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

[Campbell]

I will also add that if social encounters are not likely to be hotly contested, we are likely having very different sorts of social encounters. Looking back at my last 5 years or so of play, even including a good deal of OSR play, likely around 60-70% of the high leverage moments were social encounters or layered combat/social encounters. Maybe 15% have been violent ones and most of those would likely be heavily, heavily influenced by deals struck as a result of social conflicts.

This likely a big part of why we approach these things differently.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I'm in favor of very strong rules procedures, especially including skill rules, that are primarily designed for players to deploy against GM generated content. I don't think the question of rules/rulings breaks down nearly on either side of this divide.

Though we don't come from exactly the same place (and I disagree with some elements of your second paragraph I clipped out) I'm right with you here. Its not a coincidence I've been on both sides of the ongoing argument here at various points.

 

[Thomas Shey]

The fact that you think you need rules to "deploy against GM generated content" tells me that you're approach to gaming is pretty much antithetical to mine whether I'm the GM or player. It's not GM vs Player in games I run or play.

He didn't say against the GM. He said against "GM generated content". Pedantic is heavily gamist and is interesting in setting things up so the game elements have teeth. To the degree he's talking about being "against the GM" its only in the sense of the GM being the guy who's processes he's playing against. Its not a description of a hostile relationship.

 

[Lanefan]

But you would screw them over if they cast it and it turned out the opponent hit them by more than +4, almost entirely wasting the spell slot? One would think a spellcaster using the spell would have a pretty good idea whether it would work or not, but your statements point in the other direction.

Sometimes it might be obvious, other times not.

That, and were it me running it reaction spells like that would cease to exist in a real hurry; you'd have to cast it ahead of time and if it helps, it helps and if it doesn't, it doesn't. Maybe the opponent would have missed anyway.

I really dislike any mechanics that alter things - particularly die roll results - after they've in theory already happened. Once the die is rolled, it's too late.

Because that's the thing here. If they hit you by 5 or more, then shield is pointless and using it is almost entirely wasteful. If they hit you by anything less than 5 (e.g. anything between exactly hitting your AC and hitting 4 more than your AC), then shield makes the attack miss, making it very valuable.

And that's the gamble, isn't it.

In a world where you cannot ever know whether the margin is close enough or not, shield is...not quite worthless, but definitely has gotten an ENORMOUS nerf. Given it doesn't scale at all and is basically just a way to make use of your lower-level spell slots, that might not quite kill it, but it would definitely be far less useful.

If you're getting pinged with Magic Missiles it still has a rather obvious use; and that was its primary intended function in days of old, as a specialized defense for casters against the otherwise-undefendable Magic Missile interrupting their spells all the time.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Well, "if you don't telegraph you have to go by whatever else remains" kind of gets to my point because whatever else remains is up to the GM. Now, it sounds like to me you're willing to share this information if the players ask via Q&A. I like getting the players to ask about the environment, but I don't really like the idea that they may miss something that a character in that actual situation wouldn't be likely to miss.

I am willing to share what I think they would be able to access through observation or interaction. But I am also fine with them going blind sometimes. I think that is more lifelike and it helps emphasize the hazards of adventuring in the world. This is just a difference of view which is fine. You wouldn't want the to be able to miss something (it is a different style of play but a game like Gumshoe sort of takes this approach with clues: that is one way and it works, but adventures where clues can be missed and you can fail are another approach---these are just preferences). Old School play I don't think is particularly miserly, and will generally give you what you see. But also allows for things being missed (the fear of missing something is I find an important part of play on the player side).

This is why I just default to sharing as much information as possible. Give them the details they need to make a play and then we see what happens. This slow meticulous approach is not one I'm crazy about. And yeah, if the 10' poles come out, then I'm gonna smash my head against the table.

And that is fine. I don't question your preference. But try to understand, this isn't a universal thing. Some people like approaching things the way I am describing (and there isn't anything wrong with it, nor is there anything wrong with games being designed this way or GM advice that encourages this).

I get you don't like the ten foot pole. That stuff doesn't bother me if people are enjoying themselves. As a player I like a bit of caution and as a GM I am cool with players trying to manage their risks (I don't usually see a literal 10 foot pole but I certainly see these kinds of approaches if they are worried about traps and that is fair)

 

[AlViking]

He didn't say against the GM. He said against "GM generated content". Pedantic is heavily gamist and is interesting in setting things up so the game elements have teeth. To the degree he's talking about being "against the GM" its only in the sense of the GM being the guy who's processes he's playing against. Its not a description of a hostile relationship.

