NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="hawkeyefan" data-source="post: 9120595" data-attributes="member: 6785785">Right, but you probably should. Whatever game you're talking about... I assume D&D... you apply what you're saying to all RPGs. Which is just inaccurate. You did. See below:This is just untrue of many games, even some within the overall umbrella of D&D. No, that's not the only other way to do it. That's the whole point. I know what casual means in general usage. You seem to have a particular take on what a casual game means which I don't think is entirely accurate or clear. I don't know why other is in quotes. But even D&D can be played differently than you describe. Sure, any kind of clash in this way is due to misaligned expectations between participants. So you've said in the past that you have some players who seem to want something different from the game. That's because you have different ideas about the game than they do. Obviously, when this happens, the different expectations should be discussed and worked out in some way, or else the participants should go their separate ways. You appear to be labeling them as "casual games" by default, though. And you're definitely describing them using poorly conceived and absurd examples.What you've described applies to everything in D&D, except I'd say the DM does what the rules say, which is also true of the games you're trying to talk about.Player wants to hit the orc and says so. Player makes an attack roll. DM does what rules say. Player wants to pick a lock. Player makes an ability check. DM does what rules say. Player wants to avoid a danger. Player makes a saving throw. DM does what rules say. This is the point. You're criticizing these rules for following the same structure that many rules in D&D follow. Meanwhile they're part of very different games, so thinking of them within the context of D&D is a bad idea. How is this different than a player in D&D wanting their character to climb a wall? But you're not even considering what happens if the roll fails. In D&D, if such a roll failed (or if your notes said no secret door was present) you'd just say, "You don't find a secret entrance" and they'd all be back to the front gate. And what will they do there? Make a roll (or several, perhaps) and try to get what they want. But in many other games, "nothing happens" is never an option for a failed roll. Something negative has to happen. So searching for a secret door at the back of the castle has a risk involved. Maybe they find it but it's also guarded. Or it's haunted by a dark spirit that's likely more dangerous than armed guards. Maybe they don't find it, and by the time they return to the front gate, there are additional guards there. Maybe they're spotted from the battlements as they make their way around the castle. Many games will have options for the GM to use based no what makes sense in the game world. Ultimately, what you're doing is forcing the conflict to go to the one you've had in mind... the front gate. Other types of games are more open to there being more than one way to face or avoid an obstacle. It's not. You clearly lack the experience to say that. In D&D, the player says they look for a secret door, and make a roll, and then the DM says "the secret door is right in front of you". The differences are that in one, the DM decided that it was there prior to play, and in the other, if the roll is a failure, something bad is going to happen.Okay. I was trying to get a sense of how your players contribute to play, and this seemed like a good example, but now you're saying it wasn't really all that meaningful. I wouldn't say "alter" so much as "establish". Something can only be altered if it already exists. If there's not specific prep about something, then it's unestablished. Then how do you play? That depends on the game and the GM. Even with D&D, I don't write everything down, and even what I do write down may not be "written in stone". I generally only treat what has been established in play as being certain. No, not exactly. You're taking a game process that works for another game and trying to say how it works in D&D. But it wasn't designed for D&D, so it's a poor fit. But you seem to only be able to conceive of games working like D&D, so you're not at all understanding how such a rule could actually work well in another game.</blockquote>

Verification