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

[ezo]

And name calling. That's the crux of the issue here. The name calling and justifications thereof.

Never to their face. (j/k)

 

[Clint_L]

One way that I think teachers often fail at our jobs is by forgetting that teachers are all people who were good at school. So we tend to wind up teaching as if everyone thinks like we do. This has the effect of making lots of smart, creative, interesting people feel like failures because they don't share the same the model of the mind that is prioritized in education. School becomes a place of shame and embarrassment.

At my school, I run the D&D Club. And during summer, I have run D&D camps specifically aimed at cognitively diverse kids. Lot's of students with autism, dyslexia, dyscalculia, and so on. My own son has autism. And I've been teaching for decades.

One thing experience has shown me is that every learner is unique. Some players will always struggle with some of the abstract concepts in D&D, for example, and it's not because they aren't trying, it's because of how their brain works. My own spouse has been playing for years, and they still aren't sure when to add proficiency modifiers, and so on. But they are also one of the best role players you will ever meet, and incredibly fun to play with. Then I have players who know the rules inside out and are not much fun at the table.

If a player isn't learning the rules or struggling with math because they don't really care and aren't that engaged, then I don't waste much time on them. They should find something that they enjoy more, and bless. Same if they aren't treating others kindly. But if a player is struggling because the D&D rules are designed for a particular kind of brain, but is into the game and doing their best, then I will always keep helping them and including them, and expect everyone at my table to do the same. I have found that those players always make the game better. Always.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I fully understand that the level of commitment and interest I have in the games I play (and run) is not the norm. However, to have the sorts of play experiences I prefer it needs to be the norm at the table. I do not think anyone should be talked down to or shamed, but the standard is the standard. If you want to reach the standard (whatever it is for a given game) I can work with you, but if you have no interest in learning the game or more importantly learning about the setting and the other player characters than there's not going to be a lot of room for you at the table.

I'm not a huge fan of automatic classes. I like options that have gradual learning curves, but if there's no effort to bring someone along so they are playing the same game as everyone else I am not really a fan of that.

There's nothing unreasonable about that. Sometimes people are just a poor fit. Its when it turns into a projection of moral failing that I think people need to step back.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

in the ancient days I played some tactical infantry games. Perhaps I played some DOAM even more frequently.

What I do not recall is complaining about one side having an advantage. It might get pointed out and acknowledged, but was part of the puzzle and challenge.

I also did not note complaints about bookkeeping or supply and limitations. It was just part of the challenge. And if a game had too much of that stuff and did not appeal, I would avoid it (looking at you ASL!). Combat commander was more my style or maybe conflict of heroes.

I wonder how many of their discussion threads consist of people who do not even play the game, complaining about the mechanics of it.

It seems like a like D&D fora buck this tend. Waldo does not like the game but makes sure to jump in and trumpet why—over and over.

I think there is a reason I don’t post in 4e and or pathfinder discussions—-all I would be able to really add is what I don’t like.

Just a side note as I scroll through this thread and look for discussion about the OP

There's nothing unreasonable about that. Sometimes people are just a poor fit. It’s when it turns into a projection of moral failing that I think people need to step back.

I know my audience. As we age our kids are growing up too! They are included in more of our games.

We prioritize family and friends…so we will slow down to explain and help in order to share our hobby and a lot of laughs.

We have also had instance of more hardcore gaming where it might be mostly us geezers but what I have learned is that it is ME who cares most about rules…others are ok with the occasional handwave.

Just know your audience. Adapt and even have some game sessions for experts only if you need that.

I have no problem helping someone along though as player or DM. My friends wife is super excited and thrilled with playing but she simply does not for some reason grok the technicalities. It’s been…a long time.

I will help her because she adds to the fun whenShe cheers our shared victories or moans about defeats. As long g as you bring something to the table, I will help you!

I do not however want to help
The person who is not paying attention “wake me when it’s my turn to roll.” In that case if you don’t already know the rules, I am not the one to beg for your participation.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I do not however want to help
The person who is not paying attention “wake me when it’s my turn to roll.” In that case if you don’t already know the rules, I am not the one to beg for your participation.

Again, there's nothing wrong with that; you want more commitment to understanding the rules than the people you're dealing with. I do too when running games.

