swmabie, no one has said that alignment defines behavior. In fact, Silverseeker SAYS that in the actual quote you quote just before YOU tell him he is wrong and then re-state what he is just said.
Actually, you yourself said that alignment defined behavior. Remember your recommendation? (Paraphrasing, because I don't feel like hunting it down.) "Tell him it's evil." So what? If he wants to do it, he can do it; and if he doesn't want to do it, he won't do it. Telling him something which is a debatable interpretation of what he was doing — it may not have actually been Evil, you were the one who decided that it was — doesn't change anything.
And I said what I said because he contradicted himself in saying what he said.
If you want to look at it in a purely gamist way, as soon as something is tied to a mechanic it becomes part of the mechanics. Might it remain that way? No. Will it always be that? No. Does it possess that quality when interacting with another mechanical component? Yes, it must.
Does interacting with a mechanic make it a mechanic? No, it does not.
You are committing your own fallacy though I don't usually bother invoking such trite, over-used and tired memes...actually you've committed several...
Please, feel free to tell me which ones. I'd be more than happy to apologize for doing so.
You see, when I'm shown to have been wrong? I admit it. I accept when I've been proven incorrect.
For an example of interactions...you claim a DM must "decide" when something is or isn't a slave. Yet, there is a dictionary definition of the word slave.
Noun
A person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them
That is what a slave is. It is defined. When interacting with the mechanics that flag "Slave" the DM does not "decide" slave-status so much as they check that status. This is no different for "Evil" except that Evil (or alignment in general) is a common enough "flag" to be a part of the statistical make-up of characters and monsters in the game as evident by the presence of alignment in the statblock.
Again, the irony of your previous statement comes up again.
What I meant, dear sir, is that since the DM is the final arbiter of the setting and world and storyline and everything else involved, then the DM is the one to decide (a) if a world has slavery, and (b) if it does, and the mechanic is being used, when to apply it.
For example, in post-Kalak Dark Sun, Tyr is a Free City. There is no slavery there. However, there are many recently ex-slaves, and depending on when you are RPing, the city may itself only recently have been freed.
So the question for the DM is if they consider "free Tyr" as a settlement, and certain people within Tyr as individuals, for which that particular feat may apply, even though they are not, technically, slaves any longer. I, as a DM, would allow such a feat to be used in such a case. Another DM allows me to use that feat in such a case. A third DM may not, and would be within his rights to refuse it.
For that matter, do Living Constructs count as slaves? There's a debate I've seen recently, in the Star Wars forums, as to whether "sentient droids" (R2-D2 and C-3P0 as two examples) might be considered "slaves" or not.
So, ultimately, it is up to the DM to determine if someplace has slavery (since he's the world builder), or if it is possible for the people within it to be considered as slaves for the purposes of the use of that feat and the storyline.
Similar to "slave", Dungeons & Dragons gives us the definitions for alignments within it's own framework. Can a DM or a group choose to change this stuff? Yes. That is HOUSE-RULING it though because it is already defined in the game.
Fluff is Fluff. You can define Fluff. That doesn't make it a Mechanic.
I don't care whether you define your Fluff the way the writers do or not. That's your business.
What I do care about is that it is Fluff, and that it is Fluff which is vague and ambiguous and may be reinterpreted by any DM to mean pretty much whatever they believe. It is not, in any way shape or form, "Universal" or "Rules As Written." It is "Fluff As Written." (Is that FAW? Maybe, if we go with FLuff As Written, that would be FLAW, and more accurate.... )
Also...I don't think anyone is following you about the other alignment stuff because, again, no one talking to you has said that alignment dictates actions or that all kinds of a race HAVE to be one alignment.
Honestly, there seems to be some sort of deeper issue here because you are reacting in considerable "volume" above & beyond the framework of the discussion. In other words..."Vat really seems to be bothering you?"
What is bothering me is that you keep insisting, in multiple threads, that (a) Alignment is a Mechanic in 4e, and (b) that Good and Evil are both Universally Defined things which should be obvious.
What is bothering me is that neither of those statements are true.
And you have yet to present anything to irrefutably prove otherwise.
• Ad Hominem— Attacking the person's circumstances, not addressing the argument. • Ad Hominem Abusive (Personal Attack)— Insulting the person, not addressing the argument. • Ad Hominem Tu Quoque— Saying the person's inconsistent, not addressing the argument. • Appeal to Authority/Belief/Common Practice/Consequence of a Belief/Emotion/Fear/Flattery/Novelty/Pity/Popularity/Ridicule/Spite/Tradition— Using emotion instead of Fact. • Bandwagon— Use of peer pressure. • Begging the Question— Assuming premises which haven't necessarily been agreed to. • Biased Sample— Using a sampling which may not properly represent the whole. • Burden of Proof— Shifting it to the wrong side. • Circumstantial Ad Hominem— Attacking the person's interests in supporting their argument. • Composition— Assuming that the whole has the same qualities as individual parts. • Confusing Cause & Effect— Assuming that one thing causes another because they appear in conjunction. • Division— Assuming that the individual parts have the same qualities as the whole. • False Dilemma— Assuming that only two options exist. • Gambler's Fallacy— Assuming the odds have changed because of past occurances • Genetic— Assuming a perceived defect in the origin of a claim is proof of a defect in the claim. • Guilt by Association— Attacking others who agree with the claim. • Hasty Generalization— Assuming a quality based on too small a sample size. • Ignoring the Common Cause— Assuming there is no outside cause of two connected things. • Middle Ground— Assuming the midpoint of two extremes must be correct. • Misleading Vividness— Assuming a colorful anecdote outweighs statistical evidence. • Poisoning the Well— Using unprovable claims about the person instead of addressing the argument. • Post Hoc— Assuming that something caused something else simply because it happened first. • Questionable Cause— Assuming that one thing causes another. • Red Herring— Using irrelevant evidence to divert a discussion. • Relativist Fallacy— Asserting that a claim may be true for some but not for the speaker. • Slippery Slope— Assuming the inevitability of one event based on another. • Special Pleading— Claiming exemption without justification. • Spotlight— Assuming individuals that get the most attention to be indicative of the whole. • Straw Man— Misrepresenting the opposing argument. • Two Wrongs Make a Right— Justifying something unethical/immoral as response or pre-emption to something else unethical/immoral.
Response to those who like to compare 4e to a Video GameShow
Also, I find that the "D&D 4e is like an MMO" argument is often a sign of someone who is deliberately being obtuse and/or is potentially ignorant of actual MMO play. As someone who only ended a 6-year World of Warcraft addiction a year ago, I can say that most of your bullet points actually don't match up to the truth of it.
In D&D 4e, you can choose a hybrid, you can choose to play one class as though it were another (people played Warlords as Bards frequently, when the edition first came out, and Rangers were refluffed to Monks), you can focus your class on its secondary role (a Warlock who is more controller than striker, for instance), you can multiclass, and you can create a particular concept (a mounted lancer, a charger, etc.) within the mechanics via feats, choice of powers, and choice of skills. You decide which set of stats you use--are you a Chaladin, Straladin, or Baladin?--and you have ultimate influence on how your character turns out in the end. Yes, powers require you to be using a particular weapon within your class's available selection, but the powers are not themselves tied to the gear. Powers tied to weapons or armor are typically powers that belong to the item, not to the character class that's most likely to use it.
Yes, there are only so many powers available, and these will be what you do in battle; this is all that the designers created. Yes, there is a time-frame in which they can be used; this has always been the case, even in the days of Vancian casting. Yes, there are suggested builds, but you can routinely ignore those if it pleases you; the only parts of a class you have to take are the class features, and even those have options at this point. But the only way that this can be considered at all conflatable with MMO character building/playing is if you are deliberately ignoring all of that.
In WoW, you choose a class and you're done. No multiclassing or hybridization, no way to mimic one class with careful building of a different one. There is a firm dividing line on what is a WoW class. No secondary roles or creative concepts, either; you're going to be what the class sets out to be, and that's it. You'll always have the same stat allocation as another of your class, because you get set numbers as you level up, and you've got at best four options--and that's only the Druid class--to build, and if you plan on running dungeons, particularly heroic level ones, or raiding, you'd better not even think of deviating from the single defined best build on the talent tree for what you want to do. It was only recently, with the complete tear-down and recreation of talent trees for Mists of Pandaria, that there was a concept of there being anything but the one best build that people who calculated such mechanical advantages (the folks on Elitist Jerks, for example), and the people who did things like achieve "World First" at various top-tier raids set precedent for.
Also, no class will ever not have a specific set of powers; all Priests in WoW have the same baseline, with deviation only based upon their talent tree specialization, where a D&D4e player could take whatever power in their class pleases them. Any Retribution Paladin will be the same as any other in terms of powers, because that is what a RetPally is. Any Assassination Rogue will always have the same powers as another, etc. All powers are always on specific cool-downs, but will always be there when they start a battle, where a 4e PC might enter an encounter with only At-Wills, or without their Daily powers due to what plot has done up until that point. Furthermore, no power that is not already specifically tied to an item will ever "require" you have that item, to my recollection. Classes get all their powers based on class; gear only gives bonuses to stats, possibly cuts down cast times for abilities or cooldowns, grants temporary extra bonuses to stats (the latter two most often on the raid tier equipment), and on rare occassions an extra power that may or may not be valuable, as some are only special effects instead of valuable abilities.
