Is this fair? -- your personal opinion

[MarkB]

Somebody should e-mail Rich Burlew about this thread. He´d find material for a couple dozen strips.

Probably the smartest post in this entire tread!

Yeah, but most of it's already been done there, and done well.

 

[Hussar]

I don't think anyone has said, even once, that the "fair" side of the argument doesn't rely on metagame thinking. It's just not the ONLY side the relies on metagame thinking in this discussion.

But, the problem is, this point of view is purely metagaming. There's no room for any role other than Tac Squad Member. And, it assumes that any gamer who has a certain level of experience will automatically fall into this behavior while completely ignoring his character.

No matter what the class/background or playstyle, if according to this school of thought, the second my foot hits the flagstone in a dungeon, I will automatically act a particular way. Is this even defensible?

 

[Ourph]

But, the problem is, this point of view is purely metagaming.

I can't agree with that. There have been plenty of justifications put forward for being paranoid about the setup that are completely in character. Those justifications don't eliminate the fact that to a certain degree both the "fair" and "unfair" perspectives are colored by the knowledge that the player is controlling a character in a game and the player has certain expectations and prejudices about how the game world works, but I don't believe it's true that there is NO in character justification for reacting to the setup with suspicion. If the game world is a Darwinian one (as Papers&Paychecks described earlier) and your character is a part of that world, he has probably heard numerous tales of devilish traps in dangerous places which kill the unwary and rash. If that's the type of milieu your character finds himself in, it's natural to be suspicious in this situation.

Is this even defensible?

I believe there's ample justification for having an in character POV that indicates the dungeon is a place separate from the real world where all perceptions of normality and logic are altered. This is, after all, a fantasy world we're talking about. When Alice enters Wonderland she quickly comes to understand that applying standards of normalcy developed in a non-fantastic world to her experiences in Wonderland is inadvisable and learns to question her assumptions and mold her thinking to the altered reality in which she finds herself. In my games, entering the dungeon requires the same shift in thinking. It is an otherworld where the logic of "normal D&D-land" doesn't apply. The players have ample in character justification for their change in assumptions and perceptions as a result.

 

[MarkB]

I believe there's ample justification for having an in character POV that indicates the dungeon is a place separate from the real world where all perceptions of normality and logic are altered. This is, after all, a fantasy world we're talking about. When Alice enters Wonderland she quickly comes to understand that applying standards of normalcy developed in a non-fantastic world to her experiences in Wonderland is inadvisable and learns to question her assumptions and mold her thinking to the altered reality in which she finds herself. In my games, entering the dungeon requires the same shift in thinking. It is an otherworld where the logic of "normal D&D-land" doesn't apply. The players have ample in character justification for their change in assumptions and perceptions as a result.

Alice's wonderland isn't a fantasy world, it's a fairytale world. In any fantasy world I play or DM, I expect there to be some internal consistency.

Dropping the rules of the world the moment you step through the dungeon door and expecting the players to work under a completely different set of rules is just silly, and whilst it might work for a few people, expecting it to be a standard form of play is totally unrealistic. A dungeon may have a particular style or feel, but it should never require players to radically change the way they play their characters.

 

[Ourph]

Alice's wonderland isn't a fantasy world, it's a fairytale world.

You're right, there's SUCH a big difference between those two things. Thanks so much for correcting me.

In any fantasy world I play or DM, I expect there to be some internal consistency.

My worlds are perfectly consistent. The fact that there are areas where the rules of normal existence don't apply doesn't change that. In civilized human lands you dont' have to wonder if every door is trapped or whether there might be a monster behind it. In a dungeon environment you do (and the characters know where those environments are to be found and what sets them apart from the "normal" world).

Dropping the rules of the world the moment you step through the dungeon door and expecting the players to work under a completely different set of rules is just silly

So the environment they find themselves in never alters the rules your PCs operate under? Is it silly for characters to operate under the restriction that chopping down trees in a forest protected by treants is dangerous (whereas it's perfectly safe in other regions) or is it part of the "internal consistency" you believe is important? There is no difference between the above and having dungeon environments follow their own logic. They are a different environment, therefore they operate under a different set of rules.

