Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="overgeeked" data-source="post: 9042718" data-attributes="member: 86653">It was taught in older editions quite regularly. It's only with 4E and 5E that has shifted to a more balance-centered approach. It might have been part of 3E, but I never played it so I don't know. In TSR D&D you fight whatever the world says would be there, regardless of your comparative hit points and levels or hit dice.That's patently false. It's such a wide sweeping generalization as to be useless. The game design of TSR editions of D&D did not do this. The game design of at least 4E and 5E do this. Some referees might have done this with older editions, but it's trivial to show that not all referees did this. Ours never did. I never do.Yes, if referees refuse to enforce logical consequences to player choices, the players won't understand that consequences logically follow terrible choices. To me, that's partially why I refuse to signpost most traps. First, the maker of the trap built the trap to surprise intruders...otherwise they don't prevent intruders. Second, knowingly going into a dangerous situation (a dungeon) then expecting every single trap to have a glowing neon sign pointing to it is feeding into the problem you're talking about. It's setting the players up to expect things that are unreasonable. Like expecting every encounter to be a fight and every fight to be one they can easily win. Nope. That's not how a reasonable world works.I personally hate social skills as mind control and mind control in general pointed at the PCs. Both as a player and a referee. Though I'm not sure it's a violation of player agency. It's focused on the character, not the player. But there is bleed between them and you cannot limit the options of one without also limiting the options of the other. If it is a violation, it's a lesser violation than railroading and quantum ogres.Yes, which is why robust session zeros are a good idea. Lay out what the game is, what it's going to be about, and the kinds of things to expect during the game. If people's preferences and expectations don't line up, no harm no foul. Maybe we'll play together next time. This is also why I prefer open-world sandbox games. I set up the world and the players are free to explore it. If they are bored with something they chose to do in the game, they can stop and go do something else in the world. I won't railroad them into whatever storyline or prep I want them to experience.</blockquote>

Verification