Most honest/open response on why DDN needs to be InclusiveShow
I've always felt it is in the best interests of D&D to be as inclusive across the playerbase as they can be and still have a game. I've never felt though that making a game that was inclusive within a group was very useful or even desirable. DM's and players can decide amongst themselves what options or restrictions they want for their games. I tend to lean to the DM to make most of those decisions but again that is a group specific thing.
Having said that. I get the distinct impression that there are a lot of players on these boards who come from groups that generally ruled against their own desires. It's almost like they are an oppressed minority from a gaming perspective. I also get the impression that they tend to advocate against things that if available their fellow group members might like and vote them down on.
Do a lot of you feel this way?
Just for clarification...here are some examples... 1. Alignment restrictions as an option. 2. Alignment Mechanics 3. Martial healing 4. Races being included or not.
I know my perspective is not that I often play at tables where my likes are not represented. Instead, my perspective comes from the many years I spent being a bad DM. I was a bad DM because my guidance came from the books, and the books gave bad advice. The books told me that alignment was a useful approach to roleplaying, so I went with it even though it felt kind of weird to me. Now I know that, at least in my style of running games, alignment destroys rp. I trusted the books to give good advice, and it messed up my game. Now I'm much more mature as a DM, so I know how to take advice with a grain of salt. And I still learn new stuff every session I run.
I don't want future DMs to go through my problems again. There's a big enough DM shortage as it is. DMing well is hard.
The biggest thing I had to unlearn in my process of becoming a good DM was the idea that the game is a simulation of a world. I understand many DMs prefer a more simulationist approach, although I am always skeptical simply because I would have said the same thing until I learned and grew as a DM. This doesn't mean their approach is completely invalid, but it still gives me a personal twinge when I see a regression back to 3e era sim style gaming.
I also have noticed many groups where one or two old-school players run a whole group's playstyle because the newer players aren't even aware there are other ways of doing things. The newer players tell me stories of things they hated in the session, and I end up explaining to them how those things they hate are very fixable, and in fact are fixed in the newer edition of the game their older players have told them is terrible.
In regard to things like martial healing, I don't think it's necessary for it to be in the game for the game to be fun. However, the attitude that says martial healing is terrible and shouldn't exist is an attitude that, to me, reveals a wrongheaded approach to the game. Therefore, my fight for it to be an option is to help legitimize the more narrative approach that I think is what most players want, but many don't know is possible, because they've never been exposed to it.
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />Actually, you yourself said that alignment defined behavior. Remember your recommendation? (Paraphrasing, because I don't feel like hunting it down.) "Tell him it's evil." So what? If he wants to do it, he can do it; and if he doesn't want to do it, he won't do it. Telling him something which is a debatable interpretation of what he was doing — it may not have actually been Evil, you were the one who decided that it was — doesn't change anything.
And I said what I said because he contradicted himself in saying what he said.
I admit it. I accept when I've been proven incorrect.
Lets see if you are truthful before we bother moving on with anything else. Here is my post in its entirety..the one you couldn't bother to do anything but paraphrase (mind you, yesterday you chastized me for linking to thinks and not writing out in my post, yet here you are paraphrasing me...hmm...)
"Centauri, if I could ask...
Is it necessarily the case that a DM doesn't want something to happen if they outline to the player potential pitfalls, risks or consequences for what they are doing?
For example, I have told a player before that what they said they planned on doing was "An evil act". I did not care either way if they did it...I merely let them know. How does that reconcile with a DM "threatening" as in your discussion?"
As you can see, I clearly claim that I DO NO CARE what the player in question does, but I provide the information about the act so that the player can make an informed decision. ADDITIONALLY, that "advice" was not even directed towards the OP it was in a polite question to Centauri regarding his feelings on dissuading versus informing. In fact, my very previous TWO post before that were about how I believe it is unfair to penalize a player for their actions based on the DM's whim or desires simply because they don't want the player to do something. I'd provide the links so you could read them...but I know you don't like that so I'll just suggest you go find them and read them for yourself to verify what I am saying.
So, to sum up, you are stating I have said things I have not said based on your faulty reading or memory of reading of what I said.
I admit it. I accept when I've been proven incorrect.
Indeed?
I'm on a journey of enlightenment, learning and self-improvement. A journey towards mastery. A journey that will never end.
If you challenge me, prepare to be challenged. If you have something to offer as a fellow student, I will accept it. If you call yourself a master, prepare to be humbled. If you seek me, look to the path. I will be traveling it. #SuperDungeonMasterIITurbo
Here is my post in its entirety..the one you couldn't bother to do anything but paraphrase (mind you, yesterday you chastized me for linking to thinks and not writing out in my post, yet here you are paraphrasing me...hmm...)
I paraphrased, I stated that I paraphrased, and I stated why I was paraphrasing. I fully admitted as much. (My daughter was using my arms as a jungle gym at the time. Typing was difficult enough; jumping around threads looking for something wasn't something I was in the mood to do.)
However, you are correct, sir, to a degree. I was misremembering the conversation. You were not, in fact, responding to the OP when you made the statement that, "I have told a player before that what they said they planned on doing was "An evil act"."
I apologize for being wrong about the person that you were defining "an evil act" as being the OP, instead of one of your own players.
This does not change my opinion — you are giving them information which I perceive as having no relevance whatsoever to whether the character would take the action.
That said, there are assumptions involved when I make that statement. You did not give details of the situation when you gave that statement. You did not state whether it was requested information or not. You did not state if it was a case of a Player making a decision that you considered to be out of character for the Character — for example, if Sturm Brightblade's player were to say, "I rape and pillage the gully dwarf village," that would be something that was definitely out of character and might earn an "Is that your final answer?" from the DM.
As you can see, I clearly claim that I DO NO CARE what the player in question does, but I provide the information about the act so that the player can make an informed decision.
However, you did so in a vague and ambiguous way. Did you give the player any other information that may have been required — Using the OP's example for simplicity's sake, "By the way, the according to my random rolls, there's a City Guard station to one side and an Orphanage to the other." — or did you simply decide that Good vs Evil was the only relevant thing to consider?
If you do not care what the player in question does, then why do you feel the need to tell him as much? Rather, just say, "Fine, it's done." Why do you assume that the player doesn't have that information, or that he considers it relevant? Why must all decisions be "informed?" Why can't there be spontaneous and random decisions?
When I'm the DM, when players throw out comments that I'm not sure they are serious about, the most I'll say is, "Is that what you're doing?" and get confirmation one way or the other.
ADDITIONALLY, that "advice" was not even directed towards the OP it was in a polite question to Centauri regarding his feelings on dissuading versus informing.
In fact, my very previous TWO post before that were about how I believe it is unfair to penalize a player for their actions based on the DM's whim or desires simply because they don't want the player to do something. I'd provide the links so you could read them...but I know you don't like that so I'll just suggest you go find them and read them for yourself to verify what I am saying.
Again, you failed your Reading Comprehension portion of the test, sorry. Please feel free to try again.... I have covered this before, but I'll say it again.
I have no issue with you providing links to support your statements and positions, or to give additional background for people in case they didn't know something. For example, the link to the article in question would have been nice if it was alongside what you were saying.
I do have a problem with using links as the argument. Which you did to me directly (when you asked me if I hadn't read the link and then re-linked it). I had read the link the first time (and multiple times since), and I did not feel that it proved what you thought it did, and was not relevant to what was said.
I have seen other people do the exact same thing, in other discussions; and often times I've found contradictory opinions in those links (due to the nature of the Internet, with the ability of people to comment and respond, you can read multiple contradictory viewpoints in the same link). As a result, providing these links doesn't actually show what you're trying to say; maybe you're refering to the comment section, or one small part of the main article. It is indirect and scattershot and, again, often doesn't say what you want it to say. And if someone's already responded and said, "That proves nothing," then giving them the same exact link and asking them if they read it is not doing anyone any good.
If you want to quote your original message, and provide the link to back it up, that's Great. So long as you use the correct link. (By the by: I have my forums settings at 40 posts per page and Newest First. Often, when people post a link to a message, they use the one in the URL which ends up being invalid when I go to it. On the other hand, if you Copy the URL from the number in the upper right corner of each individual post and use that one, that will work no matter what forum browsing settings anyone uses.)
So, to sum up, you are stating I have said things I have not said based on your faulty reading or memory of reading of what I said.
Sort of. I stated that you said something in response to the OP which you did not. That doesn't change the fact that you did state that you have made that statement to players in the past.
I admit it. I accept when I've been proven incorrect.
Indeed?
