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

[EzekielRaiden]

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

No. As I said above, I'd accept presumption of guilt from all parties until evidence suggests otherwise too, even though I would not personally tolerate that.

What I'm saying is, there is an argument being made here. That argument says GMs are special and deserve to be trusted unless a mountain of evidence proves beyond a reasonable doubt that they've definitely done something awful. Conversely, players are to be treated--whether by the rules or by the GM as a person--as people who WILL immediately try to cheat as soon as they think the referee won't notice. That argument is flatly not acceptable.

If you choose to play your games that way, whatever. I couldn't care less. But the argument is being given as the reason why certain things need to happen. That's not--and won't ever be--acceptable. That the justification for treating the GM differently is because players can't be trusted, must be guarded against just in case someone, maybe, somewhere, decides to cheat.

 

[Enrahim]

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

.As I said I do not what you try to say with "presume". That was one of the possible interpretation I (As a non native english speaker) could see. As such I was using the rethorical question to indicate I didn't think that was what you could mean, as I found it absurd. I hence tried to exclude that as a interpretation before continuing my post.

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.

Observed. It still is unclear to me how this "presumption" is to work in play? Are you supposed to follow one set of procedures when starting play, based on the presumption, and then change procedures once one ofnthe players "misbehaves"?

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.

Great point! I didn't think of appeals. I still think the point of my analogy works if you look at the main bulk of what is happening in the court room, but this is a flaw with it.

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.

I know, but I tried to account for those in "(The mechanisms for that happens outside the context of the court case)." Appeals however was a blindspot that do not fit that caveat.

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.

If you want to quote what lanefan literary said then there is a quote function in this forum. I am pretty sure he didn't say.

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"

For one thing I do not thing he has talked about "presumption" at all? And my understanding of his "assume" is having more in common with "pretend" than the "presume" in "presume not guilty"

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?

This is what I answer in my next paragraph. If we had found a way to do so that do not severly distrupt the desired experience of a lot of players, I think noone would have argued against it. There are a lot of examples of games that do have a GM like role with strong protections - in particular in the board game sphere (Scotland Yard and the old Descent games to mention two very well known examples). However these are clearly not providing the same kind of experience as traditional RPGs.

Indeed this isn't fully true, as showing notes that are now irrelevant for future okay seem to be a fully accepted way to check the DM. It just isn't much in use, as people don't tend to see the practical need for it - and there are no point in establishing a procedure around it as it provide no value over just doing it ad-hoc.

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.

Great, we fully agree! I am not handwaving GM role as a justification. I fully agree that would not ne aproperiate. However how about pointing out decades of failed design experiments? Would that count as a more reasonable justification? Because that is what I tried to do in that paragraph.

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.

I know noone that would stand behind that standard. I presume everyone here are agreeing to your last sentence until they themselves openly and unabiguately proclaim otherwise. I have not seen @Lanefan do that. I see a person has interpreted @Lanefan to do that. I think that is a giant misinterpretation, as I am interpreting the exact same statements in a way that I think is a lot more in line with my convictions. And I think assuming the most cheritable interpretation is an essential pillar in good communication.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

However how about pointing out decades of failed design experiments? Would that count as a more reasonable justification?

No. Not to me, anyway. Every experiment trying to measure light's speed failed for centuries, until we finally did measure it.

I know noone that would stand behind that standard. I presume everyone here are agreeing to your last sentence until they themselves openly and unabiguately proclaim otherwise. I have not seen @Lanefan do that.

I literally quoted it to you already. I've bolded the relevant part for emphasis.

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 saying that the referee needs to assume players are always trying to cheat. "Do their best to get away with stuff" is, quite clearly, talking about getting away with stuff against the rules--aka, cheating. There is no other meaning compatible with these terms. This isn't subtext. It isn't a soft implication. It isn't some off-the-wall weirdo interpretation. It's very literally what Lanefan actually wrote.

The players have to trust the referee. The referee has to assume the players will cheat unless she does her job.

 

[AlViking]

No. Not to me, anyway. Every experiment trying to measure light's speed failed for centuries, until we finally did measure it.


I literally quoted it to you already. I've bolded the relevant part for emphasis.

