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

[Faolyn]

Doesn't matter.

Actually, it 100% matters. I want to know what these implausible reasons are for the king to not talk to us, because that will decide how I address the implausibility.

Never mind that one of the perks of kingship is that they don't have to grant an audience to rag-tag bands of PCs who are wandering through the kingdom, and they don't need to give reasons.

1e D&D. Rules are silent.

In a life-and-death situation such as this, I might find out how much the armor weighs and see if there are any rules for how much you can carry while still swimming. If I can find rules quickly and they're in my favor but the GM still insists on killing off my PC, then I have a discussion with the GM after the game, so as not to actually disrupt things for everyone else. If I can't find the rules quickly--this is pre-youtube and thus pre-internet search--I also have a discussion with the GM after the game.

Then I make a new character. Because if I'm playing 1e with a GM who isn't shy about killing PCs when there are no rules saying that's what's supposed to happen, I probably would have gone into the game expecting that my PC will die. Kind of like how if I'm playing a Cthulhu-centered game, I'm expecting, even hoping, that my PC will go insane.

 

[Faolyn]

((Note, I left off the accountable to players bit since that's not relevant to my point))

He very much has repeatedly claimed that he is not responsible. How could he be responsible for things that are just "logical results of the setting"? That's like claiming that you're responsible for 2 plus 2 equalling 4. If we accept that the setting itself is an "independent machine" (his words mind you), then he cannot possible take responsibility for results.

How can someone be responsible for results they are claiming they have no direct control over?

Has he actually said he has no direct control over the world?

I gave an example, which I believe I linked you to: The Imperial family is killed by the PCs. The empire, which had been a collection of warring states before the emperor united them, falls back into warring states (in my initial post, it was implied that the empire was new and that this was the first emperor). The GM is not abdicating responsibility; they're simply going with what they felt was the most logical and natural result of the PCs' actions.

Another option I gave is that, instead of falling into warring states, the merchant princes take over and turn it into a corpocracy not because that's a logical and natural result of the PCs' actions but because the GM thought it would be fun to have a magical "arcanapunk" setting.

 

[Faolyn]

And yet, I have had quite a productive conversation with @dave2008 in both directions, or so I felt. Their questions were perfectly polite, and their answers, while inviting criticism, were a useful starting point.

Perhaps, instead of pointing fingers and accusing others of one-true-wayism, it would be beneficial to question whether your requirements are the ones that are one true way? Because thus far that's a pretty apt description of what I've seen. I'm not allowed to ask for clarification--and when I do, I get immediately and completely shut down, or told that I should just already know, without further clarification. Everyone has to be on board with the "realism" train, and no explanation will be forthcoming? That's not exactly inviting any discussion or allowing anything but one's own viewpoint, and seems to lack any room for further inquiry!

And yet, and my most polite, you told me I was wrong, wrong wrong.

 

[robertsconley]

1e D&D. Rules are silent.

Technically no.

Pages 40 to 43 of the AD&D 1e Wilderness Survival. Everything you ever wanted to know about Swimming in AD&D 1e and then some.

I have to say after looking it over that even GURPS didn't have so many words devoted to Swimming.

So in AD&D 1e you can swim in armor but it slows you down and you can only swim for so many turns equal to your level plus constitution. You can tread water for twice as long. And what looks to be the real peril of being heavily encumbered by Armor is not so much swimming but getting dumped into the water. If you go down far enough (which there are rules for) you may not surface in time before you run out of breath.

 

[Faolyn]

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.

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."

So here, I said that the warlord was scary. Not magical, but scary. So you claiming that I said it was magical was at best a misreading of what I wrote.

I said that the PC subclass can be seen as magical. Not a monster, not that it must be treated as magical, but that it can be. If the player wants to say that their Goad or whatever the ability was is magical, why not?

 

[Old Fezziwig]

I'm not sure what you mean by, "...rejecting out of hand a Year of Three Popes..." Implausible things can happen in RPGs. They just remain implausible. Would you clarify what you meant by that?

Last things first, my hypothetical GM is admittedly something of a pantomime villain. He's more concerned with plausibility than anything else, discounting things entirely if they strike him as implausible.