Poh-tae-toe poh-tah-toe. If the GM is the one generating the content then it's GM vs player. I've never needed nor wanted that kind of control, even if I had a GM or two over the years that I decided to cease playing with.

 

[Faolyn]

I obviously have not read this game, but I'd assume that 'Rough Them Up' adjudicates an attempt to get something from someone by use of violent coercion. So presumably a 6- indicates the attempt failed to produce the desired results, or lead to undesirable consequences. It would seem to me that fiction along the lines of"you can't bring yourself to punch her in the face" would be within bounds. Again, I don't know the agenda of this game, perhaps I am wrong.

Anyway, Narrativist game design doesn't mandate something like BW Steel. DW, for example, doesn't really need that sort of mechanic, though as with your example, certain outcomes could be cast that way.

You're more or less correct as to what the 6 or less means--you fail to produce the desired results. The reason why, however, would be up to the player to decide (there's no set event that happens on a failed roll). This happens to be a game where you mark conditions when you're hurt in some way. One of the conditions is Doubt, which gives you a -2 to Rough 'Em Up (but a bonus to a different move), and I can very easily say that a miss when Doubt is marked means I couldn't bring myself to actually punch. I could even see making that decision when Doubt isn't marked, if the situation calls for it.

Since the game is also a Belonging Outside Belonging game, it's GMless. So while there's no GM to require certain responses, there would be other players who can make the suggestion, which I understand is what happens in BW. But the other players can't require it.

 

[Lanefan]

Again: no.

It is that...let me put as much emphasis on this as I possibly can...

IF

If something concerning happens, what can be done? What options do I have? How can I expect accountability? How can I ask for redress? How can I work toward a fixed situation, where the concerns have been properly dealt with in a way any reasonable person could call fair and forthright?

TBH, if things have got to the point of "expect[ing] accountability" and "ask[ing] for redress" the situation is 99% likely unsalvageable, because - in my view anyway - if terms like that are being invoked things have already escalated to the point of no return.

Then again, it'd have to be something mighty serious (e.g. the DM telling me to my face to eff off or being blatantly unfair in running the game) to get me to the point of seeking accountability or redress anyway. I'm not talking about things like minor rules disagreements - those happen all the time, no big deal - and someone would have to work pretty hard to actually offend me (I see disagreeable and offensive as different things and while I've limited tolerance for 'disagreeable' my 'offensive' bar is very high).

You're not going to turn disagreeable people into something else just by talking to them; it's often just how they are, and it really does come down to take it or leave it.

There are other options. You can have someone who is playing fast and loose with the trust given to them because they believe it's the right thing to do, or the necessary thing, or that the ends justify the means. You can have someone who is accidentally giving off really really really bad vibes even though not one single thing they're doing is actually a problem. You can have someone who is usually entirely wonderful, but every now and then they hear that siren song, to just this once, just for a moment, "bend the rules". Etc., etc., etc.

There are an infinitude of ways for a GM to be less-than-saintly but in no way actually a jerk. To have zip-zero-nada ill intent, but still acting for ill. I, as a social person, want to be able to fix that. I don't want my only options to be "well I guess I just have to take it" or the outright nuclear option of leaving.

But every single time, that's literally the only two options you folks give me. Those are the only answers. Either I do nothing, or the game is completely over. I want other options! I want to know that I can work things out with people!

Which is fair enough.

That said, it does come across that you're seeking perfection in people rather than accepting 'good enough', which might be why the answers you're getting are rather black-and-white.

 

[Lanefan]

Max implied that providing the DC numbers for the climbing example may give away more information than he prefers.
Maybe it is the meta of it maybe not, but providing the AC number the opponent successfully attained with their attack roll allows one to determine whether the Shield spell, which provides a +5 to AC, will work. Both are giving away numbers.
It would be hypocritical to give a way one set of meta data but be uncomfortable with giving away another based on some notion of realism. Particularly with these specific examples since they are so similar.

I wouldn't give away either number.

 

[Lanefan]

Speaking for myself, if I had lost trust in my group, it would indicate some crisis of friendship bigger than roleplaying.

To be fair, from prior posts it seems Ezekiel doesn't play with an in-person group; his play is (entirely?) online with people he hasn't met in real life, which is a rather different situation than playing in-person with friends.