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

[Hussar]

See, but, I keep trying to tie this back to the idea of "just trust the DM" and "bad DM's are easy to spot". The problem with that all revolves around the point that in trad games, the DM decision making process is largely a black box. It's really, really hard to know and asking doesn't really help very much because very often you will get the same answer from both good and bad DM's, just for different reasons.

I am absolutely sure that the DM in my example saw nothing wrong with what she did. And, considering the groups that she had afterwards seemed pretty happy, there is no reason to think that she would have seen any problem. I'm sure that she just shrugged, said good riddance to bad players and kept right on doing exactly what she was doing.

Which, frankly, seems to be the core of most of the advice here. Don't like what the DM is doing? Walk. The advice never seems to be, "If your players are unhappy, it's quite possibly because you, the DM, are doing something wrong." And any attempt to bring transparency to the process is met with a great deal of resistance. "Oh, I can't tell you that, it will ruin the surprise of the campaign". As if "the surprise of the campaign" was more important than having happy players.

 

[AlViking]

See, but, I keep trying to tie this back to the idea of "just trust the DM" and "bad DM's are easy to spot". The problem with that all revolves around the point that in trad games, the DM decision making process is largely a black box. It's really, really hard to know and asking doesn't really help very much because very often you will get the same answer from both good and bad DM's, just for different reasons.

I am absolutely sure that the DM in my example saw nothing wrong with what she did. And, considering the groups that she had afterwards seemed pretty happy, there is no reason to think that she would have seen any problem. I'm sure that she just shrugged, said good riddance to bad players and kept right on doing exactly what she was doing.

Which, frankly, seems to be the core of most of the advice here. Don't like what the DM is doing? Walk. The advice never seems to be, "If your players are unhappy, it's quite possibly because you, the DM, are doing something wrong." And any attempt to bring transparency to the process is met with a great deal of resistance. "Oh, I can't tell you that, it will ruin the surprise of the campaign". As if "the surprise of the campaign" was more important than having happy players.

In the game where a proprietor left in the middle of the night it was pretty easy to identify a bad DM. Did you try talking to her?

I just don't think rules and restrictions will automatically fix every GM. At least not in a game I want to play.

 

[Faolyn]

Again, the goalposts are on roller skates.

The statement was that all RPG's MUST have rules that are complex in combat, simple outside of combat.

That is flat out not true. There are all sorts of RPG's where that isn't true.

Again, I make zero claims of preference here. I am ONLY responding to the statement that it is impossible to have a system where non-combat rules are as complex as combat rules.

And I'm not talking about all RPGs; I was talking about one type of RPG (that I personally am not fond of). And maybe I missed it, but I don't think anyone has actually said that all RPGs must have complex combat and simple non-combat rules. I don't think anyone has even said that most games should have complex combat and simple non-combat. If someone did say that, point 'em out to me and I'll make shame carrots at them.

 

[pemerton]

This is El Capitan. On average 2-3 people die climbing it every year.
View attachment 405081

There is no way from the base of the cliff that you can tell if there are handholds for any particular route up this from the base. You simply won't be able to see enough detail. The first woman to free climb it in history was in 2020. It is an incredibly difficult climb. There are worse of course, cliffs no one has ever climbed. I mention this one because I've seen it up close and even in my young and stupid days there's no way I would have considered climbing this.

I don't really care though because this is not about the DC I set for this particular cliff. In D&D the default is that the DM decides the DC, the monsters, the NPCs, every tree, bush and blade of grass that is relevant to the game. I set the DC at what makes sense to me. Making accusations and nit-picking things you obviously do not understand does not change that. You may not like the base assumptions of D&D, I do.

On a quick review of the El Capitan Wikipedia page, there seem to be over 50 people named as having climbed in the past 70-odd years. There are also said to have been over 30 fatalities in the past 120-odd years.

Suppose, just for the sake of my maths, that there are another 50 people who have successfully climbed it but haven't made it onto the Wikipedia page - that would make the fatality rate 1 in 4.

In D&D terms, that means a fatal fall on a roll of 5 or lower on the d20. Supposing that the climbers have bonuses of around +10 (good STR, trained in Athletics, perhaps Expertise), that suggests a DC of around 15, perhaps 20 if not all failures are adjudicated as falling, and/or if climbs that used more elaborate equipment are treated as having been made with Advantage.