Indeed. I apologize for thinking you were responding to the original poster. You were not. You had given, instead, a very sparse and un-described instance where you had said something which Centauri and I both do not believe to be valid. Nor have you stated why whether any generic act was "good or evil" would, in fact, be Relevant to any generic situation whatsoever. I'm sure there are Specific situations, but let's talk in the General, for the time being, unless you have examples to give.
You've since stated, repeatedly, that Alignment is Mechanics in 4e, solely on the basis that it is in statblocks.
So, again, I apologize for the misunderstanding.
That said, I am still awaiting, with much glee and anticipation, your logical and irrefutable Proof that Alignment is Mechanics in 4e.
• Ad Hominem— Attacking the person's circumstances, not addressing the argument. • Ad Hominem Abusive (Personal Attack)— Insulting the person, not addressing the argument. • Ad Hominem Tu Quoque— Saying the person's inconsistent, not addressing the argument. • Appeal to Authority/Belief/Common Practice/Consequence of a Belief/Emotion/Fear/Flattery/Novelty/Pity/Popularity/Ridicule/Spite/Tradition— Using emotion instead of Fact. • Bandwagon— Use of peer pressure. • Begging the Question— Assuming premises which haven't necessarily been agreed to. • Biased Sample— Using a sampling which may not properly represent the whole. • Burden of Proof— Shifting it to the wrong side. • Circumstantial Ad Hominem— Attacking the person's interests in supporting their argument. • Composition— Assuming that the whole has the same qualities as individual parts. • Confusing Cause & Effect— Assuming that one thing causes another because they appear in conjunction. • Division— Assuming that the individual parts have the same qualities as the whole. • False Dilemma— Assuming that only two options exist. • Gambler's Fallacy— Assuming the odds have changed because of past occurances • Genetic— Assuming a perceived defect in the origin of a claim is proof of a defect in the claim. • Guilt by Association— Attacking others who agree with the claim. • Hasty Generalization— Assuming a quality based on too small a sample size. • Ignoring the Common Cause— Assuming there is no outside cause of two connected things. • Middle Ground— Assuming the midpoint of two extremes must be correct. • Misleading Vividness— Assuming a colorful anecdote outweighs statistical evidence. • Poisoning the Well— Using unprovable claims about the person instead of addressing the argument. • Post Hoc— Assuming that something caused something else simply because it happened first. • Questionable Cause— Assuming that one thing causes another. • Red Herring— Using irrelevant evidence to divert a discussion. • Relativist Fallacy— Asserting that a claim may be true for some but not for the speaker. • Slippery Slope— Assuming the inevitability of one event based on another. • Special Pleading— Claiming exemption without justification. • Spotlight— Assuming individuals that get the most attention to be indicative of the whole. • Straw Man— Misrepresenting the opposing argument. • Two Wrongs Make a Right— Justifying something unethical/immoral as response or pre-emption to something else unethical/immoral.
Response to those who like to compare 4e to a Video GameShow
Also, I find that the "D&D 4e is like an MMO" argument is often a sign of someone who is deliberately being obtuse and/or is potentially ignorant of actual MMO play. As someone who only ended a 6-year World of Warcraft addiction a year ago, I can say that most of your bullet points actually don't match up to the truth of it.
In D&D 4e, you can choose a hybrid, you can choose to play one class as though it were another (people played Warlords as Bards frequently, when the edition first came out, and Rangers were refluffed to Monks), you can focus your class on its secondary role (a Warlock who is more controller than striker, for instance), you can multiclass, and you can create a particular concept (a mounted lancer, a charger, etc.) within the mechanics via feats, choice of powers, and choice of skills. You decide which set of stats you use--are you a Chaladin, Straladin, or Baladin?--and you have ultimate influence on how your character turns out in the end. Yes, powers require you to be using a particular weapon within your class's available selection, but the powers are not themselves tied to the gear. Powers tied to weapons or armor are typically powers that belong to the item, not to the character class that's most likely to use it.
Yes, there are only so many powers available, and these will be what you do in battle; this is all that the designers created. Yes, there is a time-frame in which they can be used; this has always been the case, even in the days of Vancian casting. Yes, there are suggested builds, but you can routinely ignore those if it pleases you; the only parts of a class you have to take are the class features, and even those have options at this point. But the only way that this can be considered at all conflatable with MMO character building/playing is if you are deliberately ignoring all of that.
In WoW, you choose a class and you're done. No multiclassing or hybridization, no way to mimic one class with careful building of a different one. There is a firm dividing line on what is a WoW class. No secondary roles or creative concepts, either; you're going to be what the class sets out to be, and that's it. You'll always have the same stat allocation as another of your class, because you get set numbers as you level up, and you've got at best four options--and that's only the Druid class--to build, and if you plan on running dungeons, particularly heroic level ones, or raiding, you'd better not even think of deviating from the single defined best build on the talent tree for what you want to do. It was only recently, with the complete tear-down and recreation of talent trees for Mists of Pandaria, that there was a concept of there being anything but the one best build that people who calculated such mechanical advantages (the folks on Elitist Jerks, for example), and the people who did things like achieve "World First" at various top-tier raids set precedent for.
Also, no class will ever not have a specific set of powers; all Priests in WoW have the same baseline, with deviation only based upon their talent tree specialization, where a D&D4e player could take whatever power in their class pleases them. Any Retribution Paladin will be the same as any other in terms of powers, because that is what a RetPally is. Any Assassination Rogue will always have the same powers as another, etc. All powers are always on specific cool-downs, but will always be there when they start a battle, where a 4e PC might enter an encounter with only At-Wills, or without their Daily powers due to what plot has done up until that point. Furthermore, no power that is not already specifically tied to an item will ever "require" you have that item, to my recollection. Classes get all their powers based on class; gear only gives bonuses to stats, possibly cuts down cast times for abilities or cooldowns, grants temporary extra bonuses to stats (the latter two most often on the raid tier equipment), and on rare occassions an extra power that may or may not be valuable, as some are only special effects instead of valuable abilities.
Most honest/open response on why DDN needs to be InclusiveShow
I've always felt it is in the best interests of D&D to be as inclusive across the playerbase as they can be and still have a game. I've never felt though that making a game that was inclusive within a group was very useful or even desirable. DM's and players can decide amongst themselves what options or restrictions they want for their games. I tend to lean to the DM to make most of those decisions but again that is a group specific thing.
Having said that. I get the distinct impression that there are a lot of players on these boards who come from groups that generally ruled against their own desires. It's almost like they are an oppressed minority from a gaming perspective. I also get the impression that they tend to advocate against things that if available their fellow group members might like and vote them down on.
Do a lot of you feel this way?
Just for clarification...here are some examples... 1. Alignment restrictions as an option. 2. Alignment Mechanics 3. Martial healing 4. Races being included or not.
I know my perspective is not that I often play at tables where my likes are not represented. Instead, my perspective comes from the many years I spent being a bad DM. I was a bad DM because my guidance came from the books, and the books gave bad advice. The books told me that alignment was a useful approach to roleplaying, so I went with it even though it felt kind of weird to me. Now I know that, at least in my style of running games, alignment destroys rp. I trusted the books to give good advice, and it messed up my game. Now I'm much more mature as a DM, so I know how to take advice with a grain of salt. And I still learn new stuff every session I run.
I don't want future DMs to go through my problems again. There's a big enough DM shortage as it is. DMing well is hard.
The biggest thing I had to unlearn in my process of becoming a good DM was the idea that the game is a simulation of a world. I understand many DMs prefer a more simulationist approach, although I am always skeptical simply because I would have said the same thing until I learned and grew as a DM. This doesn't mean their approach is completely invalid, but it still gives me a personal twinge when I see a regression back to 3e era sim style gaming.
I also have noticed many groups where one or two old-school players run a whole group's playstyle because the newer players aren't even aware there are other ways of doing things. The newer players tell me stories of things they hated in the session, and I end up explaining to them how those things they hate are very fixable, and in fact are fixed in the newer edition of the game their older players have told them is terrible.
In regard to things like martial healing, I don't think it's necessary for it to be in the game for the game to be fun. However, the attitude that says martial healing is terrible and shouldn't exist is an attitude that, to me, reveals a wrongheaded approach to the game. Therefore, my fight for it to be an option is to help legitimize the more narrative approach that I think is what most players want, but many don't know is possible, because they've never been exposed to it.
I'm still waiting for you to give me any non-fallacious proof that Alignment is a Mechanic in 4e. But if you insist....
You accuse me of Division fallacy while committing a Special Pleading fallacy where you are arguing, without any proof, that OF ALL THE DATA in a statblock, for some reason alignment is the lone exception in regards to it being mechanical.
I paraphrased, I stated that I paraphrased, and I stated why I was paraphrasing. I fully admitted as much. (My daughter was using my arms as a jungle gym at the time. Typing was difficult enough; jumping around threads looking for something wasn't something I was in the mood to do.)
And in paraphrasing you Straw Man'd my argument into something that it wasn't. At all.
I apologize for being wrong about the person that you were defining "an evil act" as being the OP, instead of one of your own players.
Apology accepted.
This does not change my opinion — you are giving them information which I perceive as having no relevance whatsoever to whether the character would take the action.
