The Gazebo Problem

[Pex]

For those who are not familiar or would like to read it again: https://web.archive.org/web/20080804140516/http://www.dreadgazebo.com/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=8

Was the Player wrong? Was the DM wrong?

Player wrong: attacking something without provocation presuming it hostile

These are players who attack everything, never engaging in discussion with NPCs or exploring the environment. They just want to fight.

DM wrong: Not explaining to a player what something is when it's clear the player hasn't a clue what he's talking about.

These are DMs who never reveal information. They hold Knowledge as a secret. Players may never know anything until the DM determines they've earned the privilege, if ever. In the meantime they get their jollies as the players play the world in total ignorance and the hilarious shenanigans that happen as a result.

[Mastikator]

They say that Theory of Mind is something you learn early as a kid but I've found that being mindful of the fact that other people don't know what you take for granted requires effort- effort that not everyone wants to exert all the time. Effort is a finite resource and a DM's job can be very mentally taxing. The player isn't just wrong for attacking something that isn't hostile, the player is ALSO wrong for not asking "what do you mean 'it's a gazebo'". If in doubt always ask for clarification

[Silly Name]

I always saw that story as an hilarious example of miscommunication on both sides. Well, I guess the DM had a bit of fun at the end by sort of playing along, but it's not really a scenario that I'd find aggravating.

The player was in the wrong to assume that "gazebo" was some sort of monster and immediately tried to use force on it (although Eric first tried to detect good, so I guess that counts for something), and the DM was a bit slow to pick up on the misunderstanding (although I can see why he was baffled and couldn't understand).

I wouldn't call Eric a murderhobo type of player: despite his mistake, readying the exchange he actually tried to consider different routes and tried to call out to the dread gazebo before attacking it, but erroneously concluded that he was facing a terrible monster and tried to run away.

[Florian]

In a sense, both were wrong.

Our hobby makes heavy use of verbal communication to transfer data, mostly in the form of descriptions.
There´s the general sender-receiver problem, that the sender can never know whether the receiver reached the data in a form comprehensible to them. In reverse, the receiver can never know whether they understood the sender correctly. Well, that is, without enquiry on both sides. A simple "What the eff is a gazebo?" would have helped, as would have noticing that the is miscommunication happening and clear that up with a "You guys know that a gazebo is a piece of architecture?"

[King of Nowhere]

I wouldn't call Eric a murderhobo type of player: despite his mistake, readying the exchange he actually tried to consider different routes and tried to call out to the dread gazebo before attacking it,

so, eric would have attacked a true neutral deaf person. or a mute person. or a person who wasn't paying attention. or a foreigner who didn't understand that the shouting guy was talking to him.
i call that murderhoboing

[Silly Name]

so, eric would have attacked a true neutral deaf person. or a mute person. or a person who wasn't paying attention. or a foreigner who didn't understand that the shouting guy was talking to him.
i call that murderhoboing

I mean, I wouldn't know, because I've never played with the guy. My point is that he acted on the wrong assumption that "gazebo" was some sort of monster. If the DM described a guy sitting on a bench but not responding to any vocal calls, I suspect Eric wouldn't have shot him.

The thing is, this is no problem at all. It's an humorous gaming anecdote about miscommunication and misunderstanding, which caused zero problems at the table except from spending some time laughing about it.

[Frogreaver]

It was apparent to anyone knowing what a gazebo is that when Eric called out to it that he didn't. When your players should know what something is and it's clear they don't then it's on you for leaving them in that situation.

Of course there is nothing inherently wrong in letting the party have some laughs at ignorant Eric's expense.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Descriptions are lossy and bandwidth limited. And leverage background knowledge to be effective. So even the best description can engender confusion. And the basic fact is that the characters know a whole lot more about the situation than the players do.

As a result, I have a rule of thumb/heuristic. If a player says that he wants his character to do something that the character would know is impossible or really really dumb, it's a sign of something missing in the understanding of the scene and/or world. So I stop, clarify, and ask "is that what you want to do". Because characters are allowed to attempt the impossible and the really really dumb, but I'd rather that the players don't do it by accident or thinking it's rational.

Things like

Player: "I swing off the chandelier and..." (despite there not being a chandelier in the room at all).
DM: "uh...you do know that there isn't a chandelier in here?"

DM: "The lesser moon is about halfway up in the sky..."
Player: "A second moon? It must be a Death Star!"
DM: "Uh, you do remember that this world naturally has two moons?"

All the way down to the gazebo incident, where at the first sign of confusion the DM should have stopped, asked if he knew what a gazebo was, and backfilled if necessary.

Edit: And players have the same obligation. If they're confused, they should ask questions and make that confusion evident. This relies on a good, trusting relationship with the DM, but then so does everything useful in the hobby.

[Max_Killjoy]

They say that Theory of Mind is something you learn early as a kid but I've found that being mindful of the fact that other people don't know what you take for granted requires effort- effort that not everyone wants to exert all the time. Effort is a finite resource and a DM's job can be very mentally taxing. The player isn't just wrong for attacking something that isn't hostile, the player is ALSO wrong for not asking "what do you mean 'it's a gazebo'". If in doubt always ask for clarification

I have a friend in his 40s who STILL hasn't mastered the fact that other people don't automatically know what he knows, and it makes the games he GMs an exercise in frustration sometimes.

[False God]

There's something about this story that I always find disingenuous, since Eric's first question is "What color is it?"
If you don't know what something is, why does its color matter?

Further, the description of Eric doesn't fit with the actions of Eric. The presented Eric in the preface description describes Eric as methodical to the point of computer-like. Additionally, Eric is playing a Neutral Paladin, the in-game actions of which again don't fit. At any point in Eric's line of questioning "What is a gazebo?" should have entered into the dialogue, especially if the Eric described is accurate.

If Eric is using color, size, and distance to gauge what a gazebo is, then the description of its dimensions should have given a hint that a gazebo is a structure.

Why does Eric ask if the gazebo responds to his bow, when he already had his sword out? He doesn't ask if the gazebo has spotted him, which even if it were alive, would be a requirement to responding to the visual display of Eric drawing his bow.

Towards the end when the DM suggests that Eric could chop it down, Eric, being "methodical" and "computer-like" should have at least reasoned he was possibly dealing with a building.

Nothing about the gameplay of Eric suggests "methodical" and "computer like". Nor does it strike me as the behaviour of a Neutral Paladin.

So, that being said: I question the validity of the example and conclude that neither side can be right or wrong since the whole thing is farcical.

[Frogreaver]

Edit: And players have the same obligation. If they're confused, they should ask questions and make that confusion evident. This relies on a good, trusting relationship with the DM, but then so does everything useful in the hobby.

In principle sure. In practice they don't know what they don't know and in cases like this everyone else is going to realize they are confused long before they do.

[MoiMagnus]

There's something about this story that I always find disingenuous, since Eric's first question is "What color is it?"
If you don't know what something is, why does its color matter?

First, the author note:


It was based on an event at a role-playing game, but the addition of several jokes moves it out of journalism, or at least into Docuhumor. Some of the people at the game retold the event, each with their own spin.

So you are right to question the details of the interaction.

Assuming the spirit of the interaction described is preserved by those modification, my guess is that Eric did not just "not understand" what a Gazebo was, he was convinced to know what a Gazebo was and was wrong.

While it doesn't match the exact story, I could totally imagine someone confusing Gazebo and Gargoyles.
If Eric indeed asked for its colour, I would guess that maybe he though a Gazebo was a kind of Dragon? (I don't know a lot of other creatures where the colour is relevant).

[Note: I'm wondering if the fact that a Gazebo is a monster in Munchkin, which you must face alone without help, is a reference to this story.]

[Pex]

In my usual bias I'm more bothered by the DM who refuses to tell the players anything. It goes beyond not wanting metagaming. It's gotcha DMing. These DMs love saying "You don't know". It was common practice in my 2E years. Hooray for 3E for introducing Knowledge checks. Players don't have to know everything, but however skills are used in an edition now at least there's a method to determine what characters know the players don't know. Characters know about things players don't, the reverse metagame, but it's relevant. Players are supposed to know these things. The game needed to teach this to DMs. Players are able to teach the players who wantonly attack anything that moves, or doesn't, not to do so.

[PhoenixPhyre]

In principle sure. In practice they don't know what they don't know and in cases like this everyone else is going to realize they are confused long before they do.

I was a teacher for 7 years. Often, people do know that they're confused. Edit: but they might not know exactly what they're confused about. But for various reasons (including bravado/not wanting to look dumb), they're unwilling to ask. It's often a "well, everyone else seems to get it, so I'll fake it and figure it out from context" thing. Getting over this hesitation is important. And not reacting badly when someone (anyone) asks "are you sure you know what that is?" or "any questions about the scenario?" or such things to prompt an honest question. That's also important.

Being willing to accept that you don't know takes trust in the other players and in the DM. And in yourself. But it's a key part of being in a good group IMO. From both/all sides. The DM shouldn't assume--if it's unclear if they understand, ask. The players should do the same.

I hate gotcha-style DMing. And the flip side, where players try to pull a fast one on the DM. I much prefer when everyone treats everyone else as being on the same team and works together to help the characters experience a great story, the story they're building together. Half the time, the players have a better chain of events in mind than I do. Or a better explanation of why the events are unfolding the way that they are. Or where they should reasonably go. And I want to hear that and be able to be a part of it and build the connections to the world I've been working on for all these years.

[Storm_Of_Snow]

I was a teacher for 7 years. Often, people do know that they're confused. Edit: but they might not know exactly what they're confused about. But for various reasons (including bravado/not wanting to look dumb), they're unwilling to ask. It's often a "well, everyone else seems to get it, so I'll fake it and figure it out from context" thing. Getting over this hesitation is important. And not reacting badly when someone (anyone) asks "are you sure you know what that is?" or "any questions about the scenario?" or such things to prompt an honest question. That's also important.
As someone who works in IT, I've seen a lot of times where someone's said "Yes" when asked "Do you understand this?" for a change or a new feature, when the question they really should have been asked is "What do you understand by this?"

That said, yes, with the Gazebo, the player and the DM were on completely different wavelengths and one or both of them should have pulled it back, but sometimes, and so long as no one's really obsessed with keeping it serious, you can have a much better time when things go completely off the rails - for example, many, many years ago I was playing Rolemaster, we had been walking through a wood and I thought we still were when we came across some creature, so I stated I was going to climb a tree to avoid it.

300 feet of thin air later... :smallbiggrin:

[PhoenixPhyre]

As someone who works in IT, I've seen a lot of times where someone's said "Yes" when asked "Do you understand this?" for a change or a new feature, when the question they really should have been asked is "What do you understand by this?"


True enough. Yes/no questions are generally bad for actually figuring out what other people know.

[Tanarii]

DM was wrong. "Gazebo" is very clearly the name of a Type III demon's older more dangerous cousin.

