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

[CreamCloud0]

Yes. I would be ok with working out something that looks like a thiefling and works like a thiefling. That still isn't a thiefling.

sorry for picking at this, but i just need to point out that there's no h in tiefling.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

What it tells me is that the DM is simply curating the game's players, within reason, to suit the game he's got prepared and is willing and ready to run. I fail to see how this can be construed as a flaw.

Because when your first resort is to "pull rank" on what I see as an incredibly mild request, it looks like you literally could not care less what your players like, think, or feel. That's a HUGE red flag.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

sorry for picking at this, but i just need to point out that there's no h in tiefling.

I didn't want to say it, as I know Enrahim's first language is not English, but yeah, I've been thinking it too.

 

[pemerton]

Oooor...you can just do the really simple thing of "maximize base damage".

It's not even hard to calculate. 2d6? 12. 4d8? 4x8=24. It's extremely easy to maximize the (rolled) damage.

There is a slight irony here. (I think you typed "4" for '3".)

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Just to add to this, and to address some comments about skill systems (which have come from @Crimson Longinus and @Don Durito):

Here is the entry for Climbing skill in Burning Wheel Gold Revised (p 264):

This skill allows the character to navigate sheer surfaces using rope, harnesses and really strong finger muscles. In addition, rougher surfaces can be scaled with bare hands.​

​

Obstacles: Easy climb (a rocky hill, a tree or a fence), Ob 1. Moderate climb (inclined rock wall, a treacherous tree), Ob 2. Difficult climb (straight rock wall), Ob 3. Dangerous climb (sheer rock wall), Ob 4. Impossible climb (ice climbing), Ob 5. Suicidal climb (bad conditions, overhangs, etc), Ob 7.​

​

FoRKs: Knots, Rigging​

​

Skill Type: Physical​

​

Tools: Yes, expendable.​

This is what I expect a classic simulationist skill entry to look like: it identifies what the skill bonus represents (ie skill with climbing gear and/or strong fingers); it locates it within the broader context of possible actions (this is a physical skill, and it is aided by skills such as Knots and Rigging - Fields of Related Knowledge); and it characterises obstacles that the skill might be used to overcome (like different sorts of slopes and surfaces) in game-mechanical terms (the list of sample obstacles).

A contrast could be drawn with the 4e D&D skill system, which identifies the relevant sorts of activities the skill pertains to but uses a pretty different sort of framework for establishing difficulties, and is much more open about what the skill bonus represents (eg suppose that an Epic tier Wizard has a +15 bonus to Athletics - it is really up to the player and the rest of the table to decide what that tells us about the character, and given that most of that bonus will be a level bonus there is no expectation to describe the character as having strong finger muscles).

The process of establishing a BW character's climbing bonus, and of working out what the difficulty is for a climbing attempt, strikes me as "diegetic" as that term gets used in RPG analysis: in the fiction, there is this character with these fingers and this degree of mastery of rope and harness, standing at the base of this (near-, semi-)vertical surface that poses this degree of challenge, hoping to ascend it. And the audience is in the same sort of relationship to these game elements like the bonus and the obstacle.

Whereas in 4e D&D it is not a diegetic process. The PC has a climbing bonus, but the number on the sheet doesn't tell us a great deal about what this character looks like, or does, when they try and climb. And there is a (near-, semi-) vertical surface but its in-fiction properties are not the main consideration in determining what obstacle to set.

I don't know whether 5e D&D, as typically played, is closer to BW or to 4e D&D.

I don't see a significant difference here, nor with these and 5e. In all cases we have numerical measure of diegetic character capability and numerical measure of diegetic challenge of the task, and from these we draw the odds of success. Granted, I agree with you that in 4e the half level bonus makes things a bit weird, and similar is not case in 5e.

Of course what throws this seemingly supposed setup in BW out of the window, is that when you do not actually draw from these things the odds of the character succeeding in the task due the factors being measured (skill, difficulty of the task) but something completely unrelated happening, such as on failure a wyvern arriving to attack the climber. When you do that, you have broken the simulation.

 

[Emerikol]

Well, to begin with, you are now inserting an assumption into what I said that isn't supported by the text. Specifically, you've assumed that the player is (or even can be) putting their foot down. I would see an utterly intransigent player as being just as much of a problem as an utterly intransigent GM!

