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

[EzekielRaiden]

No it's not. "Magic can do it" is not the same as bringing up magic to explain the absurd in order to try to get away with something.

A PC? Yes. The pre-establishd fear spell? No. Shouting "magic" to allow the warlord to do a clearly non-magical thing in order to get away with using the ability on a PC? What I was just talking about. The last one is implausible.

And yet when I brought up the example of the Warlord enemy from 5e, what was the very first thing that was suggested?

To call it magic. No explanation of how. No explanation of what. No reference to the "fear" spell (which wouldn't work this way anyway!) Just "rewrite the existing monster as though it's magic, and there's no problem".

The very thing you just claimed never happens, happened in this thread, BEFORE you claimed it never happens!

Here's the quote, in case you were wanting a reference.

I would have to see their statblocks to judge. If they're in 5.24, I'm likely to not be able to see it. But it's quite likely that the warlord, being a legendary creature, is scary enough to get a pass on being able to cause fear.

And the nice thing about 5.14 is that it's so vague at times that you can reskin things like a battlemaster's Goad into being at least semi-mystical.

And yes, this specifically includes the Battle Master! Not only that, it does so in a way that exploits (a) the writing as being vague, and (b) "at least semi-mystical", meaning, magic as an excuse without anything more than "it's magical, move along."

 

[SableWyvern]

Or, to ask the question in simple terms: How can the players affect the DM's decision about the plausibility of what the DM already knows, but the players do not and cannot yet know?

If the players are offered a naturalistic, plausible game, but don't feel they're getting it, they affect the situation by telling the GM how they feel.

The involved parties then discuss the point of contention and hopefully arrive at an understanding and a closer alignment on what is plausible.

Rob had already said on several occasions he'll happily show his work, if asked.

I'm happy to talk through any issues with my players and they're not afraid to speak up.

At the end of the day, the GM has no power but that which the players allow, so the GM must be able to show the players that they're making decisions everyone is satisfied with. Without the agreement of all parties, the game cannot proceed.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

If the players are offered a naturalistic, plausible game, but don't feel they're getting it, they affect the situation by telling the GM how they feel.

The involved parties then discuss the point of contention and hopefully arrive at an understanding and a closer alignment on what is plausible.

Rob had already said on several occasions he'll happily show his work, if asked.

I'm happy to talk through any issues with my players and they're not afraid to speak up.

At the end of the day, the GM has no power but that which the players allow, so the GM must be able to show the players that they're making decisions everyone is satisfied with. Without the agreement of all parties, the game cannot proceed.

Okay.

I have not seen things which indicate that this is actually what happens?

Like...I gave an example which several people responded to as "well perhaps the DM knows something you don't, and you won't learn it for a while. You have to trust that whatever it is, it will work out." That was what "trust" meant, at the time.

Now it apparently means something else? And the DM needs to actually do a lot of justifying, rather than expecting players to accept the things they've done?

Like I made this huge deal about how an alleged religious belief (that if this one person drinks a single alcoholic drink, it will damn them, AND everyone they're related to, to eternal suffering) was blatant evidence of railroading. I was roundly criticized for seeing that as evidence of improper behavior. I was very specifically told that it's unjustified--indeed, outright wrong--for a player to take such a thing as evidence of railroading.

But now, here you are telling me that a DM doing that thing is bad because it would be implausible to the players. Really? Really.

I cannot even begin here. The very same things I held up as a problem before and got nothing but grief for it are now being given as examples of problematic DMing that no player should accept! How can I even respond to this?

 

[SableWyvern]

Okay.

I have not seen things which indicate that this is actually what happens?

Like...I gave an example which several people responded to as "well perhaps the DM knows something you don't, and you won't learn it for a while. You have to trust that whatever it is, it will work out." That was what "trust" meant, at the time.

Now it apparently means something else? And the DM needs to actually do a lot of justifying, rather than expecting players to accept the things they've done?

Like I made this huge deal about how an alleged religious belief (that if this one person drinks a single alcoholic drink, it will damn them, AND everyone they're related to, to eternal suffering) was blatant evidence of railroading. I was roundly criticized for seeing that as evidence of improper behavior. I was very specifically told that it's unjustified--indeed, outright wrong--for a player to take such a thing as evidence of railroading.

But now, here you are telling me that a DM doing that thing is bad because it would be implausible to the players. Really? Really.

I cannot even begin here. The very same things I held up as a problem before and got nothing but grief for it are now being given as examples of problematic DMing that no player should accept! How can I even respond to this?