Seriously though, DMs use name drops for their monster names in exactly that way all the time. Whereas player expect to be given minimal information about a dangerous situation and to have to figure it out from there and act accordingly. As far as I'm concerned, that's the moral of this fiction. It's a cautionary tale to DMs.

[Segev]

[Note: I'm wondering if the fact that a Gazebo is a monster in Munchkin, which you must face alone without help, is a reference to this story.]

It absolutely is.

And I suspect he thought it was some sort of fiend; they often have weird names and the color can be significant. Abashai and Slaadi come to mind. (Slaadi aren’t fiends, but close enough)

He might have misheard it as a name and assumed it was a specific, named dragon, too.

The story is a humorous one of miscommunication, yes. I don’t fault anybody over anyone else for it. The DM clearly thought “gazebo” was as clear as “door” or “fountain” would be, and thus the idea that Eric didn’t realize exactly what it was never occurred to him beyond the possibility that he’d misheard (hence “It’s a GAZEBO.”).

[PhoenixPhyre]

Seriously though, DMs use name drop their monster names exactly that way all the time. Whereas player expect to be given minimal information about a dangerous situation and figure it out from there. As far as I'm concerned, that's the moral of this fiction. It's a cautionary tale to DMs.

I can go with that. I try to avoid using the MM names where possible, in part because I'm generally using a stat block as a stand-in for something entirely different in-universe (due to setting things, I mix and match fiends across the spectrum pretty heavily, but not just them).

The jump from "oh, it's something with a weird name" to "it's probably a monster" isn't so high when that's been a staple of gameplay for many session.

[Tanarii]

The jump from "oh, it's something with a weird name" to "it's probably a monster" isn't so high when that's been a staple of gameplay for many session.
Yes exactly. Especially, if tales are anything to go by, in '70s gaming. Even by the mid-80s most of us at the lunch break gaming group had probably read the monster manual back to front before our second session. :smallamused:

But as someone who strongly recruited newcomers in my college years, and also had a lot of college attending newcomers in my latest campaign, I'm very aware of the need for a DM to be careful about presuming existing player knowledge about the game.

That's not to say that knowledge and information should be thrown out like candy. Discovery is a hugely exciting part of the newcomer process. As long as the information is actually there to be discovered, and critical stuff every commoner should know isn't being hidden.

[Florian]

I can go with that. I try to avoid using the MM names where possible, in part because I'm generally using a stat block as a stand-in for something entirely different in-universe (due to setting things, I mix and match fiends across the spectrum pretty heavily, but not just them).

The jump from "oh, it's something with a weird name" to "it's probably a monster" isn't so high when that's been a staple of gameplay for many session.

I think this is very setting/game dependent and there's no universal answer to it.

For example, in Shadowrun, very much is known and knowledge easily available. Announcing something to be unknown is telling something major about what is going on. For example, when I say "You see three folks in standard Red Samurai heavy assault armor, typical equipment of katana, assault rifle, assorted grenades and the rest, all sporting legit tags and insignia, accompanied by something that seems to be a heavy tracked combat drone with something that could be a railgun on the turret..."

Contrast this with L5R, which sports a very insular civilization and next to no commonly available knowledge. "Your path s blocked by a guy who looks like a sohei or yamabushi. Tall, pretty muscular, powerful build, he wears a full set of Great Armor and handles a heavy-looking Naginata with lazy, one-handed swings. You can't see his face, covered by something like a Kifiya, but apparently, he is in the center stance."

In this example, Characters have the ability to gain information beyond the visual, but tightly tied to their respective school and clan. So the Crab could find out he is Tainted, the Scorpion could find it his negative traits, the crane could tell that this is someone from the Spider Clan, Order of Venom.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I think this is very setting/game dependent and there's no universal answer to it.


Agree.

I'm generally pretty giving with things that the characters have encountered before or that should be common adventurer knowledge in the area. I still don't use names alone, but that's mostly because my players tend to be new and are unlikely to know anything beyond "that thing has a name". Of course, my nephews had the names/pictures of most of the MM memorized (not the stats, but...) and would ask "was that a <X>?" and most of the time were right.

But there are lots of things that don't come so neatly standardized. Going back to fiends, I've always thought it weird that D&D demons, the embodiments of evil-chaos itself, are so nicely packaged. There are hierarchies, clear-cut similarities, common traits, etc. Same with slaadi. If they're creatures of pure chaos...why are they all rainbow frogs?

[Quertus]

It was apparent to anyone knowing what a gazebo is that when Eric called out to it that he didn't. When your players should know what something is and it's clear they don't then it's on you for leaving them in that situation.

Of course there is nothing inherently wrong in letting the party have some laughs at ignorant Eric's expense.


Descriptions are lossy and bandwidth limited. And leverage background knowledge to be effective. So even the best description can engender confusion. And the basic fact is that the characters know a whole lot more about the situation than the players do.

As a result, I have a rule of thumb/heuristic. If a player says that he wants his character to do something that the character would know is impossible or really really dumb, it's a sign of something missing in the understanding of the scene and/or world. So I stop, clarify, and ask "is that what you want to do". Because characters are allowed to attempt the impossible and the really really dumb, but I'd rather that the players don't do it by accident or thinking it's rational.

Things like

Player: "I swing off the chandelier and..." (despite there not being a chandelier in the room at all).
DM: "uh...you do know that there isn't a chandelier in here?"

DM: "The lesser moon is about halfway up in the sky..."
Player: "A second moon? It must be a Death Star!"
DM: "Uh, you do remember that this world naturally has two moons?"

All the way down to the gazebo incident, where at the first sign of confusion the DM should have stopped, asked if he knew what a gazebo was, and backfilled if necessary.

Edit: And players have the same obligation. If they're confused, they should ask questions and make that confusion evident. This relies on a good, trusting relationship with the DM, but then so does everything useful in the hobby.


In principle sure. In practice they don't know what they don't know and in cases like this everyone else is going to realize they are confused long before they do.


I was a teacher for 7 years. Often, people do know that they're confused. Edit: but they might not know exactly what they're confused about. But for various reasons (including bravado/not wanting to look dumb), they're unwilling to ask. It's often a "well, everyone else seems to get it, so I'll fake it and figure it out from context" thing. Getting over this hesitation is important. And not reacting badly when someone (anyone) asks "are you sure you know what that is?" or "any questions about the scenario?" or such things to prompt an honest question. That's also important.

Being willing to accept that you don't know takes trust in the other players and in the DM. And in yourself. But it's a key part of being in a good group IMO. From both/all sides. The DM shouldn't assume--if it's unclear if they understand, ask. The players should do the same.

I hate gotcha-style DMing. And the flip side, where players try to pull a fast one on the DM. I much prefer when everyone treats everyone else as being on the same team and works together to help the characters experience a great story, the story they're building together. Half the time, the players have a better chain of events in mind than I do. Or a better explanation of why the events are unfolding the way that they are. Or where they should reasonably go. And I want to hear that and be able to be a part of it and build the connections to the world I've been working on for all these years.

IMO, the primary role of the GM is to serve as the interface between the players and the world. To be the eyes and ears and everyman knowledge and interpretation engine (it's not "3 parallel lines emerging perpendicular from a common line", it's the letter 'E'.) It is incumbent upon the GM to recognize when communication has failed, and to provide a clean fix to these issues. This is because the GM *may* be the only one with the necessary information to understand when the players ideas are incongruous with (in-game) reality.

Now, obviously, in this case, everyone at the table (with the possible exception of the player in question) knew that something was amiss, and what, specifically, was wrong. So any one of them *could* have fixed the miscommunication.

However, in the case in point, miscommunication could just be considered funny, rather than a failure. Know your group.

If you're gaming with me, for example, it's a failure. I have no sense of humor. More accurately, outside an explicitly comedic game, I would consider it out of place - and even then, I would appreciate "bad GMing is funny" about as much as a prude might appreciate well-timed rapier jokes.

And, yes, if the PCs should recognize English writing, it is generally bad GMing to laboriously describe the letter "E" in terms of parallel lines, and continue on thusly to the other letters geometrically, rather than saying, "the sign reads 'EXIT' in capital letters."

Same thing with saying, "it's a gazebo" repeatedly to someone for whom that word clearly holds no meaning - particularly in a game rife with bizarre creatures with equally bizarre names, both obscure and invented whole cloth.

EDIT:
Same with slaadi. If they're creatures of pure chaos...why are they all rainbow frogs?

Excellent question! Turns out, there's a very good reason.

Long ago, Chaos made stuff. The greatest stuff that Chaos made was a frog thing. Frog Thing realized it was just roll of the dice before Chaos made something better than Frog Thing. So Frog Thing, who liked being the bestest Chaos creation, bound Chaos to only make Frog Things - and Frog Things that were weaker than bestest Chaos-binding Frog Thing.

Now you know. /Grognard

[Duff]

As a communication exercise, neither have done very well.
It's clear from what Eric says and does that he doesn't know what a Gazebo is
It's clear from the GM's responses that Eric needs to ask more questions about what a gazebo is before taking actions. "No Eric, it's a gazebo" clearly includes that a gazebo will never respond to the things Eric says and does and that the GM thinks "It's a gazebo" should be answering most of those questions.

Or one or both were playing the whole thing for laughs. Or the story is apocryphal.

But ... assuming both player and GM are bad enough at communicating that the conversation went as described, Eric was indeed acting like a murder-hobo. The Gazebo had shown no sign of being evil or even dangerous so the attacks are entirly unprovoked
And the GM casually kills Erics character and Eric casually discusses his next character in a style which went with the very early games where murderhoboism was more common


On a related note, I've GMed something similar. The characters' ship had sunk and they were in the rowboat heading toward the coast.
"There's mangroves along the shoreline" says I
and my player (without a trace of Irony or humor) announced "I cast fireball at them"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mangrove

[PhoenixPhyre]

On a related note, I've GMed something similar. The characters' ship had sunk and they were in the rowboat heading toward the coast.
"There's mangroves along the shoreline" says I
and my player (without a trace of Irony or humor) announced "I cast fireball at them"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mangrove

I had a character in a game I ran for whom "I cast fireball at them" would have always been perfectly in-character. His opening tactic, even against one or two enemies (when fireball is a waste) would be to quicken fireball and then use his Wand of Fireballs. I made sure there were plenty of cannon fodder for him to nuke before the rest of the party got into the mix, because he really liked rolling those big piles of dice and blowing things apart.

Only my long-standing "can't act evil"[0] and "don't kill kids"[1] policies kept him (and the rest of the group) from being really murder-hoboish. As it was, they did plenty of murder but kept it to people who deserved it. And one major part of a campaign was making themselves a home (by blowing up the current, nasty inhabitants). I made sure there were plenty of bad things to kill, and they returned the favor by focusing on those bad folks. They even paid for the collateral damage when it occurred (as a note, a goliath with a belt of Storm Giant Strength and boots that let him do a small earthquake (10' radius knockdown, STR-based save DC) make for lots of collateral damage to buildings when they fight in a town and the enemies go for the rooftops).

