Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
[rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9706304" data-attributes="member: 6790260"><p>Really? Players don't have to "respect" rolls of any kind; that's literally not what they're doing. GMs need to, if the player is to have any understanding that the values they roll matter for the results they get. (This is, among other things, why I detest fudging--secretly ignoring the die and covering this up so the player can't find out--so much.) Or, for another example, GMs can't just willy-nilly declare that today, initiative is determined by who can stand on one leg the longest...while being tickled by another participant. To do so is to break the rules of the game.</p><p></p><p>Or, to come up with a different example: Things that do <em>damage</em> (not any other effect, JUST damage) have to produce damage <em>numbers</em>. An attack which does damage by deleting words from the player's character sheet would be breaking rules that bind the GM, not the player, since players can't invent new attacks, they simply have them or don't. Or a third: Knowledge checks. If the rules say that getting 20+ on a Knowledge check means you give the player certain information, and the player does in fact legitimately (not with any exploits or other stupid bovine feces, just genuine sincere research, roleplay, and a good die roll) get a result of 20+, would you not say the rules are binding on you to actually follow through there? Would it not be a pretty serious <em>faux pas</em> to look at that and say, "Nope, that's stupid, I'm going to lie instead."?</p><p></p><p>D&D has rules that bind GMs. You just think they're so obvious you don't pay them any attention; you have no <em>need</em> to break them.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Let us consider encounter design rules. How do the rules for how to build an encounter apply to players? Sure, the players will presumably <em>face</em> that encounter at some point. But where did the rules for <em>building</em> it apply to them? As far as I can tell, they never do. Where do the rules for setting DCs apply to players? Players shouldn't be setting DCs at all. Such rules can only apply to GMs!</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 9706304, member: 6790260"] Really? Players don't have to "respect" rolls of any kind; that's literally not what they're doing. GMs need to, if the player is to have any understanding that the values they roll matter for the results they get. (This is, among other things, why I detest fudging--secretly ignoring the die and covering this up so the player can't find out--so much.) Or, for another example, GMs can't just willy-nilly declare that today, initiative is determined by who can stand on one leg the longest...while being tickled by another participant. To do so is to break the rules of the game. Or, to come up with a different example: Things that do [I]damage[/I] (not any other effect, JUST damage) have to produce damage [I]numbers[/I]. An attack which does damage by deleting words from the player's character sheet would be breaking rules that bind the GM, not the player, since players can't invent new attacks, they simply have them or don't. Or a third: Knowledge checks. If the rules say that getting 20+ on a Knowledge check means you give the player certain information, and the player does in fact legitimately (not with any exploits or other stupid bovine feces, just genuine sincere research, roleplay, and a good die roll) get a result of 20+, would you not say the rules are binding on you to actually follow through there? Would it not be a pretty serious [I]faux pas[/I] to look at that and say, "Nope, that's stupid, I'm going to lie instead."? D&D has rules that bind GMs. You just think they're so obvious you don't pay them any attention; you have no [I]need[/I] to break them. Let us consider encounter design rules. How do the rules for how to build an encounter apply to players? Sure, the players will presumably [I]face[/I] that encounter at some point. But where did the rules for [I]building[/I] it apply to them? As far as I can tell, they never do. Where do the rules for setting DCs apply to players? Players shouldn't be setting DCs at all. Such rules can only apply to GMs! [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
[rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.
Top