I think this is in large part because it's all very context dependent.

But first, and politely, you're exaggerating and changing the things I just said, so I'd ask you to take a small step back. I absolutely did not describe anything as an "example of problematic DMing that no player should accept!" or anything close to that. What I said was if there is a difference of opinion, the players should speak up and this should be discussed, with the aim of reaching a mutually agreeable conclusion. We are going to end up at an impasse again very quickly if you are going to misrepresent the things I'm saying.

With that out of the way, here are some examples of different situations, variations on those situations, and how I see them being handled.

First, I do feel entirely comfortable, in certain circumstances, if a player says, "Hey, this doesn't make sense," responding to them, "The fact that you don't think it makes sense is probably exactly how your character is feeling right now. Thinking it doesn't make sense is perfectly reasonable, and I think it would make sense for your character to respond appropriately."

I would probably expect my players to accept that, and trust me that there is an explanation.

That said, if I had a player who who really dug in and felt there was no possible way it could make sense, I would be willing to go over it with them, because I know my players are reasonable, and if this is a real sticking point for them, it's worth clearing it up.

Conversely, if it's a new player, I would probably also be willing to go into more detail if necessary, but for a different reason -- in this case, because I'm still in the process of building trust with that player, and being open is likely to help with that.

Now, if this player turns out to constantly question everything I do, there is obviously a bigger issue. If we can't get on the same page then it is most likely the case that they're not a good fit for the group. Not necessarily due to anyone's fault, but just because we have fundamentally different expectations.

If the player's issue is that there couldn't possibly be a lake of this size in this area, because of the local rock type and rainfall and blah blah technical scientific stuff, I would most likely say, "Look, I'm far from an expert on lake formation, are you OK with going along with the fact that, in this world, for some reason, there is a lake here? I'm not really in a position to completely rewrite all the details of this region." If the player is unable to do this, then again, the reality is we're probably not compatible. I am have no interest in running a hydrology simulation, nor would I have the knowledge to do so if I wanted to. If a player requires this from their game, I'm not the GM for them.

So, just because a player speaks up, doesn't mean the GM gives them what they want. Sometimes, the GM might ask the player to just trust them. Sometimes that might not be a feasible option (especially in a situation where the player needs a clear understanding before they can make a decision). But, when the player and the GM discuss a point of contention, in my personal opinion, it should be relatively straightforward to reach a mutually satisfactory agreement, whether this is sticking with what the GM originally said, changing it completely or anywhere in between.

In my experience, these types of issues aren't usually about what's plausible, they're the result of a miscommunication that is easily cleared up. When they're not communication issues, they can still usually be cleared up pretty easily and, at the end of the conversation, everyone's understanding of what is "plausible" is more closely aligned.

My general philosophy on these things is to give the players what they want as much as is possible, and I'll be happy to adjust my vision to suit their needs. However, because my players know that I will compromise in their favour quite often, they tend to be willing to cede to me on those occasions where I feel it is important that I don't compromise. There is give and take both ways, my players give me the authority to make a final decision if I need to, and I respect them by not overusing that power to get my own way.

As I have said earlier, in the event that a GM and a player simply have irreconcilable views on what is reasonable or plausible well, by definition, the two cannot be reconciled. In such a situation, the player and GM simply aren't a good fit, and should look elsewhere for their gaming fun.

So, in summary, I do GM with the power to make and enforce decisions as I see fit. And I use that power from time to time. But I have that power only as long as my players are content that I do, and I do not abuse it. And, when the roles are reversed, I work especially hard to support the GM and roll with their decisions. We work as a team, we communicate, we all want the same thing: we want to game, not argue or fight. And, as a result, we game and we do not argue and fight.

I don't know if that is going to help you understand my position any better, but I hope it does in some way.

[Some edits for grammar, clarity etc.]

 

[Enrahim]

That's why I'm asking about what it does, in fact, actually limit, or not limit. And thus far, because of its vagueness, the limitation it seems to place is..."anything goes, as long as the DM worked hard enough". Which is precisely why Hussar, myself, and others have noted that this (alleged) limiter, from the player's perspective, cannot even in principle be distinguished from someone just making up whatever they like.

I think this paragraph decently represent the core of your issue in this post?

Will things get more digestible for you if we introduce the common concept of a "soft limit"? That is an effect that puts in place practical restrictions in that pushing against it is tiresome and inconvenient.

