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

EzekielRaiden said:

Again: What do you do in the limbo between 100% perfect unassailable trust (which is what your style apparently demands) and 0% completely failed trust where everything is completely broken?

Click to expand...

I don't play in that zone and thus I don't do anything in "that limbo" because I'm not there.

EzekielRaiden said:

"We talk about it" doesn't tell me anything. What do you DO to fix a trust issue? If you're worried your players might be losing their trust in you, what do you do to fix it?

Click to expand...

I don't experience trust issues in my group. I don't worry that my players might be losing trust in me. In the hypothetical instance I did feel that way, I would probably say something like, "Hey, guys, are you losing trust in me?" and then listen to their answers, but I've never needed to.

EzekielRaiden said:

And now I can tell you didn't actually read what I wrote. Because the "other options" have nothing to do with other games. They are--as I explicitly said, over and over again in that very paragraph--other options for whether the DM is a perfect saint in whom you should place all your trust, and a perfect devil who couldn't be trusted if bound and gagged in a solitary confinement cell.

Click to expand...

I have no real idea what you're asking here. If you mean what options do you have when there is less than sufficient trust, I don't know. I would not join (or remain with) a group where there was insufficient trust.

EzekielRaiden said:

So...you admit it then? My only choices are meek submission, never actually trying to fix the problem, or blowing up my participation entirely?

Click to expand...

Your participation in what? Who are you meekly submitting to? You tell me that I'm making this personal, but you're asking me what choice you have to fix a problem only you can see or blowing up your participation? You can do whatever you want.

Speaking for myself, if I had lost trust in my group, it would indicate some crisis of friendship bigger than roleplaying. How I would deal with it would depend on how and why trust was gone, and it wouldn't be over whether or not an imaginary guard was bribeable, I know that for sure, it would have to be some real-world issue.

EzekielRaiden said:

Again you make it personal instead of reading what I wrote. I am talking about THE DM giving and taking WITH THEIR PLAYERS. Seriously, did you actually read what I wrote? Or did you just skim the first sentence of any given paragraph and then reply?

Click to expand...

I do not know which DM or players you're referring to, or how to answer you from any perspective other than from the perspective of the games and tables I'm actually familiar with, which are mine.

EzekielRaiden said:

I don't know, things for DMs to do to build and/or rebuild trust? Perhaps strategies for players who are concerned about a thing and don't want to be disruptive, but do want to advocate for themselves, rather than just silently swallowing anything and everything no matter how small nor how large? Ways that trust can be demonstrated in both directions, rather than having it be 100% perfect unassailable trust in the DM and constantly watching players like a hawk for even the slightest bit of questionable behavior?

Click to expand...

I have never needed to rebuild broken trust in my group. I have never needed strategies for doing so. I have absolutely no idea why you think I have anything useful to tell you about these things. This whole question doesn't make any sense to me unless the group is full of drama and angst, and I would not participate in such a group. I deal with the members of my group with respect, as friends. That's the start and the end of it. There is nothing more to it.

hawkeyefan said:

I wasn't being aggressive, I was trying to explain what I was looking for since after many back and forths you still were not following, and then saying I wasn't following you.

Click to expand...

I think I was following you quite well. I see no point dragging this to the ground. But That wasn't the problem. The problem is we have covered the same ground endlessly (and I don't think this is due to a lack of understanding: myself and others have addressed each of the concerns you have raised--but we keep going back to the same points; you not being persuaded by my or others responses or ignoring some of them, doesn't mean the issue is on me).

SableWyvern said:

I don't play in that zone and thus I don't do anything in "that limbo" because I'm not there.


I don't experience trust issues in my group. I don't worry that my players might be losing trust in me. In the hypothetical instance I did feel that way, I would probably say something like, "Hey, guys, are you losing trust in me?" and then listen to their answers, but I've never needed to.


I have no real idea what you're asking here. If you mean what options do you have when there is less than sufficient trust, I don't know. I would not join (or remain with) a group where there was insufficient trust.


Your participation in what? Who are you meekly submitting to? You tell me that I'm making this personal, but you're asking me what choice you have to fix a problem only you can see or blowing up your participation? You can do whatever you want.

Speaking for myself, if I had lost trust in my group, it would indicate some crisis of friendship bigger than roleplaying. How I would deal with it would depend on how and why trust was gone, and it wouldn't be over whether or not an imaginary guard was bribeable, I know that for sure, it would have to be some real-world issue.


I do not know which DM or players you're referring to, or how to answer you from any perspective other than from the perspective of the games and tables I'm actually familiar with, which are mine.