And on the issues of the GM revealing DCs: you say that "even in my young and stupid days there's no way I would have considered climbing this" - doesn't that suggest that an experienced PC might be able to intuit difficulties?

And as for the presence or lack of handholds on the route that the character chooses to try - isn't that what the d20 roll is for? (Similarly to how it works in the other sorts of situations I mentioned upthread.)

 

[pemerton]

The stakes aren't how will the guard respond. They are how will the players get past the obstacles to reach their goal.

That doesn't really seem like stakes, though.

That's a puzzle, or obstacle course.

 

[pemerton]

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?

Probably!

 

[pemerton]

The reason why combat can become unsatisfying and boring without mechanics is because it can very easily devolve into how kids play: "I shot you!" "No you didn't!" "Yes I did!" "Nuh-uh!" "Uh-huh!" And so on.

The same thing can happen in social contexts, of course.

 

[Hussar]

And I'm not talking about all RPGs; I was talking about one type of RPG (that I personally am not fond of). And maybe I missed it, but I don't think anyone has actually said that all RPGs must have complex combat and simple non-combat rules. I don't think anyone has even said that most games should have complex combat and simple non-combat. If someone did say that, point 'em out to me and I'll make shame carrots at them.

Ask and ye shall receive:

Combat has more rules, because it's a complex part of the game. I don't think it has that many rules because of uncertainty. Unless you are saying that the complexity of combat creates confusion which also means uncertainty, and so the combat rules are needed. That I can agree with.

Which is largely the start of the conversation chain that led to my very cherry picked response being called out. After all, the quoted part of my response missed 90% of the response in order to focus on a single sentence out of context.

 

[Old Fezziwig]

The same thing can happen in social contexts, of course.

Right, this is what I was thinking of (but didn't quite communicate) back in #4509.

 

[SableWyvern]

Which, frankly, seems to be the core of most of the advice here. Don't like what the DM is doing? Walk.

My advice is:

• If you don't like what the GM is doing, mention it.
• If you don't like the answers you get, try and find a compromise solution.
• If you can't reach a solution that satisfies you, leave. No player should feel obligated to participate in a game they're not comfortable with, and hanging around with a group where a satisfactory compromise is not possible is unlikely to be much fun.

From the GMs perspective, I see:

• If a player has a problem, work with them to find a solution that works for them, if possible.
• If giving them what they need in this case would result in running a game in a style that you're not ready or willing to do, there is no need to just give them what they want regardless. A GM should never feel obligated to run a game in a fashion they're not comfortable with. If the player doesn't like your game, it's not as if they're required to stick around and play.

I have very little time for arguments that devolve down to, "I don't like this style of play, thus the GM shouldn't subject me to it," (that's a general comment, not directed specifically at you, @Hussar) because in most cases I don't think it's actually addressing the real issue.

Either:

• No one bothered to establish what the game would be about. Fault: Everyone. Solution: Go back to square one and work this out.
• The GM pitched a game of type A, but is running type B. Fault: GM. Solution: If people aren't happy with type B, the GM should probably make an effort to provide what was promised. If they're making a genuine effort, it's probably ideal if the players give them a chance to learn and get better, but if the game is just no fun or the GM is just not capable (or the GM is simply unwilling to run what was promised), then the players probably need to halt the campaign.
• The GM pitched a game of type A and is running type A, but a player wants it to be type B. Fault: Player. Solution: Unless everyone wants to change to type B, the player who wants type B either gets on board with type A or moves along. If it's a small group where participation of all parties is necessary, perhaps the game will need to be scratched/adjusted, but it would be a lot less disruptive in most cases if it's the unhappy player who adjusts and deals with it, rather than suggesting it's the GM's (and everyone else's) obligation to do so.
• The GM pitched a game of type A and is running type A, but none of the players are enjoying type A: Fault: Probably no one, really (I'm assuming the players are trying something new and didn't realise they wouldn't enjoy this). Sometimes things just don't work out like we expect. Solution: If the players are confident that they just don't like type A, adjust the style or start again. If it's a GM skill issue, the players may choose to give the GM a chance to work through this and get better, but they're not under any obligation to do so for any particular length of time.

Note that "fault" doesn't necessarily indicate intent to be disruptive or bad faith.