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

[EzekielRaiden]

Yes. It's not a Strawman. Wanting Shield to always succeed against a saving throw(Plus to hit vs. AC) in order not to lose a slot is equivalent to wanting charm person to always succeed against a saving throw(Save bonus vs. DC) in order not to lose a slot.

It is a strawman because I don't want it to "always" succeed.

I just want more information than "you were hit" if I'm playing in a game--and I think it is needlessly punitive to give nothing more.

You didn't say it in direct words, but that's what your words mean. To hit vs. AC is just a saving throw done differently.

Translation: "I admit you didn't say it, I'm just projecting onto you an argument you didn't make."

Which is literally what a strawman argument is. You're attacking a position I didn't take and wouldn't take, because it's foolish.

 

[SableWyvern]

Ezekiel's position seems a bit more extreme than mine, but I'll just say I find the demand for unlimited trust here a little odd.

Trust isn't unlimited. It's just that in 40 odd years of gaming, my personal experience is that trust does not get abused or used up over elf games. I've never had to work hard to establish trust in my groups, it exists naturally. If there were people who couldn't be trusted or made ongoing demands for evidence of good faith, they were filtered our quickly enough that I don't remember them.

If there are any doubts, there's no secret process to clearing them up. You have a quick chat and move on. No one is interested in stopping the fun over some petty disagreement (and I would categorise any disagreements I've ever had over gaming as fairly petty. It's just not that important, certainly not enough to damage friendships over).

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Yes. It's not a Strawman. Wanting Shield to always succeed against a saving throw(Plus to hit vs. AC) in order not to lose a slot is equivalent to wanting charm person to always succeed against a saving throw(Save bonus vs. DC) in order not to lose a slot.

You didn't say it in direct words, but that's what your words mean. To hit vs. AC is just a saving throw done differently.

And, what would actually be wrong with that?

 

[Micah Sweet]

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

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.

"Hey there. This thing you just stated doesn't make sense to me. Can you please explain why this happened?"

"Well, I figured this is how it would work based on my understanding of X".

"X doesn't work that way. Its actually more like Y".

Cue discussion that ends when one side capitulates or a compromise is reached.

Most other conversations people have that involve a disagreement IME also break down to something like this. No matter what the subject. Strangely, neither of us need an external rules framework to keep the GM in check.

 

[The Firebird]

Okay. That answers the question of "what happens if you hit a totally, completely irreconcilable problem".

It doesn't answer the question "what happens if the player doesn't 'instantly agree'?" Because that was the thing said. That players would "instantly" agree and everyone would move on. I consider that a ridiculously pie-in-the-sky perspective. There are going to be not just a few things but plenty of things where players won't "instantly agree and...move on". Indeed, framing it in those terms, of instant agreement, is precisely my problem here, and why I use terms like "capitulate" or "surrender" or "submission" or the like--the vast majority of things where I agree "instantly" with someone I had previously disagreed with enough to raise the issue, I'm definitely not going to agree "instantly", and the only way I could reach "instant" agreement is by just suppressing any and all advocacy for my own interests, aka, total capitulation.

-Hey GM why'd you make this ruling?

-I don't need any spoilers to tell you--I decided the cliff was that way because X.

-Hmm, but that seems inconsistent with your previous cliff ruling. How are they going to work in the future?

Then the GM says:

1) you're right, I screwed it up. Thanks, I'll do better I'm the future.

2) no, it's different because Y. That's why I made that decision.

...And you just keep iterating on this, until you resolve the issue or decide you're not going to agree with the GM. If the disagreement isn't a big deal, you keep playing. If not, you figure it out.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

The notes are a minority. Game play, the world description, the rules, prior game history, etc. will inform the players on how things should most likely go. The players have most of the information already.

My experience with trad DMing is that players almost always have significantly less information than the DM thinks, usually much less than an actual person would have, and rarely retain key information over time.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Not really, when that "school of thought" actively attacks any and all possibilities of developing game design, using game design to solve real problems, or doing anything whatever to develop the game further. It instead says "rules don't matter, do whatever you like, stop trying to make rules, rules suck and will always and only make things worse, never ever ever ever ever add rules no matter what".

Again, I've seen this over and over, on this forum and elsewhere. OSR people are constantly dragging literally every single discussion of rules design into "well you don't NEED rules for anything, so rules are stupid and pointless, never add new ones for any reason, doesn't matter what good they might do." You have to defend the very idea that a rule could ever, under any circumstances, be more productive than not having a rule for something.

If the OSR had their way, nobody would ever be allowed to play anything but FKR.

From my perspective, Narrativist enthusiasts are constantly dragging every single discussion of rules design into a simultaneous advertisement for Narrativist games and a relentless interrogation of non-Narrativist playstyles.

But you don't see me complaining!

 

[AlViking]

My experience with trad DMing is that players almost always have significantly less information than the DM thinks, usually much less than an actual person would have, and rarely retain key information over time.

If I think people have forgotten something I think their character should know I just remind them. If there's ever a situation where they don't know something or remember something they're free to ask, and do.

They don't have perfect knowledge because I'm not playing a narrativist game.

 

[Micah Sweet]

-Hey GM why'd you make this ruling?

-I don't need any spoilers to tell you--I decided the cliff was that way because X.

-Hmm, but that seems inconsistent with your previous cliff ruling. How are they going to work in the future?

Then the GM says:

1) you're right, I screwed it up. Thanks, I'll do better I'm the future.

2) no, it's different because Y. That's why I made that decision.

...And you just keep iterating on this, until you resolve the issue or decide you're not going to agree with the GM. If the disagreement isn't a big deal, you keep playing. If not, you figure it out.

Yup. I'm sorry, but this all feels pretty straightforward.

 

[SableWyvern]

My experience with trad DMing is that players almost always have significantly less information than the DM thinks, usually much less than an actual person would have, and rarely retain key information over time.

I agree players can forget a lot of information. Speaking for myself as a GM, I don't believe I generally forget this, and I'll check with a player and remind them of things if they're making decisions that appear to overlook things their chactet should recall.

Similarly, if the players are going over known info, I'll clarify things if it appears they don't understand as well as the characters would.

With two week gaps between sessions, no actual lifelong training in key skills, no visceral understanding of what it's really like to sneak up on a liche king, the players can't be expected to reliably hold all their characters knowledge.

However, recognising that makes it reasonable easy to deal with, and I consider it critical that my players never feel disadvantaged based on the fact they understand a situation differently than they would if really there.