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

[Maxperson]

@Faolyn says its primarily combat, when used in D&D. @Maxperson disagrees. Which is correct?

You seem to agree with @Faolyn. @Paul Farquhar agrees with @Maxperson.

To me, this is making it all the more difficult to work out what is meant by "bypassing an encounter".

While most encounters are combat, enough of them are social, exploration, traps or whatever that it cannot be assumed to be combat when someone says they bypassed an encounter.

 

[AnotherGuy]

I think that's because most encounters tend to be combat encounters due to combat being the primary way to earn XP. However, in casual conversations here and in other places, I commonly hear talk about social encounters and exploration encounters. Interestingly, I'm not sure that I've ever seen trap encounter. Folks leave those simply as traps.

In casual talk, with my table, bypassing refers to combat or dangerous exploration encounters (you could throw traps in here) while missed is used to refer to social and exploration that pose no danger.

i.e. you guys missed chatting to x at the Social Encounter Tavern or missed the opportunity to enquire about y at the Investigative Library.

EDIT: So the word bypassed is used to avoid danger, while missed describes missed opportunities.

 

[zakael19]

In casual talk, with my table, bypassing refers to combat or dangerous exploration encounters (you could throw traps in here) while missed is used to refer to social and exploration that pose no danger.

i.e. you guys missed chatting to x at the Social Encounter Tavern or missed the opportunity to enquire about y at the Investigative Library.

EDIT: So the word bypassed is used to avoid danger, while missed describes missed opportunities.

That's how I would've used it when running 5e as well!

 

[Maxperson]

@pemerton looking at 1e, it's crystal clear that Gygax didn't mean encounter to be solely "combat." When you encountered parties of adventurers, negotiation was one of the options listed. On the random monster encounters were merchants, pilgrims, and nomads, none of which would be ravening madmen intent on combat no matter what. In cities you could encounter guards, officials, gentleman and others that would simply talk to you or avoid you the vast majority of the time. Under encounter reactions where the categories neutral, uncertain but prone towards positive, friendly and enthusiastically friendly.

It's crystal clear that encounter to Gygax were with some sort of being, and the types of encounters to him were combat and social(even if not explicitly called social encounters).

 

[Enrahim]

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.

This is actually the problem I have with your use of the word presume.

If we had fully acted as if the defendant was beyond all doubt innocent, then why is there a trial at all?

A court has a lot of procedures in place for trying to determine the guilt of the defendant. However during the court case there are not the same level of procedure for scrutinising the judge (The mechanisms for that happens outside the context of the court case).

So in this context "presume not guilty" clearly we are not to mean "arranging the entire activity in the way we had done if we had known for an absolute fact that the person in question is not guilty"

The same can be said about how to arrange a game. I think noone is saying that all players are scoundrels. It can still be sensible to arrange the game so that even if one of the players tend toward taking egoistic decissions over the common good, the game is fun. This can be done by introducing incentives and procedures that make the egoistic choices align with the common good. If there are procedures that can acheive this with minimal disruption, that seem very tempting to introduce it doesn't it? Blanket dismissing it on the grounds of "we should presume innocence" sounds like pure naivety?

And this is where the justification for asymmetry come in. We have found a structure that allow for only one point of failure with minimal limitations on the activity. Unfortunately this involves procedures that are applicable to everyone but one of the participants. Analogous procedures are not applicable to that last participant due to differences in role (like not earning xp). While I believe everyone would agree that if there is found procedures that would apply to the final participant while being similarly non-distruptive, that would be very welcome. However so far that has not been found to my knowledge.

So with this backdrop: "Assume the players are up to no-good" is a practical advice in that it is a call for the group to look for and apply the wealth of knowledge we has in how to make a game work even in the presence of somewhat egoistic players. Similarly "Assume the GM is fair" is practical advice that despite no lack of attempts, we have yet to find a generally accepted design for how to procedurally ensure the GM to actually be fair without side effects many players feel strongly weakens the experience. As such looking for that, or insisting to introduce checks for fairness is likely to be worse than just accepting the suggested assumption.

As such these assumptions is in no way a statement about the persons inherent moral character. It is solid practical advice for how to get good game experiences.

 

[Maxperson]

In casual talk, with my table, bypassing refers to combat or dangerous exploration encounters (you could throw traps in here) while missed is used to refer to social and exploration that pose no danger.

i.e. you guys missed chatting to x at the Social Encounter Tavern or missed the opportunity to enquire about y at the Investigative Library.

EDIT: So the word bypassed is used to avoid danger, while missed describes missed opportunities.

See my last post to @pemerton. Thinking about it a further, I think encounter is most often used to mean encountering a being or beings of some sort. Encounters that could end as either combat or social, depending on circumstances. If there are guards on the road, that's an encounter that would be referred to as bypassed, even though the vast majority of the time there would be no combat with the patrol.

 

[AlViking]

See my last post to @pemerton. Thinking about it a further, I think encounter is most often used to mean encountering a being or beings of some sort. Encounters that could end as either combat or social, depending on circumstances. If there are guards on the road, that's an encounter that would be referred to as bypassed, even though the vast majority of the time there would be no combat with the patrol.

