to turn the direction of the bike. Con will let you ride LONGER, but it isn't the stat you need in order to ride the bike. Dex is.

I am one of the clumsiest people that I know, and have poor catch reflexes and a poor ability to throw things so as to hit targets. Nor do I have particularly good balance. But I am a reasonably competent commuter cyclist. So cycling does not seem to depend heavily on some of the core capabilities that D&D groups under DEX.

@Ulorian - Agent of Chaos, I take your point about not having learned to swim at all. So let me add to my earlier post: in the world of D&D, every fighter - as they are learning to shoot, and jump, and fence, also learns to swim. Then they develop their core physical abilities as they do whatever it is in the fiction that corresponds to gaining levels on the PC sheet. And this is what the STR stat and the Athletics skill represent.

If we want a NPC who can fence but not shoot, or who can climb but not swim, nothing stops the GM creating that person. But that person is ruled out as a PC, just as the character build rules exclude many other possibilities that we can imagine, because the designers take those possibilities not to conduce to good game play.