D&D General Explain Bounded Accuracy to Me (As if I Was Five)

[EzekielRaiden]

This brings to mind Lazarus Long's quote: "A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects."

TBH, absolutely not a fan of this quote. It goes far too far in the other direction, asserting effectively that everyone human should be good at everything, which is impossible and unachievable. Specialization may be for insects, but such Renaissance man expectations are for fictions.

D&D, like many games, has long rewarded specialization over diversification. You pile all your eggs in one basket, you get amazing returns.
That this leaves you with a crippling weakness when your strength is negated or irrelevant is not something the game usually protects against- 4e took a stab at it, but generally, if your class isn't good at a thing, it takes a lot of effort to shore up that weak point, effort that could be put to use making yourself better at your main thing.

And that's fine, if we look at D&D as a team-based game, where every character has a niche. Unfortunately, my experience is that party optimization is rarely a concern for players, beyond the basic "hey who is going to heal us?". Lopsided groups can and do exist, and the system nor the rulebooks really tell you what to do about it as a DM (beyond the old-school approach of, "when they die, they'll figure it out", lol).

This is because the game does not reward team optimization. In fact, both 3e and 5e actually have design that (mostly passively) discourages team optimization. Conversely, 4e rewarded it...and guess what happened, people started caring a lot more about it as a result!

Again, the problem of perverse incentives rears its ugly head. Well, that and the fact that 5e was written as a game that pervasively puts all labor on the DM's shoulders and then does jack-all to actually support them doing that labor. But that's a topic for several other threads.

The game could stand to make diversifying easier, since the amount of skills most characters are proficient can be pretty woeful when compared to we modern-day humans. And you can't even say "well, D&D worlds are more like Earth's past with worse education standards" when we have wizard and bard colleges in many settings! Even early D&D relied heavily on Sage NPC's who had vast knowledge when compared to PC's.

Making it easier won't solve the problem. Rewarding it will. You must counter the existing incentives with new ones. Be careful, though, as you may stumble into all-new, unforeseen perverse incentives!

And sure, maybe a player wants to have a weakness. That's perfectly acceptable, but I think it's equally acceptable for someone to get tired of constantly falling down when trying to climb a tree, or always risking drowning when they come into contact with water like many video game protagonists! And the game isn't friendly to attempts to overcome such a weakness, beyond snickering at you for deciding that taking Animal Handling or Medicine over Athletics, no matter how well it suits you character concept.

Indeed. In fact, it forces you to choose between "keep up with/get ahead of the power curve" (investing in your core stats) and making any kind of progress in anything else you find interesting, due to marrying stat increases to the feat system. Another perverse incentive.

Just to reiterate, you options are all optional! Multiclassing, Feats, and Downtime aren't available by default, and I hear a lot of people like it that way!

And when you look at fictional examples of fantasy characters, the kinds of people you might want your character to emulate, you find many veritable polymaths and most likely multiclassed individuals roaming about- Conan, for example, speaks a dozen languages and has tried his hands at just as many professions, if not more!

I'm starting up a game of my own fairly soon, and I think I'll experiment with opportunities for characters to gain more proficiencies and see how that goes. Of course, at the same time, I'll also have to make skills matter more- in my 5e experience, there's several skills that seem to be rarely invoked, which is another problem entirely.

Good luck. This sort of thing is not an easy task, not without causing unwanted side effects anyway.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

No... I described earlier how that behavior is bad and harmful to the fun of others at the table. You've written at extreme length with significant fisking channeling Septa Unella in order to push back against everyone who has done so since then but have yet to describe that original behavior yourself or make any effort to explain why the rest of the table must simply accept that unfun hit to their fun in silence without pushing back. The behavior is not acceptable and your defense of it depends entirely on it being granted some blessed status of absolute acceptance no matter how it affects others at the table.

WHAT behavior? The only thing you or Lanefan called out was...a player choosing to roll Persuasion rather than flogging himself trying to play-act when he has a face for radio, a voice for print, and the eloquence of a particularly gnarled knot of wood. That it's somehow a terrible sin against God and man that a person could struggle with roleplaying in the head of their character. A thing a lot of real people actually do struggle with!

I have not seen you once actually highlight a behavior that that video called out as legitimately toxic and worthy of being opposed. So until you do so, I'm not seeing what I could have responded to.

