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

[Maxperson]

There's a lot of space between the false binary of "rock, paper, scissors" and "complex tactical grid-based combat that plays like a skirmish wargame and takes hours for simple combats to be resolved." I mean, I get your point, and to some degree I agree with it, but I strongly dislike the level of combat complexity that 3e and above D&D has cultivated.

And Strawmen. Let's not forget the Strawmen that have me talking about wargame several hour combats.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I don't feel it's fortune (at least, not in the main). I carefully cultivate my friends and people don't join our group unless they are vetted by an existing member.

You're fortunate in that you could both do that and have it work.

I don't recall any real issues when we were in our early teens either. Looking back as objectively as I can, I think it's fair to say I was a bit more of an antagonistic GM (although part of that is that I was running MERP/RM, rolling on random encounter tables that include fell beasts and trolls in Mirkwood for 1st and 2nd level characters, so the game was just naturally super lethal). Some of my players would cheat a little to get their way, but we all knew it was all in good fun and not personal. Clearly, my players didn't feel I was just screwing with them, as they continued to game with me through high school and beyond, and we never fought about it.

This isn't about antagonism per se; you can have an antagonistic GM who is perfectly transparent and willing to admit errors.

Sure, people absolutely do. I don't get it and, to be honest, I think doing so is dumb. This, also might make me an outlier, but if so, I am certainly very happy to be so.

I'm just saying if you understand it happens there, you shouldn't be particularly surprised it happens here.

As mentioned, I probably am an outlier. But, if so, it's in no small part because I've made an effort to avoid pointless drama and angst in every aspect of my life.


I can see how my comments would come across that way at times -- certainly without their full context, but probably also with the context in some cases.

But if so, it's only because I honestly don't see the appeal of gaming in more volatile environments, or of making them volatile environments by regularly choosing to die on some hill or another of rule interpretation or stylistic differences. I can accept that some people are willing to accept that, but I don't think I'll ever really understand why they do.

Different things matter to different people. That's a truism. If you want to say you don't understand not extending trust in judgment as a default, well, that's your gig. But I think when people lump it together to include intentions, its misrepresenting people and basically, bad form.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I've always just leaned in and assumed the mechanics do what they say they do. Fighters jump off cliffs. It's easier to reify the mechanic as a setting norm and move on.

I understand why you do given your focus, but honestly, that's just an illustration that the mechanics are somewhat malformed here.

(I think it also produces some really bizarre deconstructionist things if applied to all genres. Some only work because people in-setting actively aren't aware of some conventions)

I don't disagree. I think a lot of the contention that they only work in limited environments (usually dungeon crawling) comes from here. I think that's mostly a self imposed limitation. You can just keep writing rules for things.

Yeah, but its obvious a lot of people, honestly, consider rules an undesirable impediment.

 

[SableWyvern]

If you want to say you don't understand not extending trust in judgment as a default, well, that's your gig. But I think when people lump it together to include intentions, its misrepresenting people and basically, bad form.

To be clear, I don't really understand not extending trust in judgement in an RPG session, where the stakes are low (worst case you waste a few hours, maybe a couple sessions) and the potential pay-off is reasonably high if it's something of interest to you (many sessions of fun).

There are many situations with more serious things at stake where caution makes much more sense to me.

Edit to add: I guess this is something of a sticking point for me because the best parts of gaming (for me) are directly related to things that can only occur with that trust, and the overall appeal of the hobby makes much less sense to me without that.

 

[Thomas Shey]

To be clear, I don't really understand not extending trust in judgement in an RPG session, where the stakes are low (worst case you waste a few hours, maybe a couple sessions) and the potential pay-off is reasonably high if it's something of interest to you (many sessions of fun).

I don't extend trust in judgment because I've seen no signs people aren't subject to failures here. Basically, I don't see any upside to it any more here than anywhere.

There are many situations with more serious things at stake where caution makes much more sense to me.

I don't limit caution about judgment to only serious things. Honestly, why would I? As long as everyone understands we're expecting people to fix problems they make, its not a hostile relationship, and I honestly find people who consider it one people who just don't like being challenged, or are what appears to me, overly fixated on speed.

 

[SableWyvern]

I don't extend trust in judgment because I've seen no signs people aren't subject to failures here. Basically, I don't see any upside to it any more here than anywhere.



I don't limit caution about judgment to only serious things. Honestly, why would I? As long as everyone understands we're expecting people to fix problems they make, its not a hostile relationship, and I honestly find people who consider it one people who just don't like being challenged, or are what appears to me, overly fixated on speed.

I'm not sure I disagree with any of that.

Lack of trust in the context I've been talking about is something like a hyper-vigilance for any possible slip, or an active worry that something might be a problem not because there are signs of a problem but simply because there is no overt proof there is no problem.

Trust in the context I've been talking about doesn't mean you don't speak up if something seems off, but it does mean you're generally inclined to believe the responses you receive unless there is really good reason not to, and there's an expectation that everyone is going to be dealing with everyone else in good faith.