[0] There was more detail here, but it basically boiled down to "don't act like a nasty person and treat the party well".
[1] In return, I made sure never to use that against them. No gotcha here. I'm just a bit of a softy.

[Spore]

They say that Theory of Mind is something you learn early as a kid but I've found that being mindful of the fact that other people don't know what you take for granted requires effort- effort that not everyone wants to exert all the time.

Speak for yourself, as I accepted that fact in the middle of my twenties, and I am still not "mindful" about it, but rather accept the fact not everyone DOES think critically before acting. Plus, in fact you can guide player expectation much easier with emotion than with reason.

You are not here to play a puzzle game, but to experience an emotional story. At least that is what 90% of players do.

[EccentricCircle]

Yeah, miscommunication an be really tricky. DMing is really all about communicating information to the players. Its so easy to slip into shorthands or not spell things out specifically, because you are rushing to describe the next thing or already thinking ahead.
I was once in a sci fi game, where rather than describing the bridge of a salvaged ship the GM said "it's laid out like the bridge of Galactica" in many cases that would be fine, but it was immediately clear that one player hadn't seen that show. The GM gave him a very cursory description then rushed on to whatever he had planned. He then got cross with that player when they wanted to sit in the captain's chair, because of course there wasn't one. Gm thought that having not mentioned it indicated that it wasn't there, with a clear picture of what the bridge looked like. Player, with no clear picture assumed there would be one because they'd nit been told there wasn't. In the end, I as another player had to draw out a quick sketch map. Its the only time I've ever stepped on the GMs toes like that, but it was clear there was no way the GM would accept that the player couldn't form a clear picture from hus description with out the prior knowledge of having watched a specific TV show. He seemed convinced the player was just being an idiot, and it was obvious.

What really annoys me isnt when there is a moment of miscommunication, those happen. Rather its when the GM beligerently refuses to retcon something the players did based on false assumptions. A lot of GMs have a "you said it so you did it" approach, and a lot of times that's handy to speed things up and keep the game moving. But if it becomes clear that the player, or perhaps all the players thought the door was open, then telling the player who tried to run through it that they crash into a closed door and take d4 damage is massively disingenuous. If there is no reason a character would do somthing had they had all the facts, they shouldn't be held to it once it becomes clear they didn't.

[Segev]

Yeah, if players tell me they’re going through a door, I will usually assume they’re opening it. If it’s trapped and they haven’t searched, that’s on them. But if it’s (for example) locked, I’ll stop them and tell them so. “It’s locked,” is enough that even if they mistakenly thought it was open, they now know two things they were unclear on before: it is closed, and it is nontrivial to open.

[Martin Greywolf]

If only there was some sort of monster that could, if its name (https://roll20.net/compendium/dnd5e/Glabrezu#content) were slightly mispronounced, sound remarkably close to gazebo. Especially since we don't have the original context, which could be something like a dungeon full of demons that were color-coded for some reason.

[OldTrees1]

Communication is a 2 way street. Eric & the Dread Gazebo is a cautionary tale about miscommunication. It even ends with "A little vocabulary is a dangerous thing." because the when Ed used a word they knew but Eric did not know, Ed described a structure and Eric heard a monster.

[Mastikator]

I have a friend in his 40s who STILL hasn't mastered the fact that other people don't automatically know what he knows, and it makes the games he GMs an exercise in frustration sometimes.
Had the same experience with one DM. I continuously have to ask him "what does it look like" and "what does my character see". This DM always seems to forget that when a group of adventurers enters a room and they are expected to take action they need to know at least some basic things like "what does the room look like" to make an informed decision. Sometimes I catch him making it up on the spot :smallbiggrin:

The older I get the more I come to realize that empathy is just about the most important skill to get good at in table top gaming, and other fields of life.

[Lord Vukodlak]

These are players who attack everything, never engaging in discussion with NPCs or exploring the environment. They just want to fight.
Except that doesn't apply here, he tried to discern if it was good aligned, tried and failed to communicate with it. And pulled out a weapon to test its response and only then did he attack it.
The Gazebo thing is a joke, The player didn't know what a Gazebo was, I've met such people in real life on one occasion when telling the Gazebo story. Read that story again but replace Gazebo with Glabrezu right up until he shoots it and nothing happens it sounds like a random monster encounter.



DM wrong: Not explaining to a player what something is when it's clear the player hasn't a clue what he's talking about.
This is not the DM failing to describe some details that cost an adventure his life, its the DM assuming the PC knows what a Gazebo is. Now if we replace Gazebo with Barn it sounds like the Player messing with the DM the whole time by pretending to be stupid. For me the meaning of a Gazebo is as obvious as Barn. If you introduced a Barn and a PC treated it like a monster you'd assuming he was joking around this was no different.

The only problem is assuming either person did anything wrong in this situation. To me its a wonderful story of great gaming between friends, there is NO PROBLEM because nothing was done mean spirited or with malice.

[GeoffWatson]

The DM was being a jerk. He could have explained what a Gazebo was, but just repeating "It's a gazebo!" was obnoxious.

[Segev]

The DM was being a jerk. He could have explained what a Gazebo was, but just repeating "It's a gazebo!" was obnoxious.

My interpretation of the story is that the idea that the player didn’t know what a gazebo was never occurred to the DM. He thought the player somehow misheard or was assuming the DM’s description was deceptive (e.g. attacking a treasure chest because you believe it to be a mimic).

The DM wasn’t being obnoxious. He was emphasizing that it’s what he said it was and that the expectation of it reacting was silly. To the DM, this seemed as obvious as - like another poster said - if the DM has said it was a barn.

[Max_Killjoy]

My interpretation of the story is that the idea that the player didn’t know what a gazebo was never occurred to the DM. He thought the player somehow misheard or was assuming the DM’s description was deceptive (e.g. attacking a treasure chest because you believe it to be a mimic).

The DM wasn’t being obnoxious. He was emphasizing that it’s what he said it was and that the expectation of it reacting was silly. To the DM, this seemed as obvious as - like another poster said - if the DM has said it was a barn.

At some point in the story (and frankly I don't know how much I believe it's actually true in any real sense of "true"), the GM should have stopped and said, "Wait, you do know what a gazebo is... right?"

[Segev]

At some point in the story (and frankly I don't know how much I believe it's actually true in any real sense of "true"), the GM should have stopped and said, "Wait, you do know what a gazebo is... right?"

Maybe! I probably would have. I agree, the story is likely apocryphal. Short as it is, I could see a busy GM being flustered enough not to realize what the issue was until the end, when he snapped. And even then, I could see him thinking "Eric" was just insisting it HAD to be a monster disguised as a gazebo, so he decided to "play along" with his frustration.

In other words, I can see it from a mostly-reasonable (but frustrated) GM's perspective, enough that I don't automatically say "man, crappy GM."

Mostly, though? It's a funny story of dubious verity.

[kyoryu]

They say that Theory of Mind is something you learn early as a kid but I've found that being mindful of the fact that other people don't know what you take for granted requires effort- effort that not everyone wants to exert all the time. Effort is a finite resource and a DM's job can be very mentally taxing. The player isn't just wrong for attacking something that isn't hostile, the player is ALSO wrong for not asking "what do you mean 'it's a gazebo'". If in doubt always ask for clarification

Different people develop ToM at different rates. It's something to be aware of in playing RPGs - both working on it if it's not a strong skill of yours, and being aware that others may be struggling with it.



There´s the general sender-receiver problem, that the sender can never know whether the receiver reached the data in a form comprehensible to them. In reverse, the receiver can never know whether they understood the sender correctly.

As a programmer, this appeals to me.

Realistically, the responsibility (not fault) belongs to both sides, but more on the GM. If, as a player, something doesn't make sense, clarify. But, as the GM, you essentially have the authoritative state of the world in your mind, and it is your absolute responsibility to make sure that the players are aware of all of the things that the characters are, both in terms of what they see and what they know. If the players are declaring actions that do not line up with what seems a reasonable course of action based on what the character sees/knows, it is absolutely up to the GM to correct that, as they are the ones with the accurate view anyway. The GM knows that mouthing off to royalty will likely result in the death sentence, but the player doesn't. For instance. And that's reasonable because in some fiction mouthing off might not. But in this particular world/setting, it would. And it is completely reasonable that the character would know that or would have heard stories.

IOW, any time a player is doing something "dumb" the GM should make sure that the situation is clarified. It's most likely not dumb. It's most likely misaligned information or expectations.

[Pex]

At some point in the story (and frankly I don't know how much I believe it's actually true in any real sense of "true"), the GM should have stopped and said, "Wait, you do know what a gazebo is... right?"

Agreed. I'm persuaded by the argument that the player did not attack the gazebo at first. He was trying to analyze it. He was being cautious. That the gazebo wasn't reacting to his actions made him more concerned because he was expecting reactions. He thought it was a creature, and the DM only responded by saying it did nothing because it was a gazebo. When I first heard this story it was an anecdote about the player's stupidity. The player was ignorant to what a gazebo is, but he wasn't stupid. It was the DM who broke by giving up on the situation and getting obnoxiously crazy about it by killing the PC.

[Florian]

My interpretation of the story is that the idea that the player didn’t know what a gazebo was never occurred to the DM. He thought the player somehow misheard or was assuming the DM’s description was deceptive (e.g. attacking a treasure chest because you believe it to be a mimic).

The DM wasn’t being obnoxious. He was emphasizing that it’s what he said it was and that the expectation of it reacting was silly. To the DM, this seemed as obvious as - like another poster said - if the DM has said it was a barn.

A bit OT, but the whole thing made me think about the difference between commonly used terms and specialized, regional or dialect-based variations thereof.

For example, after the last war, both sides of Germany had to come up with a solution for a problem that was the resolut of rebuilding their cities. Prior to the war, tenement blocks used to use up a lot of ground, because it was common practice to include a plot of land and balconies in such a way, that tenants could use them for basic agriculture to sustain themselves.

So, that practice could not hold up, but they didn't want to reprieve their citizens from it. The solution was converting land that is otherwise fairly unattractive into miniature agricultural plots. For example, that happened a lot along railway tracks.

Ok, pretty boring, why am I telling this at this length, right?

A Gazebo is a specific form of pavilion, but basically a pavilion. Those miniature agricultural lands were allowed a sort of building, a form of enclosed pavilion. the term in the west was "Laube", while in the eat, it was "Datsche". What complicates matters, the agriculture plot itself had to be set apart from regular gardening or agriculture for legal reasons, so in the west, it was called "Schrebergarten" (think "prepper garden"), while in the east, it was also "Datsche". We are still talking about a garden plot with a pavilion...