Again, its the characterization of people who don't fit the kind of players you (or I) want that I look at more than a little dubiously on some people's part. Not everyone does care that much about it, and the fact some people don't want to put in the effort just means they should be playing with those people, not us, or playing with more lightweight rules systems.

 

[tetrasodium]

Again, there's nothing wrong with that; you want more commitment to understanding the rules than the people you're dealing with. I do too when running games.

Again, its the characterization of people who don't fit the kind of players you (or I) want that I look at more than a little dubiously on some people's part. Not everyone does care that much about it, and the fact some people don't want to put in the effort just means they should be playing with those people, not us, or playing with more lightweight rules systems.

I think the various sorts of behaviors being discussed have been characterized descriptive with words like unreasonable rude lazy toxic and I guess perhaps jerk. Do you have an acceptable term to describe these kinds of behavior that doesn't also absolve the player engaging in that behavior from responsibility for it by shifting the entire problem as one of mere acceptance by someone else at the table who feels negatively impacted by it?

 

[Thomas Shey]

I think the various sorts of behaviors being discussed have been characterized descriptive with words like unreasonable rude lazy toxic and I guess perhaps jerk. Do you have an acceptable term to describe these kinds of behavior that doesn't also absolve the player engaging in that behavior from responsibility for it by shifting the entire problem as one of mere acceptance by someone else at the table who feels negatively impacted by it?

Low-commitment. Doesn't have nearly the semantic loading of even the best of those others.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I think the various sorts of behaviors being discussed have been characterized descriptive with words like unreasonable rude lazy toxic and I guess perhaps jerk. Do you have an acceptable term to describe these kinds of behavior that doesn't also absolve the player engaging in that behavior from responsibility for it by shifting the entire problem as one of mere acceptance by someone else at the table who feels negatively impacted by it?

Nope, because I'm not going to use words to be rude, toxic and I guess a jerk to people who have a different set of priorities toward a fun time game that's nowhere near as serious as people keep acting like it is.

 

[MichaelSomething]

It's no surprise some people won't jell with D&D in the same way some D&Ders won't jell with PBTA.

 

[ECMO3]

No, it's more like telling the kid with a Gameboy they are more interested in or the kid who keeps "traveling" that they are ruining the enjoyment for the rest of the team... Since you quoted the it's rude to suck at warcraft video too .. if Bob want to join a raid that causes him damage when not wearing boots it's not reasonable to expect Alice and Cindy to silently respect his decision to play a barefoot hobbit inspired gnome who requires constant healing on that raid.

Somepone else posted that video and I said it was inappropriate in a friendly game.

Telling someone they are not good enough to play or alternatively they are not playing good enough is rude. It is rude in Warcraft, it is rude in Basketball, it is rude in D&D.

If you are playing a game it is absolutely reasonable to expect Alice and Cindy to be silent about it unless they said something when the game was starting.

If I am Micheal Jordan and I only want to play with Shaq, Barkley and Rodman I should say that up front before we start picking teams and before we invite the neighbors.

No. "Hey guys I don't really want to play the game with you learn any rules or pay attention during play, you shouldn't expect much of anything from me" is the session zero reveal the group deserves.

Session 0 sets the boundaries. If this is a boundary the group wants (i.e. everyone needs to understand the rules) then they need to say it session 0.

showing up to play d&d implies an interest in playing d&d and playing d&d requires some effort on the part of all participants.

No it doesn't it is a game, played for fun. The base expectation should be you know nothing about the game and are not a good player. An exception to that should be stated explicitly.

If a player is consistently acting in that way it shows that the behavior is not a one off or a bad day and it very much deserves to be criticized rather than silently accepted as being a thing beyond reproach. Because nobody thought to explain how high sticking is very much not allowed in basketball during team selection.

Not knowing the rules or making poor in-game decisions is not bad behavior typically. Being malicious or anti-social behavior is.

I don't know what high-sticking is in relation to basketball, but if someone was traveling then that is a turnover, simple as that and the other team gets the ball and maybe scores because of that. No one gets upset or tells a player they have to leave and if they lose the game they lose the game, no big deal.

If someone makes a stupid decision in D&D combat, the "other team" takes advantage of it, they score a hit and maybe they "win the game" with a TPK and the party "loses D&D" no big deal it is a game and if you can't have fun in that situation then I think YOU are generally the problem.