D&D General The Problem with Talking About D&D

[pemerton]

There's a simpler way to deal with scouting that avoids the "decker" issue and also prevents it from taking up too much time.

Right. I'd basically sum this up as: make your scouting check (on Stealth, Tracking/Survival, Perception, whatever seems to make sense for the character and the details of the situation) and on a success earn a buff.

It doesn't have to be run as map-and-key adjudication of a one PC party.

 

[pemerton]

t's not terribly simulationist, but it solves several problems mentioned above re: scouting and quickly gets back to the whole table playing whilst also making scouting worthwhile.

Another thought on this: some resolution techniques have known downsides. For instance, rolling dice has the risk of variability. Map-and-key adjudication requires the GM to talk back-and-forth with the player(s) controlling the character(s) whose movement is being tracked on the map. Etc.

If you don't want the downside, the easiest solution is normally to change the approach to resolution. Don't want variability? Then don't roll dice. Don't want scouting to be a one-player scenario? Don't use map-and-key resolution for it. Etc. It seems fairly straightforward. It wasn't always, because 40 years ago the alternative techniques weren't widely known. But now they are.

 

[James Gasik]

That would make things much easier, yes. I don't think that's how many DM's run it, however. Basically this comes down to individual tables and playstyles...which is the topic of this thread. Even if you hew as closely to the books as possible, every table is going to have different operating procedures and rulings in areas where the books don't offer much guidance. Some groups handwave certain finicky things, while others think that not to do so ruins the game on some fundamental level.

We've seen tables where DM's are quick to shift from combat to chase scenes and don't have monsters chase down players to the bitter end. There are tables where DM's require you to actually escape combat before even getting to that point.

Some tables think tracking rations is tedious, and really, as the game progresses, is a problem that vanishes with certain background features/skill checks/prepared spells. Some tables don't track ammunition, because if the Wizard can firebolt 2000 times a day, why are we worried about making sure the Ranger spends 100 gp to do the same thing? Maybe they are assumed to reclaim some arrows. After all, money is not really useful after a certain point.

Other groups think this is blasphemy, and offer useful things you can spend money on, like a base of operations or even an airship to get around in style.

Some groups prefer a small group of players, others have an entire train of camp followers and hirelings in tow along with the players. And you know what, that's fine, as long as this is what the individual table enjoys.

Too often we run into an issue where one person who is used to/expects/prefers the game be run the way they like it, is very dismissive of those who don't play the same way as them. "If you played the game the right way", they say, "you wouldn't have any of these issues". Wow, fantastic. Great advice.

Who says your way is the right way again?

Some tables find D&D to be easy mode and immediately gravitate towards "gritty realism" and "encumbrance" and fiddle with the rules to make things harder- and now they aren't playing the same game as everyone else.

Others find the base game to be fairly tough for their groups, and don't find killing their characters so that they will "get good" to be a profitable endeavor.

And just like Matt said, people from these disparate groups have little common ground as a result.

 

[tetrasodium]

It's not that he can't, as I understood from the explanation, his players think that's a violation of their social contract. They want a game where they can scout ahead for dangers without having to risk losing their rogue.

I mean, it's been my point the whole time, scouting is dangerous and can even be foolhardy. So he's just trying to give them what they want, but this one player is pushing a little far. Personally, what I'd do is let the character go off on their scouting mission, and have monsters show up to attack the rest of the group!

That should be interesting to see.

Yep. How a party is playing physically shifts different elements of play in & out of being ok or not under the social contract. An easy relatable example is how a character in TotM could be moved all over the place in relation to where they are compared to one or more third parties that they aren't involved with simply because they aren't involved with each other beyond "not near you" "a good bit away" "over by Joe" or whatever but on a grid map every single one of them is exactly here here & here so changing their positioning on the fly in ways that matter is more of a questionable grey area. It's ok when the GM makes a kobayashi maru & it's even ok if characters fail it with consequences, but when that failure is because the GM restricted the players by refusing access to the physical window to the world it's usually not so ok under the social contract.