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


log in or register to remove this ad

The way I see it, any subsequent play that occurred based on the overturned ruling is (or should be) invalidated because it was in effect done in error.

Getting it right the first time is not always possible, of course, but it's an ideal to strive for; and IMO the price to pay for getting it wrong is that you've stuck yourself with a precedent that you maybe didn't want.

Seems like throwing the baby out with the bathwater to me. It’s a mistake, they happen. Just adjust going forward.

Following a mistake as a precedent just seems foolish.
 

Though I've got to say it probably requires the GM being awfully--casual--in how he sets things up, barring using the original OD&D outdoor encounter tables (and if he is, without thought, he's at least not looked at the implications of doing that).

Maybe. It depends on so many factors that we could each just come up with scenarios to serve as examples. But ultimately, it’s something that may happen… and to he honest, it’s probably a slightly less extreme version that would crop up. It doesn’t have to be a red dragon.
 


Thanks. Sometimes I forget the original point of this mega-thread was to rag on trad-leaning players in their own forum.

Give me a break. Its the fact I'm trad leaning myself pretty heavily why I have an issue with it. I don't consider the fact that propagated into the expectations in other trad games at all a virtue, and while I might not play much simulationist any more, I defy you to look at much of what I've run in the last decade and call them anything but trad style games.
 

Maybe. It depends on so many factors that we could each just come up with scenarios to serve as examples. But ultimately, it’s something that may happen… and to he honest, it’s probably a slightly less extreme version that would crop up. It doesn’t have to be a red dragon.

I'd probably call a number of those overly casual unless the GM was signaling pretty strongly too.
 

So it's ok for me not to like something you like, but it's not ok for me to explain why I don't like it? That seems strange to me.
You can explain why you don't like something without saying that it is wrong. I don't tell you that you're wrong, do I?

Never said you did either of those things. But not doing either is IMO required for people with different opinions about the same topic to get along in civil discourse.
Perhaps also not telling people that what they're doing is wrong?
 


You aren’t trad gaming.
I also don't see how "D&D General" = trad gamers/trad gaming. I have played D&D quite a bit, and am likely to play it again before I die. I use RPGing books that have "D&D" on the cover (eg my beloved World of Greyhawk folio and maps; modules like T1 with classic NPCs like Lareth the Beautiful; etc).

The precursor event to my story about the reading of the runes was an encounter between PCs and a Crypt Thing.

Why am I not part of "D&D General"?
 

Isn’t this just 1 thing? Isn’t a GM abusing the power and authority granted to him by the players ipso facto violating the social contract?
It's abuse of the power and authority granted to him by the D&D rules. Even so, you are probably correct that it's still a violation of the social contract since it runs afoul of "Don't be a jerk."
 

Pets & Sidekicks

Remove ads

Top