The information is not being given to the character. It is being given to the player. It is MECHANICAL information for the player to use as they decide just as if I had said "That will provoke a save for X if you do it". It is not to discourage, it is to properly inform so that the players agency is empowered and they can make a fully informed choice.
That said, there are assumptions involved when I make that statement. You did not give details of the situation when you gave that statement.
Because it was a situation I've previously discussed with Centuari. The post was ADDRESSED to him. that you did not have full details is neither here nor there.
You did not state whether it was requested information or not. (Assumption that DMs need only give requested info) You did not state if it was a case of a Player making a decision that you considered to be out of character for the Character (Assumption that I make decisions about something being "out of character", a completely ridiculous assumption considering it's the PLAYERS CHARACTER not mine) — for example, if Sturm Brightblade's player were to say, "I rape and pillage the gully dwarf village," that would be something that was definitely out of character and might earn an "Is that your final answer?" from the DM.(Assumption that DMs should care about players not acting according to what the DM thinks is appropriate for the players character)
However, you did so in a vague and ambiguous way. Did you give the player any other information that may have been required — Using the OP's example for simplicity's sake, "By the way, the according to my random rolls, there's a City Guard station to one side and an Orphanage to the other." — or did you simply decide that Good vs Evil was the only relevant thing to consider?(Assumption that my question to Centauri had ANYTHING to do with the OPs issue when it was entirely directed to Centauri regarding an opinion he has about DM info-offering that I find interesting...quite the assumption considering the entire post is addressed to Centauri and outlines a discrete question to him unrelated to the OP except tangentally through something Centauri mentioned)
If you do not care what the player in question does, then why do you feel the need to tell him as much? Rather, just say, "Fine, it's done." Why do you assume that the player doesn't have that information, or that he considers it relevant? Why must all decisions be "informed?" Why can't there be spontaneous and random decisions?
Omission of information. One of my responses WAS to say "Fine the place burns down" and see what the reaction might be to try and uncover what it is that is being sought. Additionally you are STILL following a false assumption regarding my post based on your failure to read it. As for your question...no decision is RANDOM unless it's the fall of a die. Otherwise it is always a player acting with supposition, information, experience and assumption. The DM's job is to make sure that the players have relevant information available to them. For instance, in my own example as part of the discussion with Centauri previously, the situation did not include being given ONLY the "That is an Evil act" info, it ALSO included information such as "The other players are fond of the Orcs and they might be understandably upset" and that "The Oruk gave his word they wouldn't be harmed" as well as "These are the same sort of orcs your people have been at war with as evident by their garb" and "They are Evil themselves". Of course, you'd know all that IF you bothered to ask...which you didn't (Assumptions) and I would have been happy to tell you...I left it out because it is something I have previously talked to Centauri about and I knew that if he needed more info he'd simply ask for it if he did not remember.
When I'm the DM, when players throw out comments that I'm not sure they are serious about, the most I'll say is, "Is that what you're doing?" and get confirmation one way or the other.
And if there is something OBVIOUS to the PC that is not related to the player and they suffer adverse or undesirable effects from that decision because they weren't given that information, that is on you as a DM.
Sort of. I stated that you said something in response to the OP which you did not. That doesn't change the fact that you did state that you have made that statement to players in the past.
In a context along with other information you know NOTHING about. Biased sample? Or is that a type of Slippery Slope? Oh wait it's also Two Wrongs Make A Right in a way, no? Or at least you're trying to make it something akin to that. Hell it's also Red Herring considering it had nothing to do with the other topic because I was talking to Centauri about something seperate.
Indeed. I apologize for thinking you were responding to the original poster. You were not. You had given, instead, a very sparse and un-described instance where you had said something which Centauri and I both do not believe to be valid. Nor have you stated why whether any generic act was "good or evil" would, in fact, be Relevant to any generic situation whatsoever. I'm sure there are Specific situations, but let's talk in the General, for the time being, unless you have examples to give.
Why is it relevant? Because if a player is interested in playing a "Good" character it could be VERY important to them. Additionally, it could be something for the person to weigh about their character such as "Will I accept killing helpless, non-aggresive beings because I am hate their race and do not trust them?". That is a VALID question for a person to ask about their character...it is a valid thing for them to weigh. It is an interesting choice. Do they kill the orcs and reinforce their characters hatred for orcs and the depths to which they'll go to satiate it? Or do they swallow their darker desires and NOT do that? Or do they do something else? All valid questions for a player to be engaged in. My player LIKED the situation. They LIKED being given the information up front. They would NOT have liked doing it and then being told after the fact "That was Evil" by myself or other characters in the group because it would have felt like a betrayal because they should be given MECHANICAL information like that up front.
You've since stated, repeatedly, that Alignment is Mechanics in 4e, solely on the basis that it is in statblocks.
And you state it is fluff DESPITE being in statblocks. Yet offer no evidence that this is the case. You are arguing that it is the SOLE exception in statblocks with no proof of this. Perhaps something from the designers? Something definitive? Something from those same designers that ALSO design mechanics that interact directly with the alignment section of statblocks?
So, again, I apologize for the misunderstanding.
That said, I am still awaiting, with much glee and anticipation, your logical and irrefutable Proof that Alignment is Mechanics in 4e.
At your leisure.
Burden of Proof.
I'm on a journey of enlightenment, learning and self-improvement. A journey towards mastery. A journey that will never end.
If you challenge me, prepare to be challenged. If you have something to offer as a fellow student, I will accept it. If you call yourself a master, prepare to be humbled. If you seek me, look to the path. I will be traveling it. #SuperDungeonMasterIITurbo
If you do not care what the player in question does, then why do you feel the need to tell him as much? Rather, just say, "Fine, it's done." Why do you assume that the player doesn't have that information, or that he considers it relevant? Why must all decisions be "informed?" Why can't there be spontaneous and random decisions
Incomplete knowledge is a constant issue with D&D, and will continue to be until player narrative control and "Yes, and..." are more widely accepted. The players only "know" what they're told, and if they miss something, or it's not said, or it's misunderstood, they might think the DM wants them to do something that the DM doesn't want them to do. The underlying assumption is that players won't do things the DM doesn't want them to do, or will accept being put in the penalty box as the cost for their out-of-bounds fun.
So, the DM, assuming that the player will come to heel if given the "facts," informs the player that they're about to go out-of-bounds. But they do it obliquely, again risking misunderstanding.
I think I get why people would rather not admit something bothers them, and pretend to let the rules and "realism" be what punish the player. Confrontation is scary. Some people are wired in such a way that they just can't do it, and I think D&D tends to attract a lot of that kind of person. I think Gary Gygax might have been that kind of person, actually. Nothing wrong with that, but it does complicate what could and should be a straightforward negotiation between two people.
And I get how it seems like I'm seeing a difference where none should exist. The realist approach is that when you do something, something else happens, like a law of physics. Do something in-game that someone in-game doesn't want you do to, and they will make your life harder, though there's a strong expectation that you'll succeed anyway. Works in a dungeon, why not anywhere else.
This line of reasoning has made me wonder if it really does work in the dungeon. Apply a logical approach to the dungeon, and all the denizens will rain down on the PCs at the first sign of incursion, until the players are dealt with. It would be very easy to make an action in a dungeon as difficult to get away with as in a town, and the consequences just as boring. But we don't do that, I guess because the dungeon is there specifically for the PCs to wreak havok at the whim of their ids.
I ran a 3.5 game some years ago in which a player declared he was going to play an evil character. Alright, I said. During an encounter, the party was separated, and this character came across a drunk. Tripped over him, in fact. The evil PC killed the drunk. Nowadays I might ask what the player thought should come of that, but back them I simply let it go and forgot about it. Plausibly no one saw it, and plausibly no one would care if they found the drunk dead. The character was evil, but even if he hadn't been, I'm not sure I would have bothered with any repercussions.
No, it's not realism to punish characters for a particular action. It's deliberate disincentive, because the DM doesn't like the action.
[N]o difference is less easily overcome than the difference of opinion about semi-abstract questions. - L. Tolstoy
You accuse me of Division fallacy while committing a Special Pleading fallacy where you are arguing, without any proof, that OF ALL THE DATA in a statblock, for some reason alignment is the lone exception in regards to it being mechanical.
Umm, that's not the Special Pleading fallacy, sorry. Special Pleading is that there's an exemption to the norm without any justification for that exemption. I have never claimed any exemption without justification, with regard to Alignment not being Mechanical. On the contrary, I have justified the exemption multiple times. If you request, I will provide it again, but first you have to admit that you haven't read a darned thing I've said.
And in paraphrasing you Straw Man'd my argument into something that it wasn't. At all.
And I admitted that I mis-remembered the order of the conversation. That said, that still does not change that fact that you did, in fact, state that you told someone that they were proposing to do something "evil," which was the point of my argument. Ignore the specific example, and go back to the general, which is still the same: it wasn't your place to do so.
