D&D General 6E But A + Thread

[kermit4karate]

...it is unabashedly Mechanics Over Fiction. I'm not interested in making up fiction to justify the mechanics.

Totally agree!

 

[AnotherGuy]

Too much @EzekielRaiden.
I have no stake in this. I'm not here to defend one style over another.

Players who elect to not pay attention to their GM earn the undesirable results of that choice.

Hmmm
But I didn't know? I obviously never heard that? It's obvious my character would have done abc or notice xyz?
This doesn't make sense in the fiction given lmnop?

I do not like dealing with that nonsense. So sometimes I have to repeat myself or I inform others at the table to repeat the information to the inattentive participant that way the temporary irritation can be shared at the table. I'm generous that way.

No. It's just that lazy GMing is a problem that becomes more obvious as D&D becomes more accessible.

I tend to think that happens on both sides of the screen...we have to be vigilant to not dummy down our games.
We already got rid of the math.

Interesting. The vast majority of my experience with that term comes from computer adventure games (e.g. King's Quest/Space Quest/Fate of Atlantis etc.), where "pixelb!+@#ing refers to the game being a jerk to you and requiring pixel-perfect accuracy before it will let you proceed--"puzzles" that are only hard because they are infuriatingly pedantic, not because they are actually a challenge of any kind to the player. So it is...more than a little strange to me that the label would be adopted for something that is, or at least aspires to be, actually a challenge to the player in terms of reasoning, observation, or resourcefulness.

This is a valid point.

I mean at this point all I've really gotten from this is that old-school fans think their game is somehow immune to lazy GMing, which is a humorous, but not particularly revelatory, mistaken belief.

I think the commentary is rather that players could not be lazy if they had any hopes of success and progress for their characters in the game.

 

[Minigiant]

I find this notion of OS players needing to be creative and clever while modern players just spam widgets to be a bunch of grognards getting high off their own farts. Modern D&D can be creative and encourage clever play while old school players can stand around lost in a room trying to find a secret door but until they find the correct sequence of words the DM is looking for, aren't able to discover it.

I want to thoroughly disabuse the notion that OS play is inherently more clever. Clever play isn't tied to an edition or ruleset.

OS play isn't clever.

But you are weaker

You cannot power through obstacles that are supposed to be challenging without it being risky or costly.

Modern play gives you power early. It is designed around the idea that you can just nuke or nova the first 2 challenges away because the last ones will have you exhausted for power. So you have the option to nova early, nova late, or spread evenly.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Hmmm
But I didn't know? I obviously never heard that? It's obvious my character would have done abc or notice xyz?
This doesn't make sense in the fiction given lmnop?

The natural state of being is ignorance. We only change that state by asking questions. I will always prompt my players to ask questions, generally with descriptions I hope are evocative and curious, inherently inviting, "But why would that be so...?"

If something genuinely doesn't make sense, then I have erred and I am 100% always willing to correct my mistakes. I will, in general, default to whatever interpretation is maximally favorable to the players when a mistake is noted, within the limits of established fiction and general decorum. That said, I do expect a player to demonstrate that I have made a mistake. This is usually extremely easy if I have in fact made a mistake.

A player who gave the first three excuses would be given three chances to correct their behavior going forward. The first time, I'd simply gently admonish them and suggest a better approach. The second time, I would tell them that that isn't how I run my game, and what they need to do differently in order to work with me. The third time, I would have a private conversation with them where I tell them precisely what is wrong with their behavior, why it is disruptive, and discuss what changes need to occur--including offering my own effort to try to meet them in the middle about it. If, after those three tries, the problem continues to persist, I would politely but firmly tell them they are no longer welcome at my table.

I don't tolerate bad-faith play. Period. And I don't think anyone else should. I do, however, give people a chance to correct their mistakes (because God knows I'll make too many).

The fourth thing is an actual argument with potential merit--it depends on what LMNO and P are. But if the player is genuinely abusing my leeway, claiming things don't make sense that demonstrably do (especially if the other players generally agree with me on that), then they'll be given the exact same three chances as before, just tailored to this specific issue. Perhaps I am tooting my own horn, but I am generally a very patient GM.

