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

[EzekielRaiden]

Exactly. I have heard enough nightmare DM stories to know GMs don't always act in good faith. I've PLAYED with DMs that don't act in good faith. I have more bad DM stories than bad player stories, and I have plenty of bad player stories.

GMs are getting a pass because Enworld is full of GMs.

Not sure if this has gotten a response from someone else yet (with over 12 pages of replies, that's at least 220 posts, and I just do not have the spoons to read that many posts), just noting that this very, very much comports with my experience of ENWorld discussion.

It's discussion of GMs, by GMs, and for GMs. Naturally, GMs are going to take the stance that GMs are trustworthy--and per the fundamental attribution error, they're going to read character faults into player motives, while explaining their own with reference to external circumstance ("I was tired", "I forgot something", "real-life issues reduced my usual prep time", etc., rather than "laziness", "inattentiveness", or "not being invested enough").

 

[Bedrockgames]

Again, you are not responding to the thing I said.

I did. Again you might not like my reasoning, but I did respond

 

[zakael19]

Not sure if this has gotten a response from someone else yet (with over 12 pages of replies, that's at least 220 posts, and I just do not have the spoons to read that many posts), just noting that this very, very much comports with my experience of ENWorld discussion.

It's discussion of GMs, by GMs, and for GMs. Naturally, GMs are going to take the stance that GMs are trustworthy--and per the fundamental attribution error, they're going to read character faults into player motives, while explaining their own with reference to external circumstance ("I was tired", "I forgot something", "real-life issues reduced my usual prep time", etc., rather than "laziness", "inattentiveness", or "not being invested enough").

I routinely read r/DMAcademy. It's quite a place. Often the replies are even worse than the original "am I an arsehole" type posts (some occasional good advice in there though).

Edit: the 2024 DMG takes some steps towards trying to curb teh worst impulses of behavior via some baseline expectations. It holds up "fun" as the primary goal of play, which is perhaps not ideal, but it at least stresses communication; impartiality; feedback; clearly states that all the information players need to make decisions is entirely on your shoulders to share generously; and to look for "obstacles to success" and glossing over stuff with a narrative summary.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Not sure if this has gotten a response from someone else yet (with over 12 pages of replies, that's at least 220 posts, and I just do not have the spoons to read that many posts), just noting that this very, very much comports with my experience of ENWorld discussion.

It's discussion of GMs, by GMs, and for GMs. Naturally, GMs are going to take the stance that GMs are trustworthy--and per the fundamental attribution error, they're going to read character faults into player motives, while explaining their own with reference to external circumstance ("I was tired", "I forgot something", "real-life issues reduced my usual prep time", etc., rather than "laziness", "inattentiveness", or "not being invested enough").

I dont' have any problem with players. My players are all great. And I play in multiple groups and have a large number of players I am in touch with that I can bring into games if I need more. I trust players and GMs. I think people are reacting to some of presumptions of GMs being untrustworthy here. I am not saying GMs are flawless. But most of the people I game with are pretty relaxed about this stuff.

 

[Pedantic]

How can we even communicate, if their idea of "reasonable" is so far removed from my own, the two no longer intersect, or only intersect in a thin sliver?

That doesn't sound like a TTRPG mechanics problem. If your level of disagreement or lack of commonplace with another person is that profound, I'm not sure playing games with them should be your biggest concern.

 

[Lanefan]

I am pretty sure it followed a sequence of posts where @Hawkeye had mentioned rolls having meaning when characters try to bribe. Either way, what I had in mind at the time was social skill rolls.

FYI when you tag "Hawkeye" I think you're tagging someone different than the "hawkeyefan" with whom you're conversing.

 

[Bedrockgames]

On bad GMs, I haven't had that many, but I have certainly encountered some. My reaction has always been to not play with them. Also it usually isn't that the GM is badly skilled (I can have fun playing a game run by someone who isn't a great GM). The problem is usually more about personality. And I've met my share of players who are like that too. On think on either side of the screen, you have people who can ruin the game for everyone. But I think most people just want to have a good time and unwind

 

[EzekielRaiden]

However, D&D-type settings have absolute boat loads of capital-e Evil gods, so sure, keeping that in mind, having a puri-tyrranical Evil god who is willing to visit punishment to an entire family because daddy drank some booze is perfectly realistic. It's also pretty dumb, but let's face it, most D&D-type pantheons are pretty dumb.

This reads to me as "well no, but actually yes."

Calling it "dumb" is precisely the problem here. It is so monumentally dumb, I can't take it seriously. Also, as an aside, seems like the term "realistic" is kinda misplaced when you literally have to contrast it against "real-world realistic"! Feels like that's a good reason to drop the term (which, note, I personally have; I only use that term here because that's what others are using, such as yourself.)

And it's quite possible to make a D&D pantheon that isn't dumb. 4e did so quite handily--up to and including deities who accidentally cut themselves off at the knees with their efforts, such as Erathis with Arkhosia and Bael Turath. She supported their war, because she figured no matter who won, she'd win too, by having a lawful society rule the world. Then it turned out that it was possible for everyone to lose, and she was pissed to thus be one of the losers as well.

 

[Bedrockgames]

FYI when you tag "Hawkeye" I think you're tagging someone different than the "hawkeyefan" with whom you're conversing.

Damn you re right. I keep forgetting the 'fan' part

 

[Lanefan]

Here's my question though.

Why are they trying to discover these things? Why are they exploring physical geography or a town's social network? These aren't goals in and of themselves. These are means to an end.

Sometimes the journey is just as - or more - interesting than the destination.

Or put another way: sometimes the means justify the ends*.

* - which is how I once described our band playing music - the means (playing music and having fun doing so) justified the ends (some at-times-pretty-bad recordings).

IOW, limited knowledge is simply a means of stalling the players from doing whatever it is they actually want to do while they spend time uncovering information that leads them to the stuff that's of actual interest. The players don't really care if the Dungeon of Nasty Badness is in Hex 1211 or Hex 1213. They want to go to the Dungeon of Nasty Badness.

Flip side: just because they want to go to the Dungeon of Nasty Badness doesn't mean they're gonna get a safe paved road straight to its entrance. There's going to be red herrings and distractions and random encounters and so forth, and if they get caught up in all that instead then so be it.