tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3871409676946408069.post325447751130194616..comments2023-10-14T03:58:59.333-06:00Comments on The Tao of D&D: DMs Changing the GoalpostsAlexis Smolenskhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10539170107563075967noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3871409676946408069.post-61760026663613510622016-02-16T14:43:28.709-07:002016-02-16T14:43:28.709-07:00Well, I don't think you're a troll, Mujada...Well, I don't think you're a troll, Mujadaddy. But you've been commenting on my blog for a couple of years now and you seem hell bent on proving to me that I don't mean the words I'm choosing to use.<br /><br />I really don't understand what's implied by "lock-step agreement" and "echo chamber" - nor do I care why you brought up the contrary position.<br /><br />Of course Kane would have been screwed if such and such had happened; he'd have been screwed if a meteor had hit the ship too. He'd have been screwed if the crew had lynched him and if he had contracted a tumor that killed him. It isn't relevant to describe any of the ways he could have been screwed.<br /><br />What makes the Kane story a good tale? It is that he was beset with troubles that could have destroyed him and his men but did not. As a DM, when I look at what sort of troubles I want to give a party, I am looking for the sort of troubles that COULD kill them but won't necessarily do so. I am not looking for options for failure; if failure occurs, it will happen because the party does not act sufficiently well in the face of that thing that could kill them. When you express the game in terms of your quote - "you don't seem to be ALLOWING" - you imply that either I am giving the party a free pass (which I'm not) or that the gameworld I'm presenting isn't dangerous enough to kill them because the way I design my dangers are not the way you would design YOUR dangers, because of YOUR argument that the wilderness is dangerous in a specific way that YOU design.<br /><br />There is more in heaven and earth, Mujadaddy, than is defined in your philosophy.<br /><br />I'm willing to try to explain this to you, again and again, but it's a worthless effort if you can't read the words I'm using and parse your arguments according to my message and not your prejudices.<br /><br />The reason I don't think you're a troll is because your arguments are real and considered and because, for the most part, you don't make the same ones over and over - but now and then, if you're just not getting what I'm saying, you have to let it go. If I'm wrong, you don't have to prove it to me.<br /><br />The universe will do that for you.<br />Alexis Smolenskhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10539170107563075967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3871409676946408069.post-69356745224052410202016-02-16T14:40:09.364-07:002016-02-16T14:40:09.364-07:00@Jeremiah Scott:
Jump scares "work" aga...@Jeremiah Scott:<br /><br />Jump scares "work" against the reptile brain/fight-or-flight instinct system: unexpected sensory input must be processed by this system before the full 1.5kg of gray matter can be engaged to react.<br /><br />It's almost impossible to do this at the table. As you mention, noticeable lulls tend to imply the opposite is pending. (Alexis mentions striving to keep his descriptive language delivery flat, so as not to expose the future before it happens.)<br /><br />Those of us running for "seasoned viewers" have to strive constantly to prevent staleness of technique. Mujadaddyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07698839746240695386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3871409676946408069.post-13864192759105349772016-02-16T14:15:23.850-07:002016-02-16T14:15:23.850-07:00"the Inuit didn't help"
Yes, I spec...<i>"the Inuit didn't help"</i><br /><br />Yes, I specifically brought up the contrary position to raise the idea of how screwed Kane could have been if a few tribesmen had felt wicked one winter evening. The question was, <i>"What happens to Kane if the natives are actively working against him?"</i>, and the answer looks fatal to me.<br /><br /><i>"Your tendency to propose the contrary is telling."</i><br /><br />Lock-step agreement and the "echo chamber" phenomenon don't interest me. You have good ideas, and you can defend them. Naturally, in service to rounding out my own ideas, I attempt to draw attention to the untamed hexes of your posts. I think we both get something out of the discussions.Mujadaddyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07698839746240695386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3871409676946408069.post-23408834626868867772016-02-16T07:35:15.647-07:002016-02-16T07:35:15.647-07:00The wilderness is dangerous, which is why mankind ...The wilderness is dangerous, which is why mankind has tamed it with logistics and forethought. The wilderness doesn't have those, and it's only the 1.5kg of gray matter that allows mankind to survive in a world that is decidedly unfriendly to us.<br /><br />Doughttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15657793356913767894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3871409676946408069.post-57363320943730389282016-02-15T18:15:43.520-07:002016-02-15T18:15:43.520-07:00You'll notice, Mujadaddy, that the Inuit didn&...You'll notice, Mujadaddy, that the Inuit didn't work against Kane. That is part of the point. They just didn't help.<br /><br />Your tendency to propose the contrary is telling.Alexis Smolenskhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10539170107563075967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3871409676946408069.post-23378259915561449862016-02-15T17:26:12.745-07:002016-02-15T17:26:12.745-07:00This has caused me a lot of pain as DM. But you ar...This has caused me a lot of pain as DM. But you are absolutely right, throwing absurd things at the party to try and pump up the excitement has the exact opposite effect. And your players usually see it coming. "Things are getting a bit slow now. A huge monster is bound to jump out any minute." It reminds me of the shock scenes in campy horror films. The seasoned viewer will know precisely when they are coming and all the director's work will fall flat.<br /><br />The other part to this, of course, is when the DM becomes adversarial with the group. That, to me, is a tragedy far too common. It's one thing to create a world or setting you know will rough up even experienced parties--it's another thing altogether to abuse your party simply because they out-maneuvered you, out-smarted you and ruined your fancy plans. That's DM malpractice and I see it all too often.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11448562408805027225noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3871409676946408069.post-26222621136296294852016-02-15T16:01:26.657-07:002016-02-15T16:01:26.657-07:00"Mujadaddy's question is borne of one thi...<i>"Mujadaddy's question is borne of one thing: a fixed belief that every effort and every innovation by the players MUST be seen in terms of the potential for the DM to smash it all to pieces"</i><br /><br />Certainly the phenomenon you mention occurs. I wasn't suggesting that Weeping Angels pull up the tent stakes and poison the water every time the players blink. And I wouldn't suggest inserting something not natural to the area, and players who have been careful in their scouting of course should be rewarded for it. <br /><br />I was thinking that all that activity in the valley might attract more attention than a few scout parties around the perimeter. Call the attention a wandering monster check, if you must; it doesn't seem vindictive on its face to me at all.<br /><br /><i>"His mistake was that he insulted the one group that could have sustained him through the winter"</i><br /><br />Now we're talking; I'd left your 100 orcs wandering about. What happens to Kane if the natives are actively working against him? Again, I'm not suggesting inventing orcs to thwart the players, or hiding them from all detection because the players have "beaten" you, only that knowing that there are bears and orcs somewhere in a valley doesn't turn a hex "clear".Mujadaddyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07698839746240695386noreply@blogger.com