[Imbalance]

The only problem is that people are still trying to assign blame more than forty years after those with direct involvement had moved on. It was a humorous anecdote, funny as described, with the light-hearted reproach at the end that can easily be assumed to be mere banter, but if you want to always assume malace then I can see why it stands as an example of a crap DM to those who hold such biases.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Realistically, the responsibility (not fault) belongs to both sides, but more on the GM. If, as a player, something doesn't make sense, clarify. But, as the GM, you essentially have the authoritative state of the world in your mind, and it is your absolute responsibility to make sure that the players are aware of all of the things that the characters are, both in terms of what they see and what they know. If the players are declaring actions that do not line up with what seems a reasonable course of action based on what the character sees/knows, it is absolutely up to the GM to correct that, as they are the ones with the accurate view anyway. The GM knows that mouthing off to royalty will likely result in the death sentence, but the player doesn't. For instance. And that's reasonable because in some fiction mouthing off might not. But in this particular world/setting, it would. And it is completely reasonable that the character would know that or would have heard stories.

IOW, any time a player is doing something "dumb" the GM should make sure that the situation is clarified. It's most likely not dumb. It's most likely misaligned information or expectations.

I totally agree with this assessment. To add, the characters would understand that it's something dumb. Characters know way more than can be conveyed by the DM's words. And what's totally clear to the DM might not (strong understatement) be for the players. It's one reason I fall heavily into "more information is better" camp and will often go several rounds of clarification/restatement before I actually trigger the action-resolution process.

I hate when DMs act like characters are remotely-piloted drones without any intelligence. The whole "you didn't say you were..." gotcha stuff sucks. Even when it's unintentional gotchas like in this case.

[Xuc Xac]

A few things that seem to have been overlooked in this thread:

Eric didn't think the GM said "glabrezu". At the time the event happened, "glabrezu" were just "Type 3 demons".

There were other players at the table. The GM can't have been the only one who knew what a gazebo was. The other players weren't trying to figure out the gazebo. They were probably just as confused as the GM and probably trying not to laugh when they figured out Eric thought it was a monster.

[kyoryu]

I totally agree with this assessment. To add, the characters would understand that it's something dumb. Characters know way more than can be conveyed by the DM's words. And what's totally clear to the DM might not (strong understatement) be for the players. It's one reason I fall heavily into "more information is better" camp and will often go several rounds of clarification/restatement before I actually trigger the action-resolution process.

One of the best life pro-tips I picked up is, basically, to assume that people are smart and that any really stupid behavior is likely a difference of priority, information, or understanding - and it may be that you are the one missing information or understanding.

I think it's a good tip for GMs. If a player says they're doing something stupid, presume they misunderstand something, or have a misconception about the world, until conclusively proven otherwise.


I hate when DMs act like characters are remotely-piloted drones without any intelligence. The whole "you didn't say you were..." gotcha stuff sucks. Even when it's unintentional gotchas like in this case.

Similar is the issue of:

Player: "I do the thing, which will likely take tens of seconds if not minutes."
GM: "Haha, this is the result, regardless of the fact that the thing you described would give plenty of feedback in time for you to change what you were doing! You said it, so it is instantly done!"

[Friv]

My interpretation of the story is that the idea that the player didn’t know what a gazebo was never occurred to the DM. He thought the player somehow misheard or was assuming the DM’s description was deceptive (e.g. attacking a treasure chest because you believe it to be a mimic).

The DM wasn’t being obnoxious. He was emphasizing that it’s what he said it was and that the expectation of it reacting was silly. To the DM, this seemed as obvious as - like another poster said - if the DM has said it was a barn.

Yeah, it's obviously a situation in which one party assumes that the other person knows a basic fact. It's a funny story, but it's also a good lesson about communication. Either person could have solved the problem easily. When Ed first said that Eric saw a gazebo, Eric could have asked what that was, but he didn't. Presumably he thought he should have known.

On the flip side, when Eric called out to the gazebo, I feel like the best answer would have been, "There's no answer. The gazebo appears to be unoccupied."

That would be a real good clue that Eric is interacting with this thing in a weird way, without necessarily calling him out on the spot.

[Pex]

The only problem is that people are still trying to assign blame more than forty years after those with direct involvement had moved on. It was a humorous anecdote, funny as described, with the light-hearted reproach at the end that can easily be assumed to be mere banter, but if you want to always assume malace then I can see why it stands as an example of a crap DM to those who hold such biases.

The story is old, but the lesson is still relevant.

[PhoenixPhyre]

One of the best life pro-tips I picked up is, basically, to assume that people are smart and that any really stupid behavior is likely a difference of priority, information, or understanding - and it may be that you are the one missing information or understanding.

I think it's a good tip for GMs. If a player says they're doing something stupid, presume they misunderstand something, or have a misconception about the world, until conclusively proven otherwise.

Similar is the issue of:

Player: "I do the thing, which will likely take tens of seconds if not minutes."
GM: "Haha, this is the result, regardless of the fact that the thing you described would give plenty of feedback in time for you to change what you were doing! You said it, so it is instantly done!"

I absolutely agree with both of those.

I try to follow a 3-step process when things seem off:

1. Ask about the intent: What are you trying to do. Not how, but what result do you desire by doing that?
2. Clarify the situation/Explain character knowledge: Your character would know that ... or You realize that ... or I don't remember saying that there was a ...
3. Ask for confirmation: Are you sure you want to <do stupid thing>?

Then, and only then do I start to resolve it. And even then, once I start to explain the requirements (ie a difficulty X ability check using Y with Z skill) they can still back out or modify the action.

Players should feel like their characters are competent. And "you didn't say that you put on pants" (which I've actually heard as a player) doesn't do that. It makes it either a slapstick-comedy game or an antagonistic scenario.

[Pex]

I go by an axiom. When ever the DM asks you "Are you sure?" your response should always be "No, never mind. I do not do that." Doesn't matter what it is or what you hoped to accomplish. Don't do it and do something else, even if it's nothing.

[Segev]

I go by an axiom. When ever the DM asks you "Are you sure?" your response should always be "No, never mind. I do not do that." Doesn't matter what it is or what you hoped to accomplish. Don't do it and do something else, even if it's nothing.
That sounds like a passive aggressive snubbing of the DM for asking for clarity. I don’t know how it actually plays out at table, but the way it sounds here, I’d start to feel like trying to clarify anything to the players gets them to shut down, making me feel like anything but “okay, roll me a check at this arbitrary DC; you succeed /fail,” would result in the game stalling.

I hope I’m misunderstanding what you’re saying, here, because that’s be a quick way for me to determine that the players weren’t enjoying the game and that I should just stop running it.

[Tanarii]

That sounds like a passive aggressive snubbing of the DM for asking for clarity. I don’t know how it actually plays out at table, but the way it sounds here, I’d start to feel like trying to clarify anything to the players gets them to shut down, making me feel like anything but “okay, roll me a check at this arbitrary DC; you succeed /fail,” would result in the game stalling. "Are you sure?" is DM code for "that's a really bad idea".

[Lacco]

"Are you sure?" is DM code for "that's a really bad idea".

Yes, it's very traditional. Works well with players that know the tradition, but often it does close down the conversation.

If you really want to drive home the wrongness of the action, you should ask "Do you really want to do the X, even though Y?", where X is their action and Y is a list of reasons they should not do it.

If you want a working conversation, you should inquire why they are doing what they are doing or what is their intent - oftentimes you can catch the error on both sides (e.g. DM does not explain something properly, or the player forgot).

But for the old school gamers, this is like seeing the canary perish. A litmus paper of "how much trouble did I get myself into" based on evaluation of DM's voice, the amount of sarcasm and eye rolling.

I used it for a long time. Moved on to more efficient phrases, but I still do it once in a while - like all traditions of the trade, it's expected by the players.

[Pex]

That sounds like a passive aggressive snubbing of the DM for asking for clarity. I don’t know how it actually plays out at table, but the way it sounds here, I’d start to feel like trying to clarify anything to the players gets them to shut down, making me feel like anything but “okay, roll me a check at this arbitrary DC; you succeed /fail,” would result in the game stalling.

I hope I’m misunderstanding what you’re saying, here, because that’s be a quick way for me to determine that the players weren’t enjoying the game and that I should just stop running it.


When the DM asks for clarity he says "What do you mean?" or "Why?". When he says "Are you sure?" he always means . . .


"that's a really bad idea".

[Segev]

When the DM asks for clarity he says "What do you mean?" or "Why?". When he says "Are you sure?" he always means . . .

Okay, if that's not a category of questions but is literally the only question you respond to that way, I understand better. Sorry; I'm used to discussions like this having such questions be representative, not literally just that question.

[kyoryu]

FYI, I posted a discussion based on this over at reddit. Nearly 600 upvotes so far (which is a lot for that particular subreddit)

https://www.reddit.com/r/rpg/comments/ip3278/gm_tip_assume_your_players_arent_dumb/

[Darth Credence]

Kyoryu - I checked out the discussion over there, and I intend to read more of it this evening. I agree with you for the most part, but I don't think that the specific example is a good one. I do think that the GM should do a better job of explaining, and if the case ever did arise as stated that the GM has a responsibility to lay out the consequences. But I also don't think it's unreasonable to expect that players would know that insulting an absolute monarch to their face is a bad idea and likely to end up with their arrest or possibly execution. If it had been an elf or dwarf kingdom, or treants, or whatever, then I could see it being something that the player may not immediately think of as a problem, because the cultures could be different. But I know that if somehow I was introduced to the Queen of England and decided to insult her, that I would immediately be removed from her presence, and I might expect the guards to do a little covert damage to me on the way out. I can extrapolate that to a dangerous fantasy world where kings are actual rulers, and figure that this is not going to go well.

The GM should make the consequences clear. But in this particular case, I don't think the players really didn't know that there would be consequences. I think they figured the GM wouldn't actually do anything to them, and the shock was when they found out they were wrong about that, not that an absolute monarch doesn't tolerate open insults.

As to the gazebo itself, I wonder if this story was part of the reason there's a gazebo in Zork II. It sounds like something they would do, I know it was white, and I think the description said something like 'it appears to be a gazebo.' I think I need to open up the game, get to the gazebo, and attempt to attack it.

[kyoryu]

But I also don't think it's unreasonable to expect that players would know that insulting an absolute monarch to their face is a bad idea and likely to end up with their arrest or possibly execution.

I don't think that that's an unreasonable result. But, that's also me.

Keep in mind that the example was based on an actual example. It's not hypothetical.

The point is that what you think is reasonable and "common sense" is based on your experiences and assumptions. And different people come in with different assumptions - some of those are based on how they think the world should work, some of those are based on more meta concerns (tone of game, etc.).

If one player is thinking you're playing "wacky medieval hijinks: the game" then they probably wouldn't expect insulting the king to be an immediate death sentence. And they probably got that assumption either from watching some media or from playing in other games. And so to them it's not an unreasonable presumption.

So if we can presume that they do care if their character dies (which is the case most of the time), then regardless of whether you think it's reasonable, there's an assumption mismatch. Are you really ready to kill a character for something like that, especially when there's a way to convey the correct assumption to the player and let them make an appropriate decision based on actual information?

