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

[Umbran]

This is nonsense. You did it earlier in the thread and now again. You hurl out a criticism that’s unfounded, but you couch it as “I heard this from someone” so that you maintain plausible deniability.

If you’re going to make a criticism, at least have the commitment to back it up.

Mod Note:
If you want to criticize how folks post, how about you criticize how you are arguing against the person of the poster, rather than the content of the argument.

Glass house. Stones. And such.

Don't make it personal. Thanks.

 

[Faolyn]

Wrong. The thing about failed skill checks is that if the character had been more proficent, they would have succeeded. Ergo, any failed check is a consequence of the character being insufficiently skilled. Pixies don't come into it, it's no ones fault but the person using the skill.

The only exception is critical failures* on a natural one, if that rule is used. Because the check fails irrespective of skill. In which case, it could be due to something outside of the character's control, such as pixies. That's why a lot of tables don't use critical failure on skill checks.

*and successes

Note that if the skill check was with disadvantage, and they only role one 1, then whatever caused the disadvantage must have been the cause of the failure.

No, because you can still fail outside of a critical failure. I've failed rolls in 5e where I have a +10 to the roll, and that's a really good skill bonus, and nearly as high as you can get in that game (at least at mid-levels), but that won't help you if you roll low enough.

So if a person should be skilled enough for the task at hand but still failed the roll due to the dice gods, then it can be something out of the character's control that caused them to fail. Should it be pixies (or another living being)? Not unless there's a darn good reason for them. But the cliff crumbling or the rope breaking? Why not?

 

[Emerikol]

The point is that its still not going to pass without comment. The point was that even traditional D&D players were still not going to just accept it blindly; they might after your comment realize it was an behind-pull and move on, but that's not the same thing as just accepting it. And in the case of things with more significance, they might well press the point.

I don't think obscure knowledge is appropriate to complain about to a DM or the group. It's like nitpicking a movie because you are a specialist and they didn't do something right. If it is really terrible maybe we quit the movie but in most cases we do not. One example is the one punch knockout common in tv shows and movies. If you giving a heavyweight boxing professional a free shot maybe but otherwise one punch is not as a rule going to knock someone out. We still just live with it.

The DM has created a world for the groups entertainment. It is designed by Him and works as He says it works. Most people won't be jerks and nitpick obscure details if he gets them wrong. Perhaps a few do and then they become THAT player who no one likes.

The idea that people just take whatever the GM says as gospel in D&D seems to come from people with limited exposure to the population of players, and probably reads too much into even the most authoritarian version of GM power as presented to boot.

I think it depends largely on the stakes. If it's not life and death I do think they take the DM's word as gospel. In that campaign world it is gospel. If it is life and death, I can see a player bringing something up especially if they feel like it was egregious. If it happens a lot though then that player is more a liability than an asset.

 

[Faolyn]

I have very, very little patience for invocations of "social contract" as though it provided anything at all.

The social contract is invisible. Its contents are changed on a whim when one person has all the power and the others have functionally none other than "flip the table and burn the bridge", metaphorically speaking.

The social contract is binding for everyone. If you have a player who "has all the power" and takes advantage of it, then you don't play with them anymore.

 

[Thomas Shey]

No, because you can still fail outside of a critical failure. I've failed rolls in 5e where I have a +10 to the roll, and that's a really good skill bonus, and nearly as high as you can get in that game (at least at mid-levels), but that won't help you if you roll low enough.

So if a person should be skilled enough for the task at hand but still failed the roll due to the dice gods, then it can be something out of the character's control that caused them to fail. Should it be pixies (or another living being)? Not unless there's a darn good reason for them. But the cliff crumbling or the rope breaking? Why not?

Yeah, as I've noted at least part of the die roll is representing events and situations that are both out of the characters control and way too fine tuned for it to be directly represented in the situation. When you're doing a spear charge to stab the monster, and you hit a slick spot on the ground that wasn't obvious, where is that supposed to come from? If someone wants to tell me the GM will declare it in advance, I'll just laugh.

 

[TwoSix]

I’m just looking for someone to explain why that shouldn’t happen, to which no one seems to be able to give me an answer.

Because the players know better than to make the game silly. If they can't do that, then play a game where the DM can force compliance because they're the final authority.

The DM.

And for PbtA games, it's the DM and the players.

 

[Faolyn]

Social contracts are where we establish that people can't do whatever they want. The game rules are merely an appendix to the agreement between people about what we are doing.

And yes, enforcement of social contracts is awkward as heck. I am sorry, but being human is awkward as heck.

Until such time as we have game books that, I dunno... deduct money form the GM's and players bank accounts when rules are broken? Calls the Game Police to confiscate your dice, or something?... enforcement of all game rules is an extension of social contract.

Maybe people need to talk about the Geek Social Fallacies more often.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I don't think obscure knowledge is appropriate to complain about to a DM or the group.

That's your choice. Doesn't mean it doesn't happen and if its something that has real heft it won't turn into a discussion (and in some of those cases, I think it probably should; its one thing to make a decision that causes your players trouble because you don't know better, its another to continue with it when corrected by someone more knowledgeable than you).

I
I think it depends largely on the stakes. If it's not life and death I do think they take the DM's word as gospel.

Then I'm back to disagreeing with you in the majority of cases.

 

[Emerikol]

Wrong. The thing about failed skill checks is that if the character had been more proficent, they would have succeeded. Ergo, any failed check is a consequence of the character being insufficiently skilled. Pixies don't come into it, it's no ones fault but the person using the skill.

I think if the person is taking their time in an ideal environment maybe you'd be right but this is often in the heat of combat and a lot of variables are represented by the dice. If there were no such variables we wouldn't need to roll the dice. Just compare your skill to some arbitrary number and you fail or succeed.

 

[Thomas Shey]

The social contract is binding for everyone. If you have a player who "has all the power" and takes advantage of it, then you don't play with them anymore.

The problem is when you have people that have been taught that player has the right to do that.