Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="DEFCON 1" data-source="post: 8952813" data-attributes="member: 7006">Heh heh... well here is most likely the thing that is the playstyle block between both sides of the equation.I don't believe players can or should &quot;learn&quot; anything about the game while playing because since the DM controls everything and the game is always different... there is nothing TO learn.&nbsp; Everything in the world of D&amp;D can and will be different.&nbsp; Consistency is not constant.&nbsp; At least not in any game I participate in.D&amp;D is not a tactical board game.&nbsp; There aren't set moves that all players and creatures will always do that you can strategically plan around.&nbsp; The way the events and encounters play out is always changing based on story and DM fiat, and no player can take anything for granted (except in the cases of playing with a DM who does everything exactly the same every time.)I mean look at the most basic thing players have &quot;learned&quot; over the past 40 years:&nbsp; Trolls can't regenerate if they are burned with fire.What's more universal than that in D&amp;D?&nbsp; The ultimate &quot;learned tactic&quot;?&nbsp; And yet... what do we hear DMs constantly talk about in all the arguments about &quot;using meta knowledge&quot; in games?&nbsp; How to include trolls in the the game who DO regenerate even after being hit with fire.&nbsp;&nbsp; Because DMs have seen that this standard tactic is BORING and pointless, and thus they want to do something different to keep players on their toes.&nbsp; Even if the players have dealt with fire-vulnerable trolls before and have &quot;learned the tactics&quot; of dealing with trolls... a lot of DMs will still be perfectly fine with the idea of throwing out a fire-resistant one on an occasion just so the players don't get complacent and because it makes for an interesting story of how these fire-resistant trolls exist when all the others are vulnerable?&nbsp; THAT'S what is interesting, not &quot;learning the tactic&quot; in the first place.All manner of DMs do stuff like that.&nbsp; Take a supposed &quot;truth&quot; of the game and change it.&nbsp; To keep the players guessing.&nbsp; In a world of magic, there is nothing you can necessarily believe is a truth in reality, because magic changes reality.&nbsp; I don't believe players should &quot;learn&quot; anything, because in a game like D&amp;D, you can't take anything for granted and shouldn't take anything for granted.And I firmly believe this to be the case.&nbsp; If the players have &quot;learned&quot; something tactically advantageous based upon consistent trial and error... like for instance tapping the ground ahead of them with a 10' pole to find all the pit traps... then I will most definitely on occasion play with that expectation and their &quot;tactically sound&quot; choice.&nbsp; Because to do otherwise is to truly turn D&amp;D into nothing but a board game where players can just check off their list of &quot;standard tactics&quot; as they play, confident that they can &quot;win&quot;... while the DM just sits there like a robot saying &quot;Yes&quot; and &quot;No&quot; with no impact or influence on the game.&nbsp; And to me that is the death of the game at my table.&nbsp; I might as well just be running a game of HeroQuest.&nbsp; And I will NEVER play D&amp;D that way.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="DEFCON 1, post: 8952813, member: 7006"] Heh heh... well here is most likely the thing that is the playstyle block between both sides of the equation. I don't believe players can or should "learn" anything about the game while playing because since the DM controls everything and the game is always different... there is nothing TO learn. Everything in the world of D&D can and will be different. Consistency is not constant. At least not in any game I participate in. D&D is not a tactical board game. There aren't set moves that all players and creatures will always do that you can strategically plan around. The way the events and encounters play out is always changing based on story and DM fiat, and no player can take anything for granted (except in the cases of playing with a DM who does everything exactly the same every time.) I mean look at the most basic thing players have "learned" over the past 40 years: Trolls can't regenerate if they are burned with fire. What's more universal than that in D&D? The ultimate "learned tactic"? And yet... what do we hear DMs constantly talk about in all the arguments about "using meta knowledge" in games? [I]How to include trolls in the the game who DO regenerate even after being hit with fire.[/I] Because DMs have seen that this standard tactic is BORING and pointless, and thus they want to do something different to keep players on their toes. Even if the players have dealt with fire-vulnerable trolls before and have "learned the tactics" of dealing with trolls... a lot of DMs will still be perfectly fine with the idea of throwing out a fire-resistant one on an occasion just so the players don't get complacent and because it makes for an interesting story of how these fire-resistant trolls exist when all the others are vulnerable? THAT'S what is interesting, not "learning the tactic" in the first place. All manner of DMs do stuff like that. Take a supposed "truth" of the game and change it. To keep the players guessing. In a world of magic, there is nothing you can necessarily believe is a truth in reality, because magic changes reality. I don't believe players should "learn" anything, because in a game like D&D, you can't take anything for granted and shouldn't take anything for granted. And I firmly believe this to be the case. If the players have "learned" something tactically advantageous based upon consistent trial and error... like for instance tapping the ground ahead of them with a 10' pole to find all the pit traps... then I will most definitely on occasion play with that expectation and their "tactically sound" choice. Because to do otherwise is to truly turn D&D into nothing but a board game where players can just check off their list of "standard tactics" as they play, confident that they can "win"... while the DM just sits there like a robot saying "Yes" and "No" with no impact or influence on the game. And to me that is the death of the game at my table. I might as well just be running a game of HeroQuest. And I will NEVER play D&D that way. [/QUOTE]

Verification