That just seems like a lot of not-fun to me.

[Willie the Duck]

Late to the party. I think most people have moved on, but I'll address the OP question--

For those who are not familiar or would like to read it again: https://web.archive.org/web/20080804140516/http://www.dreadgazebo.com/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=8

Was the Player wrong? Was the DM wrong?

As others have pointed out this exchange seems to have been edited (either in the remembering, or in the presentation). Taken, for the sake of discussion, as a literal transcript, both player and DM seem a little nutty in a 'real people wouldn't respond that way (would they?)' kind of fashion. We can assume that this is an artifact of the presentation, but unfortunately for your specific question, I think some vital part of the actual story has been obscured. Both seem to be comically (to the unrealistic-seeming level) missing obvious things -- on the DM's part that the player doesn't know what a gazebo is, and on the players part that asking what a gazebo is (or what their character would know about gazebos) would help them react appropriately. I think we could impute some information into the missing data of what actually likely happened, but that really then becomes conjecturing a different situation and rendering judgment on that situation instead. Doing so, a situation vaguely like this is honestly all too reasonable to have once you have a group where everyone is not of the same age (I have no idea how old I was when I learned what a gazebo is), or not native speakers of the language being used to play the game. General takeaways about good communication and understanding when others are not catching something abound, but unfortunately they don't really help in assigning culpability in this specific scenario.

[Darth Credence]

I don't think that that's an unreasonable result. But, that's also me.

Keep in mind that the example was based on an actual example. It's not hypothetical.

The point is that what you think is reasonable and "common sense" is based on your experiences and assumptions. And different people come in with different assumptions - some of those are based on how they think the world should work, some of those are based on more meta concerns (tone of game, etc.).

If one player is thinking you're playing "wacky medieval hijinks: the game" then they probably wouldn't expect insulting the king to be an immediate death sentence. And they probably got that assumption either from watching some media or from playing in other games. And so to them it's not an unreasonable presumption.

So if we can presume that they do care if their character dies (which is the case most of the time), then regardless of whether you think it's reasonable, there's an assumption mismatch. Are you really ready to kill a character for something like that, especially when there's a way to convey the correct assumption to the player and let them make an appropriate decision based on actual information?

That just seems like a lot of not-fun to me.

I understood that was actual, I just question whether the motivations of the players were as reported - I certainly have known players in the past that try to bully the GM, and this seems like a move they would have made.

I also thought I was clear that in that situation, I would explain the consequences before we proceeded. So clear, in fact, that I said it twice. My only point was that by using as an example something that strikes me as quite frankly ludicrous that the player didn't know that it was a bad idea, it doesn't make the point as well to people not prepared to accept the point. Let me illustrate by giving an even worse example:

GM: You come to the cliffs overlooking your destination. At the base of the cliff, 1000 feet below you, is a field of jagged rocks that have fallen from the cliff over the years. The ruins of the city stretch beyond them. You see a precarious path meandering down the cliff face, with the starting point to your right.
Player: I jump off the cliff.
GM: OK (rolls dice). You slam into the jagged rocks at the bottom, and your vision fades away as the blood drains from your body. Your character has died, and the body is in very bad shape. Do you want to roll a new character?
Player: What do you mean I died? I just wanted to get to the bottom quickly, how was I to know that would be deadly?

I don't think many people are going to argue that it was not completely clear that leaping 1000 feet onto jagged rocks was not going to turn out well. If you tell people that as an anecdote to say don't think your players are stupid, a whole lot of people are going to say that that player was, indeed, stupid, and they wouldn't want to play with someone like that. My gut reaction, and the reactions of a few people I just asked about this (one of my players, and a GM from a different group), is that the player in your anecdote was, indeed, stupid. None of us would have just gone straight to killing the character, and agree with the idea that the GM should explain the possible consequences. But we also wouldn't want to play with someone that played like that, and that they were probably being willfully obtuse and wanting to make the game all about them.

[kyoryu]

GM: You come to the cliffs overlooking your destination. At the base of the cliff, 1000 feet below you, is a field of jagged rocks that have fallen from the cliff over the years. The ruins of the city stretch beyond them. You see a precarious path meandering down the cliff face, with the starting point to your right.
Player: I jump off the cliff.
GM: OK (rolls dice). You slam into the jagged rocks at the bottom, and your vision fades away as the blood drains from your body. Your character has died, and the body is in very bad shape. Do you want to roll a new character?
Player: What do you mean I died? I just wanted to get to the bottom quickly, how was I to know that would be deadly?


Actually, no, that's a fantastic example. It's a wonderful example.

Because in D&D, no it's not obvious at all. Since falling damage maxes out well below a mid/high level character's HP, it is a completely understandable assumption in this case that said 1000 foot drop would result in falling damage being applied which, mechanically, would result in a trivial amount of damage to said high level character.

It's also a completely reasonable assumption (and, in fact, what I would do) that in that case the GM would say "no, we use those mechanics in cases where the result isn't obvious" and declare the character to be a small greasy spot at the landing site.

I personally think the "RAW are the physics of the world, even in cases where they make no sense" style of play to be obnoxious. But it still exists. And as a GM, it's still my job to correct that misalignment when it occurs, unless I actually think the player intended to kill their character..

And, yes, it's entirely possible that the player is assuming the GM won't do anything to their character - because that's how a lot of games run.

I'd rather correct that misapprehension politely and without drama rather than after the fact.

[Yora]

Gazebo problems are always 100% the fault of the GM.
The players have no way to tell what their characters see, hear, and feel. They can only process information that the GM gives them. If they assume they are looking at something that isn't what the GM meant to present to them, there is absolutely nothing that the players could do about it. It's entirely the fault of the GM for describing things in a way that wasn't clear.

My golden rule as GM is "If a player does something that seems nonsensical, have the player confirm that he's imagining the same situation as you do before proceeding."
Players usually don't do stupid things. They do logical things based on the information they have. And the GM has exclusive control over the information they get. When you're the GM and notice that something might have gone wrong, it's your duty to clear that up before proceeding. Because nobody else in the game has the ability to do it. Letting players do something stupid because they couldn't read your mind is the same thing as arbitrarily saying "rocks fall, everyone dies".

[kyoryu]

My golden rule as GM is "If a player does something that seems nonsensical, have the player confirm that he's imagining the same situation as you do before proceeding."
Players usually don't do stupid things. They do logical things based on the information they have. And the GM has exclusive control over the information they get. When you're the GM and notice that something might have gone wrong, it's your duty to clear that up before proceeding. Because nobody else in the game has the ability to do it. Letting players do something stupid because they couldn't read your mind is the same thing as arbitrarily saying "rocks fall, everyone dies".

Precisely this.

[Darth Credence]

Actually, no, that's a fantastic example. It's a wonderful example.

Because in D&D, no it's not obvious at all. Since falling damage maxes out well below a mid/high level character's HP, it is a completely understandable assumption in this case that said 1000 foot drop would result in falling damage being applied which, mechanically, would result in a trivial amount of damage to said high level character.

It's also a completely reasonable assumption (and, in fact, what I would do) that in that case the GM would say "no, we use those mechanics in cases where the result isn't obvious" and declare the character to be a small greasy spot at the landing site.

I personally think the "RAW are the physics of the world, even in cases where they make no sense" style of play to be obnoxious. But it still exists. And as a GM, it's still my job to correct that misalignment when it occurs, unless I actually think the player intended to kill their character..

And, yes, it's entirely possible that the player is assuming the GM won't do anything to their character - because that's how a lot of games run.

I'd rather correct that misapprehension politely and without drama rather than after the fact.

I've seen games where the GM won't do anything to players - and by that I mean won't allow the consequences of their actions to occur - and in every case I've seen of it, it is because the players have bullied the GM to the point where the GM does nothing. That is what it sounds like the player in question is attempting - to bully the GM into simply doing whatever the player wants. Those tables are not fun, except for the bullies. I've walked away from those tables, and let the GM know that if they want to run a fair, fun game, I'm in, but not with the current player group.

And were we talking specifically about D&D? I thought the use of GM instead of DM and the fact that this is in the general roleplaying forum instead of a specific one meant this was general, not game specific. In which case, the idea that falling 1000 feet onto jagged rocks should absolutely be a death sentence - with the jagged rocks, you don't even have a slim possibility of the bounce. But fine, whatever. You are completely ignoring the point that I am trying to make, and if you don't want to discuss it, that's fine. But you're also ignoring that I have agreed with the fundamental point every time, and keep talking like I'm out to kill people without warning.

[OldTrees1]

Gazebo problems are always 100% the fault of the GM.
The players have no way to tell what their characters see, hear, and feel. They can only process information that the GM gives them. If they assume they are looking at something that isn't what the GM meant to present to them, there is absolutely nothing that the players could do about it. It's entirely the fault of the GM for describing things in a way that wasn't clear.

My golden rule as GM is "If a player does something that seems nonsensical, have the player confirm that he's imagining the same situation as you do before proceeding."
Players usually don't do stupid things. They do logical things based on the information they have. And the GM has exclusive control over the information they get. When you're the GM and notice that something might have gone wrong, it's your duty to clear that up before proceeding. Because nobody else in the game has the ability to do it. Letting players do something stupid because they couldn't read your mind is the same thing as arbitrarily saying "rocks fall, everyone dies".

I consider communication a two person tango. Therefore I should always consider it my fault because I could have addressed it. This is true regardless of whether I was the GM or another player. Likewise, since I hold actor agnostic principles, the other person could be following the same principles and decide they were at fault because they could have addressed it.

[Max_Killjoy]

Gazebo problems are always 100% the fault of the GM.
The players have no way to tell what their characters see, hear, and feel. They can only process information that the GM gives them. If they assume they are looking at something that isn't what the GM meant to present to them, there is absolutely nothing that the players could do about it. It's entirely the fault of the GM for describing things in a way that wasn't clear.

My golden rule as GM is "If a player does something that seems nonsensical, have the player confirm that he's imagining the same situation as you do before proceeding."
Players usually don't do stupid things. They do logical things based on the information they have. And the GM has exclusive control over the information they get. When you're the GM and notice that something might have gone wrong, it's your duty to clear that up before proceeding. Because nobody else in the game has the ability to do it. Letting players do something stupid because they couldn't read your mind is the same thing as arbitrarily saying "rocks fall, everyone dies".

I agree about the GM's role and their control over the information flow, but I don't think it can fairly be called a firm absolute. Game long enough, and you'll encounter that player who seems deliberately determined to not understand, to misinterpret, to eat up as much time as possible with "but you said" and "then I don't do that" and generally using a veneer of not getting it to avoid the consequences of their decisions, of bad dice rolls, of not paying attention, etc.

And even setting that aside, the player is allowed to ask for clarification, and players are allowed to point things out to each other... basic communication can't be all on one person's shoulders.