I do not like dealing with that nonsense. So sometimes I have to repeat myself or I inform others at the table to repeat the information to the inattentive participant that way the temporary irritation can be shared at the table. I'm generous that way.

Okay. As noted, I don't tolerate bad-faith player behavior, so...I don't see the gap here.

I tend to think that happens on both sides of the screen...we have to be vigilant to not dummy down our games.
We already got rid of the math.

I know you're joking here but like...yeah that actually makes me very sad.

This is a valid point.

I think the commentary is rather that players could not be lazy if they had any hopes of success and progress for their characters in the game.

Well, as noted, I've seen something more or less like it. And, given the touted ultra-ultra-ultra-high lethality, it seems that being lazy or not being lazy doesn't make much difference. Like, at all. Be lazy, and you're basically just waiting for Lady Luck to come along--which she always will, sooner or later.

 

[kermit4karate]

I find this notion of OS players needing to be creative and clever while modern players just spam widgets to be a bunch of grognards getting high off their own farts. Modern D&D can be creative and encourage clever play while old school players can stand around lost in a room trying to find a secret door but until they find the correct sequence of words the DM is looking for, aren't able to discover it.

I want to thoroughly disabuse the notion that OS play is inherently more clever. Clever play isn't tied to an edition or ruleset.

I politely disagree. As from the cliché, "Necessity is the mother of invention," I do believe that OS play is inherently "more clever," because I think that when you remove the tools and toys that people rely on to make life easier, or in this case some of the magic and special abilities, you do force them to have to be cleverer.

Just like if you tasked me with constructing a picnic table but you took away my power tools and handed me a pocket knife...you better believe I'd have to clever the sh*t out of that one!

 

[mamba]

There is a different sense of accomplishment when the player solves the riddle, discovers the secret door or negotiates a tricky social encounter than just button mashing the Intelligence ability, and Investigation and Persuasion skills.

if all you do in 5e is roll a die, then I’d argue that this is not the intended way either, just like it is not for 1e.

 

[payn]

I politely disagree. As from the cliché, "Necessity is the mother of invention," I do believe that OS play is inherently "more clever," because I think that when you remove the tools and toys that people rely on to make life easier, or in this case some of the magic and special abilities, you do force them to have to be cleverer.

Just like if you tasked me with constructing a picnic table but you took away my power tools and handed me a pocket knife...you better believe I'd have to clever the sh*t out of that one!

I mean, why are you a power tool owning picnic table builder without your tools? I think thats a big part of the disconnect. Folks think of their PCs as experienced spelunkers and adventurers. Why are they constantly without their tools for the job?

 

[kermit4karate]

if all you do in 5e is roll a die, then I’d argue that this is not the intended way either, just like it is not for 1e.

Hear, hear! I grow weary of the mischaracterizations of ANY flavor of D&D that allege a right or wrong way to play them as per "the rules." Nowhere in any edition ever has it said that no exceptions shall be made, ever. That's a construct of some collective desire to pigeonhole the different versions.

 

[mamba]

Interesting. The vast majority of my experience with that term comes from computer adventure games (e.g. King's Quest/Space Quest/Fate of Atlantis etc.), where "pixelb!+@#ing refers to the game being a jerk to you and requiring pixel-perfect accuracy before it will let you proceed--"puzzles" that are only hard because they are infuriatingly pedantic, not because they are actually a challenge of any kind to the player. So it is...more than a little strange to me that the label would be adopted for something that is, or at least aspires to be, actually a challenge to the player in terms of reasoning, observation, or resourcefulness.

oh no, I find that a perfect comparison. Tapping every tile with a 10 foot pole is not hard, just tedious. Keeping track of all kinds of resources is not that far removed from tedium either in most cases

 

[EzekielRaiden]

oh no, I find that a perfect comparison. Tapping every tile with a 10 foot pole is not hard, just tedious, keeping track of all kinds of resources is not that far removed from tedium either in most cases

Would you say you are of the opinion that "skilled play" is just a byword for lots of tedium, then?