Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ariosto" data-source="post: 5016246" data-attributes="member: 80487">What is the point of &quot;letting things stand&quot; even though an arbitrary change could (so one might imagine) make a particular thing at a particular moment seem more exciting -- which in such speculation usually means more &quot;successful&quot; in terms of immediate player goals -- and in that sense more &quot;fun&quot;?The point is to let the players actually play, not simply &quot;get played&quot;. A baby may delight in the illusion of &quot;playing&quot; a video game when in fact the machine is flashing &quot;Insert Coin&quot; and running on automatic. An older child may feel emotions associated with victory and defeat while &quot;playing&quot; Chutes and Ladders -- just as an adult may when gambling on the output of a slot machine or Pachinko or lottery ticket.For some people, such an illusion is enough in a session of D&amp;D, and they willingly suspend disbelief in the DM's disinterest at least until it's time to complain that he or she was not biased enough in their favor.Might we sometimes make reasonable arguments that the choice of Door #2 was too arbitrary for want of adequate information? Certainly, taking into account any reasonable opportunities for investigation that the players passed up. Maybe the consequence was too harsh? Maybe, but what if another group -- that took a &quot;common sense&quot; precaution -- was barely inconvenienced?What is unreasonable, if one really is at all interested in playing a game, is to demand that options should be so close to equally satisfying as to make choice trivial. The more a DM &quot;fudges&quot; in secret, whether &quot;for&quot; or &quot;against&quot; the PCs, the sooner he or she is likely to get caught. If it's all in the open, then of course the players know and (to the extent they trust the DM not also to have done some on the sly) there is at least no question after the fact as to whether this or that particular &quot;little&quot; thing was due to the DM's interference.What remains in doubt is how things might have gone without that interference -- including the bigger things that from small things someday come. Are the players' victories really their own? What of their losses?The answer often comes quickly enough when they find themselves in a game without such a &quot;nanny&quot; DM, a game that instead tests their skills.The DM can get into a Catch-22. &quot;But if you don't change that roll, then my character is dead, and it's only because you wanted to kill my character! You're mean!&quot; The DM who has not yet so changed a roll can honestly deny the desire while enforcing the outcome impartially.The DM who gives in and so &quot;saves&quot; a character ensures that the accusation will indeed be valid whenever he or she fails to do so and allows a PC to perish.So it is with letting players spend as much (or as little) time as they choose in poking about here or there. &quot;No secret doors in those walls, either. What will you do now?&quot; &quot;How much longer do want to go down this passage? Okay ... you still have encountered nothing of interest when you stop for your next rest break.&quot;</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ariosto, post: 5016246, member: 80487"] What is the point of "letting things stand" even though an arbitrary change could (so one might imagine) make a particular thing at a particular moment seem more exciting -- which in such speculation usually means more "successful" in terms of immediate player goals -- and in that sense more "fun"? The point is to let the players actually play, not simply "get played". A baby may delight in the illusion of "playing" a video game when in fact the machine is flashing "Insert Coin" and running on automatic. An older child may feel emotions associated with victory and defeat while "playing" Chutes and Ladders -- just as an adult may when gambling on the output of a slot machine or Pachinko or lottery ticket. For some people, such an illusion is enough in a session of D&D, and they willingly suspend disbelief in the DM's disinterest at least until it's time to complain that he or she was not biased [i]enough[/i] in their favor. Might we sometimes make reasonable arguments that the choice of Door #2 was too arbitrary for want of adequate information? Certainly, taking into account any reasonable [i]opportunities[/i] for investigation that the players passed up. Maybe the consequence was too harsh? Maybe, but what if another group -- that took a "common sense" precaution -- was barely inconvenienced? What is unreasonable, if one really is at all interested in playing a game, is to demand that options should be so close to equally satisfying as to make choice trivial. The more a DM "fudges" in secret, whether "for" or "against" the PCs, the sooner he or she is likely to get caught. If it's all in the open, then of course the players know and (to the extent they trust the DM not [i]also[/i] to have done some on the sly) there is at least no question after the fact as to whether this or that particular "little" thing was due to the DM's interference. What remains in doubt is [i]how things might have gone without that interference[/i] -- including the bigger things that from small things someday come. Are the players' victories really their own? What of their losses? The answer often comes quickly enough when they find themselves in a game without such a "nanny" DM, a game that instead tests their skills. The DM can get into a Catch-22. "But if you don't change that roll, then my character is dead, and it's only because you [i]wanted[/i] to kill my character! You're mean!" The DM who has not yet so changed a roll can honestly deny the desire while enforcing the outcome impartially. The DM who gives in and so "saves" a character ensures that the accusation will indeed be valid whenever he or she [i]fails[/i] to do so and allows a PC to perish. So it is with letting players spend as much (or as little) time as [i]they[/i] choose in poking about here or there. "No secret doors in those walls, either. What will you do now?" "How much longer do want to go down this passage? Okay ... you still have encountered nothing of interest when you stop for your next rest break." [/QUOTE]

Verification