Why do RPGs have rules?

[loverdrive]

I remain very surprised you've never observed this phenomenon in practice because it's ubiquitous. Some players are really bad at 5E (and presumably at any other wargame-descended RPG).

I must admit, maybe I just chalk up people being bad to them not understanding the game, but pretty much every time I had a some variant of this interaction with them:
-- I shoot goblin with my crossbow!
-- ...you have firebolt on your character sheet, it does more damage, and you have higher INT than DEX.
-- Huh? What is that?

 

[Maxperson]

This is the point.

The only possible way a player can succeed in dnd if the GM lets them succeed.

That's the same for every single game that has a DM/GM. If you're going to qualify extreme bad faith in a very, very, VERY few DMs as invalidating an entire game like that, then it applies to bad faith in any RPG with a DM/GM ever.

It just doesn't work that way. Extreme bad faith is not something you can use to attack an RPG/playstyle over.

The only reason they won a fight is because GM decided not to bring reinforcements. Didn't, but could. Could, but didn't. Ooh but she needs a narrative justification! Yeah, those cost nothing. I'm not a particularly creative person, but I can create a logical explanation for a new pack of goblins showing up. Or a lich. Or a tarrasque. Or an orbital ion cannon locking on the PCs and evaporating everything within a kilometre of them into fine dust.

And the only reason your players can do what they do is because YOU decided not to engage in extreme bad faith and change the rules. you didn't, but could.

Yeah, we can say that a "decent GM" shows mercy.

No. You can't say that. Not and be correct about this particular topic anyway.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I must admit, maybe I just chalk up people being bad to them not understanding the game, but pretty much every time I had a some variant of this interaction with them:
-- I shoot goblin with my crossbow!
-- ...you have firebolt on your character sheet, it does more damage, and you have higher INT than DEX.
-- Huh? What is that?

I've seen that (and some people genuinely never move beyond that level of skill), but I've also seen slightly higher levels of skill such as staying in melee getting mauled by a monster with only 10' of movement speed, or spending several rounds attacking a meatshield when everyone else is desperately trying to kill the glass cannon wizard. BTW this doesn't necessarily have to be caused by lack of player skill--it can be a deliberate roleplaying choice, and actually in the meatshield/glass cannon case I'm vaguely remembering it's not impossible that it could have been a roleplaying choice because I think the PC's Intelligence was quite low and he was definitely played as kind of nonverbal and animalistic.

 

[Maxperson]

I'm not sure if this analogy applies, to be honest.

A) Test is (at least supposed to be) non-arbitrary. Yes, teacher can set harder questions, but it's not like they feasibly can ask first-graders about eigenvectors.

Except that's exactly what you're saying DM's do, despite having the same limitations or lack of them. It's a great analogy.

B) Teacher is (at least supposed to be) to have a greater expertise in the field than the student. No one is an expert at navigating trap-riddled tombs of dead gods.

I am. I've been doing it for 40 years.

 

[Maxperson]

I've seen that (and some people genuinely never move beyond that level of skill), but I've also seen slightly higher levels of skill such as staying in melee getting mauled by a monster with only 10' of movement speed, or spending several rounds attacking a meatshield when everyone else is desperately trying to kill the glass cannon wizard. BTW this doesn't necessarily have to be caused by lack of player skill--it can be a deliberate roleplaying choice, and actually in the meatshield/glass cannon case I'm vaguely remembering it's not impossible that it could have been a roleplaying choice because I think the PC's Intelligence was quite low and he was definitely played as kind of nonverbal and animalistic.

A lot of player skill also comes from common sense. Stick a beginner with a lot of common sense into a dungeon setting and tell them that it's dangerous due to monsters and traps, and they will start tapping floors with sticks, moving slowly, listening, etc. Stick someone with little to no common sense into the same situation and they will just walk down the long corridor and try to open the vault door.

Learning the game well doesn't remove the presence or lack of common sense from people. It ups both games, but the one with a lot of common sense will see a lot more gain, increasing the skill disparity.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

If, say, monster list and dungeon layout were open information (or became open information after the game ends, by handing the players an enveloper or, idk, sending them a password-protected archive with notes), then, yeah, GM-as-worldbuilder and GM-as-referee can be feasibly separated.

Fun fact: 'blorb' is both the name of a file format for interaction fiction games, and also for roughly this style of GMing (Blorb Principles). According to Blorb: The Technoskald Interpretation they both ultimately originate in the name of a videogame spell for preserving things.

 

[loverdrive]

That's the same for every single game that has a DM/GM. If you're going to qualify extreme bad faith in a very, very, VERY few DMs as invalidating an entire game like that, then it applies to bad faith in any RPG with a DM/GM ever.

Yeah, but other games don't try to pretend like it's anything other than GM letting the PCs win.

And idk about "extreme bad faith". The difference between adding one goblin, hell, one HP to an existing goblin and conjuring ten thousand tarrasques is non-existent.

 

[loverdrive]

Fun fact: 'blorb' is both the name of a file format for interaction fiction games, and also for roughly this style of GMing (Blorb Principles). According to Blorb: The Technoskald Interpretation they both ultimately originate in the name of a videogame spell for preserving things.

This is awesome, thank you

 

[Maxperson]

Yeah, but other games don't try to pretend like it's anything other than GM letting the PCs win.

The point is that you are grossly mischaracterizing D&D and other games with DMs. There are guidelines that the DM uses to set up fair challenges. Your position relies on extreme bad faith which causes your position to fail on its face.

And idk about "extreme bad faith". The difference between adding one goblin, hell, one HP to an existing goblin and conjuring ten thousand tarrasques is non-existent.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. No difference between those two things. None at all.

 

[loverdrive]

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. No difference between those two things. None at all.

Absolutely none. You might be unwilling to conjure ten thousand tarrasques, doesn't change the fact that your will is the only limiting factor at play.

There are guidelines that the DM uses to set up fair challenges.

And can a player take a look at the encounter at hand, calculate the CR and say "hey, this encounter is way too easy" (or "this encounter is way too hard", the difference is non-existent too)?