This is saying that the referee needs to assume players are always trying to cheat. "Do their best to get away with stuff" is, quite clearly, talking about getting away with stuff against the rules--aka, cheating. There is no other meaning compatible with these terms. This isn't subtext. It isn't a soft implication. It isn't some off-the-wall weirdo interpretation. It's very literally what Lanefan actually wrote.

The players have to trust the referee. The referee has to assume the players will cheat unless she does her job.

Speaking for myself I trust other people at the table until proven otherwise. Whether that person is a GM or player doesn't change anything.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

@AlViking uses the stick, I prefer to use the carrot.

How else can a DM gently encourage some risk-taking?

I mean, all sorts of things?

Make the rewards worth the risk: players tend to love shiny treasure, and many are very motivated by things like "saving innocents" or "getting revenge" or "uncovering the secret" or "redeeming someone" or "amassing power" etc. Even in the absence of those things, curiosity, jealousy, and pride are all great motivators.

Make the costs too onerous to bear: most players have NPCs/organizations/places they're fond of who could be threatened, or enemies they hate who could be rewarded or strengthened, or nemeses they fear could defeat them, or authority figures who could negatively affect them, etc. Even in the absence of those things, necessity is often the mother of invention and it isn't exactly hard to put characters in a position where their choices are "either death, or something quite risky"--at which point risks are quite tenable in all circumstances.

Motivation is nigh-infinitely diverse. Pure pecuniary or (Doylist) competitive motives are not only not the only option, they're not even the most prevalent. And, as noted, purely individualistic XP devalues certain kinds of risk-taking while rewarding other kinds.

 

[DinoInDisguise]

Most groups are not friends who have been gaming together for 30+ years.

That, alone, already puts Lanefan's group well outside the bounds of most TTRPG groups.

None of which has anything to do with the explicit claim that it's somehow totally okay to assume that players are dirty rotten swindlers who need to be constantly watched lest they get away with their chicanery, while GMs are pure as the driven snow and must be implicitly trusted until you can build an ironclad case that they've done something wrong.

I've seen comments like the bolded ones as well, or at least that's how I've interpreted them, and I think they're obviously inaccurate when looked at under any scrutiny.

As someone who runs games for strangers from the internet on a regular basis, The players I've met are almost always incredible joys to play with. 99% of the players I run into are wonderful people, love the game and are just hoping to have fun. I struggle to even think of a truly problematic player. Maybe one fudged some rolls in a one-shot, maybe one overslept a few times, but that's about it. I've made many more mistakes than that.

I think people let singular negative experiences warp their view of entire segments of the community. You see it in the way people talk about railroading or "bad DMs" like they’re the norm, and again in the way players are sometimes framed as problems waiting to happen. You see both of these happen around here on a daily basis.

So call me naive, but I'd extend your comment about GMs;

GMs are pure as the driven snow and must be implicitly trusted until you can build an ironclad case that they've done something wrong.

to everyone I encounter in this hobby. Because I believe everyone deserves such respect and grace. But I’ve gotten the sense lately that I might be more optimistic than most around here.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Is anyone insisting this is in-fiction talk?

Honestly, it has been unclear. I think what often happens in these discussions is people fail to make the distinction between what is happening in the fiction and what’s happening in the game. You see it all the time… people use player and character almost interchangeably, and so on.

Very often in discussions like this, that distinction is important.

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.

Another way of looking at it is that it’s kept alive by posters who clearly have expectations about how the players will proceed, but who won’t admit that they’re directing the game.

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 an interesting way of looking at it.

The town is never encountered.

I struggle to imagine anyone ever having described themselves as having “encountered a town”.

 

[aco175]

A lot of sports games have a referee that watches for cheating or infractions/fouls. He may not be assuming that all the players are trying to cheat until he catches them cheating. Sometimes a player commits a foul in the course of play and it might be not deliberate. Other times it might be called flagrant or deliberate. Where it is done on purpose to try to get away with cheating.

The DM needs to be aware of things, but need not always just think that the players are looking for a way to cheat. I had a players last week roll to break a restrained condition on the PC. Then he wanted to attack the monster, basically using two actions or thinking the 3e/4e rules of using his move action to do this. Was it cheating, yes. Was it deliberate, no.

