Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 6845503" data-attributes="member: 16814">I was follow on with your statements that the character is not the character sheet, that the mechanics are not associated with the character concept, that it's the responsibility of the DM, not the player, to translate stats into gameplay by imposing appropriate mechanics.  In order to make sure there was no lingering doubt as to who the responsible party for enforcing mechanics was, I created a thought problem that completely removed all responsibility from the player to even be aware of his stats so as to clearly outline the issues I have to the general concept.There are many things being discussed in this thread, and I allow that is one if them.  I do believe such an expectation exists.  It isn't explicit, and I've granted that freely from the beginning, but it is heavily implied in the descriptions of the stats, and in comparing similar stats to known behaviors and ability in other creatures.  The counters to this, so far, seem to fall into the camp of, 'but it's not explicit, so it doesn't really exist' to the first one and 'animals only have stats for mechanical purposes, any comparison is bunk' for the second.  I've clearly explained my problems with the first one, and my response that you're quoting is part of that oeuvre.  If the players have no responsibility to reconcile their mechanical abilities with their character play, then were at a point that I have to concede that they have no responsibilities to the game mechanics at all.  I, as the DM, inherit all responsibility for such things.  I become in parentis loco, the only responsible person for the rules in the game.  I reject this.  I am the final arbiter of the rules, but all players have responsibility to them, and that includes the expectation of roleplaying with your mechanical abilities in mind.Can players shoot laser beams out of their eyes?  No version of D&D has said that they cannot.  I suppose that since it's not explicit, they should be allowed to, yes?How is it irrational to play a dumb character?  You're classifying playing dumb as irrational when it's expected of a player with a low INT, but as rational and acceptable if they choose to do it themselves?  I don't think we're using the word 'irrational' the same way.  What does it mean to you?Agreed. But I think some posters are saying that you should.My response would be to ask how you would deal with a declaration of, "I lift the large boulder with my bare hands."  At that point, the player has made a clear declaration of their action, exactly as when they declared they'd turn the dial to 'S'.  So, as long as the player just declares and doesn't ask or state that their uncertain, it's good, no check?Obviously, that's wrong, so the problem here is one of skipped steps.   The player declaring he turns the dial to 'S' is a physical action absent a motivation.  We're left would knowledge of how the player determined to perform that action.  If we knew, then we'd probably understand that the player deciphered the puzzle and arrived at an answer he thought was correct, then made a declaration for his character with the puzzlinging as an unspoken fait accompli.  Had he asked if his character could come to this conclusion, though, both you and Iserth have clearly said that a check would be called for, but because the player didn't ask that question, just skipped it and moved straight to the physical act of completing the puzzle, you're unwilling to consider that such an action took place in an area where you, as the DM, have any say.  You've moved something that could be a game mechanic check, and would be if expressed, to the inviolable area of 'player agency.'But, when I express that I might choose to acknowledge that skipped step, if I ask for a check to cover the solving, I have done something you disagree with.  In reality, all I've done is acknowledge the intermediate step and brought it to the fore.  The player is free to declare their attempting to solve the puzzle, but the character's ability is in question, so a check is called for.  Encouraging players to move into positions where they can effect a fait accompli to bypass the chosen limitations of their players is a disservice to the player -- it says that his choices in where and how to allocate his character building choices are of little matter.  It also does a disservice to other players, who may be attempting to honor their own prior choices, or who lack the real life mental acuity to pull such feats off.  By encouraging players to avoid the consequences of their own choices by hiding steps and specifically wording actions so as to avoid those choices is encouraging a game I don't necessarily want to play.  This isn't a matter of me thinking it's unfair, or that players are cheating and need to be stopped, it the fact that I think that, for a good game to exist, choices must have meaning.  The argument here really boils down to different camps placing more or less meaning on some choices.  Some feel that the choices made in character creation are as important as choices made in play, others feel that character creation choices are nearly inconsequential to choices made in play.  I belong in between the two extremes, but have enough of a foot in 'both matter' to say that, occasionally, if I notice a trend in attempting to negate or lessen the impact of choices made earlier through specifically worded play declarations, I may take action to adjust and make those earlier choices more consequential.Bragging rarely is.  Won't stop me.  I'm proud of my good players.</blockquote>

Verification