I have never needed to rebuild broken trust in my group. I have never needed strategies for doing so. I have absolutely no idea why you think I have anything useful to tell you about these things. This whole question doesn't make any sense to me unless the group is full of drama and angst, and I would not participate in such a group. I deal with the members of my group with respect, as friends. That's the start and the end of it. There is nothing more to it.

Click to expand...

Let me put it in extremely simple terms then.

Trust isn't perfect. A person can do something that puts you off. Not enough to break trust*. Just wobble it some. "Hmm," Jane says. "That seems...off."

She goes to DM Alice. "Alice, you did a thing that concerned me a little." How does Alice respond?

Per this thread, Alice responds, "You just have to trust me." No answers. No accountability. No work to build trust. No work to keep trust. Trust MUST be there, flawless, from time zero. Just, "You must trust me."

To me? That answer writes off Jane's mild worry in a very worrying way. Far from calming a wobble, that answer IS breaking trust.

*People get so mad at me for "extreme" positions attributed or taken...and then they do this. Seriously, you yourself have just MADE this two hard, binary extremes: either trust is utterly full and complete and perfect without even the slightest hint of a whisper of a shadow of a doubt, or it has thoroughly and utterly failed. There can be no in-between for you, no shades of grey. Either trust is utter and perfect and you'd never question anything a DM did ever, or you cannot ever believe anything at all and completely reject any association whatsoever. How is that not a ridiculously extreme stance?

EzekielRaiden said:

But you would screw them over if they cast it and it turned out the opponent hit them by more than +4, almost entirely wasting the spell slot? One would think a spellcaster using the spell would have a pretty good idea whether it would work or not, but your statements point in the other direction.

Because that's the thing here. If they hit you by 5 or more, then shield is pointless and using it is almost entirely wasteful. If they hit you by anything less than 5 (e.g. anything between exactly hitting your AC and hitting 4 more than your AC), then shield makes the attack miss, making it very valuable.

In a world where you cannot ever know whether the margin is close enough or not, shield is...not quite worthless, but definitely has gotten an ENORMOUS nerf. Given it doesn't scale at all and is basically just a way to make use of your lower-level spell slots, that might not quite kill it, but it would definitely be far less useful.

You don't have to tell the players what the creature's attack bonus is. You can just say whether shield would be worthwhile or not. Again, I would think a spellcaster who prepares that spell would be pretty good at knowing whether it's useful or not!

Click to expand...

Not knowing how useful a spell will be just strikes me as one of the risks of being Vancian spellcaster. Certainly that is a risk. And maybe you opt for the Shield spell and it is a waste. It isn't the end of the world. Also you can certainly make an educated guess about whether the risk is worth it. Presumably you know a little bit about what is happening around you. By the same token you could cast fireball and the enemy may be immune to fire.

Bedrockgames said:

Not knowing how useful a spell will be just strikes me as one of the risks of being Vancian spellcaster. Certainly that is a risk. And maybe you opt for the Shield spell and it is a waste. It isn't the end of the world. Also you can certainly make an educated guess about whether the risk is worth it. Presumably you know a little bit about what is happening around you. By the same token you could cast fireball and the enemy may be immune to fire.

Click to expand...

If there is an educated guess being made, it must--always--be hinged upon "education" which comes from the DM in this context.

If we are already saying the spellcaster can "make an educated guess" and fully 100% of that guess is already derived from facts from the DM, what is the harm in saying something, even something really vague like "you are a little worried it might not work" (maybe it's right on the line, you'd be risking a semi-wasted spell) or "it feels like a long shot...but maybe?" etc. I explicitly said I don't expect to be told the attack bonus, and thus (implicitly) the roll result. Just a generic "this is what you know from the combat you're in" thing...which is literally every part of every combat ever in this style of play.

I just do not understand this notion of black-boxing everything down to the tiniest details, keeping information as far away as possible from the players, and then punishing them for guessing wrong about what was hidden inside the black box.

EzekielRaiden said:

If there is an educated guess being made, it must--always--be hinged upon "education" which comes from the DM in this context.

If we are already saying the spellcaster can "make an educated guess" and fully 100% of that guess is already derived from facts from the DM, what is the harm in saying something, even something really vague like "you are a little worried it might not work" (maybe it's right on the line, you'd be risking a semi-wasted spell) or "it feels like a long shot...but maybe?" etc. I explicitly said I don't expect to be told the attack bonus, and thus (implicitly) the roll result. Just a generic "this is what you know from the combat you're in" thing...which is literally every part of every combat ever in this style of play.

I just do not understand this notion of black-boxing everything down to the tiniest details, keeping information as far away as possible from the players, and then punishing them for guessing wrong about what was hidden inside the black box.