[Reynaert]

I've seen games where the GM won't do anything to players - and by that I mean won't allow the consequences of their actions to occur - and in every case I've seen of it, it is because the players have bullied the GM to the point where the GM does nothing. That is what it sounds like the player in question is attempting - to bully the GM into simply doing whatever the player wants. Those tables are not fun, except for the bullies. I've walked away from those tables, and let the GM know that if they want to run a fair, fun game, I'm in, but not with the current player group.

And were we talking specifically about D&D? I thought the use of GM instead of DM and the fact that this is in the general roleplaying forum instead of a specific one meant this was general, not game specific. In which case, the idea that falling 1000 feet onto jagged rocks should absolutely be a death sentence - with the jagged rocks, you don't even have a slim possibility of the bounce. But fine, whatever. You are completely ignoring the point that I am trying to make, and if you don't want to discuss it, that's fine. But you're also ignoring that I have agreed with the fundamental point every time, and keep talking like I'm out to kill people without warning.

I think he was actually addressing the point quite plainly. Also, your response is a clear case in point of miscommunication itself.

You are reading a lot of extra backstory/context into the example that wasn't written. You seem to be assuming that this backstory is somehow obvious, which is probably because when you wrote the example, you had this in mind. However, from just the example as written, this is totally not obvious. So maybe instead of getting angry at somebody missing your point, you shoud re-evaluate how well you made this point in the first place.

Also, unless you *know* that the situation is such that the players are doing this willfully (by knowing the backstory/context of this situation), it's very bad form to assume it's willful. So with the example, as given without context, the only fair conclusion the GM can make is that the player is not aware of (the magnitude of) the danger.

Hell, even *if* you think you know the players are willfully doing this, it's just as easy to say: "Are you sure? A fall of 1000 feet on jagged rocks would horribly kill your character." If you feel the urge to instantly go "Okay, you're dead", there is so much antagonism built up that you should probably walk away immediately.

[kyoryu]

If you think that that many players are that hostile, then either you're dealing with a statistically unlikely, incredibly toxic group of players, something you're doing is driving people to that behavior, or you're interpreting behavior in an overly hostile fashion.

[Segev]

My golden rule as GM is "If a player does something that seems nonsensical, have the player confirm that he's imagining the same situation as you do before proceeding."
Players usually don't do stupid things. They do logical things based on the information they have. And the GM has exclusive control over the information they get. When you're the GM and notice that something might have gone wrong, it's your duty to clear that up before proceeding. Because nobody else in the game has the ability to do it. Letting players do something stupid because they couldn't read your mind is the same thing as arbitrarily saying "rocks fall, everyone dies".

The concept of stopping to ask the player, "What do you see this resulting in?" is a very important one. And you have to do it right, so you don't sound like you're saying, "This is a bad idea and you should think about why it's a bad idea." You really do need to be asking them to explain what it is they think will result.

Only then can you even start to ask the right questions to understand what they think the situation is, because you'll have a clue as to what it is they've got wrong about the scene as you envision it that makes what they think will happen make sense when it doesn't fit with what you're picturing.

This doesn't mean "always say 'yes'" or "always say 'no,'" but to try to open the door to more closely connect on what is really happening.

[kyoryu]

The concept of stopping to ask the player, "What do you see this resulting in?" is a very important one. And you have to do it right, so you don't sound like you're saying, "This is a bad idea and you should think about why it's a bad idea." You really do need to be asking them to explain what it is they think will result.

Burning Wheel calls that "Intent and Task" and it's an incredibly useful tool. "What are you trying to accomplish, and how are you going to do that?"

In some cases the intent is obvious, but it's generally a good hting.

[Darth Credence]

I think he was actually addressing the point quite plainly. Also, your response is a clear case in point of miscommunication itself.

You are reading a lot of extra backstory/context into the example that wasn't written. You seem to be assuming that this backstory is somehow obvious, which is probably because when you wrote the example, you had this in mind. However, from just the example as written, this is totally not obvious. So maybe instead of getting angry at somebody missing your point, you shoud re-evaluate how well you made this point in the first place.

Also, unless you *know* that the situation is such that the players are doing this willfully (by knowing the backstory/context of this situation), it's very bad form to assume it's willful. So with the example, as given without context, the only fair conclusion the GM can make is that the player is not aware of (the magnitude of) the danger.

Hell, even *if* you think you know the players are willfully doing this, it's just as easy to say: "Are you sure? A fall of 1000 feet on jagged rocks would horribly kill your character." If you feel the urge to instantly go "Okay, you're dead", there is so much antagonism built up that you should probably walk away immediately.

What do you think my point that he was missing is? Because nothing in your comment indicates that you got it, either. That's fine, no one needs to discuss my point, at all.

And I have not gotten angry at anyone. I have become increasingly annoyed that people keep thinking that I would just kill the players, when in every single comment I have said that I agree that there needs to be communication and confirmation. I made that statement twice in my first reply, pointed that out in my next reply, and then pointed out that that was being ignored in my last reply. And then here you are, saying that I need to walk away from the table if I feel the urge to do something I have explicitly and repeatedly said I have no urge to do. What set of words is it going to take to get across that I agree that the GM needs to do a good job of communicating and not simply take what they say and kill a player over it? Whatever those magic words are, please assume I've said them at this point, because I can promise you, I absolutely, positively, would not kill off a PC without ensuring that they knew the consequences of an action like this. If I were the GM in my example, I would have said that a 1000 foot fall onto jagged rocks is not something that someone survives in this world, and there is a path to the bottom right over there. Then I would ask again what they wanted to do, and if they said they were going to jump, then I'd let them die.

My point was this - if you want to argue that a GM should not assume their players are stupid, I don't think the original story was the best way to go. The gazebo story does a much better job of it, IMO - it is clearly a miscommunication, it's believable that someone would not know what a gazebo is, and there was plenty of indication that the two were not on the same wavelength. The story about the king is just not believable to me coming from pretty much anyone interested in medieval fantasy role playing games. The idea that someone who wants to play such does not realize that in an absolute monarchy, the king is likely to punish anyone who insults them, is just too much. People who play such games have read or watched LotR, or Game of Thrones, or Robin Hood, or something like it, and have been exposed to the idea that royalty can be right nasty about personal insults. Heck, Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure, as screwy as you can get when talking about the time period, has the title carriers insult the "royal ugly dudes", who then says to torture or execute them. One more time - I as a GM would not have ended up letting them die without explaining the consequences. But the story told is not the slam dunk on this that he thought it was.

If you read the post over on Reddit, you will notice that nowhere in there does he say that the country is the country that the characters were from, so it's also possible that this is not something the characters would know, but that wouldn't save them. If someone from the North or Westeros, used to the relatively just rule of the Starks, went to the Twins and insulted Walder Frey, he'd probably have them killed. The people being executed might be very shocked that they would be killed for something that would not have much in the way of bad results in Winterfell, but it wouldn't save their life. So based purely on what is on the page, assuming that the characters wouldn't know it is a bad idea and that this king is particularly prickly is reading into it with your own biases every bit as much as anything I have done.

If you've never experienced players who try to bully the GM, then you are lucky. But throwing out actions that are very likely to get ones character killed, then badgering the GM to change things when that is the result, is bullying the GM. It's a method by which players wear down the GM to the point that they know that if things don't go the way the players (or, more often, one particular player) want, they will get complaints about how they are unfair and mean and a bad GM, and eventually the GM stops arguing and lets the player effectively be the GM. If everyone at the table is cool with that, fine, but when I've seen it it means that everyone is playing a bit role in the story of the most important player at the table, and the group falls apart. That's what I get out of the story, and that's why my point this entire time, spelled out in the beginning of my posting on this topic, was that this particular example is not a good one for the general thrust of the argument he wanted to make. Kyoryu responded to my posts that I want to kill people, ignoring the point I was making.

ETA:

If you think that that many players are that hostile, then either you're dealing with a statistically unlikely, incredibly toxic group of players, something you're doing is driving people to that behavior, or you're interpreting behavior in an overly hostile fashion.
I'm not sure if this was directed at me or not, but I think it was. The people I have seen do this are not from when I've been a GM - I've always had a great group of players. I see people like this when I have tried to join up with games at game stores, and I am far from the only one that ends up walking away from the games. It can think of at least four people that I have met in my years of gaming, spanning back to AD&D, that would fit this. In one case, the GM did not bow to the whims of the player, and the player quit after four sessions. When the rest of us heard the news, no one was unhappy. In the others, the GM did start to bend to the will of the player. I was only the first one to bail on the game because of it once, the last time it happened. I don't see that as statistically unlikely, I have no idea how a fellow player could be driving people to that, and I wasn't the only one with that interpretation.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Burning Wheel calls that "Intent and Task" and it's an incredibly useful tool. "What are you trying to accomplish, and how are you going to do that?"

In some cases the intent is obvious, but it's generally a good hting.

And even when there isn't miscommunication it's a very useful tool.

For me as a 5e D&D DM, clearly knowing both their intent and their method lets me do a lot of things:
* helps me decide if a check is even needed or useful.
* helps me decide what the possible range of outcomes could be.
* helps me decide how to describe the situation/attempt
* helps me decide what the relevant resolution mechanic should be. A check? A saving throw? An attack roll? If a check, what kind? What should the DC be?
* after the resolution, it helps me describe what happened.
* reveals and remedies miscommunication.

[Theoboldi]

I find it a bit odd to emphasize so heavily on the importance of communication, but then use a so blame-heavy idea of it that puts the responsibility entirely on one person.

Communication requires not only clarity, but also good faith and an effort at mutual trust. Without those, initial clear communication inevitably decays into passive-aggressive sniping and an unwillingness to work past any mistakes that will inevitably happen.

In that regard, the Gazebo story is actually a great example of a group dealing with miscommunication in a healthy way. The realize their mistakes and laugh it off.

That's my experience, anyways.

[OldTrees1]

I find it a bit odd to emphasize so heavily on the importance of communication, but then use a so blame-heavy idea of it that puts the responsibility entirely on one person.

Communication requires not only clarity, but also good faith and an effort at mutual trust. Without those, initial clear communication inevitably decays into passive-aggressive sniping and an unwillingness to work past any mistakes that will inevitably happen.

In that regard, the Gazebo story is actually a great example of a group dealing with miscommunication in a healthy way. The realize their mistakes and laugh it off.

That's my experience, anyways.

Agreed. I also see the Gazebo story as a cautionary tale about how miscommunication can happen and spiral out of control if not addressed (the actual group then realized their mistakes and laughed it off). If it is a cautionary tale, then what is the takeaway? The theme was miscommunications can happen. The takeaway is how can I, the reader, recognize and address similar miscommunications when I come across them. In that regard it can be reasonable for the reader to place the responsibility entirely on themselves, but placing it entirely on one of the characters instead is missing the point.

[Quertus]

I agree about the GM's role and their control over the information flow, but I don't think it can fairly be called a firm absolute. Game long enough, and you'll encounter that player who seems deliberately determined to not understand, to misinterpret, to eat up as much time as possible with "but you said" and "then I don't do that" and generally using a veneer of not getting it to avoid the consequences of their decisions, of bad dice rolls, of not paying attention, etc.