 

[Maxperson]

I would also point out that 99.99% of the time, the difficulty of climbing something in D&D isn't anywhere near climbing something like El Capitan. But, this little sidebar about climbing does nicely illustrate why D&D has magic rules to bypass these sorts of challenges. I'm going to bet dollars to donuts that any group facing a climb of that difficulty would simply bang out a teleport spell (or something similar) and not worry about it at all.

Go go magic system FTW.

That's very unlikely. Most groups never make it to a level where they will have teleport. Most groups would use a combination of climbing, trailblazing, and low level magic like levitation for unclimbable/unpassable areas.

 

[zakael19]

How does one establish that players know this? Or, to phrase that somewhat differently (but IMO equivalently), what steps do player and DM alike need to take in order for this to be, as you say, "explicitly because" they know. It can't be explicit if it isn't spoken/written/etc., but every single person in this conversation has leaned almost exclusively on the implicit, the unspoken, the "social contract", all of the things that are never said and never will be said.

Wasn’t there a thread here recently (or maybe early in this one?) where various DMs were complaining vociferously about the idea of communication tools like X Cards / Stoplights / Lines and Veils showing up in the 2024 rules as encouraged guidelines?

 

[CreamCloud0]

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.

i don't see why not, it's abstracting a situation of someone who we're not performing with different capabilities to ours in a situation we're not directly in, how is the value of having nuanced combat mechanics actually fundamentally different from the value of nuanced social mechanics beyond personal preference? you've only labeled social mechanics 'lead' because you don't like them.

people can say things to the effect of 'but we can RP the conversation at the table' but players don't have the capabilities of their characters, i think it's a massive double standard when the barbarian or druid with -1 persuasion starts spouting out debate club-esc dialogue and the player's just 'well i'm RPing my character'.

so, hey i can deadlift some real heavy barbels, how does that affect my stick-limbed wizard's athletics capabilities?

 

[Faolyn]

See, but the Bad DM knows that the players will not like railroading, so, he covers his railroading by saying that the guard is a member of the temple guard. See, you're thinking that the Bad DM is stupid. He or she most certainly is not. See, the Bad DM doesn't think they are a Bad DM. They think they are a Good DM. And they know what Good DM's will do, because they see advice like this. So, again, from the player's POV, a lot of times Good and Bad look exactly the same.

No. Bad DMs aren't sitting there steepling their fingers and laughing evilly and trying to pretend they're good DMs. They're telling a specific story and don't want player interference in it. Plus, as I said, there's a pattern of behavior. Players will find out that the GM is railroading them. And no, it's not because the Bad DM is stupid and it's not because they're evil. It's because the Bad DM has a story to tell and the players are along for the ride. They don't care about the advice because that advice gets in the way of telling their story.

Anecdote time: Years and years ago--I mean, back in the 90s--someone in my then-group wanted to run a game of Changeling: the Dreaming. Now, this person had been in my game and basically tried to sabotage it[1], but at the time my ability to confront people was very poor so I never was able to deal with it properly. But Red Flag #1, as this indicated his pattern of behavior.

We were told to make characters who were students, staff, or faculty at a particular high school. That was our only character guideline. I wrote a character who was a substitute teacher as a way to pay the bills until she made it as a novelist. She liked being a substitute because it let her teach and also gave her plenty of free time to write.

He decided that the game involved sending us teachers on a quest to prove we were worthy of tenure, thus completely ignoring the fact that my character didn't want to be a full-time teacher. I mentioned that and he said no, I wanted tenure so I was going on the quest. Red Flag #2. (I can't remember why the students were along for the ride, but it was for a reason that ignored whatever was in their backgrounds as well.) I only went on the quest because, as I said, I was bad at confrontations at the time.

So we went to the Dreaming or whatever it's called in C:tD, found a village, and were quickly plonked down into a retelling of Snow White. Not what I was hoping for, and not actually interesting, but I can deal.

One of the other players was playing a redcap student. Dunno if you've ever played C:tD, but redcaps can eat. Like, anything and everything. They are always hungry and can't get full. That's a large part of their shtick. Anyway, at one point the PC said a curse word and, because this is the Dreaming, got hit in the face with a pie as punishment. The player quickly realized that cursing equals free food and started swearing up a storm. The GM realized what the player was doing and told him that his character was full and didn't want anymore pies. This is completely antithetical to the concept behind redcaps.

This player was very good at confrontation and did not want the GM to tell him what his character was thinking. Cue a huge argument and the end of the game.

--

I ran a Ravenloft game--not using D&D but a different system; can't remember which one (I've run Ravenloft in a lot of non-D&D systems). I asked this person repeatedly if they were OK with horror and they said yes. I asked the entire group after each session for feedback and complaints since I was new to GMing and very unsure of myself, and I and got crickets from him. I asked him specifically if there was anything he wanted to change and he said no. After a couple of sessions, he began to refuse to engage with the horror and played their character as a happy shiny fun person and made snide comments about the plot, descriptions, and everything else, thus completely ruining the mood. When I asked if he could tone it down, they said they didn't want to play a horror game and played their character that way to make it not be horror. Unfortunately, he was my BFFs housemate/landlord and it was his house, so I couldn't do much about getting him to leave.