D&D General If you had to choose between quality of story or combat

[Remathilis]

Little addition: Roleplaying imho is you got your char, you roleplay their personality, but their limits are described by their stats and skills.
Some people confuse that with playing an avatar of themselves, or idealized selves.

With our disputed example for me that means, Just because you OOC think the DM has hidden a trap although my char failed the roll, it doesn't mean that your char reasonably thinks the same.

Wow, that's weird. I asked my character yesterday what they think I should do and you know what he said? Nothing! I was expecting him to answer me like the damn Green Goblin mask, but the damn character sheet stayed silent. So I asked my DM what my character thought and he said "how the hell should I know?!"

So how do I know what my character thinks? It apparently has thoughts different than me, but it won't tell me anything!

 

[Remathilis]

Gosh darnit! Here I thought people wanted to have a gosh darn serious conversation instead of just making fun of other people's preferences! Thanks for dispelling my misconceptions!

90% of the conversations on this forum are just making fun of other people's preferences, couched in Forge Jargon.

 

[bsss]

Gosh darnit! Here I thought people wanted to have a gosh darn serious conversation instead of just making fun of other people's preferences! Thanks for dispelling my misconceptions!

No, you misunderstand, now that I see that they're your preferences I understand this a lot better. I definitely have no qualms with your preferences, I'm disappointed we couldn't find that objective measure though. There's always next time.

 

[payn]

Wow, that's weird. I asked my character yesterday what they think I should do and you know what he said? Nothing! I was expecting him to answer me like the damn Green Goblin mask, but the damn character sheet stayed silent. So I asked my DM what my character thought and he said "how the hell should I know?!"

So how do I know what my character thinks? It apparently has thoughts different than me, but it won't tell me anything!

Since the character is likely a flat earther, its all for the best.

 

[CreamCloud0]

If a lot of players operate as if their characters are flat earthers this thread suddenly makes a lot of sense. That’s a really strange default template to use but who am I to argue with folks who want to.

could you elaborate what you mean by that?

 

[Remathilis]

If a lot of players operate as if their characters are flat earthers this thread suddenly makes a lot of sense. That’s a really strange default template to use but who am I to argue with folks who want to.

Since the character is likely a flat earther, its all for the best.

could you elaborate what you mean by that?

What he's doing is comparing anyone who doesn't immediately agree to the DMs mind control to people who reject empirical evidence of the Earth being round. Because people are always correct on their first examination and never second guess their own abilities. Therefore, after one test you can confidently determine the safety of a door, the intentions of a noble or the placement of a cat. Measure once, cut once, as I always say!

 

[Dessert Nomad]

Again, flat earthers are just the tip of the iceberg in ignoring facts and reality to believe something else. That makes it very reasonable to be unreasonable in belief in D&D as well. People act that way and PCs are people.

It doesn't matter why the PC is dead set on believing the door is trapped. He believes it and that's all that really matters.

If a lot of players operate as if their characters are flat earthers this thread suddenly makes a lot of sense. That’s a really strange default template to use but who am I to argue with folks who want to.

but people are still more than content to hold onto their own suspicions and opinions after failing insight checks and the like, and the only reason they do this is because the character has a second brain called 'the player' who knows they only think that now because of a 4 on the dice, even when objectively, the character shouldn't know that.

I'd say the people analogous to flat earthers are the ones who keep insisting that a character acting in a really basic, common, and sensible manner (I'm suspicious, I look to see if I can confirm it, if I can't confirm it so I continue on with caution since the conditions that led me to look for more information are still there) is clear evidence of metagaming. I can't imagine trying to play a D&D game where something as ordinary as. "Hmmm, let's check the door for traps. OK, didn't find any, so you two stand back, I'll open it with mage hand" provokes an argument and accusations of cheating.

it's like, nobody RP's their barbarian as thinking he can still move that boulder after a failed athletics check, because it was just objectively proven he can't,

I don't know anyone who plays mechanically or RP wise that a single athletics check determines whether or not a boulder is an immovable object. Typically that would be something like "You failed the roll, so instead of instantly moving the boulder you have to spend a few minutes finding a better angle/working it loose to move it" or "You failed the roll to singlehandedly move the boulder, you're going to have to work with people and maybe dig it out a bit like a regular person" if there's no strong time pressure or "You failed the roll, that's your action, next person in initiative order take your turn (while the fight/trap/hazard is still on going)" if it's in a combat or other 'init roll' situation.

 

[payn]

What he's doing is comparing anyone who doesn't immediately agree to the DMs mind control to people who reject empirical evidence of the Earth being round. Because people are always correct on their first examination and never second guess their own abilities. Therefore, after one test you can confidently determine the safety of a door, the intentions of a noble or the placement of a cat. Measure once, cut once, as I always say!

Yes, its much more reasonable for characters to never learn anything. They look logic and reason in the face and say, "no, not for me".

 

[Remathilis]

Yes, its much more reasonable for characters to never learn anything. They look logic and reason in the face and say, "no, not for me".

Science: one test tells you everything you need to know. I'd make a comment about how the character who fails his perception roll and then confidently opens the door (springing the trap) is akin to "doing your own research" via watching YouTube videos, but my poor irony meter is broken from this thread.

I asked my character what he thought about the shape of the Earth. Still waiting for a response, but I am assuming you are correct on him saying it's flat since he is, in fact, a sheet of paper. I'd like to tell you what he thinks but apparently he has thoughts different than I, his player.

 

[AlViking]

I'd say the people analogous to flat earthers are the ones who keep insisting that a character acting in a really basic, common, and sensible manner (I'm suspicious, I look to see if I can confirm it, if I can't confirm it so I continue on with caution since the conditions that led me to look for more information are still there) is clear evidence of metagaming. I can't imagine trying to play a D&D game where something as ordinary as. "Hmmm, let's check the door for traps. OK, didn't find any, so you two stand back, I'll open it with mage hand" provokes an argument and accusations of cheating.




I don't know anyone who plays mechanically or RP wise that a single athletics check determines whether or not a boulder is an immovable object. Typically that would be something like "You failed the roll, so instead of instantly moving the boulder you have to spend a few minutes finding a better angle/working it loose to move it" or "You failed the roll to singlehandedly move the boulder, you're going to have to work with people and maybe dig it out a bit like a regular person" if there's no strong time pressure or "You failed the roll, that's your action, next person in initiative order take your turn (while the fight/trap/hazard is still on going)" if it's in a combat or other 'init roll' situation.

I'm still trying to figure out how we go from the player not doing exactly what the DM expected and "metagaming". Guess I failed my insight check ... except now I really don't know what to think and no one is telling me so I guess I have to ask my wife.