The information is not being given to the character. It is being given to the player. It is MECHANICAL information for the player to use as they decide just as if I had said "That will provoke a save for X if you do it". It is not to discourage, it is to properly inform so that the players agency is empowered and they can make a fully informed choice.
A-ha!
Your question to Centauri was — let me requote you directly, just to be safe — For example, I have told a player before that what they said they planned on doing was "An evil act". I did not care either way if they did it...I merely let them know. How does that reconcile with a DM "threatening" as in your discussion?"
So, now you compare your telling a player that they were committing an evil act as being on the same level as telling them that they would be "provoking a save."
That is the absolute definition of a DM's Threat. "If you do X, there will be this consequence." But you didn't even define the consequence. You simply called it "evil."
Put yourself in the player's position. If the DM's saying, "If you do that, there'll be a consequence," how else are they supposed to interpret it but as a Threat. It certainly wasn't done in a manner to be assumed to be Rewarding, that's for certain.
So, thank you, as far as I can tell, you just answered your own question and supported Centauri's thesis. Well done!
Because it was a situation I've previously discussed with Centuari. The post was ADDRESSED to him. that you did not have full details is neither here nor there.
The post was in a Public Forum, and not a private PM. Next time you have a private question for Centauri, that you don't wish others to address, I strongly recomment that you keep it private.
You did not state whether it was requested information or not. (Assumption that DMs need only give requested info) You did not state if it was a case of a Player making a decision that you considered to be out of character for the Character (Assumption that I make decisions about something being "out of character", a completely ~ assumption considering it's the PLAYERS CHARACTER not mine) — for example, if Sturm Brightblade's player were to say, "I rape and pillage the gully dwarf village," that would be something that was definitely out of character and might earn an "Is that your final answer?" from the DM.(Assumption that DMs should care about players not acting according to what the DM thinks is appropriate for the players character)
You took this paragraph out of context when you responded to it. My point in making those statements was that those were all possible things which may have been part of the backstory, that I was not privy to, and failing to have those sorts of answers. As for the last bit, I never said that it was what the DM thinks is appropriate for the player's character. I said that it was inconsistent behavior, and would want to just be sure — not in a discouraging manner, but simply making sure they weren't being facetious or something. I've run World of Darkness games and Shadowrun games. Nothing's "inappropriate," as far as I'm concerned, insofar as character behavior goes.
However, there are some things which are inappropriate, insofar as addressing other people. I'm going to politely but firmly request that you edit the R-word you used in your response (I edited it out of the above), please, or else I will flag your post for inappropriate language. You can feel free to insult me all you want, I'm thick-skinned. But please watch your language.
However, you did so in a vague and ambiguous way. Did you give the player any other information that may have been required — Using the OP's example for simplicity's sake, "By the way, the according to my random rolls, there's a City Guard station to one side and an Orphanage to the other." — or did you simply decide that Good vs Evil was the only relevant thing to consider?(Assumption that my question to Centauri had ANYTHING to do with the OPs issue when it was entirely directed to Centauri regarding an opinion he has about DM info-offering that I find interesting...quite the assumption considering the entire post is addressed to Centauri and outlines a discrete question to him unrelated to the OP except tangentally through something Centauri mentioned)
Again: You want to have a Private Conversation, send a PM. You post something Publicly, then expect a response from the public.
Omission of information. One of my responses WAS to say "Fine the place burns down" and see what the reaction might be to try and uncover what it is that is being sought. Additionally you are STILL following a false assumption regarding my post based on your failure to read it.
No, no false assumptions being made. You told a player that they were planning an evil action. You asked why it might be considered threatening to do so. The things you've been commenting on were simply things that I did not know, which I may consider relevant to the event in question. Again, you posted a Public response; if you don't want other people answering things, then send a PM instead.
As for your question...no decision is RANDOM unless it's the fall of a die.
And maybe that's why the player decided to commit the evil act in question?
Besides, you've never heard of Random Acts of Kindness? Why not Random Acts of Evil?
I didn't mean Random in the technical sense of the word; sorry if I confused you. I meant Random in the sort of "spur of the moment no real planning" sort of connotation (as above, with Random Acts of Kindness).
Otherwise it is always a player acting with supposition, information, experience and assumption. The DM's job is to make sure that the players have relevant information available to them. For instance, in my own example as part of the discussion with Centauri previously, the situation did not include being given ONLY the "That is an Evil act" info, it ALSO included information such as "The other players are fond of the Orcs and they might be understandably upset" and that "The Oruk gave his word they wouldn't be harmed" as well as "These are the same sort of orcs your people have been at war with as evident by their garb" and "They are Evil themselves". Of course, you'd know all that IF you bothered to ask...which you didn't (Assumptions) and I would have been happy to tell you...I left it out because it is something I have previously talked to Centauri about and I knew that if he needed more info he'd simply ask for it if he did not remember.
Actually, these are the exact things that I specifically stated that I did not know, and to make a judgment based solely on the "Evil Act" thing would be making assumptions. You can't say I'm making assumptions when I state that I would be making assumptions if I didn't have all the information, and then gave a list of examples of information that I didn't have.
And if there is something OBVIOUS to the PC that is not related to the player and they suffer adverse or undesirable effects from that decision because they weren't given that information, that is on you as a DM.
Yes. And all those things you listed above are things that the player wouldn't know and the PC would have known. The only thing which didn't fit that would be "That's an evil act." The rest of the information is relevant; that one is not.
In a context along with other information you know NOTHING about. Biased sample? Or is that a type of Slippery Slope? Oh wait it's also Two Wrongs Make A Right in a way, no? Or at least you're trying to make it something akin to that. Hell it's also Red Herring considering it had nothing to do with the other topic because I was talking to Centauri about something seperate.
You really need to work on reading comprehension, you know? In all seriousness.
• Example of Biased Sample: Stating that "All D&D Players" believe certain things based on people who post in the Next forums. It's using a very small sampling and then making a universal claim about it.
• Example of Slippery Slope: Stating that if alignment is removed from the game, the next thing you know there will never be any Heroic characters. It's taking a cause and an effect which aren't necessarily related, and then creating a series of steps to reach from point A to point B.
• Example of Two Wrongs Make a Right: Stating the because the player decided to act contrary to his alignment, the DM decided to tear up his character sheet. It's saying that an admittedly "wrong" response (or pre-emption) is justified for a "wrong" action.
Why is it relevant? Because if a player is interested in playing a "Good" character it could be VERY important to them.
If a player is actively interested in playing a "Good" character, and I were the DM, we'd already have had the discussion about what was good and what wasn't for that particular character. If the player is actively interested in playing a "Good" character, then he can be the judge for what is good and what isn't. And if the player is actively interested in playing a "Good" character, and asks to do an evil act, then clearly he is already acting in full character knowledge of what he's doing. Unless you have some agreement to be his conscience — in which case you're telling the Character and not the Player — then what you did was make a threat, same as telling him he'd have to make a save if he continued that path of action. That's a threat, pure and simple, by warning him that way.
Additionally, it could be something for the person to weigh about their character such as "Will I accept killing helpless, non-aggresive beings because I am hate their race and do not trust them?". That is a VALID question for a person to ask about their character...it is a valid thing for them to weigh.
Except it wasn't the Player asking about their Character, at least so far as you've given details of to this point. It was the DM warning the Player.
It is an interesting choice. Do they kill the orcs and reinforce their characters hatred for orcs and the depths to which they'll go to satiate it? Or do they swallow their darker desires and NOT do that? Or do they do something else? All valid questions for a player to be engaged in. My player LIKED the situation. They LIKED being given the information up front. They would NOT have liked doing it and then being told after the fact "That was Evil" by myself or other characters in the group because it would have felt like a betrayal because they should be given MECHANICAL information like that up front.
And if it was my character, I would have looked you cold in the eye, and said, "Of course it's evil. SFW?"
Besides, so what if the player thanked you. My players would thank me every time if I warned them they were going to draw an Opporunity Attack. That doesn't stop it from being what it is, a Threat.
You've since stated, repeatedly, that Alignment is Mechanics in 4e, solely on the basis that it is in statblocks.
And you state it is fluff DESPITE being in statblocks. Yet offer no evidence that this is the case. You are arguing that it is the SOLE exception in statblocks with no proof of this. Perhaps something from the designers? Something definitive? Something from those same designers that ALSO design mechanics that interact directly with the alignment section of statblocks?
Seriously? SERIOUSLY???
Fine. Here, since you can't be bothered to actually read what I've written, let me re-iterate it for you in one place, clearly and concisely, with thw links where I've actually stated these things. One thesis statement with my initial support, and then two responses to the rebuttals made, both of which In My Opinion easily handled and dismissed the rebuttals.
Go onto the Online Compendium, and please find me the definition of the terms "Good" and/or "evil," or any other Alignment-related terminology.
You can find the definitions for Hidden. You can find the definitions for Swampwalk. You can find the definitions for anything and everything else listed in a statblock. (Yes, there's rules there for Corruption Points, from Vile Darkness; but there's still no definition whatsoever of Good or Evil.)
