Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 9385225" data-attributes="member: 6801228">You aren't addressing the point at all. This sort of thing can happen even in "new school" play, for example I had a DM who had us traveling in a blizzard, and got frustrated with us when we were just picking directions to move at random. But we told her that we literally had no idea if there was even a difference between the different paths we were taking. So, with no ability to discern any difference, which path we took didn't matter, because they were essentially the same path.And I find it utterly bizarre that you don't see the issue in old school style of "just try an action" coupled with "and any careless action can immediately kill your character".Yes, making an informed decision is a major component of making a decision.And this is elitism. Flat out. I love DnD, I spend far too much time playing DnD. I shouldn't be required to pick up six other hobbies just to effectively play DnD. And, I know you are about to say "then just don't play a druid" but that's the point. We are limiting character choices by real-life knowledge and limitations, which is bad.Compare what? Do you think a New School player can't spout random lines? Of course they can. But they can also ask "hey, what do I know about Wood Elves" because it could be that your entire spiel there was just an insulting charicature to those elves, and then oops, you just made enemies because you assumed something. Also, you said "other wood elves" which means that the player is a wood elf! On what planet would it be unreasonable for a player to say "Hey, I'm a wood elf, I should know some standard wood elf greetings right?" And as the DM, I can say "yes, and" while giving some overview, or I could say "Yes, what are they" and the player can then move forward with exactly the same thing the Old School player did. The only difference is the New School player isn't limited to only what they can recall about the lore, but can ask to be reminded about the lore their character should know. Because, again, we all lead very busy lives. Honestly, this feels like a big difference between the playstyles. New School DMs are advocates for the players. This doesn't mean we coddle them. This doesn't mean we don't challenge them. This doesn't mean we play their characters for them. But we are absolutely willing to help them. Because the game is meant to be fun, not stressful, and there is no reason not to occasionally step up and say "You are right, you would know something about this, and here is what I think you would know."And your bias is showing again. First you compare old school to a crossword puzzle [Hard] and then to Candy Crush [Easy] which is like New school. Then you decide that when I say I have found easy crossword puzzles I must be talking about one's made for preschoolers who cannot read or write. When, actually, I was thinking about a crossword I was required to do as part of my training at a corporation, and not a small corporation, one that has offices in multiple countries. But you can't imagine that a crossword for adults might be easier than Candy Crush, likely having never played more than a hundred or so levels of the game, because Candy Crush is for casual phone gamers and cannot be difficult, because it isn't made for real gamers.Because you only bring it up when it is to disparage the other side, and only when confronted to you start referring to it as a baseline for everyone, everywhere.Since the details matter, let's look back at that Temple, where I did have a puzzle door of a sorts. The room in the temple had 6 pillars, and the passageway on the far side was blocked by blades of toxic energy. There were pictures carved onto the pillars, but the details of the pictures were clues as to the true nature of the evil hiding in the temple, not for solving the puzzle. It was possibly, though likely deadly, to just rush through the blades, but no player attempted it. The players did investigate the pillars, where I told them that the pillars could be rotated. When they rotated the pillar, a small amount of toxic energy was released (1d4 damage as a baseline, increasing with each time they had been hit by the damage) and the blades were noticeably smaller. I had also made sure to note and draw their attention to an odd ring at the top of each pillar, which was a clue to use the mancatcher they had found to shift the pillars without taking the damage. They ended up using either the artificer's companion who was immune, or the wizard's mage hand to spin the pillars. So, how do I do it? I give them the details of the puzzle. I highlight anything that is easy enough to see visibly, and I let them poke around. If they want to roll for details, I let them do so and inform them of what they can determine. I keep any damage caused by the first few steps of the puzzle low, more as a signal or warning than anything dangerous. Also note, spinning the pillars only sort of solves the puzzle. It is a viable solution, as would have been finding a way past the blades without spinning the pillars, but there was a second layer of the puzzle, where they could make things easier for themselves by applying clever thinking, which they did. And, the true nature of the "puzzle" was a religious ceremony which revealed deeper insights into the threat they faced within, not barring their path forward.You didn't answer my question or address the point. It sounds like what you are advocating is having a single solution to a problem. This is deeply problematic in the design of challenges, because it inherently leans the designer into only accepting the answers they have considered. This gets discussed consistently as a poor way to handle challenges.  Yep, I wouldn't even bother attempting to fill them out. And I wouldn't say "bruh, I don' wanna think" like some stereotypical 90's surfer-bro. I would say, "I came here to play Dungeons and Dragons, not take tests to prove my worthiness. If you need an intelligence test to find me worth playing with, I want nothing to do with your game. Have a good day. Sorry for wasting my time." And again, you are showing disdain, because you are imagining the new school player as thoughtless, uncultured, and not interested in the actual game.sigh and now calling people who play differently than you weak. Can you not be elitist for a moment?Missing the point entirely. The point was, if everyone handles everything properly.... nothing happens. Properly tracking and keeping up on your water, through whatever means you devise means that... nothing happens. There is no possible reward, and you cannot inflict the penalties that often seem to be the goals of these systems. Your best result is... nothing. So what is the point of doing all the work, instead of just assuming it is done properly? I have achieved the same mechanical end, and opened up space to do literally anything else beyond filling out a water consumption spreadsheet.I don't think the DM should remember... but by that same token, if they aren't paying attention and remembering, then they could end up making one of those decisions you keep attributing to bad DMs who don't know how to play properly. And, no, I don't find nagging the DM to remember everything my character can do to be "hard fun." It isn't fun to do, it isn't fun to experience. IT isn't fun.Unless the DM decided that this time it was something that they couldn't plan for. Then they can't stop it. Or if they change the rules on a whim, then they can't stop it.Elitist BS again, on top of a false dichotomy. I don't play DnD to be forced to be a doomsday prepper. And the fact you want to continuously degredate the New School style of play as careless, happy go lucky, like that grasshopper who died of starvation in that fable... really, it speaks more to your mindset than the people who reject what others are calling Old School.  Those are all questions that a New School group would ask. Stop insulting a style you clearly have no idea how it really works.And if I did that, the point of the adventure wasn't to have it be a mystery. If I want a mystery, I don't make it something that they can figure out from a single connection point. Again, you don't understand the style, and you just leap to the least flattering conclusions.Missing the entire point yet again. And constantly telling me my players and myself do not do real work, put in real effort, roleplay, play the game, or take notes.And the way to be better than everyone else, if the rest of your posts are any indication.Is there a reason you want me to nail down precisely how bad Character death is? Do you have a point beside trying to trap me in a gotcha of "you think character's dying is a bad thing!"?Yeah, that was the point. And that was not a compliment to the style.Elitist BS</blockquote>

Verification