Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Jay Verkuilen" data-source="post: 7769522" data-attributes="member: 6873517">I recognize trust is a very loaded word but in a sense with things like starting cars, yes it really is a matter of <a href="https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/trust" target="_blank">trust</a> (dictionary definition linked). Starting cars back in the day of hand crank was actually quite difficult. Many people couldn't do it reliably and it was relatively slow and dangerous, leading to lower potential sales and potential liability risk. So manufacturers came up with a better way that required less from the operator. The same thing happens all over the place. I agree with this, definitely. &quot;Trust the DM&quot; wasn't a design goal, it was just necessary in the old days. Many adapted rules or elaborations were trying to improve the DM's ability.&nbsp;I think 3E and 4E in different ways do in fact express a lack of trust in the DM. 4E in particular was trying to do exactly what the electric starter did for cars. Providing voluminous comprehensive rulings took things out of the DM's hands. This can be seen from multiple angles. It can make DM's lives easier and let them focus on story, encounter design, etc. It can make rules more transparent to player and DM. It can also make venturing off the designer's vision more difficult. Think about how &quot;well there should be a feat for that&quot; became the answer for &quot;can I do XYX?&quot; However it also means that the answer of &quot;the DM should make a ruling&quot; is replaced by &quot;the DM should know the rules and look things up when in doubt.&quot; One thing I really noticed over the 3E and 4E time was the degree to which RAW type logic held. People really went down that road in a way I didn't recall from before where, for better and worse, it was necessary to &quot;trust the DM&quot;. This was particularly true for 4E, although that might simply be where I first noticed it. No technology is neutral. &quot;Making things easier for the DM and clearer for the players&quot; also comes along with &quot;making the DM do things the way the designer thinks is right&quot;. So for instance, the players need to trust the DM to rule fairly (but that goes back to RAW mentality), hand out rewards fairly (see all the treasure tables and advice on allocation of reward, treasure drops, etc), avoid favoritism of various sorts, present the world in a clear and consistent manner, and so on. I'm not saying these things are bad, but they do get at matters of trust, broadly speaking.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Jay Verkuilen, post: 7769522, member: 6873517"] I recognize trust is a very loaded word but in a sense with things like starting cars, yes it really is a matter of [URL="https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/trust"]trust[/URL] (dictionary definition linked). Starting cars back in the day of hand crank was actually quite difficult. Many people couldn't do it reliably and it was relatively slow and dangerous, leading to lower potential sales and potential liability risk. So manufacturers came up with a better way that required less from the operator. The same thing happens all over the place. I agree with this, definitely. "Trust the DM" wasn't a design goal, it was just necessary in the old days. Many adapted rules or elaborations were trying to improve the DM's ability. I think 3E and 4E in different ways do in fact express a lack of trust in the DM. 4E in particular was trying to do exactly what the electric starter did for cars. Providing voluminous comprehensive rulings took things out of the DM's hands. This can be seen from multiple angles. It can make DM's lives easier and let them focus on story, encounter design, etc. It can make rules more transparent to player and DM. It can also make venturing off the designer's vision more difficult. Think about how "well there should be a feat for that" became the answer for "can I do XYX?" However it also means that the answer of "the DM should make a ruling" is replaced by "the DM should know the rules and look things up when in doubt." One thing I really noticed over the 3E and 4E time was the degree to which RAW type logic held. People really went down that road in a way I didn't recall from before where, for better and worse, it was necessary to "trust the DM". This was particularly true for 4E, although that might simply be where I first noticed it. No technology is neutral. "Making things easier for the DM and clearer for the players" also comes along with "making the DM do things the way the designer thinks is right". So for instance, the players need to trust the DM to rule fairly (but that goes back to RAW mentality), hand out rewards fairly (see all the treasure tables and advice on allocation of reward, treasure drops, etc), avoid favoritism of various sorts, present the world in a clear and consistent manner, and so on. I'm not saying these things are [I]bad[/I], but they do get at matters of trust, broadly speaking. [/QUOTE]

Verification