Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Players Self-Assigning Rolls
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="5ekyu" data-source="post: 7291599" data-attributes="member: 6919838"><p>First part... trustworthy means "worthy of your trust". If as you say you will not trust them to make these decisions **you** are declaring them "untrustworthy" - maybe you feel everybody is untrustworthy but then again maybe not. But if you look at the second part which you separated from this, even you recognize there can be a "healthy response" by which i assume you would consider "trustworthy" as in you would trust me doing that. So, doesn't that example make your claim that "poisoning the well makes any decision dubious" actually a dubious claim?</p><p></p><p>Also, no, i did not misunderstand. i gave two cases - one was "if i had decided" the other was "if i had not decided" and gave a complete answer.</p><p></p><p>And i am sorry but... anybody who believes rules are what causes fits to be thrown or that rules can prevent fits from being thron at their table has a very flawed idea of what causes fits and other such outlandish behavior in social situations. I don't write rules or use rules to "prevent fits". </p><p></p><p>Also, i have never claimed this approach was good for everyone, i even acknowdlegd several times. But just as clearly, it is fine for some. If you look back on this thread and others, there seems to be no shortage of "pre-rolling is bad" or "pre-rolling leads to" with much broader kinds of scope than I have tended to use for when pre-rolling is fine.</p><p></p><p>As for your "total competence.. call it a day" nonsense, thats not what was being referenced - hence my not saying "total competence" at all!! - you should maybe look at that blog the Op referenced (not my first rec tho) or go google things like presume competence" and such as it applies to RPG. it refers to a trust state between Gm and players where the Gm treats scenes and events and general play habits as if the **characters** are acting at their general level of competence without the players needing to state every second of every turn of every scene in exceutiating detail to prevent a thumping from beyond.</p><p></p><p>EXAMPLE: "you did not say you looked up so the macguffin gets surprise". vs "on getting to the door, you see in and... the first thing that catches you eyes are the macguffins up on the ceiling. You almost missed them but..." when a parties passive per would spot the threat OR when a deliberate check to "look into the roll" rolls high enough even without the "i look up" safe words.</p><p></p><p>it has nothing to do at all with your totally imagined case of the characters win without the players so call it a day crap.</p><p></p><p>Finally, there was no attempt at apology in that last comment. if you read into it such, you were in error.</p><p></p><p>Rules will not solve trust issues. They will just shift where that underlying trust breakdown manifests.</p><p>Rules will not prevent inappropriate behavior like fits. </p><p>Most games, like most relationships which a game is, are better served by solving the underlying trust issues or behavioral problems than by patching more and more "restrictions."</p><p></p><p>Your cheating spouse wont be "more faithful" or you "less suspicious of them" because you install a tracker on their phone and take away their inner-city apartment - any more than you being dubious about a player's ability to make "reasonable choices" will be solved by not allowing "pre-rolling." that same "worry" about his "poisoned well thoughts" is gonna be there when he sees scenes with other characters that his is not at and later a choice comes up where "are you really sure his decision wasn't poisoned by tat out of character knowledge?" and a million other cases. </p><p></p><p>If you resolve the trust issue to a point where you and them are fine with each other and that decision making, those issues can be non-problems with an occasional ooops and not an underlying sense of "suspicion."</p><p></p><p>Deal with player-to-player trust in player-to-player not in game mechanics.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="5ekyu, post: 7291599, member: 6919838"] First part... trustworthy means "worthy of your trust". If as you say you will not trust them to make these decisions **you** are declaring them "untrustworthy" - maybe you feel everybody is untrustworthy but then again maybe not. But if you look at the second part which you separated from this, even you recognize there can be a "healthy response" by which i assume you would consider "trustworthy" as in you would trust me doing that. So, doesn't that example make your claim that "poisoning the well makes any decision dubious" actually a dubious claim? Also, no, i did not misunderstand. i gave two cases - one was "if i had decided" the other was "if i had not decided" and gave a complete answer. And i am sorry but... anybody who believes rules are what causes fits to be thrown or that rules can prevent fits from being thron at their table has a very flawed idea of what causes fits and other such outlandish behavior in social situations. I don't write rules or use rules to "prevent fits". Also, i have never claimed this approach was good for everyone, i even acknowdlegd several times. But just as clearly, it is fine for some. If you look back on this thread and others, there seems to be no shortage of "pre-rolling is bad" or "pre-rolling leads to" with much broader kinds of scope than I have tended to use for when pre-rolling is fine. As for your "total competence.. call it a day" nonsense, thats not what was being referenced - hence my not saying "total competence" at all!! - you should maybe look at that blog the Op referenced (not my first rec tho) or go google things like presume competence" and such as it applies to RPG. it refers to a trust state between Gm and players where the Gm treats scenes and events and general play habits as if the **characters** are acting at their general level of competence without the players needing to state every second of every turn of every scene in exceutiating detail to prevent a thumping from beyond. EXAMPLE: "you did not say you looked up so the macguffin gets surprise". vs "on getting to the door, you see in and... the first thing that catches you eyes are the macguffins up on the ceiling. You almost missed them but..." when a parties passive per would spot the threat OR when a deliberate check to "look into the roll" rolls high enough even without the "i look up" safe words. it has nothing to do at all with your totally imagined case of the characters win without the players so call it a day crap. Finally, there was no attempt at apology in that last comment. if you read into it such, you were in error. Rules will not solve trust issues. They will just shift where that underlying trust breakdown manifests. Rules will not prevent inappropriate behavior like fits. Most games, like most relationships which a game is, are better served by solving the underlying trust issues or behavioral problems than by patching more and more "restrictions." Your cheating spouse wont be "more faithful" or you "less suspicious of them" because you install a tracker on their phone and take away their inner-city apartment - any more than you being dubious about a player's ability to make "reasonable choices" will be solved by not allowing "pre-rolling." that same "worry" about his "poisoned well thoughts" is gonna be there when he sees scenes with other characters that his is not at and later a choice comes up where "are you really sure his decision wasn't poisoned by tat out of character knowledge?" and a million other cases. If you resolve the trust issue to a point where you and them are fine with each other and that decision making, those issues can be non-problems with an occasional ooops and not an underlying sense of "suspicion." Deal with player-to-player trust in player-to-player not in game mechanics. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Players Self-Assigning Rolls
Top