Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
DM's: How transparent are you with game mechanics "in world?"
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 8398972" data-attributes="member: 6801228"><p>I must have missed it, because I don't remember you giving any solid examples. I remember you saying this recent bit about it grinding the game to a halt if you had to have a talk with your players, but as we are showing, that isn't true.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>And no one said that you would need an involved discussion. You are assuming you need one for no reason I can discern except that it makes your position seem more reasonable. A discussion is different than an involved discussion, and so you can easily have a quick discussion that the players can participate in.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>How about the lack of a quick discussion? Because I've been using the word "discussion" without the adjective "involved" you are adding that and changing the meaning of the point.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Dictating a rule without giving them a chance to respond. Actually worse, because they did respond if I remember this story correctly, voting to allow those weapons to harm monsters with resistance. However, you withheld information from them, which is that you would give them fewer magic items in that case, and then justified ignoring their wishes, because of a rule you homebrewed (the frequency of items) and basically gave them an ultimatum that if they didn't go along with your desires, they would get less interesting gear. </p><p></p><p>And you are probably going to defend this by explaining to me something about the game balance or the threat of monsters with resistance to non-magical weapons, but it is hogwash. There were other solutions, including laying out your real concerns first, and allowing the players to discuss that in session zero, intstead of telling them "actually, that discussion we had previously doesn't apply, because that result is one I don't like" </p><p></p><p></p><p>And, if you have the time to say all that, then you could easily fit in a quick conversation with your players to get their opinions on the matter. You simply choose not to.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>No, it doesn't. If we were discussing the role of the umpire in baseball, and their ability to make certain calls, like kicking coaches or fans out of the game, the umpire saying "But I like having the power to kick coaches out of the game" is a meaningless distraction. It doesn't matter if you like it, it matters what is best for the game. There are many things we like, that we don't get to have or do.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Chaosmancer, post: 8398972, member: 6801228"] I must have missed it, because I don't remember you giving any solid examples. I remember you saying this recent bit about it grinding the game to a halt if you had to have a talk with your players, but as we are showing, that isn't true. And no one said that you would need an involved discussion. You are assuming you need one for no reason I can discern except that it makes your position seem more reasonable. A discussion is different than an involved discussion, and so you can easily have a quick discussion that the players can participate in. How about the lack of a quick discussion? Because I've been using the word "discussion" without the adjective "involved" you are adding that and changing the meaning of the point. Dictating a rule without giving them a chance to respond. Actually worse, because they did respond if I remember this story correctly, voting to allow those weapons to harm monsters with resistance. However, you withheld information from them, which is that you would give them fewer magic items in that case, and then justified ignoring their wishes, because of a rule you homebrewed (the frequency of items) and basically gave them an ultimatum that if they didn't go along with your desires, they would get less interesting gear. And you are probably going to defend this by explaining to me something about the game balance or the threat of monsters with resistance to non-magical weapons, but it is hogwash. There were other solutions, including laying out your real concerns first, and allowing the players to discuss that in session zero, intstead of telling them "actually, that discussion we had previously doesn't apply, because that result is one I don't like" And, if you have the time to say all that, then you could easily fit in a quick conversation with your players to get their opinions on the matter. You simply choose not to. No, it doesn't. If we were discussing the role of the umpire in baseball, and their ability to make certain calls, like kicking coaches or fans out of the game, the umpire saying "But I like having the power to kick coaches out of the game" is a meaningless distraction. It doesn't matter if you like it, it matters what is best for the game. There are many things we like, that we don't get to have or do. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
DM's: How transparent are you with game mechanics "in world?"
Top