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

[Bedrockgames]

Precisely.

Like I can't think of a better way to put the cart before the horse. Combat is only complex because it has a lot of rules.

For the record I prefer simple combat systems. I don’t think it has to be complex. I think peopke often want complexity because they want tactical options in combat. I just want rolls and mechanics because it sorts out something I find hard to model without them (whereas I can easily manage a social interaction with no mechanics). But that mechanic can be very simple. And frankly the simpler and faster the combat, the happier I generally am

 

[Hussar]

In all fairness, while you gave the player-side version of the situation we don't know what the DM has in mind.

But, again, that's the point.

The difference between good and bad here isn't apparent. From the player's side, they both look exactly the same. Even though the Good DM is 100% doing everything he's supposed to be doing according to the folks in this thread, from the player's POV, it's not really all that different. And, because of black box DMing, there's no real way to tell the difference.

 

[TwoSix]

Individual players risk their careers every time they step on the ice, and yet they still do it.

Sure, you can mitigate the odds and skillful players will work to do just that; but it still comes down to chance in the end.

Like a large portion of games, both luck and skill matter. Skill exists to increase the odds of success, but a random factor always plays a role (pun slightly intended).

 

[TwoSix]

I don't think I'm misunderstanding at all. My view have been consistent at least back to March 2018 - see, eg this post. And my posts in this thread are basically consistent with the idea of player agency set out in this quite recent thread: An examination of player agency

It strikes me as a little funny that all the participants I saw in that 2018 thread are also posting in this 2025 one (with the exception of @Ovinomancer). I think we might be stagnating a bit.

 

[AlViking]

Sigh. It would help SO much if you'd stop making this personal.

I have repeatedly stated that I'm running an Out of the Abyss 5e game. And I even posted exactly how I was doing exploration, which showed that nothing I was doing was proceedurally generated. It is possible to like more than one style of game. I know that's hard to believe, but, honest, it does happen.

The thing is, no, it doesn't become "pretty obvious". It really doesn't. Because very often both DM's make exactly the same calls. Just for different reasons. But, since the players cannot ever know the reasons, then the whole thing is far more similar looking than people think.

It wasn't my intent to make it personal and I'm not sure why you take it that way but sorry if it sounded like that. I think there are many valid approaches to TTRPGs and what works for one person may not work for someone else. I simply think that in most cases it becomes obvious whether someone is running a true sandbox or a linear game. A linear game is fine for me if I know what I'm signing up for unless it goes into railroad territory.

 

[Bedrockgames]

It strikes me as a little funny that all the participants I saw in that 2018 thread are also posting in this 2025 one (with the exception of @Ovinomancer). I think we might be stagnating a bit.

 

[Maxperson]

Nnnnnnope! I said I want more information than absolutely jack-all which is what Lanefan had said the player would know. (I am fairly confident I remember them saying that their players are essentially never told any numerical information if it can be avoided.)


"Working" would be "having at least a reasonable minimum of information to have a good chance of choosing wisely in most cases, even if a (lesser) chance of choosing unwisely remains." I then explicitly listed multiple possible ways the DM could do that, and amended them in a later post to address the (IMO excessive and kinda ridiculous) "you cannot ever tell the player anything about what their character might be thinking or feeling for any reason" criticism.

Did you read the examples I gave? Not one of them had any content that looked even remotely like "That will definitely work"/"That will definitely not work." All of them left some variable degree of saying that it could work, but that failure was still an option.

And because folks have been so persnickety about myself or others who agree with me ascribing extreme positions to them: you literally just did that. You literally replaced the (IMO rather tepid) position I took with the single most extreme possible position anyone could take on the subject ("it must work every time no matter what").

I feed extremely frustrated when it's unacceptable for me to (allegedly) do a particular thing and several people get upset about it, but then when someone else does that exact same thing to me, not one person who was so bothered by "extreme" positions speaks up—and several even like the posts that do that. This makes the conversation feel fundamentally unfair and biased: my actions will be policed closely and every deviation will be called out in the strongest possible terms, but even blatant examples from the "other side" (recognizing this is a spectrum not a binary, hence quotes) will be completely ignored or even appreciated.

This feeds into the overall feeling of double standards and, being frank, hypocrisy. "Rules for thee, not for me". I doubt that is anyone's intent. But...I mean...I'm being held to a standard that others demonstrably are not. That's really frustrating.


Nnnnnnope. Again gave several, specific examples. Not one of them required what you are claiming. You may consult my previous post if you wish to confirm this. I haven't changed anything about it (not for many hours, at least.)


No, it isn't. Because, again, I explicitly allowed for a grey area.

So I've missed several chunks of the thread, because of the speed of posting. I didn't see either the edit of your original post, or these explanations you gave later.

The position given by Lanefan was zero information. Nothing whatsoever beyond "you were hit." I asked for slightly more information, and I specified examples like (making this anew, not directly quoting myself, so there might be paraphrasing)

• "You are not sure if it would work, this is pretty dicey"
• "It's a long shot, but it might still make the difference"
• "You've blocked several blows in the past with this spell, this seems similar"

The first one doesn't tell me anything I didn't already know without the DM saying anything.

The second two would piss me off if the DM said them to me and the spell didn't work, because if the spell didn't work the DM has led me on with lies. There was no chance that it might make the difference. It was not similar to the ones that worked.

 

[Maxperson]

Okay.

Why is combat "unsatisfying and boring" with no mechanics, but other things become "unsatisfying and boring" with mechanics? You've claimed there is not just a divide but a hard divide, where one thing absolutely, desperately needs mechanics in order to not be pretty much awful, while the other needs to have no mechanics at all or it will become awful.

That level of stark difference requires defense. It can't just be asserted, or at least not if you expect people to take you remotely seriously.

Steak(combat mechanics) is nutritious.
Starving(no combat mechanics) is bad for the body.
Ingesting lead(non-magical mind control) is also bad for the body.

Combat is not the same as non-magical mind control.

 

[Maxperson]

OK? So what you're saying is that having 18 STR should make a D&D PC worse at climbing?

No. What I'm saying is that under certain circumstances it's a detriment to be heavier, such as when you are on an unstable cliff face. But you knew that.

 

[Maxperson]

So now, the reason for not telling a player the DC is because the D&D rules are wrong to base Climbing on STR?

I'll admit I've lost track of the argument.

You didn't watch the video.