Therefore, Good and Evil are not "Mechanics." They are Fluff. And if the DM wishes to "refluff" them to fit whatever his world says they are, then so be it; it's not for you, I, or anyone else to say what is right or wrong.
Statistics are, simply put, numbers. Numbers are clearly definable, even when they are variable. They (numbers) can also be binary, which lends itself to Boolean thinking (ie, Is or Is Not). Conditions, by this interpretation, would also fall into this particular sort of thing, as something either Is or Is Not any given Condition (Prone, Invisible, Bloodied, etc). Conditions are easily definable, and (except in the occasional conflicting corner case) easily discernable (even in the occasional conflicting corner case, there's usually one obvious, logically provable, resolution).
Alignment is not Easily Definable. It's not listed in the Compendium. Definitions of each term can be vast, and can be left up to interpretation by any number of methods for any number of reasons.
For example, the rules you linked to state: "If you’re a good character, you believe it is right to aid and protect those in need."
Does this mean that somebody who believes that helping people to the point of dependency is detrimental to their well-being is Good or Not Good? Someone who believes that does not believe that it is always "right to aid and protect those in need," that there are times where forcing people to protect themselves is, in the Greater Good, the better action to take. But that means that they still think they are helping the person, by not actually helping them.
So, is that Good? Or is that Not Good?
~
No, it is defined in the links provided because someone (multiple someones) who probably didn't have a degree in philosophy or theology was paid to be an author and write Fiction. And what one of them who wrote the definition in one version of the game thought "Good" meant was different from what someone else who wrote another version of the game, and so forth.
I agree: There are Universal Truths. There are Universal Good and Universal Evil.
I disagree, however, with the definitions provided. They are not Good, and they are not Evil. They are what someone who I've never met, and whose own life experiences have shaded those things.
That is much a mechanic as "If the first attack doesn't kill it, the second one might." Which is also in the statblock (for the power Twin Strike). Are you claiming that that's a mechanic, too?
Alignment is different. Alignment is fluff. And until they put the definitions of Good and Evil and all the related garbage into the Compendium, I will continue to treat it as fluff, and do the same exact thing that I do with every other bit of downy fluff that is listed in the compendium: I'll use what I want and ignore what I want.
Ok. So because a theme gets a bonus to deal with "evil" people, that makes "evil" a mechanic?
Let's look at the Clay Scout's statblock: The clay scout gains a +4 bonus to attack rolls against targets adjacent to or carrying its guarded object.
Does this mean that the guarded object of the Clay Scout — which can be "stairs" or "bridge" or "door" or pretty much any other piece of decor in a particular area — is necessarily a Mechanic, simply because it's mention in the mechanics of a particular trait? The answer to that question would be "No."
Let's look at something even more relevant, another Theme — The Treasure Hunter, and their Treasure Sense power: Choose a single item. For the next hour, you gain a +4 power bonus to any knowledge check, Perception check, Streetwise check, or Thievery check that relates to finding or identifying that item.
Again, the item — which can be any MacGuffin the Treasure Hunter might be looking for — has no mechanical value. It simply is a trigger for whatever the Player might be looking for, as part of the DM's story. The item may not even exist, but simply be a rumor, for that matter.
Finally, let's look at a Feat, Slave Sympathy: You gain a +4 feat bonus to Streetwise checks in any settlement that has a significant population of slaves. You also gain a +2 feat bonus to Bluff, Diplomacy, Intimidate, and Sense Motive checks when using these skills upon a slave.
Terms like "slavery" and "slave" are pure Fluff. It's up to the DM (and/or the player) to decide when it applies and when it doesn't apply.
Does the Vile Scholar theme apply when you're dealing with any generic Kobold Miner? I shouldn't think so. Only a Kobold Miner that's actually "evil" should be involved — and I'm pretty sure that Doa-Pee, Basch-Phul, and Dokk aren't really likely to be "evil" characters in anyone's campaign. If they are, I have a severe sympathy for the people running things for Team Evil.
~
First, claiming the presence of Alignment in the Statblock makes it a mechanic is a Fallacy of Division. The assumption that individual parts have the same qualities as the whole solely because it is a part of the whole is invalid. (See my signature for a link to explain logical fallacies, if you're uncertain what I mean.) It is one which Yagami keeps making and I keep refuting. The fact that it is his sole argument regarding the "mechanics of Alignment" really puts him on thin ice, as far as I'm concerned.
Second, the PC can choose to Align with anyone or anything they want. Did that prevent Raistlin ("evil") from aligning with Sturm ("lawful good"), or vice versa? No. Even characters of the same "alignment" — Derek Crownguard and Sturm Brightblade — in the end could not ally, because of conflicts of personality. They were both Lawful Good; they were both convinced that they were right and the other was wrong. In their final stands, they acted against the other's interests and beliefs. Raistlin did more to forward Sturm's agenda than Derek ever did. So the ability to align one's self with someone or something else means naught, so far as I'm concerned.
• Ad Hominem— Attacking the person's circumstances, not addressing the argument. • Ad Hominem Abusive (Personal Attack)— Insulting the person, not addressing the argument. • Ad Hominem Tu Quoque— Saying the person's inconsistent, not addressing the argument. • Appeal to Authority/Belief/Common Practice/Consequence of a Belief/Emotion/Fear/Flattery/Novelty/Pity/Popularity/Ridicule/Spite/Tradition— Using emotion instead of Fact. • Bandwagon— Use of peer pressure. • Begging the Question— Assuming premises which haven't necessarily been agreed to. • Biased Sample— Using a sampling which may not properly represent the whole. • Burden of Proof— Shifting it to the wrong side. • Circumstantial Ad Hominem— Attacking the person's interests in supporting their argument. • Composition— Assuming that the whole has the same qualities as individual parts. • Confusing Cause & Effect— Assuming that one thing causes another because they appear in conjunction. • Division— Assuming that the individual parts have the same qualities as the whole. • False Dilemma— Assuming that only two options exist. • Gambler's Fallacy— Assuming the odds have changed because of past occurances • Genetic— Assuming a perceived defect in the origin of a claim is proof of a defect in the claim. • Guilt by Association— Attacking others who agree with the claim. • Hasty Generalization— Assuming a quality based on too small a sample size. • Ignoring the Common Cause— Assuming there is no outside cause of two connected things. • Middle Ground— Assuming the midpoint of two extremes must be correct. • Misleading Vividness— Assuming a colorful anecdote outweighs statistical evidence. • Poisoning the Well— Using unprovable claims about the person instead of addressing the argument. • Post Hoc— Assuming that something caused something else simply because it happened first. • Questionable Cause— Assuming that one thing causes another. • Red Herring— Using irrelevant evidence to divert a discussion. • Relativist Fallacy— Asserting that a claim may be true for some but not for the speaker. • Slippery Slope— Assuming the inevitability of one event based on another. • Special Pleading— Claiming exemption without justification. • Spotlight— Assuming individuals that get the most attention to be indicative of the whole. • Straw Man— Misrepresenting the opposing argument. • Two Wrongs Make a Right— Justifying something unethical/immoral as response or pre-emption to something else unethical/immoral.
Response to those who like to compare 4e to a Video GameShow
Also, I find that the "D&D 4e is like an MMO" argument is often a sign of someone who is deliberately being obtuse and/or is potentially ignorant of actual MMO play. As someone who only ended a 6-year World of Warcraft addiction a year ago, I can say that most of your bullet points actually don't match up to the truth of it.
In D&D 4e, you can choose a hybrid, you can choose to play one class as though it were another (people played Warlords as Bards frequently, when the edition first came out, and Rangers were refluffed to Monks), you can focus your class on its secondary role (a Warlock who is more controller than striker, for instance), you can multiclass, and you can create a particular concept (a mounted lancer, a charger, etc.) within the mechanics via feats, choice of powers, and choice of skills. You decide which set of stats you use--are you a Chaladin, Straladin, or Baladin?--and you have ultimate influence on how your character turns out in the end. Yes, powers require you to be using a particular weapon within your class's available selection, but the powers are not themselves tied to the gear. Powers tied to weapons or armor are typically powers that belong to the item, not to the character class that's most likely to use it.
Yes, there are only so many powers available, and these will be what you do in battle; this is all that the designers created. Yes, there is a time-frame in which they can be used; this has always been the case, even in the days of Vancian casting. Yes, there are suggested builds, but you can routinely ignore those if it pleases you; the only parts of a class you have to take are the class features, and even those have options at this point. But the only way that this can be considered at all conflatable with MMO character building/playing is if you are deliberately ignoring all of that.
In WoW, you choose a class and you're done. No multiclassing or hybridization, no way to mimic one class with careful building of a different one. There is a firm dividing line on what is a WoW class. No secondary roles or creative concepts, either; you're going to be what the class sets out to be, and that's it. You'll always have the same stat allocation as another of your class, because you get set numbers as you level up, and you've got at best four options--and that's only the Druid class--to build, and if you plan on running dungeons, particularly heroic level ones, or raiding, you'd better not even think of deviating from the single defined best build on the talent tree for what you want to do. It was only recently, with the complete tear-down and recreation of talent trees for Mists of Pandaria, that there was a concept of there being anything but the one best build that people who calculated such mechanical advantages (the folks on Elitist Jerks, for example), and the people who did things like achieve "World First" at various top-tier raids set precedent for.