Your spoilered parody examples are just that. Parodies. Give me actual concrete examples. Until then, you're just complaining that ignorant or struggling players are ignorant and struggling and thus should be summarily kicked out of the hobby.

 

[tetrasodium]

WHAT behavior? The only thing you or Lanefan called out was...a player choosing to roll Persuasion rather than flogging himself trying to play-act when he has a face for radio, a voice for print, and the eloquence of a particularly gnarled knot of wood. That it's somehow a terrible sin against God and man that a person could struggle with roleplaying in the head of their character. A thing a lot of real people actually do struggle with!

I have not seen you once actually highlight a behavior that that video called out as legitimately toxic and worthy of being opposed. So until you do so, I'm not seeing what I could have responded to.

Your spoilered parody examples are just that. Parodies. Give me actual concrete examples. Until then, you're just complaining that ignorant or struggling players are ignorant and struggling and thus should be summarily kicked out of the hobby.

Remember when you claimed that there wasn't a kneejerk defense of players acting like a jerk in 789 claiming that criticism was a demonstrable problem? It seems that you are arguing against criticizing a player for behaving at the table in a way that you don't even understand and that you can't (or won't) describe what you think that you are defending, that's pretty kneejerk.

 

[Thomas Shey]

We neither need nor would benefit from gatekeeping the hobby from so-called "bad" players. To even make gestures in that direction is a dangerous precedent. This does not mean that we should for any reason tolerate toxicity in the other direction, we absolutely should oppose folks trying to exploit or abuse others. But in the vast majority of cases, a "bad" player is merely an ignorant player, or an inexperienced player, or a struggling player. Being constructive and supportive is much, much better than aggressively hunting down and expelling "bad" players.

Cynically, its also often a player who's taste and style doesn't fit yours.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Remember when you claimed that there wasn't a kneejerk defense of players acting like a jerk in 789 claiming that criticism was a demonstrable problem? It seems that you are arguing against criticizing a player for behaving at the table in a way that you don't even understand and that you can't (or won't) describe what you think that you are defending, that's pretty kneejerk.

Okay. Third and final time.

Please tell me what this behavior is.

Because you still have not done so using your own words. You've referenced two YouTube videos and handwaved at bad player behavior.

I explicitly said toxic behavior is something any player can do and that it shouldn't be tolerated. I have already, repeatedly, rejected the position you keep trying to pin on me. Yet twice now, when I have asked for even one statement from you about what behavior I'm supposed to be looking at, you have deferred and instead insinuated that I have somehow made a ridiculous, extreme, nonsensical apologia for horrific player misbehavior.

Either actually rebut my points, and respond to the words I've used, or stop accusing me of defending something I literally never once supported, ever, at all.

Until then, I can only go by what you and others have actually said, and that is to drive people out of the hobby because they don't know how ro roleplay or are struggling to do so up to the lofty standards you set.

 

[Lanefan]

But in the vast majority of cases, a "bad" player is merely an ignorant player, or an inexperienced player, or a struggling player. Being constructive and supportive is much, much better than aggressively hunting down and expelling "bad" players.

Agreed; and those ignorant or inexperienced or struggling players will - often but not always with that constructive support from others - eventually either figure it out or they won't; and those who do figure it out will often go on to be the constructive support for the next wave.

And those who don't or won't (or can't) figure it out even with that constructive support? Well, at some point I think we have to simply accept that the game - just like any other pastime - isn't for everyone.

And, frankly? I think we can all recognize that we've all had at least one time where it was us. We were the bad player. We were the one who didn't understand, or who was tired and just wanted to coast a bit, or who was putting the cart before the horse.

Of course, and agreed. But even then, underneath it all we knew (or learned) what to do, what dice to roll, how to roleplay, and so forth; and are willing and capable of doing so.

There's nothing wrong with not knowing how to roleplay etc.; my problem is with those who - over the medium-to-long term - refuse to learn.

 

[ezo]

I have no issue if players can't role-play or aren't comfortable with it. I take issue more with players who refuse to learn how to play the game. As @Lanefan said, what dice to roll, but also what their features, spells, and other abilities can do. It is understandable if someone needs to look up a reference once in a while, but every time (or nearly so) after playing for months, is not acceptable IMO. It delays the game too often.

Not learning how to calculate attack bonus, what saving throws you are proficient in, having incomplete character sheets, etc. are also all things that show a disrespect for the game IMO that means a player really isn't committed to playing.