More importantly, there are a hell of a lot of ways that "insist on playing dragonborn" can play out, some of which have nothing in common with one another! Hence, that insistence is actually a very loose, weak thing taken in the abstract, while the absolute refusal to consider any possible alternative, no matter how weakened, is an extremely strong stance--and doing so by "pulling rank" is not what friends do with friends.

The word insistence doesn't strike me as a loose weak thing in the abstract. It comes across as a demand.

Consider: A player might value mechanics, aesthetics, narrative (meaning, species backstory/context), or loose concept. A player who only cares about mechanics would be willing to discard everything else, happy with looking like an elf or whatever, they just like the flight and the dragon breath. Someone who cares exclusively about the look and doesn't even care if it's narratively a "dragon" person would probably accept using lizardman mechanics and narrative, just a lizardman who has a dragonborn-like appearance. Someone who loves the aesthetic and certain specific parts of the narrative might be entirely happy using bog-standard human mechanics, perhaps as a genuine one-off weirdo (again, result of an arcane experiment, a mutant or otherwise altered human, a Etc.

There are many, many, many ways this could potentially cash out, so it is highly possible (not guaranteed, but often entirely achievable) that the thing that this GM doesn't accept about dragonborn isn't actually important to this player. If it is, if they truly do have an irreconcilable difference, that's a good signal that this group needs to change (what change depends on context--the presumed default is "player leaves", but sometimes the bonds between players matter more.)

Yeah I guess I just never had players who had the "insistent" personality type. My guess is that they are insistent occasionally in other aspects of their life but they just aren't in D&D. My guess is they are invested in the traditional idea that for his campaign a DM is the final decision maker. They expect it when DM but they also expect it as players. It's just what we think is right.

Point being, "insist on playing dragonborn" is at least potentially a relatively weak thing to insist upon, depending on what specific things the player is seeking. "Insist on absolutely never dragonborn we won't even talk about it I'm pulling rank and telling you no" is not that, and specifically represents a refusal to discuss.

I get that some people will be jerks. That is, unfortunately, part of life. But this just circles back to the same inappropriate and unjustified presumption that GMs won't be jerks so we absolutely must trust them infinitely--even though they could 100% be jerks with their massive power--while any player ever expressing a preference and actually wanting to discuss it is presumed to be a jerk and thus told an adamant "NO" without any discussion because, apparently, doing that even once guarantees that the players WILL always be jerks forever? I guess?

I agree DMs could be jerks but insisting players adhere to the setting is not being a jerk. I think the DM should present the setting ahead of time and then tell players if they are interested opt into the campaign. I believe players could opt in or out with the same DM based on the theme presented. So it's not a "I hate the DM" position. It's just a rejection of the campaign theme offered at that moment. A good DM can often save a campaign with mediocre players or even a bad player. A DM shutdown and uninvested because of player demands is likely to ruin the campaign. The job of DM is vastly harder than that of player. DMs are in short supply. I'm sure I could make up something completely ridiculous and get some players on board.

 

[AlViking]

sorry for picking at this, but i just need to point out that there's no h in tiefling.

Maybe they're talking about a custom race of kender with a fiendish ancestry?

 

[Emerikol]

Because when your first resort is to "pull rank" on what I see as an incredibly mild request, it looks like you literally could not care less what your players like, think, or feel. That's a HUGE red flag.

I think if you present your campaign idea up front and any good DM would in my playstyle then it is the player who is behaving badly if he joins the campaign and then immediately demands to change the underlying theme.

I think if the request is something not addressed in the "startup packet or startup discussion" then that is a different scenario and I am more sympathetic to it. In the end though the DM being motivated is a higher priority for the entire group.

 

[pemerton]

And I guess it would be nice if you react to being punched in the face by smiling and giving the puncher a hug.

No analogy with the relevant case beyond pointing out that nicety isn't really a valid argument on it's own.

Huh? Among friends, being nice is a perfectly good reason all on its own. And friends have no real reason to indulge one another in playing in their worlds beyond the bonds of friendship. (I mean, you began this particular strand of discussion by positing that the world in question is not so well-written as to be publishable.)

 

[pemerton]

Maybe. But can you imagine the experience might differ between those two ways of doing things? Isn't it great that there is indeed someone out there willing to put in the effort to enable that other experience for those that really know how to value it?

So are you now saying that those who don't value playing in highly GM-curated settings are suffering a cognitive deficiency?