D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

[zakael19]

It it is my understanding that it is fairly well accepted that people are, in general, not great at assessing risk.

This, then, appears to be a dispute over how an individual wants to interpret "we know what the risks are at least to a general level," in light of the low average quality of human risk assessment skills. Alternatively, it could be a dispute over whether the average skills are actually that bad.

In either case, in keeping with the history of this thread, I suggest more people join in and we ensure the argument on this minor technical point continues for at least a week or two, with no one giving any ground at any stage.

People are bad at risk assessment in terms of like, "future planning" and stuff. We also love doing risky stuff. We also tend to recognize immediate risks in an area of professional competence.

Do I expect an adventurer to assess the long term risks of investments? Maybe not. Do I expect them to assess the risks that fall within their areas of competence? I darn well hope so.

Maybe this is coming from a place of like, being constantly involved in institutional and low-level risk assessments in a professional context along with people who stress situational awareness.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Ideally my roleplaying of the bartender doing those things while he talks to the PCs should be enough to get that across, shouldn't it?

Ideally. But that word is doing some massive lifting here; I don't think I've ever seen a GM who conveys that sort of thing in a consistent fashion.

 

[Thomas Shey]

As I live in Reality, it works out fine.

Given a number of things you've said in the past, I have some question about that first clause.

 

[Thomas Shey]

It it is my understanding that it is fairly well accepted that people are, in general, not great at assessing risk.

You have to append that to "outside their areas of expertise." If that was true within people's areas of expertise we'd all live in a ruined wasteland.

This, then, appears to be a dispute over how an individual wants to interpret "we know what the risks are at least to a general level," in light of the low average quality of human risk assessment skills. Alternatively, it could be a dispute over whether the average skills are actually that bad.

Or a dispute how much even basic adventures are "average" in this particular area.

 

[zakael19]

Or a dispute how much even basic adventures are "average" in this particular area.

Oooohhh thats a good one.

For the sake of setting stakes, how do we calculate the "average adventurer's competence" .

 

[Micah Sweet]

Even then… it’s a pretty crappy defense since the player is the person who made the character.

I don't follow. The phrase in and of itself just points to playing your character accurately.

 

[SableWyvern]

I don't follow. The phrase in and of itself just points to playing your character accurately.

Yeah, I've always read it is players who legitimately feel it's the way the character would behave. That could be because they're naturally disruptive players who created naturally disruptive characters, or it could just be the way things worked out even if everyone is participating in good faith and without any intention to disrupt.

The point being that, even if it is how the character would act, that, in-and-of-itself isn't a defence. Contrariwise, if a group is OK with extreme/disruptive outcomes, and places enough value in staying true to the character, then it might, in fact, be a perfectly valid explanation -- but that's probably not the typical group.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yeah, I've always read it is players who legitimately feel it's the way the character would behave. That could be because they're naturally disruptive players who created naturally disruptive characters, or it could just be the way things worked out even if everyone is participating in good faith and without any intention to disrupt.

The point being that, even if it is how the character would act, that, in-and-of-itself isn't a defence. (Contrariwise, if a group is OK with extreme/disruptive outcomes, then it might, in fact, be a perfectly valid explanation.)

I have been in many a party that ventured into PvP territory. On a couple occasions I was even an Iinstigator of it, but in none of them was it a real problem in real life.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I don't follow. The phrase in and of itself just points to playing your character accurately.

The idea is that if the character is likely to be a group, situation or campaign wrecker, maybe the player could have taken time to pick a character concept that wouldn't be likely to do that. And some people either can't be bothered or actively pick ones that will do that. Either out of malignity, or just being natural chaos gremlins.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I have been in many a party that ventured into PvP territory. On a couple occasions I was even an Iinstigator of it, but in none of them was it a real problem in real life.

It doesn't stop even at just PvP though; if done at the wrong time, it can effectively destroy the ability of the party to do anything but go on the run. Or even just toss them into an unwillable and difficult to extract from fight. Or both.