| Both sides previous revisionPrevious revision | |
| smoke_at_the_caves_of_chaos [2026/02/03 12:58] – mike_holmes | smoke_at_the_caves_of_chaos [2026/02/03 13:00] (current) – mike_holmes |
|---|
| The problem with the early editions of D&D which were used to play this scenario are that there are various resolution systems, but there are no generic resolution systems. Generally there is only the system that determines who prevails in a "Combat" situation, and other special rules about things like thieves climbing walls (but note, not any way to determine if anybody else can climb something). So using these systems, there's no moment where we can say "Let's roll for it." Instead you get the GM being final arbiter of these things, and he'll put his foot down at some point, and the clever player feels like their fun is being stomped on. (Note that one of the Basic editions, I think Mentzer, does have a generalized resolution of "roll under your stat," which could be used in this case to fix the problem, at least on the surface.) | The problem with the early editions of D&D which were used to play this scenario are that there are various resolution systems, but there are no generic resolution systems. Generally there is only the system that determines who prevails in a "Combat" situation, and other special rules about things like thieves climbing walls (but note, not any way to determine if anybody else can climb something). So using these systems, there's no moment where we can say "Let's roll for it." Instead you get the GM being final arbiter of these things, and he'll put his foot down at some point, and the clever player feels like their fun is being stomped on. (Note that one of the Basic editions, I think Mentzer, does have a generalized resolution of "roll under your stat," which could be used in this case to fix the problem, at least on the surface.) |
| |
| Because what is really going on is a difference of opinion as to what would be fun here between the participants. Nobody is really "cheating," they're using the authority the game gives them to argue that their case is the most plausible, which, again, nobody can win. Even when somebody does give up, it's because they're intuiting that the other person doesn't like where they're going. | Because what is really going on is a difference of opinion as to what would be fun here between the participants. Nobody is really "cheating," they're using the authority the game gives them to argue that their case is the most plausible, which, again, nobody can win (often escalating into battles of ego to see who will give in to the other's brilliant intellect). Even when somebody does give up, it's because they're intuiting that the other person doesn't like where they're going. |
| |
| The way resolve these things, where the resolution system cannot, or will only do so in a dissatisfactory way, is for the players to cease talking about the in-game situation, and talk about what they want. The DM should say, "The module is really all about you meeting the encounters room by room, wouldn't that be more fun?" And the player should say, "Well I really like the idea of how TTRPGs are flexible enough to allow out of the box solutions, can't you let it work and we'll see how it goes? After all, we'll still be going in room by room to clear out the tunnels once we've ambushed the denizens... and we'll still have to fight them as they come out. " | The way resolve these things, where the resolution system cannot, or will only do so in a dissatisfactory way, is for the players to cease talking about the in-game situation, and talk about what they want as the real people engaging in the activity. The DM should say, "The module is really all about you meeting the encounters room by room, wouldn't that be more fun?" And the player should say, "Well I really like the idea of how TTRPGs are flexible enough to allow out of the box solutions, can't you let it work and we'll see how it goes? After all, we'll still be going in room by room to clear out the tunnels once we've ambushed the denizens... and we'll still have to fight them as they come out. " |
| |
| And so on and so forth until everybody is satisfied with how play is going to go. Arguments to plausibility simply will never satisfy either side in a case like this, and each participant feels that the other is trying to get away with something. When all they're doing is trying to make the game more fun. So instead, drop back from the fictional world, and discuss what you want as participants in the game. At that level of discussion, these things can be worked out in most cases. | And so on and so forth until everybody is satisfied with how play is going to go. Arguments to plausibility simply will never satisfy either side in a case like this, and each participant feels that the other is trying to get away with something. When all they're doing is trying to make the game more fun. So instead, drop back from the fictional world, and discuss what you want as participants in the game. At that level of discussion, these things can be worked out in most cases. |
