Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
What's tactics got to do, got to do with it.
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="gizmo33" data-source="post: 4843815" data-attributes="member: 30001"><p>You didn't offend me at all. I was referring to my experiences of how players would feel 99% of the time being involved in some of the interactions that you (and others) have advocated. I'm arguing against the suggestion because AFAICT that DMing style is rude. Suggesting or discussing the style is not rude IMO and I didn't mean to suggest it was. </p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>One English speaker (Mark Twain I think) said something to the effect that "common sense" is just biases that are internalized before the age of 12. I think he was suggesting a distinction between "conformity" and "wisdom". </p><p> </p><p>The situation IMO requires that the DM respect the intentions of the players in the game. If he cannot, then the problem should be solved outside of the game. The concept of "common sense" in this case AFAICT seems to just diminish the opinions of persons who disagree with the DM in an unwarranted way, and is counterproductive. Otherwise, it's not useful because if it were truly common then there would be no need to debate the issue.</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>But, as I said, your use of "common sense" doesn't appear to be communicating *anything* directly that isn't a tautology. So the indirect (but obvious) interpretation here is that the player's opinion lacks reason. </p><p> </p><p>In any case, it seems very likely that a player in this situation wouldn't find his interpretation of the rules to be "too good to be true" at all. The "too good" part of this is the DMs bias. It's not "too good to be true" that I'm able to use an axe to chop down a wooden door. Nor do I care to speculate why NPCs haven't thought of this before me. Your wisdom, AFAICT is really heavily dependant on a particular view point that is entirely subjective.</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>I'd rather the DM enforce his opinion on the game than on my sense of reason. IMO it's important to note here that what we're talking about is largely a matter of interpersonal relationships and people sharing a hobby. In that way the DM is not "superior" to anyone else (as I think you agree). As a result, it's much more fair to say "I don't allow halfling PCs in my game" than it is to say "you, as a player, are showing a lack of common sense for wanting to play a halfing in my game". </p><p> </p><p>In any case, I meant to say "incorporate" (and I think I did) rather than "enforce". And "incorporate" means that the normal etiquette of house ruling is followed. If I want to run an "Arthurian knights" type of game, it's fair for me to adjust the game's rules so that "Arthurian knight" type technologies and problem-solving strategies are dominant. Not expect the players to guess at what my opinion is about those things. </p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>And in the process of doing so imply that the very people that have entrusted him with this resonsibility lack common sense? I know that's not what you intend by your suggestion, but I think that would be the unintended consequence. (And one I've observed when this DMing method has been employed).</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>But there are two different approaches here. The one you use in your actual game I agree with. The other (and I'm not sure what it's illustrating) is not. In any case, the key conditions that your second example set up are not at issue here. </p><p> </p><p>Take for example a player saying "my character should be able to act after he dies.". This example fails to be a good analogy in a number of respects. The most important one is that there's nothing in the rules that logically implies this. This rule is completely of the player's own devising. In the case of the war dogs or alchemists fire, this is definitely not the case. The prices are given. The stats are given. The DM just simply doesn't like the results. If the case were as simple as the revenant example you give, the DM would not be experiencing heartburn. IMO it's that the players have a pretty good case for their action that causes the DM his reaction.</p><p> </p><p>The OP was not trying to solicit advise on how to handle a player that wants his character to continue to act after death (or anything as comparably simple). And so here the devil is in the details.</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>At this point in your post I'm not sure we disagree about anything. I'm sympathetic with the idea that in a constructed, extreme situation a player's suggestion (like anyone elses) could lack "common sense". However, I don't really see how it applies to the examples given (alchemist's fire, war dogs) which are pretty solidly based on rules (which is really the problem the DM is having, otherwise, the problem is easily solved).</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="gizmo33, post: 4843815, member: 30001"] You didn't offend me at all. I was referring to my experiences of how players would feel 99% of the time being involved in some of the interactions that you (and others) have advocated. I'm arguing against the suggestion because AFAICT that DMing style is rude. Suggesting or discussing the style is not rude IMO and I didn't mean to suggest it was. One English speaker (Mark Twain I think) said something to the effect that "common sense" is just biases that are internalized before the age of 12. I think he was suggesting a distinction between "conformity" and "wisdom". The situation IMO requires that the DM respect the intentions of the players in the game. If he cannot, then the problem should be solved outside of the game. The concept of "common sense" in this case AFAICT seems to just diminish the opinions of persons who disagree with the DM in an unwarranted way, and is counterproductive. Otherwise, it's not useful because if it were truly common then there would be no need to debate the issue. But, as I said, your use of "common sense" doesn't appear to be communicating *anything* directly that isn't a tautology. So the indirect (but obvious) interpretation here is that the player's opinion lacks reason. In any case, it seems very likely that a player in this situation wouldn't find his interpretation of the rules to be "too good to be true" at all. The "too good" part of this is the DMs bias. It's not "too good to be true" that I'm able to use an axe to chop down a wooden door. Nor do I care to speculate why NPCs haven't thought of this before me. Your wisdom, AFAICT is really heavily dependant on a particular view point that is entirely subjective. I'd rather the DM enforce his opinion on the game than on my sense of reason. IMO it's important to note here that what we're talking about is largely a matter of interpersonal relationships and people sharing a hobby. In that way the DM is not "superior" to anyone else (as I think you agree). As a result, it's much more fair to say "I don't allow halfling PCs in my game" than it is to say "you, as a player, are showing a lack of common sense for wanting to play a halfing in my game". In any case, I meant to say "incorporate" (and I think I did) rather than "enforce". And "incorporate" means that the normal etiquette of house ruling is followed. If I want to run an "Arthurian knights" type of game, it's fair for me to adjust the game's rules so that "Arthurian knight" type technologies and problem-solving strategies are dominant. Not expect the players to guess at what my opinion is about those things. And in the process of doing so imply that the very people that have entrusted him with this resonsibility lack common sense? I know that's not what you intend by your suggestion, but I think that would be the unintended consequence. (And one I've observed when this DMing method has been employed). But there are two different approaches here. The one you use in your actual game I agree with. The other (and I'm not sure what it's illustrating) is not. In any case, the key conditions that your second example set up are not at issue here. Take for example a player saying "my character should be able to act after he dies.". This example fails to be a good analogy in a number of respects. The most important one is that there's nothing in the rules that logically implies this. This rule is completely of the player's own devising. In the case of the war dogs or alchemists fire, this is definitely not the case. The prices are given. The stats are given. The DM just simply doesn't like the results. If the case were as simple as the revenant example you give, the DM would not be experiencing heartburn. IMO it's that the players have a pretty good case for their action that causes the DM his reaction. The OP was not trying to solicit advise on how to handle a player that wants his character to continue to act after death (or anything as comparably simple). And so here the devil is in the details. At this point in your post I'm not sure we disagree about anything. I'm sympathetic with the idea that in a constructed, extreme situation a player's suggestion (like anyone elses) could lack "common sense". However, I don't really see how it applies to the examples given (alchemist's fire, war dogs) which are pretty solidly based on rules (which is really the problem the DM is having, otherwise, the problem is easily solved). [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
What's tactics got to do, got to do with it.
Top