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

[bloodtide]

Any and every action the GM doesn't like, regardless of reason, can and will get a "no". Doesn't matter what the action is. That was core to the discussion we had about my (constructed) example of the faux-Egypt paladin character being completely incapable of even TRYING to convince the Priesthood of Set to help with preventing an invasion of faux-Egypt. The GM can, in fact, reject a player's action for any reason or no reason at all. The player just has to trust that it will make sense. Potentially for months before any answers whatsoever will be forthcoming.

This sounds like a normal good game to me.

 

[TwoSix]

Are you sure the real question isn't at what point these caveats go without saying?

I've been posting here for 25 years. Those caveats never, ever go without saying. Ever.

 

[Maxperson]

Sorry, but going to separate this one out.

Where it's useful is in actually creating a taxonomy for discussing a game. If a DM says, "I'm running a heavily sim based game where the logic of the setting is key and mechanics are as diegetic as possible" and then pulls out D&D, then the DM is lying. He's lying to himself and he's lying to his players. Because the mechanics of D&D are very much not diegetic and the system provides nothing for simulation.

Two things. One, D&D provides a little as I've shown. It's not a lot by RAW, but it's there. Two, he's not inherently lying. The DM with some home brew and DMG options can make D&D heavily sim.

It's no different from me pulling out FATE and claiming that I'm going to run a really heavy sim game. I would think that most people would be giving me a lot of side eye for that.

 

[Maxperson]

HOLD THE HORSES! STOP THE TRAIN!

For 1,000+ pages people had issues with the unfortunate luck of running into a cook when one failed one's lock-pick roll, yet now bad luck is ok for climbing.

So it is obvious the issue was the above example reflected a tool proficiency.
This thread would have been long over if the original example had been the PC fail a climb check and the Fail Forward result being he got to the top of the mountain only to encounter the cook.

 

[Maxperson]

Ah, I didn't go back far enough!
I did indeed find it strange that I would supposedly be the first to make that association.

Yep. They were brought up and the flaws were pointed out then, too. More noise is made by a successful check than a failed one, and the sharp/crumbly rocks are there regardless of success or failure, unlike the cook.

Now if the cook was inside scrubbing pots on a success and didn't hear you pick the lock and open the door, that would make more sense. The successful lockpicker would see her back to him while she is cleaning and then decide what to do next. But her being there or not being there based on a lockpicking roll is where those of us who don't use fail forward would have an issue.

It's not our game, though. If you guys are having a great time with cooks who hear less noise and fail to hear more noise, you're doing it right for your group. Enjoyment is the number one goal of playing RPGs.

 

[FrozenNorth]

I liked your post because I agree that the DM can be far more disruptive to a game than a player can. However, I don't think that mediocrity in either DMs or players is really disruptive to the game. Boring perhaps, but not truly disruptive. To be truly disruptive to a game goes beyond mediocrity, in the wrong direction.

In short, a bad DM will be more disruptive than a bad player. A bad decision by a DM will generally be more disruptive to a game than a bad decision by a player. Mediocre decisions by either are meh.

Fair enough. I disagree, but I see your point.

I think focussing solely on bad DMs makes it too easy to conflate people who are actively disruptive from people who aren’t intentionally making their game unfun. In other words, it’s pretty easy to say “well, they are a bad DM, so any attempts to address behaviour are bound to fail” rather than to say “the are a DM who have some pretty bad habits/tendencies, and maybe, they could benefit from rules that constrain them or published tips that guide them”.

 

[Faolyn]

Sorry, but going to separate this one out.

Where it's useful is in actually creating a taxonomy for discussing a game. If a DM says, "I'm running a heavily sim based game where the logic of the setting is key and mechanics are as diegetic as possible" and then pulls out D&D, then the DM is lying. He's lying to himself and he's lying to his players. Because the mechanics of D&D are very much not diegetic and the system provides nothing for simulation.

It's no different from me pulling out FATE and claiming that I'm going to run a really heavy sim game. I would think that most people would be giving me a lot of side eye for that.

Most people, I think, would either go "huh?" or "okay...?" because I don't think most people care all that much about whether the game is sim or narrative or gamist, as long as it lets them do whatever it is they consider to be cool stuff and the rules aren't stupid.

 

[Emerikol]

Most people, I think, would either go "huh?" or "okay...?" because I don't think most people care all that much about whether the game is sim or narrative or gamist, as long as it lets them do whatever it is they consider to be cool stuff and the rules aren't stupid.

Depending on the person though that would be sim, narrativist, or gamist. You don't have to know the terms to enjoy what they stand for in a group.

 

[Faolyn]

So if the bard tries to seduce a dragon, the GM should always allow it?

Is it reasonable for a dragon to be at all interested in a humanoid bard?

 

[Faolyn]

Has the cook's existence been established prior to the roll for case (2)? If not, I find it nonsensical.

In the worst case, this kind of play can manifest as the player's action declaration leading to more consequences. What I mean is: if the player had declared (1), the complication may have been a loss of time. If they declare (2), it prompts the GM to think "I wonder if anyone is in the house" and settle on cook.

The player's declaration leads to more problems for them.

How would you know if the cook had been established?

If you had managed to look inside the kitchen ahead of time and established it was empty, then it's not particularly logical. But did you look inside?