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

[Maxperson]

If I don't go to the movies, we don't say that I bypassed seeing the movie. Events that don't occur haven't been bypassed.

These "encounters" that are being bypassed don't occur in the fiction, but they are being given some sort of credence by the GM at the table. They owe their "existence" to the orientation of the GM towards them.

A freeway bypass is a road that lets you avoid a town. The town is never encountered. That's what bypass means. To pass or go around something.

If the group takes route number 2 from A to B because there are multiple routes, and never encounters the bandits on the road of route number 1, they did in fact bypass that encounter. They went around it.

You don't go around or pass a movie, which is why we don't say we bypassed the movie. Words mean things and using them properly helps with understanding.

 

[Micah Sweet]

i mean, how much does modern EXP levelling incentivize those things either? i admit i'm a bit out of touch with how people are actually playing right now and fully admit i might be wildly wrong but i get the impression that for the most part groups are functionally treated as a single conglomerate entity for the purposes of EXP, i mean, the rogue might go down on the first round of combat and never actually get to take a turn before the battle ends but for all their ineffectualness they still earn their equal slice of EXP for 'surviving' the fight just as much as if they had been the lone member of the group to sneak into an enemy stronghold to steal something or other because 'the group' completed their objective and everyone gets their EXP reward.

I've always thought that was unfortunate. I agree with @Lanefan . Removing individual xp does IMO remove a real motivation for individual achievement as a PC.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Meanwhile you never explained anything other than saying your preferred game somehow makes it better. You have a preference. That's fine. These declarations that somehow a different structure makes for a better game.

I've done so multiple times. At this point you're either ignoring it or don't understand it, and I don't see why repeating it more is going to change that.

 

[Micah Sweet]

To me, this seems a description of GM-centred play.

The PCs also always have the option of choosing their own path, although I doubt anything at this point would shake your resolve that every aspect of this style of play is GM-centered.

 

[Micah Sweet]

The last time I remember a DMG mentioning anything about handing out XP to individuals was back in 1e. @Lanefan runs a unique game, there's nothing wrong with that, it's just not anything I see anywhere else.

The very fact that every version of D&D has included an experience table, with actual amounts per level, says that individual experience is still on the table (as it were).

And 3e was when they stopped mentioning individual xp, because at that point everyone leveled at the same rate.

 

[AlViking]

I've done so multiple times. At this point you're either ignoring it or don't understand it, and I don't see why repeating it more is going to change that.

I do not remember any explanation. I could have easily missed in the numerous posts.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

That is not acceptable to me.

 

[AlViking]

The very fact that every version of D&D has included an experience table, with actual amounts per level, says that individual experience is still on the table (as it were).

And 3e was when they stopped mentioning individual xp, because at that point everyone leveled at the same rate.

I couldn't remember if they had changed it for 2e or not. In any case it's been decades since individual XP was a current rule. From 3 on they specifically state that the XP is divided evenly but of course the DM can always house rule it.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.


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.


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.


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?


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.


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.

Are you seriously arguing that everyone should just play RPGs the way you do? Because that's what this sounds like to me.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I couldn't remember if they had changed it for 2e or not. In any case it's been decades since individual XP was a current rule. From 3 on they specifically state that the XP is divided evenly but of course the DM can always house rule it.

Individual xp awards were definitely a thing in 2e, because there were different xp tables for each class. WotC are the ones who changed everything.