Also, no class will ever not have a specific set of powers; all Priests in WoW have the same baseline, with deviation only based upon their talent tree specialization, where a D&D4e player could take whatever power in their class pleases them. Any Retribution Paladin will be the same as any other in terms of powers, because that is what a RetPally is. Any Assassination Rogue will always have the same powers as another, etc. All powers are always on specific cool-downs, but will always be there when they start a battle, where a 4e PC might enter an encounter with only At-Wills, or without their Daily powers due to what plot has done up until that point. Furthermore, no power that is not already specifically tied to an item will ever "require" you have that item, to my recollection. Classes get all their powers based on class; gear only gives bonuses to stats, possibly cuts down cast times for abilities or cooldowns, grants temporary extra bonuses to stats (the latter two most often on the raid tier equipment), and on rare occassions an extra power that may or may not be valuable, as some are only special effects instead of valuable abilities.
Most honest/open response on why DDN needs to be InclusiveShow
I've always felt it is in the best interests of D&D to be as inclusive across the playerbase as they can be and still have a game. I've never felt though that making a game that was inclusive within a group was very useful or even desirable. DM's and players can decide amongst themselves what options or restrictions they want for their games. I tend to lean to the DM to make most of those decisions but again that is a group specific thing.
Having said that. I get the distinct impression that there are a lot of players on these boards who come from groups that generally ruled against their own desires. It's almost like they are an oppressed minority from a gaming perspective. I also get the impression that they tend to advocate against things that if available their fellow group members might like and vote them down on.
Do a lot of you feel this way?
Just for clarification...here are some examples... 1. Alignment restrictions as an option. 2. Alignment Mechanics 3. Martial healing 4. Races being included or not.
I know my perspective is not that I often play at tables where my likes are not represented. Instead, my perspective comes from the many years I spent being a bad DM. I was a bad DM because my guidance came from the books, and the books gave bad advice. The books told me that alignment was a useful approach to roleplaying, so I went with it even though it felt kind of weird to me. Now I know that, at least in my style of running games, alignment destroys rp. I trusted the books to give good advice, and it messed up my game. Now I'm much more mature as a DM, so I know how to take advice with a grain of salt. And I still learn new stuff every session I run.
I don't want future DMs to go through my problems again. There's a big enough DM shortage as it is. DMing well is hard.
The biggest thing I had to unlearn in my process of becoming a good DM was the idea that the game is a simulation of a world. I understand many DMs prefer a more simulationist approach, although I am always skeptical simply because I would have said the same thing until I learned and grew as a DM. This doesn't mean their approach is completely invalid, but it still gives me a personal twinge when I see a regression back to 3e era sim style gaming.
I also have noticed many groups where one or two old-school players run a whole group's playstyle because the newer players aren't even aware there are other ways of doing things. The newer players tell me stories of things they hated in the session, and I end up explaining to them how those things they hate are very fixable, and in fact are fixed in the newer edition of the game their older players have told them is terrible.
In regard to things like martial healing, I don't think it's necessary for it to be in the game for the game to be fun. However, the attitude that says martial healing is terrible and shouldn't exist is an attitude that, to me, reveals a wrongheaded approach to the game. Therefore, my fight for it to be an option is to help legitimize the more narrative approach that I think is what most players want, but many don't know is possible, because they've never been exposed to it.
it feels at this point like if we're just going in this continuous loop over and over. Yagami just keeps trying to detour from having to show any kind of "burden of proof". Let's go kiddo ! Show us some proof of your claims already.. Or is it that you can't so you're just spewing fluff ?
"Non nobis Domine Sed nomini tuo da gloriam"
"I wish for death not because I want to die, but because I seek the war eternal"
... ALL THE DATA in a statblock, for some reason alignment is the lone exception in regards to it being mechanical.
Question: With a basic attack, how much damage does a longsword do?
Answer: In 4e, it all depends upon who's wielding it....
When a PC is wielding it, with certain exceptions it's 1d8 + Strength modifier. When a NPC is wielding it, the fact that it is a longsword has absolutely no bearing on the amount of damage. It could be a mace, a dagger, a greatsword, or whatever. In fact, based on recommendations in the DMG, it shouldn't even matter if it's enchanted or not.
Furthermore, after a certain point players don't seem to really care about looting for mundane equipment anymore. It doesn't really matter what sort of armor they're wearing, or weapons they're wielding, or anything like that. At least not until it matters, and then the DM can read from the list or make it up. It. Is. Fluff.
On the same note, the names of powers are also Fluff. They can be used by
Further evidence if this: Compare the statblocks of the Human Guard from the Monster Manual and the Bandit Leader from the Forgotten Realms Campaign Guide. One wields a halberd (12 lbs, axe), the other wields a longspear (9 lbs, spear). One has Sweeping Strike, the other has Powerful Strike. One has some thieves tools and a key. One is Any Alignment, one is Evil.
But, from a Statistical — ie, Numerical — point of view, they are exactly Identical. They have the same defenses. They have the same attacks — even "Powerful Strike" and "Sweeping Strike" are exactly identical, in both damage, conditions, and usage.
These differences are therefore cosmetic. They are simply words which, in the end, don't mean much of anything. They. Are. Fluff.
Therefore, in the context of monster's statblock, Alignment is not the only Fluff present. Power Names and Eequipment are both fluff as well, for the purposes of the statblock, and have no bearing on anything. They do not effect any of the numbers. They don't effect any of the mechanics. They are there simply to give name and/or suggestions to things, nothing else.
Thus, Alignment is Not the Only Fluff in Mechanics. And thus that argument is no longer valid, even if it wasn't fallacious.
• Ad Hominem— Attacking the person's circumstances, not addressing the argument. • Ad Hominem Abusive (Personal Attack)— Insulting the person, not addressing the argument. • Ad Hominem Tu Quoque— Saying the person's inconsistent, not addressing the argument. • Appeal to Authority/Belief/Common Practice/Consequence of a Belief/Emotion/Fear/Flattery/Novelty/Pity/Popularity/Ridicule/Spite/Tradition— Using emotion instead of Fact. • Bandwagon— Use of peer pressure. • Begging the Question— Assuming premises which haven't necessarily been agreed to. • Biased Sample— Using a sampling which may not properly represent the whole. • Burden of Proof— Shifting it to the wrong side. • Circumstantial Ad Hominem— Attacking the person's interests in supporting their argument. • Composition— Assuming that the whole has the same qualities as individual parts. • Confusing Cause & Effect— Assuming that one thing causes another because they appear in conjunction. • Division— Assuming that the individual parts have the same qualities as the whole. • False Dilemma— Assuming that only two options exist. • Gambler's Fallacy— Assuming the odds have changed because of past occurances • Genetic— Assuming a perceived defect in the origin of a claim is proof of a defect in the claim. • Guilt by Association— Attacking others who agree with the claim. • Hasty Generalization— Assuming a quality based on too small a sample size. • Ignoring the Common Cause— Assuming there is no outside cause of two connected things. • Middle Ground— Assuming the midpoint of two extremes must be correct. • Misleading Vividness— Assuming a colorful anecdote outweighs statistical evidence. • Poisoning the Well— Using unprovable claims about the person instead of addressing the argument. • Post Hoc— Assuming that something caused something else simply because it happened first. • Questionable Cause— Assuming that one thing causes another. • Red Herring— Using irrelevant evidence to divert a discussion. • Relativist Fallacy— Asserting that a claim may be true for some but not for the speaker. • Slippery Slope— Assuming the inevitability of one event based on another. • Special Pleading— Claiming exemption without justification. • Spotlight— Assuming individuals that get the most attention to be indicative of the whole. • Straw Man— Misrepresenting the opposing argument. • Two Wrongs Make a Right— Justifying something unethical/immoral as response or pre-emption to something else unethical/immoral.
Response to those who like to compare 4e to a Video GameShow
Also, I find that the "D&D 4e is like an MMO" argument is often a sign of someone who is deliberately being obtuse and/or is potentially ignorant of actual MMO play. As someone who only ended a 6-year World of Warcraft addiction a year ago, I can say that most of your bullet points actually don't match up to the truth of it.
In D&D 4e, you can choose a hybrid, you can choose to play one class as though it were another (people played Warlords as Bards frequently, when the edition first came out, and Rangers were refluffed to Monks), you can focus your class on its secondary role (a Warlock who is more controller than striker, for instance), you can multiclass, and you can create a particular concept (a mounted lancer, a charger, etc.) within the mechanics via feats, choice of powers, and choice of skills. You decide which set of stats you use--are you a Chaladin, Straladin, or Baladin?--and you have ultimate influence on how your character turns out in the end. Yes, powers require you to be using a particular weapon within your class's available selection, but the powers are not themselves tied to the gear. Powers tied to weapons or armor are typically powers that belong to the item, not to the character class that's most likely to use it.
