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

[Enrahim]

This becomes even more prevalent when you have multiple storylines the PCs can engage in particularly in sandbox. It is not just an encounter or even a series of encounters bypassed but entire storylines.

I have not followed this bypass discussion. But this prompted me to point out that I have seen published adventure that allows for bypassing an entire ~100 room dungeon level. At the entrance there was a secret door leading to the same place you would need to go trough a huge puzzle with multiple custom keys hidden around to get to otherwise.

I have often seen bypass used in this context. A premade adventure that has 2 ways to get to the same "adventure state" where one involves engaging with a lot less content. This I believe is uncontroversially called a "bypass". I also think 99% of the times the word bypass is used in RPG context we are talking about are written material with two alternatives presented to get to the same "adventure state", and one of them involve significantly less content.

If it somehow is possible to generalize this concept to a different context like an improvised sandbox? As I am not a native english speaker I do not feel like I am qualified to have any opinion given the level of subtelty that appear to be involved

 

[EzekielRaiden]

There is a findamental difference in "acting as if" (which is the way I read @Lanefan 's "assume") and actually believing something to be true. This distinction should come natural in a hobby where immersion in a fantasy world is a common practice. However I do actually not understand what you mean with your "Presume". It just seem to me as a colossal misunderstanding of the post you replied to, that causes you to construct a well meaning moral argument that from the outside seems either irrrelevant or a strawman.

I still do not accept that we should be "acting as if" players are dirty rotten swindlers and GMs are perfect angels until you have legally notarized affidavits to the contrary.

One common standard. Either we "act as if" both player and GM are innocent until evidence says otherwise, or we "act as if" both player and GM are guilty until proven otherwise. There can be no double standard here. I absolutely do not accept that GMs are to be treated as moral paragons while players are to be treated as scoundrels. Both or neither. Those are the only acceptable options, not just rationally, but morally as well. I'm dead serious.

I wasn't aware @Lanefan had only played with that group in his 30+ years? Has that been confirmed?

He has not previously given me any reason to think he spends more than a completely token amount of time playing with anyone else.

 

[AlViking]

I have not followed this bypass discussion. But this prompted me to point out that I have seen published adventure that allows for bypassing an entire ~100 room dungeon level. At the entrance there was a secret door leading to the same place you would need to go trough a huge puzzle with multiple custom keys hidden around to get to otherwise.

I have often seen bypass used in this context. A premade adventure that has 2 ways to get to the same "adventure state" where one involves engaging with a lot less content. This I believe is uncontroversially called a "bypass". I also think 99% of the times the word bypass is used in RPG context we are talking about are written material with two alternatives presented to get to the same "adventure state", and one of them involve significantly less content.

If it somehow is possible to generalize this concept to a different context like an improvised sandbox? As I am not a native english speaker I do not feel like I am qualified to have any opinion given the level of subtelty that appear to be involved

I was the one who used the word "bypass" to describe a combat encounter that the characters avoided because they took an approach I had not expected. While it may not be as common as other phrases it is perfectly valid English and the word encounter can be used as a verb or a noun.

It's just an argument with as much foundation as how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. It's kept alive by a poster who can't accept that characters could avoid encountering an encounter because you can't bypass something fictional and because they don't believe that "encounter" can be use as a noun or a verb. Along with some others who are seemingly trying to make an issue out of the fact that encounters exist in games like D&D in the first place or that DMs could plan encounters ahead of time or ... well I'm not really sure.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Some people are using "bypass an encounter" to mean "resolving an encounter other than by way of combat". Others are not: they are using it to mean that an event the GM expected to occur in play has not actually occurred.

Those aren't the same thing, and the conversation would be clearer, I think, if this was expressly recognised.

they aren't the same thing, no, but i don't think the spirit of them is so different either, the only thing i would need to change in the former would be altering 'combat' to 'direct engagement' and they become pretty darn similar, and i think the former is only phrased that way by flaw of assuming that all encounters would be combats.

'did not directly engage' and 'expected but did not happen' are similar enough that both can accurately be derived from the essence of the term 'bypassing an encounter'

 

[AlViking]

I still do not accept that we should be "acting as if" players are dirty rotten swindlers and GMs are perfect angels until you have legally notarized affidavits to the contrary.

One common standard. Either we "act as if" both player and GM are innocent until evidence says otherwise, or we "act as if" both player and GM are guilty until proven otherwise. There can be no double standard here. I absolutely do not accept that GMs are to be treated as moral paragons while players are to be treated as scoundrels. Both or neither. Those are the only acceptable options, not just rationally, but morally as well. I'm dead serious.


