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

[ezo]

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

TBH there are very few RPGs I know I jell with, probably less than half a dozen. Some of the ones I used to enjoy when I was younger I probably wouldn't enjoy now. I've never played any of the PbtA game systems, but I've reviewed a few, and none really appeal to me.

I know I have little interest in any RPG outside of the medieval fantasy or swords & sorcery genres. Sure, I can play VtM, Shadowrun, SW WEG version, and a few others, but frankly I become bored with them quickly--after maybe 10 or so sessions.

At such times I'd be more likely do simply do something else, or if I hang out while other play, I'd just be there for the fun of being with the group--not to play myself.

 

[Thomas Shey]

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.

While I agreed with pretty much everything else you said, I think this undervalues the time commitment people put into an RPG to not understand why a group taking a TPK can be upsetting, at least if its at all into the game. There are a pretty large number of people who don't exactly enjoy taking a TPK with experienced characters, and I think your statement above is privileging your own take here as badly as some of the people you're addressing.

 

[ezo]

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.

Serious to whom? You? Are you the person to judge what level of being serious or committed to playing D&D or any other game is acceptable?

No. Of course you aren't.

Each person, each group, decides that for themselves.

Perhaps you don't take your game seriously, or any of your hobbies for all I know? Are there any you do take seriously?

I find it interesting when people post about how serious or not others take their D&D games. Frankly, it is a hobby, like any other, some people take their hobbies seriously, others don't. Rarely can people from both camps enjoy that hobby together for an extended period of time-- eventually frustrations on one side or the other bring things to an end.

Poker is example of such a hobby. I don't enjoy playing with people who play recklessly and just throw money away on a whim. When I meet such players, I know not to join their tables or if they join the table I'm at, I leave. I'm certainly not out to ruin their fun, but I don't want them to ruin mine, either.

Golf is a hobby I enjoy which I don't take seriously. I don't play it enough to bother taking it that seriously. Sure, I feel great when I make a great shot, laugh at myself when I make a horrible one. Why? Because I know if I did want to do better, it is entirely on me to practice, commit, etc. to improve. When I was younger and played with my father and his friends, he would get frustrated at times by my play because he knew I could be better, if I wanted to. Luckily for me, now that he's older, he plays more for the fun than the competition of it. However, when I did play I knew well enough to bring my clubs, show up on time, not waste time on my turn, etc. because it is frustrating and disrespectful to the others I play with. I know their standards and if I want to be an acceptable player to join them, I try to meet those standards. Sure, I accept their advice to be better, as well. With luck, I even remember it for the next time I play with them.

So, what annoys me? When players "say" they want to play and join in, but then repeatedly don't show up, show up unprepared to play, can't bother to learn the basic features of the game, and continuously waste mine and other players' time. Gaming time to me is precious, and it frustrates me (is no longer fun for me!) when at the end of a session I feel like we've hardly accomplished anything because of such players. Sure, they might have enjoyed themselves and had fun, but it is also about my fun and the others I play with (who FYI get just as annoyed). We make many allowances for individuals because we are all different, but there comes a time when a player has to face the reality that either they need to step up, or perhaps find a different game, different group, or different hobby. Whatever works for them.

 

[tetrasodium]

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

Except that the problem is not merely their level of commitment. When a player chooses to behave in a manner that negatively impacts others at the table it is indeed rude disrespectful or worse. That behavior is not at all reasonable as demonstrated by the fact that you are shielding it from criticism by criticizing the way it has been described rather than actually defending it as good on its face or explaining how it even rises to the level of reasonably neutral.

 

[tetrasodium]

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.



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.




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.



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.

Nobody is talking about pro basketball levels of commitment. You keep veering back to that as a touchstone to tilt at windmills from.

Yes session zero is often about setting boundaries, it's also about setting expectations though and "I don't actually care about playing this game, don't expect anything from me" is the sort of critically important expectation for a player to set asap during such a discussion.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Except that the problem is not merely their level of commitment.

Of course it is. You just don't like it, so you'd like to villainize the person involved, and now tried to play a begging-the-question trick to get me to support your position. I don't. I don't agree with your premise, and as such, I think you're just playing rhetorical games here.

 

[tetrasodium]

Of course it is. You just don't like it, so you'd like to villainize the person involved, and now tried to play a begging-the-question trick to get me to support your position. I don't. I don't agree with your premise, and as such, I think you're just playing rhetorical games here.

That applies 100%to your protests, why string together so many words to say "that's only your opinion man" in defense of what is also only your opinion? The only difference is that the "low commitment" player who can't be bothered is negatively impacting the enjoyment of multiple players by how they are actively choosing to behave while the criticism of that choice I'm behavior is only impacting the negative influence at the table

 

[Thomas Shey]

That applies 100%to your protests, why string together so many words to say "that's only your opinion man" in defense of what is also only your opinion? The only difference is that the "low commitment" player who can't be bothered is negatively impacting the enjoyment of multiple players by how they are actively choosing to behave while the criticism of that choice I'm behavior is only impacting the negative influence at the table

What makes you think your demanding he engage more isn't negatively impacting him?

Only one of us is insisting that the who's just at the wrong table is the one who needs to be demonized. The worst you can say is that since he's the stand out, he should probably figure that out and go elsewhere, but if you start calling every player who isn't in a hurry to leave a game he doesn't fit at the collection of names you threw out there, you're doing a lot more than just this type--but of course you don't think it should apply to them so that's not something you feel a need to engage with.

Or maybe you do think a player who wants to understand an engage with the rules in a group that doesn't care about that is also that collection of slurs. In which case you're at least not hypocritcal.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Serious to whom? You? Are you the person to judge what level of being serious or committed to playing D&D or any other game is acceptable?

No. Of course you aren't.

I'm not the one calling people names for not Dungeons and Dragoning right.

 

[ezo]

I'm not the one calling people names for not Dungeons and Dragoning right.

Maybe, maybe not? How do I know what you do?

Yet you seem fine with judging people here who decide that part of the fun for them in playing D&D is to take the hobby seriously.

And, just so you know, the players who say they want to join in, participate, etc. and choose not to engage with the group and the game at a level so it won't detract from other participants' fun, I do call lazy when I know they could, but choose not to. Or perhaps you prefer I call them disrespectful of the other players? Either way, I would call them lazy in other aspects of their lives as well, even if they didn't play D&D.

FWIW, "lazy" is a subjective term. What I consider lazy someone else might consider committed. Regardless, if their behaviors is detracting from the fun of the general group, they need to either step up, or perhaps find a different game, different group, or different hobby. Whatever works for them. (as I said before).

Calling someone "lazy" is not calling them a name, it is categorizing them. It is the difference between knowing someone could do better, says they want to, but then they don't follow through, and someone who actually struggles.