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

[zakael19]

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.

Many such cases these days too, I haven't played with a group of friends in person since I was like 16! It's always a bit hairy sitting down with a random group online or in person. Oddly enough, I dont think I've ever gotten a session 0 in a game I've been a player in? That's often a good initial vibe check of how the GM's going to run things.

Interesting. I guess questions of player authority over characters mental state is a bit different in this sort of game, but it seems like it still resembles more AW-like PBTAs.

Belonging outside Belonging is a fork off the PBTA family tree. Some of the most gorgeous collaborative storytelling games around.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Your assumption is wrong. The players have the majority of information, not 5% or less.

Really? Really.

You're opening up >50% of the DM's notes for the players to read?

Really.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

What you're asking for the equivalent of removing saving throws from every spell

Nope! But remember folks: when other people invent strawmen of my arguments, that's perfectly fine. When other people put words in my mouth, that's fine. When other people ascribe extreme positions to me, that's fine.

It's only when I do it to the fans of DM-above-all styles that it's a problem.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

On rare occasions I just can't explain and have to say, "Trust me. I've thought this through." and since my players know from the above that I do think things through and they are based on reasoning, they instantly agree and we move on.

Okay.

What happens if they don't?

I've had exactly this question asked of my own side with the expectation of an answer (specifically, people asserting that a single final authority is always absolutely required--"What happens when you can't achieve consensus?") I know, for an absolute fact, you specifically were one of the people who asked me that question.

So: What happens when the players don't "instantly agree and [you all] move on"?

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

A better example would be casting suggestion on an enemy and that enemy rolling a successful save. The spell slot is gone and the caster got nothing out of it. Casting shield in effect makes the "DC" for the enemy, AC+5. If the enemy rolls over that DC, you are hit and the spell slot is gone.

What is also being overlooked by @EzekielRaiden is that the +5 to AC lasts until the caster's next turn, so it works against all other attacks until then, potentially causing other would be hits to miss.

I did not overlook that--and specifically edited my post to reflect the ongoing benefit (as I had previously said the spell would be totally worthless, which isn't true--it's just mostly so since the DM will just adjust their tactics around its usage.)

It might behoove you to not try to read minds. It would seem you don't have access to 8th level spells quite yet.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

But (the fear of) bad faith is exactly the topic we are talking about.

It's certainly not what I'm talking about.

I've already said, repeatedly, that intentional bad behavior--which is what participating in "bad faith" means--is a vanishingly small proportion of the issue.

The issue is all of the many^100 ways a DM can be participating in good faith and messing up. Or while misunderstanding. Or having been taught wrong. Or cutting corners. Or letting ends justify means. Or hamfistedly. Or unskillfully. Or...etc., ad infinitum, ad nauseam.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

3. Ask questions of your GM if you're unsure, and trust that they are providing the best answers they can.

WHAT answers???

That's what I'm getting at here. The only """answer""" everyone gives is "you just HAVE to trust them". That's it. That's all people ever give. Well, that or (as noted) "wow, your inability to trust sucks for you" patronizing mockery, or the magic word "context" as though that actually answered anything rather than just sweeping things under a rug, hiding everything inside the black box as always.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

You can tell them. I don't recall anything in the books saying you have to. Sounds like personal preference to me.

Did I say "have to"?

Please point to me where I said "have to". Or anything even like "have to".

 

[Bedrockgames]

Okay.

What happens if they don't?

I've had exactly this question asked of my own side with the expectation of an answer (specifically, people asserting that a single final authority is always absolutely required--"What happens when you can't achieve consensus?") I know, for an absolute fact, you specifically were one of the people who asked me that question.

So: What happens when the players don't "instantly agree and [you all] move on"?

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

There is definitely room for reasonable discussions on calls. But if I was in a group that broke down and couldn't move on, I would stop playing with them. he ability to move on is something I consider pretty important. When I was younger I remember having to play with people who would hold up a game over a dispute and I realized at a certain point, you just need to move on.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Have you tried talking to these GMs?

Have you ever tried showing people what talking to them would look like?

I play D&D-like games with rules all the time. They work pretty well for me. To me you are once again significantly overstating your position.

And to me this is pretending that the issue is dramatically less serious than it really is.

OSR-type gamers are actively antagonistic to the idea that rules are useful. I've seen it over and over again, here and elsewhere.