For me, these players are also toxic. I can only give players so much time and so many chances to "join in" and participate before I feel they are just wasting my time and the other players.

 

[tetrasodium]

https://www.enworld.org/threads/explain-bounded-accuracy-to-me-as-if-i-was-five.703031/post-9291485Okay. Third and final time.

Please tell me what this behavior is.

I'd be happy to, but first I will need you to outline and explain the steps I should take to telepathically(?) engage in the sort of divination(?) required for me @tetrasodium in florida to reveal whatbehavior you @EzekielRaiden (Planet skyron?) thought you were shielding from criticism. I suspect that we can both agree telepathy will never be part of my personal skillset so it seems like the best course of action would be for you to share what you thought you were shielding from criticism.
In 787 I asked if you were offering a blanket attempt at shielding any behavior with no line too far, but you denied that in 789... So In 790 I asked you to either explain why the rest of the table must suffer through it or describe the specific behavior you were defending from criticism. In 792 you asked me "WHAT behavior", but I admittedly am not delepathic or omniescent & doubt either of those will ever be part of my skillset; That question makes it look very much like you are defending a thing you don't understand & did not feel any need to gain an understanding before defending it from criticism.

Because you still have not done so using your own words. You've referenced two YouTube videos and handwaved at bad player behavior.

Yes because I am asking you to explain what behavior you personally believe that you personally have been defending from criticism, see the earlier telepathy & omniscience gaps in my skillset for why you personally are the only one who can answer that question.

I explicitly said toxic behavior is something any player can do and that it shouldn't be tolerated. I have already, repeatedly, rejected the position you keep trying to pin on me. Yet twice now, when I have asked for even one statement from you about what behavior I'm supposed to be looking at, you have deferred and instead insinuated that I have somehow made a ridiculous, extreme, nonsensical apologia for horrific player misbehavior.

Either actually rebut my points, and respond to the words I've used, or stop accusing me of defending something I literally never once supported, ever, at all.

Until then, I can only go by what you and others have actually said, and that is to drive people out of the hobby because they don't know how ro roleplay or are struggling to do so up to the lofty standards you set.

Once again, no telepathy & no omniscience. The only behavior you seem to have declared to be toxic is the behavior of one player criticizing another for behaving in a way you are expecting me to describe for you.... I'd be happy to add telepathy to my skillset if you could first explain how I should do that in order to understand what behavior you believed you were shielding from criticism since it does not seem that you even understood the behavior I described & didn't see a need to gain understanding before defending it.

 

[AnotherGuy]

We can make it so the career means something too. Like, it's kinda weird to imagine these professionals growing, and becoming powerful, influential, some may say legendary, figures in the world, without developing basic competence outside of the narrow skillset they started with at level 1.

That can certainly be viewed as a failing of the system but thankfully there are homebrew options available to people like us who are looking for a little more growth in competency from our game

Skill Variant - Skill Points. Convert your proficiency bonuses in abc skills to proficiency bonus x abc = y points and distribute as you wish. Whenever your proficiency bonus increases due to level convert to skill points. So a call-back to 3.x with 5e's skills & tool list. This gives a little more nuance to the history/personality of your character.
Skill Variant - Half Proficiency. (Rounded Down). This will apply for non-skills (perhaps not tools), but I would then consider imposing Disadvantage on non-skills, for balance purposes.

Or one could go a completely different route and change the Resolution and Consequence (page 242 DMG)
Failure with skill/tool proficiency = Success at a Cost
Failure with a non-proficient skill = Fail Foward

 

[ECMO3]

Mmos are not the slam dunk you are hoping for them to give you on this topic either.they too have faced the same sort of kneejerk defense of players called out for being a jerk in ways that impact the fun of others.

Yeah I think this is an example of the problem. Don't play the game if you don't want to be around players who are not experts.

This is the equivalent of getting together for a pick-up game of basketball and telling the short kid to go home because he sucks.

How is sitting at the same table as someone and commenting on their behavior "hunting" them down? Are you suggesting that there is no line that Bob can cross where Alice & Cindy are justified in telling him to stop ruining their fun because they feel the game they are playing requires more than simply showing up?

The ONLY time this is acceptable is during session 0. If you are past session 0 and you did not say this specific thing in sesssion 0 "you need to do more than show up" then no you can't say that later. The better options is for Alice and Cindy to simply leave the game if they are not having fun.