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

[EzekielRaiden]

Of all the people I've engaged with on the boards, I've always suspected that @Lanefan was probably the most opposite of me in terms of not only how we play the game, but also how we run the game, and enjoy the game. Which makes them the person I'm actually most interested in seeing how they play out of all the people here... if for no other reason than to just see if our styles could actually mesh while sitting at the table together and it's only the messageboard talking about the "philosophy" of roleplaying and RPGs that makes it seem like we're further apart than we are.

If it matters, while I have never played with Lanefan, I did actually put my playtime where my mouth is and have done some old-school gaming. (Labyrinth Lord, to be specific.)

The game was not a bad one. But it was definitely not a game for me. Simultaneously too simple and too overwrought; serious balance problems; far too much focus on tedious bookkeeping; spending half an hour just to hem and haw our way past what we thought was a trap but wasn't; the most active player dying after only two sessions; etc.

There really are some pretty big playstyle gaps between the most rigorously old-school tastes and current-day sensibilities, especially since (I believe) you and I are fairly close together on how we view these things.

 

[Micah Sweet]

If it matters, while I have never played with Lanefan, I did actually put my playtime where my mouth is and have done some old-school gaming. (Labyrinth Lord, to be specific.)

The game was not a bad one. But it was definitely not a game for me. Simultaneously too simple and too overwrought; serious balance problems; far too much focus on tedious bookkeeping; spending half an hour just to hem and haw our way past what we thought was a trap but wasn't; the most active player dying after only two sessions; etc.

There really are some pretty big playstyle gaps between the most rigorously old-school tastes and current-day sensibilities, especially since (I believe) you and I are fairly close together on how we view these things.

I do think it is fair to say at this point that, if someone were to post similarly phrased critisizms of 4e and/or more narrative-focused games, including how they experienced those games and how they played, I expect you and possibly others fond of such games would be inclined to be defensive.

In short, being respectful of both sides (if it can even be said there are only two sides) is important for everyone.

 

[Minigiant]

Indeed; and the question then becomes whether that prioritizing was done by the designers' own choice or was caused by external influence.

If it was done by the designers' own choice then sure, rail away at those designers: they brought it on themselves.

If it was done due to external influences (e.g. corporate directives) then the designers are largely not at fault, and don't deserve to be yelled at.

Depends..

The high level of this type of game design means it was likely WAY over the heads and notice of corporate.

But if you call public surveys and online backlash as external influences then you are faulting the community?

Who agreed that 5e should have Bounded Accuracy?
Who agreed that 5e should have Magic Items Independence?
Who said 5e monsters should have more HP and damage than their playtest counterparts?

I mean you can't think the a magicless subCR1 goblin could be a threat to a 10th level PC in a traditionally magic heavy, hard level based game without residual effects. Someone played those results.

 

[gban007]

The way to prevent that toxicity, of course, is to ensure that "the honest truth" and "what we want to hear" are one and the same.

In other words, put the consumer first.

To me that only works if the consumers are a monolith as such - otherwise what one consumer wants to hear may be what another consumer doesn't want to hear - hence the divisive opinions people have around various things, such as 4E, 5E2024 etc - while consumers have mixed opinions, I don't think the above around 'honest truth' and 'what we want to hear' will ever happen.

 

[Minigiant]

To me that only works if the consumers are a monolith as such - otherwise what one consumer wants to hear may be what another consumer doesn't want to hear - hence the divisive opinions people have around various things, such as 4E, 5E2024 etc - while consumers have mixed opinions, I don't think the above around 'honest truth' and 'what we want to hear' will ever happen.

Indeed. The number one thing we should have learned about the community by now is the D&D community is not a monolith.

Some fans want the opposite of other fans. And some fans don't want the option to pick A or B because of the implications.

The actual best option is to pick a side, be honest about it, and describe the good and bad of the decision.

 

[MichaelSomething]

Indeed. The number one thing we should have learned about the community by now is the D&D community is not a monolith.

Some fans want the opposite of other fans. And some fans don't want the option to pick A or B because of the implications.

The actual best option is to pick a side, be honest about it, and describe the good and bad of the decision.

Nonsense. The optimal strategy is to be vague so that no single group feels alienated. And to place the DM as the largest and greatest factor in how the game operates. That way people won't perceive it as WOTC telling people how to run their game.

 

[FrozenNorth]

And this is not even considering that characters are often traveling with premier experts within these fields. Like, if I was on the road with a couple of PGA players, and occasionally we had to play golf as a team to survive, since they want to survive too, I'd expect that they'd drop some hints here and there for me to pick up)

But have you considered that if they provided pointers to you, the PGA professionals would be putting their niche protection at risk?

 

[ezo]

But have you considered that if they provided pointers to you, the PGA professionals would be putting their niche protection at risk?

I'm starting to wish I never created the golf analogy....

 

[Lanefan]

Enhh. It depends on what level of learning you're talking about.

A person who knows nothing about golfing can pretty quickly learn things like what the different clubs are meant to do, things to look out for on a hole , some basic swing mechanics, etc.

Same way with most things. You might not be able to make a Michelin star meal, but spend a week or two back of house at a restaurant, and you'll probably have a decent idea of how to season and grill a steak, dress a salad, and make some pasta.

That assumes a basic level of competence going in, though. My cooking skills consist of being able to boil water; were I to spend a week or two in a restaurant kitchen it'd be a race to see which happens first: the rest of the cooks throw me out or I food-poison a customer.

Mastery of some things might take years. Advancing beyond complete incompetence can take days or weeks. This is well within the adventuring timescale.

Thing is, if we assume that degree of basic competence as the baseline, that covers everything that doesn't get rolled for. As soon as rolls happen, you're immediately into a realm beyond basic competence, where a certain degree of actual skill is required.

When Peter Paladin tries to sneak in plate mail he knows enough to try not to step on twigs, and to walk on the grass rather than the crunchy gravel or loose leaves when he can. That's basic competence, and he probably learned it as a kid playing with his friends.

But if he's still in his armour, that basic competence won't help him a whit - and nor will anything else short of flight or a silence spell.

 

[Lanefan]

Depends..

The high level of this type of game design means it was likely WAY over the heads and notice of corporate.

But if you call public surveys and online backlash as external influences then you are faulting the community?

Maybe so, though their surveys sometimes seem to be of the type "do you agree with this basic design a) fully, b) entirely, c) completely, d) comprehensively, or e) enthusiatically", and all they're really asking about are cosmetic tweaks around the edges.