A dungeon may have a particular style or feel, but it should never require players to radically change the way they play their characters.

When did the RPG gods hand down that rule?

My experience leads me to believe that players alter the way they play their characters depending on the environment they find themselves in all the time. To do otherwise wouldn't make any sense at all. Not only is altering your tactics to fit the opponent you are facing an important part of skillful play it's part of what keeps the game from being repetitive and mundane.

A PC who lives in a world where trapped levers are non-existant in merchant's houses and knights castles but are a real danger in ancient ruins and dungeons is only reacting to the facts of the fantasy milieu if he's more suspicious and careful in the latter than the former. And the fact that those two environments are different in no way makes the world inconsistent or silly.

A world in which you're just as likely to find a gelatinous cube behind the door to the cellar of an inn as you are in an abandoned ruin seems completely silly to me.

 

[PapersAndPaychecks]

Dropping the rules of the world the moment you step through the dungeon door and expecting the players to work under a completely different set of rules is just silly, and whilst it might work for a few people, expecting it to be a standard form of play is totally unrealistic.

Do you have any trouble accepting dragons that breathe fire and weigh 5 tons but still fly around on bat-like wings? Any difficulty accepting priests who bring dead people back to life and ecosystems full of dozens of huge carnivores but mysteriously short on vast herds of vegetarian food sources?

D&D is silly. You need suspension of disbelief to play.

A dungeon may have a particular style or feel, but it should never require players to radically change the way they play their characters.

So the world should conform to the characters rather than the other way around?

 

[MerricB]

It might be worth revisiting Dragon #277 (November 2000), and Tracy Hickman's article "How You Play the Game".

A few quotes:
"I was a barbarian surrounded by the dungeoneering equivalent of forensic accountants. Every door we came upon had to have paint chips taken for cobalt carbon dating. We would spend half an hour on a door before moving cautiously on to the next, only to repeat the process all over again..."

"I turned to [the DM] and asked, 'Where is the door nearest to my character?' 'To your left you see an intricately carved door with images of ...' 'I open the door.' A stunned silence around the table - then chaos! The other players shouted 'No he doesn't!' I bellowed back, 'YES I DO!'..."

"Many a brave PC was charbroiled that night, but what a great story we had to tell!"

"Why do we play these games? Do we say to ourselves, 'Let's all get together next week, and instead of leading our everyday, boring lives, make believe we are fantasy characters leading everyday, boring lives?' Being a hero takes two elements: the courage to put your life on the line, and a villain that represents a serious threat to that life. Would you pay to see a movie where the hero stood around, never confronting his arch-nemesis face to face?... No thank you! Give me a character who does brave deeds!..."

Cheers!

 

[MarkB]

So the world should conform to the characters rather than the other way around?

If the characters have to change their personalities every time they enter a new environment, they're not characters at all.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Aren't they?

How many of us sit home alone and fart in their favorite chair, drink milk straight from the carton, cuss, spit, throw drink cans at the garbage can, etc, etc. We don't (or at least I hope we don't) do that in church or school.

 

[Hussar]

But, the DM is forcing the players to conform to a certain norm, the second they enter a "dungeon". Of course, that brings up the idea of what constitutes a dungeon as well. If said lever was inside a castle, should that matter? If it's inside a blacksmith's home, we should act differently? In a bar? Or is the presence of a lever indication that the players are now in a dungeon environment?

Change the situation slightly. Say the thief found a trap. The thief then goes to disarm the trap. Continuing this, the thief needs a 20 on his skill check to disarm the trap and he cannot make his saving throw. So, on a roll of 15 or less, the thief dies. Now the party has done everything by the book. They've done everything right and the thief dies 75% of the time (a fail of 5 or more sets off the trap according to the skill).

Is the trap fair or is it now far too high for what a party should be facing in a dungeon?

My problem isn't save or die traps. They happen. Heck, even a simple fireball trap could kill the rogue if he fails his save. But, a trap that kills the PC 100% of the time or even 75% of the time when interacted with is not fair. The save DC is simply too high.