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

Micah Sweet said:
That is an Old School view, and I respect it, but other schools of thought exist and are just as valid. It's all a wondrous tapestry of opinions and methods, right?
Click to expand...
I'd add, for example, the very Old School way.....not really in favor of many in the modern day....of rolling for everything on extreme tables with extreme results and always keeping every roll no matter what: no DM or player interference.

Arrow does crit damage, your character dies.

DM rolls for a random encounter and it is a Planetary Elimination Droid from the 25th century....and it attacks.

The trick here is to have the extreme tables with the extreme encounters on them, not just "fair and balanced encounters".

I love this myself....and so do many of my players as they can encounter anything....not just the same "core monsters in the rulebooks that every GM uses".
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Paul Farquhar said:
But (the fear of) bad faith is exactly the topic we are talking about.
Click to expand...

No, I don't think that's really accurate. It's not about bad faith. It's about the purpose of rules, and how that creates uncertainty.

Set aside the idea of bad faith... a jerk's gonna be a jerk and will break rules just as soon as abuse rules. With that in mind, knowing rules aren't about preventing bad faith play... what are they for?

I claimed that they are about creating uncertainty. Having a process we go to in order to determine the outcome that's not just one party deciding, seems to be about creating uncertainty.

Would you agree or disagree with that?

The Firebird said:
I think "doesn't respond well to bribery" is the same type of trait as "doesn't respond well to flattery".
Click to expand...

Sure, but again... people were really adamant that a GM could give an NPC the trait "cannot be bribed".
 

hawkeyefan said:
Right! This is the kind of stuff I was getting at... that there is information that the GM can share or not... create or not... and that plays a large part in how a situation will play out, and the players' chances to navigate it effectively.

The presence of fallen rocks to indicate a dangerous climb, the presence of tracks or leavings to indicate predators in the area, some evidence of fey to set up trickery or illusion... these are choices the GM makes that affect gameplay.

So much focus is spent solely on the content of the game world from the fictional standpoint... I think we also need to be thinking about gameplay during these moments.
Click to expand...
Telegraphing is definitely something that can come up,(in fact I think I mentioned it earlier). I often try to give players clues if something is dangerous or amiss. But the players shouldn’t always expect it is the point. If it is skilled play, they need to assume a certain level of danger even when it isn’t obvious. Sometimes this stuff will be telegraphed, sometimes, for whatever reason, it won’t be. But that is deemed entirely fair
 

Maxperson said:
This is a Strawman. The portions that are about trust are the ones where the DM is issuing rulings, interpretations, house rules, world creation, interpretation of interactions between PCs and the environment described, etc. Not the combat rules.

Trust is about when the DM is stepping outside of the rules or appears to be.

Trying to make it about combat rules and then arguing your creation, instead of talking about the actual issue, is a clear Strawman.
Click to expand...

I'm not "making it about combat rules". I am not commenting on trust.

I'm asking why combat has rules.

As I said, I think it's about uncertainty. Would you agree with that, or no?
 

hawkeyefan said:
I'm not "making it about combat rules". I am not commenting on trust.

I'm asking why combat has rules.

As I said, I think it's about uncertainty. Would you agree with that, or no?
Click to expand...
It depends on the system I think. For me combat rules allow for a (admittedly abstracted) simulation of a combat situation not easily and fairly handled via any other method. I suppose uncertainty is a factor too and, for those who want it, a way to systemize narrative excitement and drama.
 

Faolyn said:
Because it could be fun, particularly if its narrated well.

And yes, D&D does make things like gear and rations less important, which is one of the reasons I switched to Level Up. In that game, this cliff would be an exploration challenge, and failure to climb it would likely cause the PCs to gain exhaustion and lose Supply and be delayed in the travels, but they would still actually get up the cliff (because obstacles you can't get around at all are boring).

(Or at least D&D did; I have no idea if they've changed things in 5.24.)


And this as well. Have the PCs get attacked in the middle of a climb. Have them need to climb the cliff before the horrible thing catches them (giant swarm of monsters that would be dangerous if it caught them but can't climb, or a (un)natural disaster or something like like).
Click to expand...

Yeah, the system and rules matter quite a bit. My original point in this branch of the conversation, was that a GM should not just be concerned with the content of the fiction and its plausibility or consistency... though he should be thinking of those things... he also needs to be looking at things as a game and how it can be played.

Making subsystems that matter like gear, using telegraphing as a GMing technique... these are game concerns. Most people totally ignored them and were worried only about portraying the fiction.
 

thefutilist said:
I could have extrapolated almost the opposite to everything I just said. A windowless room underground. The demon had to be kept out the way but maybe elite guards in front of a plain looking door. Or a secret door.
Click to expand...

This was a great post overall, but this bit really jumped out at me. It shows how differently the GM can go with his decision making, all while still remaining within the realm of plausibility and consistency.

AlViking said:
I know how to run social encounters because I've had a few in my life. In D&D if I'm uncertain about a reaction from an NPC or whether the characters can glean something other than what is being said, I have checks I can use if I want. I don't know how to run a knife fight without rules.
Click to expand...

You could simply say that the NPC is a master knife fighter, and cannot be defeated, and so the PC loses.
 


hawkeyefan said:
I'm not "making it about combat rules". I am not commenting on trust.

I'm asking why combat has rules.

As I said, I think it's about uncertainty. Would you agree with that, or no?
Click to expand...
I don’t think uncertainty is the sole reason. It is also because it can be hotly contested (it is classic: ‘bang bang you’re dead’ versus ‘no I am not’. And the fact that it is a physical action, which is hard to adjudicate, though not impossible, without those kinds of mechanics. It is also harder to make combat rules that are as 1-1 as other aspects of play like exploration or conversation
 

Bedrockgames said:
Telegraphing is definitely something that can come up,(in fact I think I mentioned it earlier). I often try to give players clues if something is dangerous or amiss. But the players shouldn’t always expect it is the point. If it is skilled play, they need to assume a certain level of danger even when it isn’t obvious. Sometimes this stuff will be telegraphed, sometimes, for whatever reason, it won’t be. But that is deemed entirely fair
Click to expand...

Sure, but if a GM chooses not to telegraph, what skill are you measuring? Isn't the telegraphing of danger serving the purpose to see how the players prepare themselves for the indicated danger?

If you take away the telegraphed info, then what's left?
 

Similar Threads

Snarf Zagyg
D&D General What Does New Coke Tell Us About Designing for D&D
9 10 11 12 13
Replies
120
Views
6K
Bohandas
B
OptionalRule
D&D (2024) Exception-Based Design in D&D: When Rules Enable Rule Lawyers
2 3 4
Replies
37
Views
4K
tetrasodium
tetrasodium
Reynard
D&D General "Player Skill" versus DM Ingenuity as a playstyle.
8 9 10 11 12
Replies
113
Views
11K
EzekielRaiden
EzekielRaiden
Snarf Zagyg
  • Locked
D&D General Just sweeping dirty dishes under the rug: D&D, Sexism, and the '70s
52 53 54 55 56
Replies
552
Views
48K
Dannyalcatraz
Dannyalcatraz
B
A Sneak Peek of the 2024 D&D Dungeon Master's Guide
10 11 12 13 14
Replies
139
Views
29K
Dire Bare
Dire Bare
Remove ads

Top