While I would generally agree with your position, I think this is a trope that might be attractive to some players - you defeat the bad guy in some darkened hole then crawl out, fatally wounded, to catch one last glimpse of the sun or a last word with your friends who were just a moment too late to save you. It's common enough in genre fiction that I think it would be a satisfying end for a character for some players
D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.
- Thread starter Reynard
- Start date
While I would generally agree with your position, I think this is a trope that might be attractive to some players - you defeat the bad guy in some darkened hole then crawl out, fatally wounded, to catch one last glimpse of the sun or a last word with your friends who were just a moment too late to save you. It's common enough in genre fiction that I think it would be a satisfying end for a character for some players
EzekielRaiden
Follower of the Way
Sure, that's fair. I was mostly trying to create an example that was distinct from the "save my friend about to be sacrificed" thing, that would still demonstrate a similar experience of "wait so all that hard work I did was for nothing the entire time???" feeling that, even if it wouldn't be felt by everyone, would still be a pretty likely stumbling block for at least someone in most gaming groups.
Other possible examples:
- Questing to get resources to save the kingdom from an invasion, but the actual amount of time until the invasion arrives is variable and could be far less than would ever be enough to complete the original quest, making the effort look pointless and unnecessarily punitive
- Trying to get the cure (or curse-breaker or exorcism tool or what-have-you) for an ally NPC, only to return home (successful or not) to find out that they've been dead/corrupted/whatever for most of that time
- Competing with a rival or an antagonist in something that has at least a significant (if not absolute) element of skill, e.g. some kind of game of strategy even if it includes some random elements, only to learn that you had to have beaten them within a tiny number of rounds, otherwise whatever you were competing for is lost to you anyway
- Engaging in a negotiation process to acquire something valuable, only to learn that the negotiator you were working with hadn't been informed that the purchase was already completed by someone else on the second day (or w/e)
More or less, just...things where it's possible to be already a "loser" when you think you're still participating, and thus every choice made after that hard-coded (even if randomly-determined) result was completely pointless and possibly outright harmful.
I agree that there is zero difference here as far as "quantum" is concerned. I think there is a difference in procedure that is worth being aware of:
What's ugly about the fact that different people play RPGs differently, for different reasons?
You can play for advancement in Burning Wheel. I'm pretty sure I posted about this upthread: when I play BW I am overwhelmingly in "actor" stance, declaring actions as I think makes sense for my character; my friend declares a lot of actions in "author" stance - that is, he makes a decision as a player and then retrofits that to his character. And one of the main things he has his eye on is what tests he needs for advancement. Thus, his characters advance more quickly than mine do.
I'm not sure about optimisation, though. Compare The Fighter to The Fisherman: pretty different 3-lifepath builds, but is one optimised and the other not? I'm not sure what the optimisation parameters are supposed to be.
AnotherGuy
Hero
GM: The party approaches the door and discovers it is locked.
Rogue player: My rogue quickly scratches around his satchel for his thief tools.....
Cleric player: Wait! Let my character cast silence to ensure you do not fumble or succeed with a complication which may or may not alert everyone in the household depending on the GM decides move.
Wizard player: Stand back gentlemen, this is a job for my character, as I will circumvent the plans of our overlord GM. As after our cleric casts Silence I will have my wizard cast Knock from 50 feet away. Thus we will ensure the opening of such door is a success negating the quantum failures, random encounters, fail forwards and complications that our devious GM would normally decide on.
Cleric player: Your verbal component of Knock will not pass through my Silence barrier so it will have no effect on the locked door.
Wizard player: Confound it!
Rogue player: My rogue quickly scratches around his satchel for his thief tools.....
Cleric player: Wait! Let my character cast silence to ensure you do not fumble or succeed with a complication which may or may not alert everyone in the household depending on the GM decides move.
Wizard player: Stand back gentlemen, this is a job for my character, as I will circumvent the plans of our overlord GM. As after our cleric casts Silence I will have my wizard cast Knock from 50 feet away. Thus we will ensure the opening of such door is a success negating the quantum failures, random encounters, fail forwards and complications that our devious GM would normally decide on.
Cleric player: Your verbal component of Knock will not pass through my Silence barrier so it will have no effect on the locked door.
Wizard player: Confound it!
Enrahim
Explorer
GM: So, knock has a verbal component, right? [rolls some dice in secret, checks their notes, and manifests their signature grin]
AnotherGuy
Hero
Cross-posted on my edit
Lanefan
Victoria Rules
You can actually have it both ways, to a point: have one of the options in the table read "Make s*** up." or "DM prerogative". This can be really handy if it's a table you use frequently, as unless there's lots of options it can start getting repetitive after a while.
As do I, to a certain extent. They can be overdone, though, as proven by the very existence of Hackmaster.
EzekielRaiden
Follower of the Way
More the point was that "showing your work", as it were, exclusively after "your work" no longer communicates anything, won't really affect the trust-o-meter. It won't hurt, or at least it shouldn't if the players are reasonable. But nothing is really gained or sustained in the trust department by only revealing mechanics after they've become irrelevant.
Conversely, there would be a significant potential for gain if you show the work while that work is still relevant, because then the players can see you playing by the rules you've set. It isn't perfect, paranoia can always find an excuse of course, but at least for me I would very much appreciate that gesture, whereas I really wouldn't feel much of anything (except mild curiosity) if shown a mechanic when it's been reduced to pure novelty information.
Well, I don't genrally make that kind of assumption unless there's a reason to. But even if we grant that? Probably would tell them at least the general outline after the end of their first (or second, if it seems like there will be more than two) encounter. Doesn't have to be specific numbers, just descriptive stuff. Generally, I'd try to choose effects that would leave reasonable evidence behind, e.g. something that burns leaving scorch marks where it fell, something that induces sleep having the sound of a lullaby, etc. Something beneficial might have the sound of a battle theme or feel like the gentle warmth of a campfire or the like, depending on what the effect is.
The way I see it, while learning about an obstacle is interesting up to a point, making smart decisions about information you do in fact have is almost always interesting. By informing the players while it still matters (even if it's not 100% guaranteed to be of significant importance), I'm giving them that chance to make informed decisions and even try to manipulate the situation in their favor (e.g. perhaps they come back with mirrors in the hope that they can reflect a color-flash at an enemy!) Further, that way, choices good and bad are squarely and obviously theirs.
Sure, but it doesn't then mean very much if you wait only until after the unusual thing is unequivocally never going to show up again. Further, plenty of unusual things can still be understood pretty well even without needing to be an expert on it first. A watering fountain would probably be mystifying to a neanderthal at first, but a little experimentation would have probably made him comfortable with it quickly. I find many PCs are in a similar boat, even if they don't know the precise theory they pick up the core essentials easily enough.
Ah. See, I thought this was "the players DID investigate and experiment, didn't learn anything, then the whole area was erased/destroyed and only then did I tell them the mechanics." Also it's now sounding like this was a singular event? Like they only interacted with that gem the one single time and then nothing else? I was under the impression that they had seen it and even limitedly/distantly interacted with it (e.g. not in the room itself), but despite multiple encounters nothing was really learned until after no more encounters could ever happen.
Similar Threads