Think of an elastic fence. As long as you don't touch it you can move around easily. If you want to get to something that is a bit outside the fence, you can push against it and reach there, but you will probably notice what you are doing. If the elastic is very flexible you could even go quite far without very much effort. But go to far, the elastic will break and the game is over. And as you don't really know the breaking point, it might be wise to not push too much on it?

Of course games are a bit trickier. In some groups the fence is invisible to the players, and only the DM know if he is pushing against it. The players can of course ask if the DM is thinking he is pushing the boundary, and might even ask for the DM to move their fence post a bit. But ultimately they cannot actually see where the DMs boundaries are (what he would need effort to introduce), so if this boundaries being kept us important to them they have nothing but trust to base that on.

For other groups each paricipant is constructing their own defences only they can see and feel. In such groups each participant are expected to speak up if the game start pushing against their fences. Noone else can see them, so this kind of communication is important, and a normal part of play.

For other groups they really try to work together up front to set up a fence everyone can see and feel. This require more work initialy, but allow play to flow smoother than for the second kind of group. Some times the group recognizes that the game might be better if some of the elastics are tightened or some of the fence posts are moved, but this typically is done outside sessions.

And of course as with all such conceptual categorization of groups all real groups are a mix of these, and hence you quickly get seemingly vague and on the surface contradictory responses if you try to nail someone down to using one of these in a pure manner.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Well, we have been talking about GMs making decisions based on what’s plausible… so

there is a difference between the 'methods of deciding probability' being talked about here, in the version we are referring to it is more akin to merely labeling the odds of an existing probability, like bookies at a horse race giving the odds of each horse winning based on their track records and the race conditions, what you seem to be thinking of when 'deciding what's plausible' is that we're actually picking the outcomes 'to be plausible', deciding the condition of the horses by the odds given to them, that's thinking of our process the wrong way around

No, I’m saying that because the GM is free to author anything he likes, he can very likely create whatever he wants and create the factors that make it plausible

yes the GM could, but they don't, do you know why? because typically when they're trying to make a logical and living world doing so is often directly counter-intuitive to their desires of running said logical, living world in the first place, creating a bunch of 'self-justified' content is likely to result in illogical or contrived feeling worldbuilding, it goes against the principle of the playstyle so saying 'why don't you just justify what you want to happen' implies a fundamental lack of understanding of why people and GMs want to play this style of game.

and once they have set something as a property of a person or thing their desired playstyle makes them beholden to not alter those traits (unless they organically alter by themselves through the events of play), future decisions have to align with what has already come before, like fitting new pieces into a puzzle having to work around the bits that are already placed.

 

[hawkeyefan]

there is a difference between the 'methods of deciding probability' being talked about here, in the version we are referring to it is more akin to merely labeling the odds of an existing probability, like bookies at a horse race giving the odds of each horse winning based on their track records and the race conditions, what you seem to be thinking of when 'deciding what's plausible' is that we're actually picking the outcomes 'to be plausible', deciding the condition of the horses by the odds given to them, that's thinking of our process the wrong way around

As I said already, everyone will have opinions about what is plausible. The GM will have them, too. Then, the GM decides the plausible thing that happens.

If you want to describe this in a way other than the GM deciding what’s plausible, be my guest.

yes the GM could, but they don't, do you know why? because typically when they're trying to make a logical and living world doing so is often directly counter-intuitive to their desires of running said logical, living world in the first place, creating a bunch of 'self-justified' content is likely to result in illogical or contrived feeling worldbuilding, it goes against the principle of the playstyle so saying 'why don't you just justify what you want to happen' implies a fundamental lack of understanding of why people and GMs want to play this style of game.

and once they have set something as a property of a person or thing their desired playstyle makes them beholden to not alter those traits (unless they organically alter by themselves through the events of play), future decisions have to align with what has already come before, like fitting new pieces into a puzzle having to work around the bits that are already placed.

Except that the GM is responsible for creating all the relevant factors to begin with. And many things are left uncertain… because the GM can’t conceive of every possible detail ahead of time. So at the time of any decision about plausibility, there are undetermined factors... so those have to be determined at the same time.

It's not about changing existing properties... it's about the fact that some properties are unknown. Which means the decision about what's plausible is made with incomplete information, or else that information is created at the same time as the decision of what's plausible.

 

[AlViking]

I cut out nothing. @Lanefan claimed that both groups should have similar results, which is in direct contradiction to what @robertsconley stated.

They should have the same results if all of their decisions are the same and if any randomized events end with the same results. Which he said in the part of the post you didn't include (bold added).