Yes, there are only so many powers available, and these will be what you do in battle; this is all that the designers created. Yes, there is a time-frame in which they can be used; this has always been the case, even in the days of Vancian casting. Yes, there are suggested builds, but you can routinely ignore those if it pleases you; the only parts of a class you have to take are the class features, and even those have options at this point. But the only way that this can be considered at all conflatable with MMO character building/playing is if you are deliberately ignoring all of that.
In WoW, you choose a class and you're done. No multiclassing or hybridization, no way to mimic one class with careful building of a different one. There is a firm dividing line on what is a WoW class. No secondary roles or creative concepts, either; you're going to be what the class sets out to be, and that's it. You'll always have the same stat allocation as another of your class, because you get set numbers as you level up, and you've got at best four options--and that's only the Druid class--to build, and if you plan on running dungeons, particularly heroic level ones, or raiding, you'd better not even think of deviating from the single defined best build on the talent tree for what you want to do. It was only recently, with the complete tear-down and recreation of talent trees for Mists of Pandaria, that there was a concept of there being anything but the one best build that people who calculated such mechanical advantages (the folks on Elitist Jerks, for example), and the people who did things like achieve "World First" at various top-tier raids set precedent for.
Also, no class will ever not have a specific set of powers; all Priests in WoW have the same baseline, with deviation only based upon their talent tree specialization, where a D&D4e player could take whatever power in their class pleases them. Any Retribution Paladin will be the same as any other in terms of powers, because that is what a RetPally is. Any Assassination Rogue will always have the same powers as another, etc. All powers are always on specific cool-downs, but will always be there when they start a battle, where a 4e PC might enter an encounter with only At-Wills, or without their Daily powers due to what plot has done up until that point. Furthermore, no power that is not already specifically tied to an item will ever "require" you have that item, to my recollection. Classes get all their powers based on class; gear only gives bonuses to stats, possibly cuts down cast times for abilities or cooldowns, grants temporary extra bonuses to stats (the latter two most often on the raid tier equipment), and on rare occassions an extra power that may or may not be valuable, as some are only special effects instead of valuable abilities.
Most honest/open response on why DDN needs to be InclusiveShow
I've always felt it is in the best interests of D&D to be as inclusive across the playerbase as they can be and still have a game. I've never felt though that making a game that was inclusive within a group was very useful or even desirable. DM's and players can decide amongst themselves what options or restrictions they want for their games. I tend to lean to the DM to make most of those decisions but again that is a group specific thing.
Having said that. I get the distinct impression that there are a lot of players on these boards who come from groups that generally ruled against their own desires. It's almost like they are an oppressed minority from a gaming perspective. I also get the impression that they tend to advocate against things that if available their fellow group members might like and vote them down on.
Do a lot of you feel this way?
Just for clarification...here are some examples... 1. Alignment restrictions as an option. 2. Alignment Mechanics 3. Martial healing 4. Races being included or not.
I know my perspective is not that I often play at tables where my likes are not represented. Instead, my perspective comes from the many years I spent being a bad DM. I was a bad DM because my guidance came from the books, and the books gave bad advice. The books told me that alignment was a useful approach to roleplaying, so I went with it even though it felt kind of weird to me. Now I know that, at least in my style of running games, alignment destroys rp. I trusted the books to give good advice, and it messed up my game. Now I'm much more mature as a DM, so I know how to take advice with a grain of salt. And I still learn new stuff every session I run.
I don't want future DMs to go through my problems again. There's a big enough DM shortage as it is. DMing well is hard.
The biggest thing I had to unlearn in my process of becoming a good DM was the idea that the game is a simulation of a world. I understand many DMs prefer a more simulationist approach, although I am always skeptical simply because I would have said the same thing until I learned and grew as a DM. This doesn't mean their approach is completely invalid, but it still gives me a personal twinge when I see a regression back to 3e era sim style gaming.
I also have noticed many groups where one or two old-school players run a whole group's playstyle because the newer players aren't even aware there are other ways of doing things. The newer players tell me stories of things they hated in the session, and I end up explaining to them how those things they hate are very fixable, and in fact are fixed in the newer edition of the game their older players have told them is terrible.
In regard to things like martial healing, I don't think it's necessary for it to be in the game for the game to be fun. However, the attitude that says martial healing is terrible and shouldn't exist is an attitude that, to me, reveals a wrongheaded approach to the game. Therefore, my fight for it to be an option is to help legitimize the more narrative approach that I think is what most players want, but many don't know is possible, because they've never been exposed to it.
And I get how it seems like I'm seeing a difference where none should exist. The realist approach is that when you do something, something else happens, like a law of physics. Do something in-game that someone in-game doesn't want you do to, and they will make your life harder, though there's a strong expectation that you'll succeed anyway. Works in a dungeon, why not anywhere else.
How as a DM have realstic consequences be seen as seperate from character action punishment? I would have PMed you this but I think it might help others on the forums if you gave your opinion here.
I ran a 3.5 game some years ago in which a player declared he was going to play an evil character. Alright, I said. During an encounter, the party was separated, and this character came across a drunk. Tripped over him, in fact. The evil PC killed the drunk. Nowadays I might ask what the player thought should come of that, but back them I simply let it go and forgot about it. Plausibly no one saw it, and plausibly no one would care if they found the drunk dead. The character was evil, but even if he hadn't been, I'm not sure I would have bothered with any repercussions. No, it's not realism to punish characters for a particular action. It's deliberate disincentive, because the DM doesn't like the action.
Questions, more for my attempt at understanding your points and opinions than anything else:
Would having another NPC or PC witness to this event of the drunk changed how you had it play out?
You stated that now you might ask the player of the outcome. Would you have done after game was finished that night or right there during game?
I intrepret your statements as that currently you ask the player(s) what thier intrepretation of the outcome should be depending on certian actions in-game. Am I correct?
If another character sees the action of another character that player beleives that action requires consequences but the player performing the action does not, how do you as DM deal with the issue?
What if its multiples character(s) witness said action and those other players seeing as the action as requiring consequences in-game and the acting player doesn not? How do you as a DM deal with that issue?
These questions are not to put you on the spot, I would like to see how you would deal with these questions/issues. If you are not comfortable with posting them on the forums please PM me your answers/opinion on them.
And I get how it seems like I'm seeing a difference where none should exist. The realist approach is that when you do something, something else happens, like a law of physics. Do something in-game that someone in-game doesn't want you do to, and they will make your life harder, though there's a strong expectation that you'll succeed anyway. Works in a dungeon, why not anywhere else.
How as a DM have realstic consequences be seen as seperate from character action punishment?
In general, a realistic consequence is separate from punishment if the consequence provides an interesting and entertaining outcome, rather than a boring outcome.
The interesting, entertaining outcome won't always be easy to see. It might be necessary for the DM to stop and think, or to ask for ideas from around the table. If the DM is unwilling to do this, and can't find a way for the game to proceed that doesn't involve things like capturing and torturing the character, then even if the DM has the best intentions they should explain to the player that the action poses a problem and could they please find another way. This is the honest and mature thing to do, and will build up trust, rather than destroying it.
Questions, more for my attempt at understanding your points and opinions than anything else:
Would having another NPC or PC witness to this event of the drunk changed how you had it play out?
Yes. In the case of a PC witness, I might have had other input to consider, unless that character just shrugged it off. If it's an NPC, I'd like to have the NPC react in some way.
You stated that now you might ask the player of the outcome. Would you have done after game was finished that night or right there during game?
Probably right then. It's an interesting character choice, if a bit obvious, and I would be interested to know what it meant to the player in terms of the character, and the rest of the world.
If there were an NPC witness, I might like help deciding on an interesting way for the NPC to react.
I intrepret your statements as that currently you ask the player(s) what thier intrepretation of the outcome should be depending on certian actions in-game. Am I correct?
Unless I can come up with a way on my own for the outcome to be interesting, yes, I'll ask the players. Often, I need some clarification to see what they're after and they need some feedback from me to help make it interesting.
If another character sees the action of another character that player beleives that action requires consequences but the player performing the action does not, how do you as DM deal with the issue?
If the other player wanted to take in-party action against the first player, I would have had to intervene. Nowadays, I would have the players work out what goes on between their characters, but I'm not sure that had occurred to me back then. The point is that the players would remain collaborating friends, even if their characters were enemies.
What if its multiples character(s) witness said action and those other players seeing as the action as requiring consequences in-game and the acting player doesn not? How do you as a DM deal with that issue?
Same as above. Discussion.
Now, some players might have a real issue with some particular in game action. That happens. I've had players take me aside and express displeasure at something another player has done. But the point is that this can't be fixed in-game. Lots of times it can't even be fixed out-of-game and it's necessary to part ways. But that can only be determined through discussion between players.
Thanks for asking these questions. I've thought a lot about them, and discussing them always helps me refine my responses.
[N]o difference is less easily overcome than the difference of opinion about semi-abstract questions. - L. Tolstoy
)
