D&D (2024) Inspiration From Nat 20 Will Bog Down The Game

Mistwell

Crusty Old Meatwad (he/him)
Yet another case of taking somebody’s statement to a logically consistent but by no means inevitable extreme end point and prefacing it with “So you’re saying that…”

Disingenuous rhetoric. 10 yard penalty. @Sabathius42’s ball. First down.
What is it you think he meant by "quality of the players" in that context. I don't think I was being unfair at all. I was saying it was an issue. He responded it was only an issue because of quality of players. So, what's your reading of what was meant by that? Seems pretty clear he's claiming only poor quality players would do that, and good quality players would not. But you tell me - if you're going to be snarky about it, then you tell me your interpretation of his comment?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Bill Zebub

“It’s probably Matt Mercer’s fault.”
What is it you think he meant by "quality of the players" in that context. I don't think I was being unfair at all. I was saying it was an issue. He responded it was only an issue because of quality of players. So, what's your reading of what was meant by that? Seems pretty clear he's claiming only poor quality players would do that, and good quality players would not. But you tell me - if you're going to be snarky about it, then you tell me your interpretation of his comment?

Dude, it's not binary, it's a spectrum. Players should seek advantage by making good decisions that leverage their characters' strengths. On the other hand, players who take that to an extreme and bog the game down trying to fish for tiny advantages doing pointless things like attacking chairs are annoying or worse. And there's a whole lotta shades of grey in between.

But you lumped it all together as if there's no difference:
So now you're saying players who seek to gain benefits in the game are low quality players?

Basically anybody who starts a post off with "So you're saying..." should stop and think. It could be expressed, "Taken to its logical extreme, it seems like that means X. But surely you don't mean X, so how am I misunderstanding you?"
 

FitzTheRuke

Legend
I had a player in Tuesday's IRL game that critted SEVEN times. He used inspiration (and gave it away) so many times that the whole fight went FASTER and everyone had a good time. I didn't have a problem with it.
 

FitzTheRuke

Legend
I like the idea of gaining inspiration on a nat 1 instead. Gaining it on a nat 20 feels like "win more".

That seems like a better mechanic game-wise, but it does seem a little strange to be "inspired" by failure. It's not usually how psychology works. If that's not a problem for you (and I don't really see why it SHOULD be, it's a game, after all) then I say "go for it."

Perhaps you could change the name to "resolve" (as in, "I'm gonna try harder now, to make up for my mistakes").
 

Mistwell

Crusty Old Meatwad (he/him)
Dude, it's not binary, it's a spectrum.

No, for that context it HAD to be binary. At some points it's "not a problem" and then once you cross the line into "a problem" then it's...a problem. Hence a binary take. If it being "a problem" is based on "quality of players" that means he's saying it's in some way a "low enough quality" of players to have crossed the line into being a problem.



Players should seek advantage by making good decisions that leverage their characters' strengths. On the other hand, players who take that to an extreme and bog the game down trying to fish for tiny advantages doing pointless things like attacking chairs are annoying or worse. And there's a whole lotta shades of grey in between.

But it's not a "tiny" advantage at all. Which is why I commented on the topic earlier with the Musician feat. It's advantage on any check: Death saves, Concentration, Saving Throws, Initiative, ANY d20. That's not a tiny thing for this game, it's a big thing, You want that. It's roughly a +5 to a check, depending on average target DC. I don't think it's "taking it to the extreme" to try to get advantage on any important check.

And I didn't say or imply attacking chairs. I started the conversation, and he had responded to it, with a list of examples none of which were anything like attacking chairs. They're ALL things players already do (check a door for traps, listen at a door for creatures, check for secret doors, try and identify various symbols on walls, etc..) but they might be inclined to do it more where they otherwise wouldn't have, which has a TENDANCY to slow the game down. See how that was never stated as an extreme like you tried to spin it?

Seems like you decided to strawman me claiming I was taking it to the extreme, and then your strawman took it to the extreme? Or had you just not read the posts leading up to this?

But you lumped it all together as if there's no difference:

Ha no, I really didn't. You did. I spelled out the behavior I was talking about with specific examples, none of which you mentioned. You exaggerated my position, while...accusing me of exaggerating someone else's position. Which I gotta say, is pretty funny, if you hadn't been so indignant about it.

Basically anybody who starts a post off with "So you're saying..." should stop and think. It could be expressed, "Taken to its logical extreme, it seems like that means X. But surely you don't mean X, so how am I misunderstanding you?"

Well you didn't start your post off with "so you're saying" but you did that very thing to me. And he was in fact saying bad players. I have yet to hear you explain how he was not. He was in fact responding with a binary response - I can see no other way to read it and you just posited it was a spectrum without actually examining the statement you were applying it to and seeing there wasn't a rational way to take it as a spectrum rather than him commenting on the problem being "low quality players".
 

JiffyPopTart

Bree-Yark
What is it you think he meant by "quality of the players" in that context. I don't think I was being unfair at all. I was saying it was an issue. He responded it was only an issue because of quality of players. So, what's your reading of what was meant by that? Seems pretty clear he's claiming only poor quality players would do that, and good quality players would not. But you tell me - if you're going to be snarky about it, then you tell me your interpretation of his comment?
It's not really that complicated.

If, in any DnD game, the players actions begin to slow the game down past what the table can bear the GM should step in and say "Hey everyone, constantly focusing on X (X can be fishing for inspiration or searching for traps) is ruining the game. Can you please dial it back?"

If the game continues to be ruined by those actions....it's bad players.

If the game move on without disruption, it's not a flaw in the basic game design.

You say your players search for traps often....but do they literally search for traps every 5' square?

5e would reward a player for searching every 5' square, but the game itself wouldn't survive it, so it doesn't happen.

AKA Does your party make thousands of searches for traps rolls in every dungeon? If not, why not?
 

JiffyPopTart

Bree-Yark
That was a pretty disingenuous response. He shouldn't need to state "because inspiration helps you do things better" for you to respond in that kind of context. I mean, were you just trying to pick a fight by misrepresenting his position? Not sure what he said to trigger that kind of thing.

He's right. Some meaningful portion of players will naturally tend to do things which gain them BENEFITS in the game. A three in your ability score isn't that.
His logic was "The game lets you do it so everyone will do it all the time". That's not sound logic.
 

Bill Zebub

“It’s probably Matt Mercer’s fault.”
Whatever, man.

My advice is that if somebody’s stance strikes you as leading to an illogical conclusion, ask them about it instead of telling them what they are saying.

Or don’t, and try to win teh Interwebz.
 


Mistwell

Crusty Old Meatwad (he/him)
It's not really that complicated.

If, in any DnD game, the players actions begin to slow the game down past what the table can bear the GM should step in and say "Hey everyone, constantly focusing on X (X can be fishing for inspiration or searching for traps) is ruining the game. Can you please dial it back?"

If the game continues to be ruined by those actions....it's bad players.

So we're all clear now on the issue. You WERE in fact saying "bad players" and not some "spectrum" of quality of players. It was a binary statement you were in fact making and I was not somehow misrepresenting what you said.

If the game move on without disruption, it's not a flaw in the basic game design.

You say your players search for traps often....but do they literally search for traps every 5' square?

No and I never said or implied searching for traps every 5' square. I gave examples, you responded to those examples, you know what I was referring to, and now you're acting like I was talking about searching every 5 feet?

5e would reward a player for searching every 5' square, but the game itself wouldn't survive it, so it doesn't happen.

AKA Does your party make thousands of searches for traps rolls in every dungeon? If not, why not?
I didn't say or imply thousands. Why do you keep strawmanning what I said?
 

Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Top