...
For sure? Or is the difference due to one group succeeding on some rolls while the other lot fail dismally?

In practice, let's face it: two groups doing the exact same thing for longer than a vanishingly short period would be rarer than hen's teeth. And the different choices the groups make are going to cause massive divergence, sometimes before the DM even gets any input into the matter, after which there's no real way of extracting the differences the DM makes from the differences the groups bring on themselves.

But once again, no one is claiming 100% perfect level of objective detachment, we're just stating a general approach and preference. In my case if the players had made the same choices and there had been no difference in outcome of encounters based on the dice the game would have had the same outcomes. But things started to change after the introductory encounter when they started making significant choices and just kept diverging from there.

As far as internal logic, I'm just following whatever rules I've established for the campaign. It's still all something I've created of course and personally I don't get too detailed, but there are factors I keep in mind. Let's say there are two towns. Wizgoodton celebrates magic and all casters are looked upon favorably. Wizbadton tends to be suspicious and casters are blamed for all of them. The reactions to a wizard casting a fireball and accidentally burning down an unoccupied building are going to be quite different depending on which town it happens in. Wizgoodton looks at it and accepts a bit of collateral damage because the caster was helping their town, it was an accident and no innocents were hurt. In Wizbadton they're breaking out the torches and pitchforks with people being talked into a frenzy because this time it was an abandoned house but next time it could be theirs.

The only one ensuring that I follow the logic I have set up is, of course, me. There have been times when players have questioned why someone was responding as they did or why something happens and they're always free to ask. It's always been made clear at some point, frequently with exclamations along the lines of "Oh! That's why X did Y! We should have figured out what was going on earlier."

 

[Maxperson]

Again, you're conflating different things. You cannot have logical outputs from completely illogical inputs. Sure, you plonk down 46 lakes and 3 oceans without any understanding of how lakes and oceans are formed will result in something that won't stand up any actual examination.

I'm not, 1) since your premise of 100% matching the real world is not one anyone uses or necessary, 2) you can in fact(and it is a fact) have a logical output from an input not based completely in logic(your premise of completely illogical not existing at all).

If I put a settlement on the shore of the lake, that's a logical extension of a lake being present, no matter how the lake was originated. Settlements along lakes are a logical conclusion of a lake being present. Putting fish in the lake is the same. The origin of the lake does not make the settlement or fish illogical. Those two things WILL stand up to examination.

 

[AlViking]

On one hand, I would agree with you. But, like you, I’ve been fortunate enough that about 99% of my gaming is done with actual friends. So for me, it’s much easier to approach instances of dissatisfaction from one side or the other. Though there can also be challenges present with friends that wouldn’t be present with acquaintances or strangers. But for many folks, that may not be possible.

But aside from that, I’ve seen plenty of people here and elsewhere online who really play up the role of the GM, and how they are final arbiter and how if players don’t like it, they can find another game and all that kind of talk.

If there is an irreconcilable difference there has to be a process for a solution. Of course people at the table should try to compromise but sometimes there just isn't one. You can either end the game and disband the group or you can have an agreed upon process to resolve the issue. In D&D that agreed upon process is for the DM to make the final call and I don't see how that is particularly controversial or what other option there is [edit - other than to have a different agreed upon resolution procedure].

There have been times when I stopped going to a game because I didn't care for the GM and I didn't think the GM was bad, they just weren't providing the game I want. If I'm GMing I want to make the game fun for everyone at the table including myself but you can't please everyone. I don't see anything wrong with saying so.

Well, we have been talking about GMs making decisions based on what’s plausible… so



No, I’m saying that because the GM is free to author anything he likes, he can very likely create whatever he wants and create the factors that make it plausible.

I disagree. Just like a river doesn't flow uphill, it's always been pretty obvious to me when GMs are making decisions that aren't plausible. If I'm in the feywild? A river flowing uphill might make sense. In the "mundane world" and there's river flowing uphill and a Detect Magic doesn't show any supernatural call? It's not plausible. I played in a module that had literal rivers and lakes of blood in an otherwise mundane setting. I just groaned because it was so stupid and not plausible.

If something happens that the players don't understand we can talk about it. Frequently I just have to remind them of something they had forgotten, perhaps do a bit of exposition on something I though was clear. Other times the answer will be "Yeah, it doesn't make sense to your character" and it will be made clear later. I can't think of a time when things weren't ultimately explained to people's satisfaction and my players aren't shy about expressing their thoughts.