And even setting that aside, the player is allowed to ask for clarification, and players are allowed to point things out to each other... basic communication can't be all on one person's shoulders.

If none of you know me IRL, then I am 100% responsible for painting pictures of my worlds & my characters, as literally no one else on the boards could do so.

Similarly, assuming no mind readers are present, only the GM knows what is in their head, which is the mental model / the version of in-game reality by which the GM will adjudicate the results of the characters' actions. Only the GM is capable of explaining the state of that model; thus, the GM is 100% responsible for doing so.

This brings up two points.

One, as has already been said, just because the GM is 100% responsible for this, does not mean that other people cannot be responsible as well.

Two, if the GM *has* successfully communicated that state to someone else, a) they are also responsible for disseminating that information; b) that has no bearing - in either direction - on whether the GM has done their job. That is, if I say something, and *you* get it, that is not an indicator of whether or not I am at fault if someone else does not.


The concept of stopping to ask the player, "What do you see this resulting in?" is a very important one. And you have to do it right, so you don't sound like you're saying, "This is a bad idea and you should think about why it's a bad idea." You really do need to be asking them to explain what it is they think will result.

Only then can you even start to ask the right questions to understand what they think the situation is, because you'll have a clue as to what it is they've got wrong about the scene as you envision it that makes what they think will happen make sense when it doesn't fit with what you're picturing.

This doesn't mean "always say 'yes'" or "always say 'no,'" but to try to open the door to more closely connect on what is really happening.


Burning Wheel calls that "Intent and Task" and it's an incredibly useful tool. "What are you trying to accomplish, and how are you going to do that?"

In some cases the intent is obvious, but it's generally a good hting.

I'm… a bit dubious here.

If I've got a character being chased by a squad of orcs with an "in formation" bonus, and said character "throws a 55-gallon drum of oil" into the middle of them / causes a stack of oil flasks to topple towards them / whatever, before darting in a different direction / behind cover / whatever, I expect certain logical consequences to happen, regardless of my intent. For example,

The orcs may keep formation, or may scatter.

If the orcs break formation, they temporarily lose their "in formation" bonus.

The container(s) has a chance of striking one or more orcs - this chance is probably higher if the orcs do not scatter.

If struck (especially by a drum) the orcs may take damage.

The orcs will likely be momentarily distracted, increasing the odds of my character losing them (granted, these might not be *good* odds).

The container(s) may break.

If the container(s) break, the area, and likely the orcs, will be "covered" in oil.

If the area is covered in oil (and/or debris), it will be more difficult terrain.

If the area is covered in oil (and debris), it will be more flammable.

If the orcs are covered in oil, they will be more flammable.

If any orcs are covered in debris, they may be slowed, or even pinned.

This will make noise.

The noise may alert nearby beings.

My character is taking one "simple" action (in 3e parlance "standard action throw/topple oil thingy; move action move out of LoS; free action hide at -20 penalty or something (realistically, 'not having LoS, orcs have to guess which way(s) I turned after they lost LoS, and *may* even need to roll to spot/recognize me again if they regain LoS, depending on the circumstances')").

My expectation is for this action to have logical consequences, regardless of my intent. Or, rather, my *intent* is for my action to have logical consequences. And I have a preference for GMs (and systems) that look at that scenario, and output some *somewhat reasonable* results to my actions on a regular basis.

For example, if the *most likely* result of this action was, "one or more orcs fall madly in love with your PC", or that action could, by game physics, only ever have *one* result (orcs break formation, orcs take damage, orcs get "converted in oil" condition, area gets "covered in oil" condition, area gets "difficult terrain" status, orcs fall further behind PC in "chase" status, orc(s) get knocked down, orc(s) get pinned, orcs lose LoS to PC, PC successfully eludes pursuit, other PCs alerted to situation, other orcs alerted to situation, NPC police alerted to situation, other NPC group alerted to situation or oil gets removed from terrain features), let alone if I have to telegraph my *actual* inherent ahead of time, forcing everyone into a metagaming state, rather than a "what is he up to?" state? Hard pass.

So, while I get that, if the GM is stuck looking at some system's "chase" mechanics (you know, for systems that actually have such things), they may want to ask, "was that a 'create distraction and escape notice' move, or an 'attempt to widen distance by creating obstacle' move, my response is, "no, it's a 'hurl drum of oil' move, which should have a (likely lesser) chance at *both* of those, *and* several other consequences". And one (IMO wrong) answer I've seen is, "OK, d6 - 1-2, I'll call it 'hide'; 3-4, 'obstacle'; 5-6, 'attack'.")

War games are stuck having to adhere to rules and strict moves lists. The advantage to RPGs is that they are not (which is a two-edged sword, making RPGs less "gamey" than war games).

At least, that's my stance on the matter.

[Florian]

@Quertus:

I think you misunderstand the basic concept there. Declaring Task and Intent is a useful way to gauge whether gm and player are in synch on the flow of information. As a side effect, it also helps other players participate more in the actions their fellow players take. "I do X because I think the situation is Y".

[Kardwill]

If you've never experienced players who try to bully the GM, then you are lucky. But throwing out actions that are very likely to get ones character killed, then badgering the GM to change things when that is the result, is bullying the GM. It's a method by which players wear down the GM to the point that they know that if things don't go the way the players (or, more often, one particular player) want, they will get complaints about how they are unfair and mean and a bad GM, and eventually the GM stops arguing and lets the player effectively be the GM.

And the best way to counter that playstyle is clarifying the situation, laying out the consequences ("Crossing that chasm is a DC25 jump check. If you miss, you die. Do you still jump?"), and, more importantly sticking to them is one of the best ways to deal with this kind of player. And it just so happens it's ALSO the best way to deal with real miscommunication problems. ^^

Although the best way to deal with a bully is to never invite them back to your game. If a GM suspects a player to do that kind of things, the game is already broken anyway.

But what we're arguing against is that you seem to ascribe to vilainy what could be easily explained to miscommunication. Your example of the cliff with jagged rocks is telling. You're saying that a player who decides to make the jump probably knows it's stupid and decides to do it anyway with nefarious intents. But really, it could be a "mental image" problem.
- The player doesn't know how fall damage work in your game. As Kyoryu said, the player could be accustomed to D&D where it's merely a minor inconvenience for a high-level character (in basic D&D, I had players jump from a 5th story window because they knew 5d6 damage wouldn't kill them, while the viper that just entered their bedroom had save-or-die venom.
- The player doesn't have the same image in his head. You imagine the Grand Canyon, but he was looking at his inventory or simply distracted when you made the description, and in his mind it's some sort of cliff that the bad guys somehow climbed down, so his rogue will have no problem jumping from ledge to ledge to get to them, right?
- "I splatter on the ground? Oh. Since you described jagged rocks at the bottom, I thought it was a seaside cliff. You can survive a 1000 feet dive into water, right? It's just water, after all?"
- "Hey, I'm a ninja. In Anime, ninjas run down cliffs all the time!"

Same thing for the hero insulting the king. RPGs are often power-fantasies for some players, so the player could do that in good faith "because Conan does that all the time", or "I thought the guy would just grumble and send us to this ****ing suicide mission, since his knights are apparently unable to get off their hairy arses" or "Isn't that guy a warrior king? I was expecting a duel where he, or his best knight, would show off" or simply "Hey, we do it all the time in Bob's laid back campaigns! I didn't thing you would get all dark-and-gritty in yours". Maybe some of those sound stupid to you, but they don't sound stupid to the player, because the fiction happening in his head is a different one from yours.

There are plenty of ways a player can do some stuff that sounds really, REALLY stupid. Doesn't mean he wants to mess with you. He could simply be picturing a different story.

[kyoryu]

And even when there isn't miscommunication it's a very useful tool.

100%, and I should have been more clear about that.

Hell, the game I run the most is Fate, and while it's not spelled out well in the rules "Intent" determines the action taken, while "Task" determines the skill used in that game.


I find it a bit odd to emphasize so heavily on the importance of communication, but then use a so blame-heavy idea of it that puts the responsibility entirely on one person.

At first glance, I get that, and definitely the player bears some responsibility. But the GM has the advantage of having the authoritative vision of what happens, and so conveying that is their onus, primarily.

Let's look at the "jumping off of the cliff" example.

PLayer: "I jump off of the cliff" (presuming D&D falling damage rules)
GM: "You go splat" (presuming logical outcomes apply)

In that scenario, the players has no opportunity to clarify, unless they ask clarification before every action. Since the flow of information is player request->GM adjudication->result conveyed (in any system where there is room for GM adjudication which is every RPG I know of), then the proper place for that clarification is on receipt of the intent, before the adjudication. That's when we find out that there's a mismatch, and since the GM's assumptions have the value of being inherently true, that's where the correction needs to exist.


Communication requires not only clarity, but also good faith and an effort at mutual trust. Without those, initial clear communication inevitably decays into passive-aggressive sniping and an unwillingness to work past any mistakes that will inevitably happen.

For sure! And a big part of what I'm saying is trust the players. Trust that they're not dumb, and when something seems wonky, clarify rather than apply the worst consequences.


In that regard, the Gazebo story is actually a great example of a group dealing with miscommunication in a healthy way. The realize their mistakes and laugh it off.

That's my experience, anyways.

It is. And it's an amusing story because, really, there was no fallout from it - no real damage (I'm sure they walked back the "your character was eaten" bit), just miscommunication and some arrows that flew.

"Laugh it off" doesn't work as well when there are actual negative consequences.



I'm… a bit dubious here.

If I've got a character being chased by a squad of orcs with an "in formation" bonus, and said character "throws a 55-gallon drum of oil" into the middle of them / causes a stack of oil flasks to topple towards them / whatever, before darting in a different direction / behind cover / whatever, I expect certain logical consequences to happen, regardless of my intent. For example,

Sure, and all of those things can still happen? Stating intent is not a contract. Your intent here is "to cause a distraction or obstacle, maybe hurt them if possible".


My expectation is for this action to have logical consequences, regardless of my intent. Or, rather, my *intent* is for my action to have logical consequences. And I have a preference for GMs (and systems) that look at that scenario, and output some *somewhat reasonable* results to my actions on a regular basis.

Of course. And "I do this, what happens" works fairly well in a lot of cases where the action is like shooting an arrow - it's prep, the actual action, and then wait for result But the point is that often actions aren't very atomic - they represent some period of time (1-6 seconds) and a bunch of stuff done in that time frame, and a bunch of micro decisions. Wrestling, for instance, swordfighting, etc. If I'm charging someone near a cliff, and my goal is to tackle them to the ground, I'm going to do a lot of things differently than if my intent is to knock them off of the cliff. And that's all inherent in the action, and it would be a mismatch for the GM to do the wrong one, because that's a result the character has a lot of control over.