Click to expand...

Part of the issue is lots of players don’t want the GM telling them what they characters think (this goes beyond play style).

No one is saying keep information as far as possible. People are just talking about an exploration based approach where you tell them what they see based on POV. Plus there is Q&A around that. In my experience that usually means I have enough information to make educated guesses. But sometimes you also have to take risks. If you want more certainty this approach might not be for you

EzekielRaiden said:

I really wish you wouldn't make this so personal. This is literally what I spoke of: you are making me out to be some kind of mentally stunted person who cannot ever trust anyone at all for any reason.

Click to expand...

This is an issue specific to you. The rest of us do not share your particular problem, but you seem to be asking for help, and we are doing our best to provide it. A great many of us are neurodivergent in one way or another, many of us wear it as a badge of pride.

EzekielRaiden said:

Believe it or not, IRL, I'm actually an excessively trusting person. That's one of the reasons why I care so much about asking this sort of thing. I DO get taken advantage of, BECAUSE I am trusting. My natural state of being is one where I take the things people do and say completely at face value, and I've been burned by that several times. Having been burned by it doesn't mean I've stopped--it's about as deeply ingrained in my psyche as anything else about me--but it does mean that I get little alarm bells when I hear certain turns of phrase, see certain behaviors, etc. And one of those behaviors that does that is responding to any and all concerns with "I can't/won't tell you why I'm doing this", especially when paired with "you just have to trust me".

Click to expand...

It seems to me that you are likely poor at reading non-verbal communication, making you a little more vulnerable. But everyone gets burned, because taking risks is necessary in real life, just as it's necessary for adventurers in a fantasy world. Bad people are real, but you cannot avoid the need to risk trust. This applies to any social and professional situation, it's not strangely unique to D&D.

EzekielRaiden said:

BuT hOw CoUlD wE MaKe OuR oWn DeCiSiOnS iF wE dO tHaT???

Click to expand...

Same way we make every decision. We take a risk on unreliable information, and if we are wrong we pick our selves up and try again.

EzekielRaiden said:

It's got to be the single most tedious thing in all TTRPG discussion--the constant need to defend the idea that rules are useful tools, and should thus be purposefully designed, and tested to see if they actually fulfill the function for which they were designed, so you can...y'know...make rules that actually work when used!

Click to expand...

Perhaps consider that the reason you need to continually defend your position is - you are wrong? Rules will not and cannot protect you from bad people. We have had enough experience of rule-benders to realise that rules are often a cause of problems, not a solution. Rules only work when they are used flexibly, in good faith.

Paul Farquhar said:

This is an issue specific to you. The rest of us do not share your particular problem, but you seem to be asking for help, and we are doing our best to provide it. A great many of us are neurodivergent in one way or another, many of us wear it as a badge of pride.

It seems to me that you are likely poor at reading non-verbal communication, making you a little more vulnerable. But everyone gets burned, because taking risks is necessary in real life, just as it's necessary for adventurers in a fantasy world. Bad people are real, but you cannot avoid the need to risk trust. This applies to any social and professional situation, it's not strangely unique to D&D.

Same way we make every decision. We take a risk on unreliable information, and if we are wrong we pick our selves up and try again.

Perhaps consider that the reason you need to continually defend your position is - you are wrong? Rules will not and cannot protect you from bad people. We have had enough experience of rule-benders to realise that rules are often a cause of problems, not a solution. Rules only work when they are used flexibly, in good faith.

Click to expand...

I was talking about a completely different thing. Hence why I was talking to a different person, about a different part of this conversation.

Perhaps consider that I can discuss more than one thing within a single forum thread.

Bedrockgames said:

Part of the issue is lots of players don’t want the GM telling them what they characters think (this goes beyond play style).

No one is saying keep information as far as possible. People are just talking about an exploration based approach where you tell them what they see based on POV. Plus there is Q&A around that. In my experience that usually means I have enough information to make educated guesses. But sometimes you also have to take risks. If you want more certainty this approach might not be for you

Click to expand...

Okay. Describe the information in observable-terms, rather than thinky-terms. "Looks like it would probably work"/"It might work, but might not"/"The attack's coming from a really awkward angle" etc.

Though being perfectly honest, someone who can't accept any form whatsoever of merely flavoring description with emotion sounds to me like someone who can't really play TTRPGs.

EzekielRaiden said:

I was talking about a completely different thing. Hence why I was talking to a different person, about a different part of this conversation.

Perhaps consider that I can discuss more than one thing within a single forum thread.

Click to expand...

Which issue, trust or rules? Are you sure they are different?