D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

[EzekielRaiden]

Because the real world Logic is arising after the creation of the character. Making the NPC is a creative act but also constrained by what is reasonable in the setting, like whether there is an anti-drinking God. And the. That belief is what comes into play when the PC tries to ply him with alcohol.

You didn't respond to what I said.

Applying real-world logic AFTER a nonsensical character has been created cannot protect you from nonsense. That was the whole point. Garbage in, garbage out. When the DM can declare ANYTHING to be "reasonable in the setting"--which the example belief tells me they not only can, but will do--then the jig is up before things even got started.

 

[pemerton]

In the case of the guard, if every guard inexplicably has an unwillingness to be bribed, it can start to feel unrealistic. Likewise, if every guard is willing to accept the right bribe, or is willing to hear the PCs out in the name of agency, then the world can start to feel unrealistic.

Hence what dice rolls are for. I posted the Classic Traveller rules for this not too far upthread.

 

[AlViking]

I meant self-restraint as opposed to some game rules / mechanics that attempt to accomplish that restraint


I am not sure we communicate restraint outside of what scenario we present in game, let's take your example

I did not find the post you were referring to, I searched in this thread for your user and the term wizard. It reads as if it was your decision how things would develop, from a minor skirmish to a TPK or surrender by the party. It sounds like according to whatever rules the game had to 'restrain' you, the range was wide open in this case, so how do you decide what is appropriate?

Also, what is the goal of the enemy, do they just want to get rid of some nuisance and a TPK is just fine for them or do they want something from the characters?

I would try to pick an enemy party size that is reasonable (however you establish that, given that the rules give you a lot of leeway here, that probably at least means I am not going for either of the extremes). I would also see if I can give the players an out, like spotting the enemy party and avoiding it rather than having to make a stand under all circumstances and if it comes toa fight, I do hope the enemy is not content with accomplishing a TPK but has a different goal from that. Without more specifics (remember, I did not find the post you referred to), I cannot really tell how else I would restrain myself.

If we've agreed in session 0 that the players want a low lethality game, that's what I will shoot for because I'm not an a**hole who ignores what players want out of the game. The DMG gives me some general guidelines and I use my best judgment to ensure that's the kind of game we have.

This idea that I need any other kind of hard-coded restraint or that I'm so oblivious to my players reactions and what they tell me that I can't even trust myself is just foreign to me. Seriously, how could I not know that I totally screwed up? If it continues to happen and I don't address it, why would I still have players?

Anyway now I'm just rambling. Give me actual details and examples of what you're talking about and maybe the lights will turn on for me. Until then? Sounds like just more "my game is better than yours and you just can’t handle the truth".

 

[Bedrockgames]

You didn't respond to what I said.

Applying real-world logic AFTER a nonsensical character has been created cannot protect you from nonsense. That was the whole point. Garbage in, garbage out. When the DM can declare ANYTHING to be "reasonable in the setting"--which the example belief tells me they not only can, but will do--then the jig is up before things even got started.

I answered, but perhaps not to your satisfaction (which is fine). I guess my point was is if there is a pre-existing wrathful teetotaler deity, it isn't nonsense to have an NPC believe such a thing. I do think produces a silly tone (though maybe it could be done in a serious way).

 

[AlViking]

I answered, but perhaps not to your satisfaction (which is fine). I guess my point was is if there is a pre-existing wrathful teetotaler deity, it isn't nonsense to have an NPC believe such a thing. I do think produces a silly tone (though maybe it could be done in a serious way).

It was an unserious answer to an unserious scenario which is being taken out of context.

 

[Umbran]

Well, in my experience the goal of referees who describe their goal as "realism* is actually to fit certain received tropes combined with some wargame-y expectations.

Mod Note:
And in my experience, ascribing motives to folks to suggest their stated intent as... counterfactual, shall we say...
1) suggests the discussion is likely beyond a useful point.
2) ends a poorly.

You don't want to be at that poor end, I expect, so please, respect, or take a break.

 

[robertsconley]

Perhaps I'm missing something, but I don't understand what your Bandits and Brigands supplement is adding - in terms of concepts, or social organisation, or the like - to the 1977 Monster Manual entries (in the "Men" section).

It has nothing to do with the 1977 Monster Manual.

 

[Bedrockgames]

It was an unserious answer to an unserious scenario which is being taken out of context.

Yeah, I think we have probably ballooned this example into something much more than it was originally intended (which just seemed like an off the cuff explanation of the NPCs personality trait).

 

[pemerton]

if the roll is made and they turn out not to take the bribe, wasn't it the DMs choice to adjudicate in that way?

This is where we get back to the question of what heuristic does the GM use to call for a roll?

In Classic Traveller, the GM isn't the one who calls for a roll. It uses the AW-esque approach of "if you do it, you do it".

In scene-framing-and-stakes type games, the GM and player together determine whether the scene puts something at stake: if it doesn't, the GM says 'yes' and if it does then the check is made.

In classic D&D, I think the default approach is similar to Traveller, using the reaction table, and treating the bribe as yielding a reaction modifier (just as dropping gold can be a technique to assist evasion).

I'm not sure what the range of "mainstream" approaches is in 5e D&D, though.

 

[The Firebird]

Which brings us back to @EzekielRaiden's question from one or two hundred posts upthread: is it possible to say more about what makes for good or for poor GMing?

Upthread I suggested that it involves adherence to principles - such as ensuring that salient information is reasonably knowable - and not using the authorship of setting element to force players into follow-the-GM's-breadcrumb excursions in order to be able to feasibly pursue their goals in the sandbox (and my example of this was being sent on a gorgon-killing quest by the King of Thracia, when the real action the players are interested in is saving their city from a siege).

Many posters have responded by suggesting that principles, heuristics, processes and the like are to be eschewed. Yet also speak about GMing using normative language (eg "poor" GMing). Are the norms really that ineffable?

As far as I've seen everyone believes there is good and bad GMing. There is just disagreement about the principles. For example, I disagree with you about the siege case.