I think there is a difference.

 

[Lanefan]

You know of your group. Which you have made quite clear is full of ruthless exploiters.

Ruthless exploiters? That's a bit much.

Players that are both competitive - against the game, and occasionally against each other - and cooperative - working as a team when the chips are down - at the same time? Sure.

Most groups aren't like your group, in numerous ways.

You and I either have, or have self-fostered, very different groups of people with whom we've played over the years.

But that ignores the possibility of other tools filling the gap. For example, 4e's quests, which can be individual, or for the whole group. That actually pulls double duty; it rewards individuals for pursuing the stuff that matters to them, AND rewards the group for caring about one another's interests. Purely individualistic XP may avoid devaluing totally individualistic risk-taking, but it actually does devalue something else: group-centric risk-taking. Under individualistic XP, especially in the old-school paradigm where GP=XP, you are rewarded for abandoning your allies to die so you get a bigger share of the treasure and thus more XP. Having group rewards when individual characters succeed on their personal goals, on the other hand, means everyone is rewarded for looking out for everyone's interests, not just their own, and thus they're encouraged to take risks that help their allies. One path rewards one kind of risk-taking and devalues the other--and vice-versa. It's not a strict gain of rewarding risk; something is paid so something else can be bought.

Which is fair enough. I'm not about to ask (or worse, demand) a bunch of other peoples' characters to take big risks in order to help my character become Empress of faux-Rome; nor am I going to ask that they put adventuring aside for what might be years of politicking. But that throne is and remains her long-term goal.

Surely that, too, moves the needle a bit more toward high-risk high-reward, and away from low-event plodding?

To a point. Group risks are the overall adventures. Oftentimes day-to-day risks come down to what an individual character is willing to do, or to try. That door might be lethally trapped, who's going to risk opening it? The only way to kill that buzzsaw of a demon is if someone can get close enough to touch it with this banishment item, who wants to try?

When it's the same few characters always taking these risks on while the same few others hang back, there should be something extra in it for the risk-takers.

And I fundamentally reject this perspective. Maybe in your games, the players are inherently disingenuous jerks actively engaging in bad faith.

That's twice in one post you've insulted my players. Duly noted.

That's not how I play, and I consider it both openly insulting and utterly unacceptable to argue that even most players act like that, let alone ALL players.

If they're not pushing against the rules - rules, remember, are made to be broken - they're not doing job one: advocating for their characters.

If I'm expected to presume that GMs are always participating in good faith, I absolutely demand that we presume--unless evidence has suggested otherwise--that the players are also participating in good faith. If I am expected to presume the players (whether all or merely some) will participate in bad faith and must thus be subject to a bunch of controls to prevent that, then I absolutely demand that we presume--unless evidence has suggested otherwise--that (whether all or merely some of) GMs will participate in bad faith and must thus be subject to a bunch of controls to prevent that.

You cannot have it both ways. You cannot demand a presumption of total innocence (unless rigorously proven otherwise) for GMs and a presumption of guilt from players (unless rigorously proven otherwise). It's both, or it's neither. Your choice; I don't care which you pick, but you have to pick one. Nothing else will ever be acceptable. Period. (Edit: And to be clear, I would find it just as unacceptable to presume that GMs are guilty until proven innocent but players are the reverse. All should be subject to the same standard.)

Long experience tells me you can have it both ways, and given we're still playing after 44 years tells me something's working right.

 

[Lanefan]

A Player Agenda/Best Practices that calls for that you can refer the players back to as needed helps .

I like that Daggerheart starts with "Embrace Danger" as its #1:

Along the way, you’ll face difficult choices and life-threatening peril. It’s important as adventurers to embrace this danger as part of the game.
Playing it safe, not taking risks, and overthinking a plan can often slow the game to a halt.

Don’t be afraid to leap in headfirst and think like a storyteller, asking what the hero of a novel or a TV show would do here?

If this stopped at the word "headfirst" I'd be all for it. Great advice! I might just nick this and put it in my campaign intro.

Everything after "headfirst", however, is IMO awful. We're not running a novel or TV show or movie, and ideally we're not thinking like storytellers but instead thinking as our characters as inhabitants of the setting they're in.