He has not previously given me any reason to think he spends more than a completely token amount of time playing with anyone else.

Why is it an issue that @Lanefan doesn't play with multiple groups or the way most other people play the game? They're just expressing their opinion, preference and their experience just like everyone else. They represent a voice in the community even if it is a minority voice.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Why is it an issue that @Lanefan doesn't play with multiple groups or the way most other people play the game? They're just expressing their opinion, preference and their experience just like everyone else. They represent a voice in the community even if it is a minority voice.

Because they were not speaking so. For example:

It's the same as a typical refereed sport such as hockey or football: the players have to trust the referee to act in good faith while the referee has to assume the players will do their best to get away with stuff until-unless said referee does his job and they're caught.

This is, explicitly, making a point not just about Lanefan's group, not just about people who have played with Lanefan, not just people who share the style of play Lanefan partakes in, not just D&D players, not just TTRPG players, but literally all players-of-games, be they TTRPGs, card games, video games, sports, ANYTHING. The assertion is that there must always be inherent trust of the authority figures by all players, and inherent distrust of players with the "assumption" (note this was in fact Lanefan's word @Enrahim, I didn't inject that) that every player will attempt to cheat unless the referee does their job. GMs are innocent until proven guilty by the most stringent of standards, while players are guilty until proven innocent.

That is not acceptable. Period.

 

[AlViking]

Because they were not speaking so. For example:

This is, explicitly, making a point not just about Lanefan's group, not just about people who have played with Lanefan, not just people who share the style of play Lanefan partakes in, not just D&D players, not just TTRPG players, but literally all players-of-games, be they TTRPGs, card games, video games, sports, ANYTHING. The assertion is that there must always be inherent trust of the authority figures by all players, and inherent distrust of players with the "assumption" (note this was in fact Lanefan's word @Enrahim, I didn't inject that) that every player will attempt to cheat unless the referee does their job. GMs are innocent until proven guilty by the most stringent of standards, while players are guilty until proven innocent.

That is not acceptable. Period.

I don't agree with everything everyone says on this site. I trust my GM until proven otherwise, same with players when I GM. I wasn't clear though, I was just responding to "He has not previously given me any reason to think he spends more than a completely token amount of time playing with anyone else."

 

[Enrahim]

I still do not accept that we should be "acting as if" players are dirty rotten swindlers and GMs are perfect angels until you have legally notarized affidavits to the contrary.

One common standard. Either we "act as if" both player and GM are innocent until evidence says otherwise, or we "act as if" both player and GM are guilty until proven otherwise. There can be no double standard here. I absolutely do not accept that GMs are to be treated as moral paragons while players are to be treated as scoundrels. Both or neither. Those are the only acceptable options, not just rationally, but morally as well. I'm dead serious.

I think there are some room in between the extreme you lay out in your first paragraph here, and the absolute equality you insist on in your second?

Do that same moral maxim apply to a courtroom between the judge and the defendant?

And is it possible there might be players that would prefer to not act as saints without having to worry about breaking some implied expectation?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I think there are some room in between the extreme you lay out in your first paragraph here, and the absolute equality you insist on in your second?

I would need a pretty convincing argument to accept less than equality.

Do that same moral maxim apply to a courtroom between the judge and the defendant?

Are defendants not presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law now? I mean it wouldn't surprise me given what's been happening recently in politics, but I was given to understand this was still true.

Both judge and defendant are presumed to be innocent of wrongdoing until valid evidence has been submitted and considered which gives at least reason to investigate, no?

And is it possible there might be players that would prefer to not act as saints without having to worry about breaking some implied expectation?

I am not speaking of saintliness. Now you're the one injecting assumptions into what I've said.

Innocent until the evidence suggests otherwise is the standard I prefer. I would accept, in at least an abstract way, another having the standard of guilt until evidence suggests otherwise, since that is at least treating all parties by the same standard. But I would not, and do not, accept a standard which claims that the GM is presumed innocent until conclusively proven guilty, while players are presumed guilty and constantly subject to suspicion and distrust because you know the second your guard is down they'll cheat and cheat and cheat until they get caught. Which is very much what Lanefan described.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

the conversation would be clearer, I think, if this was expressly recognised.

People phrase things differently, depending on country of origin, background, age etc. That's life, learn to deal with it or be permanently confused.