I still think of any obstacle or opportunity as an encounter, escaping a collapsing tunnel could be a skill challenge type encounter. It's more complex and involves more thought and effort to overcome than most traps.

But a lot of people probably only include encounters that involve NPCs and monsters.

 

[Maxperson]

It's rather funny that people talk about being able to "presume" things in the game world. My current Out of the Abyss game is pretty sandboxy. They have just arrived in Gracklstugh - a duegar city - in the Underdark.

Can I buy a bow or a crossbow in the Blade Bazaar in Gracklstugh? How about a staff? Leather armor? Rope?

After all, we're in the Underdark. There aren't any cows, so, where would you get leather armor? There isn't any wood. How would you get a bow or crossbow? Now, I know all this. Because I'm the DM. But the players? They don't know much of anything about the Underdark and wouldn't even know where to begin asking questions.

The idea that this isn't 99% DM driven is ludicrous. Of course it is. There's no way it cannot be. It's 10 times worse in any homebrew world that isn't just Generic D&D Land. How could the players possibly know what to ask?

Yes to all of that. Cows are not the only source of leather even here on Earth, there would be an equivalent in the underdark. Rope would be made from something, even if only silk. Though there would likely be other sources to make rope out of as well. Races in the underdark trade with the surface*dwarves, gnomes, etc.), so while wood would not be common, it would be available for a price. Bows if not made of wood, could easily be made out of bone or some other underdark source that bends appropriately.

I have been playing since 1983 and I've have almost never been at a loss when it came to things to ask for, and neither have the players I have played with or DM'd for. We didn't have to just sit there until the DM provided to us a list of things that could be bought. I say almost never, because very, very, VERY rarely we ended up in a spot so isolated that a lot of the basics were missing.

 

[Enrahim]

<snip> "assumption" (note this was in fact Lanefan's word @Enrahim, I didn't inject that) <snip>

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.

Yes?

However I do actually not understand what you mean with your "Presume".

 

[EzekielRaiden]

This is actually the problem I have with your use of the word presume.

If we had fully acted as if the defendant was beyond all doubt innocent, then why is there a trial at all?

Have I, even once, said "beyond all doubt innocent", or even anything which could be spindled, folded, or mutilated into that?

I have repeatedly spoken of a presumption of innocence unless (or until) evidence suggests otherwise. I've used either that exact phrase--"until evidence suggests otherwise"--or some close variation over and over again.

A court has a lot of procedures in place for trying to determine the guilt of the defendant. However during the court case there are not the same level of procedure for scrutinising the judge (The mechanisms for that happens outside the context of the court case).

Er...actually they are? Like legitimately. Within the context of a currently-active trial, they're motions. After, they're appeals. Like that's literally the same actions you take to address whether the court has correctly determined the guilt of a defendant.

So in this context "presume not guilty" clearly we are not to mean "arranging the entire activity in the way we had done if we had known for an absolute fact that the person in question is not guilty"

I don't see how that doesn't get exactly the same standard. We arrange courts to protect against biased judges too! As in, there's literally a body of law and practice about that specific thing.

Even if not, that is literally actually what Lanefan said, so no, I don't accept this substitution. It literally was that we have to assume players are cheaters who will immediately jump on an opportunity to cheat as soon as the referee isn't looking, and will only be held back by the fact that if they do cheat, they'll get caught.

The same can be said about how to arrange a game. I think noone is saying that all players are scoundrels. It can still be sensible to arrange the game so that even if one of the players tend toward taking egoistic decissions over the common good, the game is fun. This can be done by introducing incentives and procedures that make the egoistic choices align with the common good. If there are procedures that can acheive this with minimal disruption, that seem very tempting to introduce it doesn't it? Blanket dismissing it on the grounds of "we should presume innocence" sounds like pure naivety?

Then why should we not arrange things so that, even if the GM isn't entirely above board, the result is still fun? You still haven't actually defended the idea that GMs need to be above suspicion, while the game needs to be structured around resilience against player misbehavior.

It seems just as "very tempting" to remove a singular massive point of failure. More, really, since that's only needing to care about the behavior of one single person. Much easier to control that than to control the whole group! Surely, if we can "achieve this with minimal disruption", we should, right?

And this is where the justification for asymmetry come in. We have found a structure that allow for only one point of failure with minimal limitations on the activity. Unfortunately this involves procedures that are applicable to everyone but one of the participants. Analogous procedures are not applicable to that last participant due to differences in role (like not earning xp). While I believe everyone would agree that if there is found procedures that would apply to the final participant while being similarly non-distruptive, that would be very welcome. However so far that has not been found to my knowledge.

I don't see that. I genuinely do not see that point in what you argued. Instead, all you've said is that protection against misbehavior, so long as it doesn't disrupt things, is desirable. That I agree with. Just vaguely waving a hand at "the GM's role is different" doesn't somehow justify the GM being above suspicion.

As such these assumptions is in no way a statement about the persons inherent moral character. It is solid practical advice for how to get good game experiences.

It's not a matter of statements about someone's moral character. While I find such things tedious and unhelpful, I don't consider that worth planting a flag over. "I deserve to be trusted because I'm GM, you don't deserve any trust because you're a player" is a standard I simply do not and cannot accept. Either everyone deserves trust unless and until evidence suggests otherwise, or no one deserves it.