With no hitters, that to me is still very implausible for any given night, even for Petey. While the numbers have changed over the last 150 years, there are currently 30 teams that each play 162 times a season. That's 4,860 chances for pitchers to get a no hitter. Two a season would be 1 out of every 2,430 chances at it. While it's certainly possible to have a no hitter on any given night, and some pitchers are more likely to achieve it than others, it still doesn't seem plausible(reasonable or probable) that it would happen on any given night.

I agree with you that reasonability is more important than probability, but reasonability is connected very closely to probability. An extreme longshot is not reasonable, due to its improbability. In a game with magic, gods who take a hand in the world, etc, plausibility stretches away from the real world with regard to what is probable or reasonable, but not by gigantic margins.

I think this is getting to the crux of things for me. I'm not inclined to tie reasonableness so closely to probability, but to possibility. Petey threw eight one-hitters in his career, and the AL East had some bad teams in his prime plus an unbalanced schedule. Toronto could rake, but Baltimore and Tampa Bay were often atrocious (I remember the AL Central being terrible most years, too, save for Chicago). It was possible, even if it was unlikely, especially as teams started valuing three-true-outcomes guys more and talent became more concentrated in NY and Boston.

 

[Maxperson]

Last things first, my hypothetical GM is admittedly something of a pantomime villain. He's more concerned with plausibility than anything else, discounting things entirely if they strike him as implausible.

I think this is getting to the crux of things for me. I'm not inclined to tie reasonableness so closely to probability, but to possibility. Petey threw eight one-hitters in his career, and the AL East had some bad teams in his prime plus an unbalanced schedule. Toronto could rake, but Baltimore and Tampa Bay were often atrocious (I remember the AL Central being terrible most years, too, save for Chicago). It was possible, even if it was unlikely, especially as teams started valuing three-true-outcomes guys more and talent became more concentrated in NY and Boston.

If you remove probability from plausibility and simply reduce it to possibility, then just about anything becomes plausible. It would be plausible that if I buy a Powerball ticket today I will win.

That's too much a stretch for me and seems to render plausibility useless as a word. Possible or impossible would be all that would be necessary to use.

If you go the other way you can see it in action as well. In criminal court you need to find someone guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. A lot of people misunderstand that and treat any possible doubt as reasonable. If someone is 99.9% likely to have done it, but there's that 1 in 1000 chance that it was someone else, is that doubt reasonable? I would say no, but if you divorce probability from things like you are doing with plausible, then that 1 in 1000 chance becomes reasonable/plausible.

Anyway, I doubt we will change each others opinions here. I'm glad to have had this discussion and I wish others here on the site were as pleasant to speak with. It makes conversations much more enjoyable.

 

[robertsconley]

If you go the other way you can see it in action as well. In criminal court you need to find someone guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

There are several standards of proof in the legal system. Far more fine-grained than my three categories of most likely, probable, possible.

Personally, I think folks should cut to the chase and debate the real point of contention. Who is involved in the process by which judgment calls are made in a campaign? If shared authority or collaboration is the goal, then say so.

 

[dave2008]

Technically no.

I imagined that they were talking about the core books. Access to and knowledge of non-core books was lower 30-40 years ago compared to today. I no for 1e AD&D I only ever had:

PHB, DMG, MM, MM 2, D&D (aka L&L). I didn't even no the Wilderness Survival Guide existed back in the day!

Cool find though!

 

[dave2008]

Technically no.
View attachment 406152

Pages 40 to 43 of the AD&D 1e Wilderness Survival. Everything you ever wanted to know about Swimming in AD&D 1e and then some.

I have to say after looking it over that even GURPS didn't have so many words devoted to Swimming.

So in AD&D 1e you can swim in armor but it slows you down and you can only swim for so many turns equal to your level plus constitution. You can tread water for twice as long. And what looks to be the real peril of being heavily encumbered by Armor is not so much swimming but getting dumped into the water. If you go down far enough (which there are rules for) you may not surface in time before you run out of breath.


View attachment 406153

View attachment 406154

I might have to pick this book up!