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="Enrahim" data-source="post: 9718324" data-attributes="member: 7025577"><p>I think the issue here is the following: Either it was a move that was done fully according to the rules of the game with approperiate stakes and balances, in order to confer a benefit to their PC. I that case the example is perfectly valid and good play, the rules allow for a good consistent experience, but some people feel this breaks their sense of how a <em>simulation</em> should behave.</p><p></p><p>Or, the move was supposed to be a step in a simulation, where the player was supposed to <em>honestly</em> provide what they thought was the <em>most likely</em> meaning of the runes, disregarding their own preferences. In this case this seem now to mostly be accepted as a perfectly ok way of simulating things. However this is the case in which someone feel this smells like cheating, as they have trouble believing that the player indeed was <em>honest</em> in their guess.</p><p></p><p>You seem to in this post argue for the first perspective, while you in other posts appear to be arguing the other perspective. In terms of this analysis these two scenarios are contradictory. A player cannot both be supposed to try to pursue the benefit of their PC at the exact same time as they are supposed to try to disregard their own preferences.</p><p></p><p>This is why I tried to get clarity if we were talking about "conjecture" or "hope", as that could at least be a indication which of these scenarios we are looking at. That is, are the player <em>supposed to try</em> to fully disregard their preferences when stating the proposed meaning of the runes in this game?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Enrahim, post: 9718324, member: 7025577"] I think the issue here is the following: Either it was a move that was done fully according to the rules of the game with approperiate stakes and balances, in order to confer a benefit to their PC. I that case the example is perfectly valid and good play, the rules allow for a good consistent experience, but some people feel this breaks their sense of how a [I]simulation[/I] should behave. Or, the move was supposed to be a step in a simulation, where the player was supposed to [I]honestly[/I] provide what they thought was the [I]most likely[/I] meaning of the runes, disregarding their own preferences. In this case this seem now to mostly be accepted as a perfectly ok way of simulating things. However this is the case in which someone feel this smells like cheating, as they have trouble believing that the player indeed was [I]honest[/I] in their guess. You seem to in this post argue for the first perspective, while you in other posts appear to be arguing the other perspective. In terms of this analysis these two scenarios are contradictory. A player cannot both be supposed to try to pursue the benefit of their PC at the exact same time as they are supposed to try to disregard their own preferences. This is why I tried to get clarity if we were talking about "conjecture" or "hope", as that could at least be a indication which of these scenarios we are looking at. That is, are the player [I]supposed to try[/I] to fully disregard their preferences when stating the proposed meaning of the runes in this game? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
[rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.
Top