Unpopular opinions go here

[Nikosandros]

Yeah. But then you have to remember that when you're rolling to determine if the party is surprised, the Ranger's benefit applies to the whole party, but when rolling to see if the party surprises the monsters, the benefit is individual.

And since surprise is determined on a party-wide basis, that means that only a ... wait for it ... LONE RANGER* can gain the benefit of the surprise "advantage."

But then there's dexterity. Oh, and if there's a monk, time to break out the percentiles. Which is why parties with Rangers and Monks were colloquially known as the "Gygax Special."


*okay, or a group of rangers, subject to the strictures of multiple rangers traveling together. But that's not as funny.

No disagreement, but - at least - the rules, convoluted as they maybe, can be applied. You put in a monk with their percentages and all hell breaks loose. I remember very well my 12 years-old self wondering what he was supposed to do with that...

 

[CleverNickName]

I've seen folks that have PTSD from unfair GMs who always give players unfavorable rulings. So, I know exactly where some folks are coming from. Though, this sounds like how I run my table.

Yup, I've got two of those at my table; I'm always hearing their horror stories. They've been trained to believe that the DM is "out to get them" and the rules can control the DM. They feel like they need to carefully comb through the rules, pick out even the smallest advantages and bonuses, and then fight relentlessly to use them. It's self-defeating, too, because honestly? that +1 or +2 bonus they fought and argued and got mad about never seems to matter...the player ends up rolling poorly or changing their mind and it was all for nothing. Even so, it's a hard habit to break.

Asking folks to describe their characters' actions can help, though. It lets the player speak their mind without interruption, hold the floor for a bit, and feel listened to....all while participating in the narrative. It also informs me of what rule, bonus, or result they're fishing for--you know, helps me understand what's most important to them in the moment. So it not only helps everyone understand what's happening, but also helps me shape my response to address the player's expectations/intent.

 

[MGibster]

I've seen folks that have PTSD from unfair GMs who always give players unfavorable rulings. So, I know exactly where some folks are coming from. Though, this sounds like how I run my table.

I've seen that a lot as well. Any time a player is circumspect about what their character is trying to accomplish I assume they're used to DM's who punish them or say no a lot. I try to build up some trust by saying something like, "What is your character trying to accomplish and how are they doing it," right before I murder their character. I don't know why they still have trust issues after gaming with me for a while.

 

[CleverNickName]

I've seen that a lot as well. Any time a player is circumspect about what their character is trying to accomplish I assume they're used to DM's who punish them or say no a lot. I try to build up some trust by saying something like, "What is your character trying to accomplish and how are they doing it," right before I murder their character. I don't know why they still have trust issues after gaming with me for a while.

I come at it from a different angle. I'll say something like "Look Kevin, what you are attempting to do is going to kill your character instantly, and possibly three other members of the party. I'm trying as hard as I can to keep your characters alive. Help me out here." That way, they know I'm on their side. I'm truly in their corner.

 

[overgeeked]

I've seen that a lot as well. Any time a player is circumspect about what their character is trying to accomplish I assume they're used to DM's who punish them or say no a lot. I try to build up some trust by saying something like, "What is your character trying to accomplish and how are they doing it," right before I murder their character. I don't know why they still have trust issues after gaming with me for a while.

I come at it from a different angle. I'll say something like "Look Kevin, what you are attempting to do is going to kill your character instantly, and possibly three other members of the party. I'm trying as hard as I can to keep your characters alive. Help me out here." That way, they know I'm on their side. I'm truly in their corner.

I'm not interested in saving the PCs from themselves. I'm only interested in them understanding the circumstances and the possible consequences of their actions. If Kevin wants to suicide by orc and take the rest of the party with him, that's his choice. Not mine. I will make sure he understands that's a potential outcome first though.

 

[Lanefan]

The Ranger has entered the chat.

Rangers' surprise is trivially easy to handle.

 

[overgeeked]

Rangers' surprise is trivially easy to handle.

Exactly.

"Rangers surprise (q.v.) opponents 50% of the time (d6, score 1 through 3) and are themselves surprised only 16 2/3% of the time (d6, score 1)."

It's not hard.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Going back to what Clever said, I usually ask what the player is trying to do. Let them know the options. In this situation, choice A might not work as it usually does, and choice B is better (although not very intuitive). Some GMs sit and wait for a decision, and then mock the player for being so dumb as their character is blasted for a bad decision. It's that latter type that gives rulings based games a bad name.

The problem is even your method can seem harsh if the player has a vastly different idea of what those results are likely to mean. Its why a lot of people really aren't that fond of judgment-call based resolution, even if it uses mechanics; it can be way out of kilter with what they expect.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I've seen that a lot as well. Any time a player is circumspect about what their character is trying to accomplish I assume they're used to DM's who punish them or say no a lot. I try to build up some trust by saying something like, "What is your character trying to accomplish and how are they doing it," right before I murder their character. I don't know why they still have trust issues after gaming with me for a while.

Its easier to destroy trust than build or recover it. Far, far easier.

 

[Cruentus]

Its easier to destroy trust than build or recover it. Far, far easier.

Right. But if you don't trust the people you are playing with, and particularly don't trust the DM, why are you playing?

At our table, we talk at session 0, during the game, and offline about the rules, expectations, rulings or non-rulings, etc. When I DM, I'll point out things the party forgot, or potential outcomes of their actions, particularly if its a 'risky' maneuver. You're free to try anything, and most of the time it'll work, but I'll telegraph if it won't or might not. And my players trust me so that when something happens, its not out of malice, trying to kill their characters, or rigid adherence to the letter of the rules. There are no "gotchas". I played in campaigns where the DM was adversarial (and its the same group I play with 40 years later), but we moved on from adversarial (or some of us did), because that made sense to us to play that way when we were 12, but doesn't anymore. I also don't play with those "adversarial style" players and DMs anymore.

We also play OSE/Beyond the Wall primarily, so there are minimal skills, buttons, or switches to pull. Any character can do anything they want to try (and should try things, and should be creative to boot). Figure out a way to reasonably defeat the monster without a single die needing to be rolled - it'll happen. Nothing can kill an interesting time or a dramatic moment easier than "roll for it".