Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Bill Zebub" data-source="post: 8485163" data-attributes="member: 7031982">So, I'm wary of saying that I know what other players know/think/expect (especially in a debate about whether it's ok to assume the same thing of their characters!) but personally I feel that if I &quot;invest&quot; in a skill then I do get a meaningful bonus.&nbsp; Am I an &quot;expert&quot;?&nbsp; No.&nbsp; I am proficient.Now, other people may bring in expectations from other systems/editions.&nbsp; Or they may just have character concepts that don't jibe with what the rules actually say.&nbsp; And, if so, that's probably disappointing.&nbsp; And maybe some would even consider it a flaw with 5e?&nbsp; I don't know, but it sounds pretty subjective.Anyway, on to the rest of the argument....Ok, so let me re-state the argument(s) in bold, but please tell me if I'm making a mistake.&nbsp;- The player might disregard the narrative, as determined by the DM's dice roll for the NPC&nbsp;- DMs are neutral, so they can use their power to enforce rules to make sure that narrative is considered in the player's action declarations.Is that accurate?The problem I have with that is that it is saying that while we trust DMs with the rules authority with give them, we can't trust players with the roleplaying authority we give them.&nbsp; This seems to be [USER=29398]@Lanefan[/USER]'s argument as well (and others I don't recall). But DMs are humans, too, and might (and do!) adjudicate poorly.&nbsp; They might make decisions based on protecting their plot, or how they think the scene &quot;should&quot; go, or because they are biased toward/against a particular player.&nbsp; Or...whatever.So I don't understand this argument that in order to protect the sanctity of the narrative, we should trust DMs more than players.I would much, much, much rather simply trust DMs to adjudicate rules and roleplay their NPCs, and trust players to roleplay their PCs. If I encounter one or the other underserving of that trust, I stop playing with them.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Bill Zebub, post: 8485163, member: 7031982"] So, I'm wary of saying that I know what other players know/think/expect (especially in a debate about whether it's ok to assume the same thing of their characters!) but personally I feel that if I "invest" in a skill then I do get a meaningful bonus. Am I an "expert"? No. I am proficient. Now, other people may bring in expectations from other systems/editions. Or they may just have character concepts that don't jibe with what the rules actually say. And, if so, that's probably disappointing. And maybe some would even consider it a flaw with 5e? I don't know, but it sounds pretty subjective. Anyway, on to the rest of the argument.... Ok, so let me re-state the argument(s) in bold, but please tell me if I'm making a mistake. - The player might disregard the narrative, as determined by the DM's dice roll for the NPC - DMs are neutral, so they can use their power to enforce rules to make sure that narrative is considered in the player's action declarations. Is that accurate? The problem I have with that is that it is saying that while we trust DMs with the rules authority with give them, we can't trust players with the roleplaying authority we give them. This seems to be [USER=29398]@Lanefan[/USER]'s argument as well (and others I don't recall). But DMs are humans, too, and might (and do!) adjudicate poorly. They might make decisions based on protecting their plot, or how they think the scene "should" go, or because they are biased toward/against a particular player. Or...whatever. So I don't understand this argument that in order to protect the sanctity of the narrative, we should trust DMs more than players. I would much, much, much rather simply trust DMs to adjudicate rules and roleplay their NPCs, and trust players to roleplay their PCs. If I encounter one or the other underserving of that trust, I stop playing with them. [/QUOTE]

Verification