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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 5808899" data-attributes="member: 22779">You missed a word there.  And it makes a difference.  I feel that sometimes a DM is not up to the task of conveying the information the player will need in any situation.  Not every time.  Of course not.  But, it does happen often enough that it becomes problematic.  At least for me.  Either I haven't explained what's going on well enough, or the DM hasn't.  I've seen far too many table arguments from both sides of the DM's screen to think that this is entirely me.See, you are saying it's up to the GM to make sure the players knows as much as the character should know.  Ok.  Fine.  But, who determines that level?  The GM of course.  What if he's wrong?  What if the GM thinks that the player has all the pieces when he really doesn't?  We've seen more than a few Agony Aunt type columns either on message boards or in Dragon to think that this is an isolated corner case that rarely comes up.  DMing advice after Dming advice says to give more information to the players and err on the side of too much rather than not enough.I would point out that this is a traditional aspect of the game for you.  And that's great.  It's not for me.  I don't like pixel bitching.  Trying to read the DM's mind is an exercise in futility and bogs down the game.  Although, I have to admit, the one true wayism here is rather a breath of fresh air.  If I don't play the way you play, I'm not even role playing anymore.  Nice.  If I want a stronger mechanical framework for social interaction, I'm no longer roleplaying.  Even better.  I'm sure people playing things like Dogs in the Vineyard or various other games with strong social mechanics are perfectly happy not playing roleplaying games if  the criteria for being a roleplaying game is freeforming social interactions.Look, I get that you don't want mechanical frameworks for social interactions.  I understand, I really do.  I've certainly played that way more than a few times.  However, what I'm looking for here is the recognition that this is simply one way of playing.  Not the only way.  Just one way.  There are other ways to do it.  Loads of games have mechanical frameworks for social resolution.  D20's is ... a bit meh to be honest.  Too binary and far too easy to abuse.  Spirit of the Century, Dogs in the Vineyard, Sufficiently Advanced, all systems I've used in the past few years, all have strong social mechanics that work rather well and that I find actually promote a great deal of roleplay.At least for me.  For others?  Maybe not so much.  But, then again, what do I know?  I'm not even a roleplayer anymore apparently.  Wow, can't play D&D because I play the wrong edition.  Can't DM because I need training wheels.  Now I can't even roleplay.  This has been a good week for people to be more inclusive of other playstyles.  <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/blush.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":blush:" title="Blush    :blush:" data-shortname=":blush:" /><img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/erm.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":erm:" title="Erm    :erm:" data-shortname=":erm:" /></blockquote>

Verification