For example, if the *most likely* result of this action was, "one or more orcs fall madly in love with your PC"

Why would that be a result? That doesn't make any sense. The point is not that the player dictates the result, regardless of how insane it is. The point is that you're clear in communication so that the GM can adjudicate properly.

And if the player thinks that that is a possible result for whatever reason, and the GM thinks that it's not, this is a great time to clarify that misconception.

Example: In a one-shot I played, I was a swashbuckling space pirate guy or something. I commandeered the ship's comms on a ship we were doing something on, and tried to get the crew to mutiny. The GM told me flat out that that wouldn't work, but I could cause some amount of distraction by it (in a longer game, maybe i could have done more things to eventually start a rebellion? Who knows).

But by clarifying the possiblities, it ensured that we were on the same page, especially since my character would likely know that the enemy troops would generally be too disciplined to mutiny from a short message like that!


or that action could, by game physics, only ever have *one* result

Again, it's communication, not contract, except to the extent that, to the extent the character has control, they should get some form of what they want. In the cliff example, for instance, if you're trying to tackle the orc, a critical success should result in the orc being tackled, not knocked over the cliff.


War games are stuck having to adhere to rules and strict moves lists. The advantage to RPGs is that they are not (which is a two-edged sword, making RPGs less "gamey" than war games).

At least, that's my stance on the matter.

This has nothing to do with that. The point is not that you specify exactly and precisely what will happen. The point is that you ensure clarity with the GM to ensure that they can properly adjudicate the action.


And the best way to counter that playstyle is clarifying the situation, laying out the consequences ("Crossing that chasm is a DC25 jump check. If you miss, you die. Do you still jump?"), and, more importantly sticking to them is one of the best ways to deal with this kind of player. And it just so happens it's ALSO the best way to deal with real miscommunication problems. ^^

Although the best way to deal with a bully is to never invite them back to your game. If a GM suspects a player to do that kind of things, the game is already broken anyway.

100%. All of this. The best way to deal with that kind of ****ty behavior is to deal with it honestly, and directly, and in a straightforward way. IOW, pretend it's not crappy behavior, and let people deal with the actual consequences. If someone wants to do the thing you've said will result in death to "bully" you, then let them deal with a dead character, if you made sure they knew of the consequences.

And actual bullying behavior (which is rare)? Kick them out.


But what we're arguing against is that you seem to ascribe to vilainy what could be easily explained to miscommunication. Your example of the cliff with jagged rocks is telling. You're saying that a player who decides to make the jump probably knows it's stupid and decides to do it anyway with nefarious intents. But really, it could be a "mental image" problem.

If you start with the presumption "players don't want their characters to die", then any action which would likely or be guaranteed to result in player death is either a result of stupidity or miscommunication.

If you presume people aren't stupid, that leaves miscommunication.


Same thing for the hero insulting the king. RPGs are often power-fantasies for some players, so the player could do that in good faith "because Conan does that all the time", or "I thought the guy would just grumble and send us to this ****ing suicide mission, since his knights are apparently unable to get off their hairy arses" or "Isn't that guy a warrior king? I was expecting a duel where he, or his best knight, would show off" or simply "Hey, we do it all the time in Bob's laid back campaigns! I didn't thing you would get all dark-and-gritty in yours". Maybe some of those sound stupid to you, but they don't sound stupid to the player, because the fiction happening in his head is a different one from yours.

There are plenty of ways a player can do some stuff that sounds really, REALLY stupid. Doesn't mean he wants to mess with you. He could simply be picturing a different story.

Better examples than I came up with, thank you.

Presume miscommunication or mismatched assumptions, rather than stupidity or malice. Because even in cases where there is stupidity or malice, clearing up the miscommunication/assumption problem is usually a smart way to go, and since you don't actually know what the issue is, taking the path of presuming miscommunication/assumption mismatch prevents a situation that isn't already negative from blowing up.

[Theoboldi]

At first glance, I get that, and definitely the player bears some responsibility. But the GM has the advantage of having the authoritative vision of what happens, and so conveying that is their onus, primarily.

Let's look at the "jumping off of the cliff" example.

PLayer: "I jump off of the cliff" (presuming D&D falling damage rules)
GM: "You go splat" (presuming logical outcomes apply)

In that scenario, the players has no opportunity to clarify, unless they ask clarification before every action. Since the flow of information is player request->GM adjudication->result conveyed (in any system where there is room for GM adjudication which is every RPG I know of), then the proper place for that clarification is on receipt of the intent, before the adjudication. That's when we find out that there's a mismatch, and since the GM's assumptions have the value of being inherently true, that's where the correction needs to exist.



For sure! And a big part of what I'm saying is trust the players. Trust that they're not dumb, and when something seems wonky, clarify rather than apply the worst consequences.



It is. And it's an amusing story because, really, there was no fallout from it - no real damage (I'm sure they walked back the "your character was eaten" bit), just miscommunication and some arrows that flew.

"Laugh it off" doesn't work as well when there are actual negative consequences.


I'm going to argue that if a misunderstanding as inconsequential as this has negative consequences, then there are bigger problems than bad communication.

You're also leaving out the possibility of a GM honestly misinterpreting a player's intention or understanding, rather than them just lacking information. A GM is not a perfect machine, they are as much people as the players, and they probably have no particular qualifications for their position of authority other than wanting to do it. (Or, in many cases, being the only one willing to do it.).

Sure, it's important for a GM to try and be clear and ask for communication where necessary, but it is not healthy to a group's climate to expect them to have the biggest eye on it. Rather, I think a group should be in the mindset that such misunderstandings are not anybody's fault, that everyone should work together to avoid them, and that they can be retconned if they happen in play because the trust is there that nobody will abuse the other's goodwill.

It's not something you can ensure in, let's say, a convention game, but certainly for a group that intends to stay together for any prolonged time I would encourage it. Even if they are strangers. Roleplaying is an intrinsically trust-based hobby.

[noob]

Honestly if I saw a gazebo and that it was dnd I would assume that like 100% of the things that are "non living" that it it an undead mimic.
People walk on mimics, wear mimics, use mimics and live in mimics all while being doppelgangers unless they are the player characters.

[OldTrees1]

Honestly if I saw a gazebo and that it was dnd I would assume that like 100% of the things that are "non living" that it it an undead mimic.
People walk on mimics, wear mimics, use mimics and live in mimics all while being doppelgangers unless they are the player characters.

In a campaign I am running the PCs unintentionally let a mimic escape out into the wild. Just recently they came across a gazebo in a city. It was not a mimic.

[Quertus]

Sure, and all of those things can still happen? Stating intent is not a contract. Your intent here is "to cause a distraction or obstacle, maybe hurt them if possible".

Why would that be a result? That doesn't make any sense. The point is not that the player dictates the result, regardless of how insane it is. The point is that you're clear in communication so that the GM can adjudicate properly.

And if the player thinks that that is a possible result for whatever reason, and the GM thinks that it's not, this is a great time to clarify that misconception.

Example: In a one-shot I played, I was a swashbuckling space pirate guy or something. I commandeered the ship's comms on a ship we were doing something on, and tried to get the crew to mutiny. The GM told me flat out that that wouldn't work, but I could cause some amount of distraction by it (in a longer game, maybe i could have done more things to eventually start a rebellion? Who knows).

But by clarifying the possiblities, it ensured that we were on the same page, especially since my character would likely know that the enemy troops would generally be too disciplined to mutiny from a short message like that!



Again, it's communication, not contract, except to the extent that, to the extent the character has control, they should get some form of what they want. In the cliff example, for instance, if you're trying to tackle the orc, a critical success should result in the orc being tackled, not knocked over the cliff.



This has nothing to do with that. The point is not that you specify exactly and precisely what will happen. The point is that you ensure clarity with the GM to ensure that they can properly adjudicate the action.

I lost a much longer reply :(

The quick of it is, "falls madly in love" is a reference to a (samurai?) game I've never played, but heard that was a common result.

It's great that you can declare, "to cause a distraction or obstacle, maybe hurt them if possible".

Do you think it likely that that is sufficient syncing to make it likely that it could also have the "cover the orcs in oil, learn how they move, learn about their psychology/motives, make them (temporarily) lose their 'in formation' bonus, make them have to roll to ID me if they lose LoS and spot me again, and attract attention"?

[Florian]

@Quertus:

No, it is not an excuse to meta game.

[Quertus]

@Quertus:

No, it is not an excuse to meta game.

You've lost me.

[Florian]

You've lost me.

Action and Intent is: "I do X because I think the situation is Y and my action will cause Z".

"I try to smite the Gazebo because it seems to be threatening me and I want to be the first to move!".

The answer is either:
A) Roll initiative
B) "Look, a gazebo is just a fancy world for a special form of Pavillon"

What you seem to try is to fold a lot of individual actions into one and have that greenligted by the GM.

- Stealth to stay hidden and observe the situation
- Profession: Soldier or something similar to gauge that there is a formation
- Basic attack roll to launch the barrel
- Stealth to retreat under cover

[Segev]

Yeah, the purpose of asking what the player hopes the result to be is simply to see if you, as GM, think there is any way the character would reasonably expect that to be the result.

For example, last session, I described how there was a seam in the floor, wall, and ceiling going all the way around a tunnel. The players started getting very excited and asked me for more details, describing how they studied it and looked for any clues in it.

It turned out they’d heard “scene,” rather than “seam.”

Now, this wasn’t a life or death thing, but when I realized they were becoming annoyed that I wasn’t describing something more despite me having described all there was to see, we stopped and discussed what they were looking for and what they hoped to find and I realized they thought there was some sort of mural.

[Florian]

Had a similar experience.

I thought I made it clear that the characters were with the coroner looking at two murder victims, both drowned in the river, found at the harbor by dockworkers.

Player of mine constantly tried spells to contact the water spirits and grew more and more agitated when I told her either that there were non present or the few that answered seemed to be old and stagnant.

Had she plainly told me "I want to use that spell to contact the river spirits to tell me something about the murder", then the situation would have cleared up.
- She thought they were at the river, not at the coroner.
- I thought she meant talking to the water that clings to the corpses.

[Keltest]

That tends to be my reaction when somebody wants to do something that i cant immediately see a benefit for. My current group are a bunch of loonies, so frequently they really are just trying something weird and nonsensical, but occasionally it does actually catch a misunderstanding of either a spell (its almost always a spell) or the scenario at hand. They frequently accomplish what they want to in the end, its just rarely as helpful as they were thinking.

[Quertus]

Action and Intent is: "I do X because I think the situation is Y and my action will cause Z".

"I try to smite the Gazebo because it seems to be threatening me and I want to be the first to move!".

The answer is either:
A) Roll initiative
B) "Look, a gazebo is just a fancy world for a special form of Pavillon"

What you seem to try is to fold a lot of individual actions into one and have that greenligted by the GM.

- Stealth to stay hidden and observe the situation
- Profession: Soldier or something similar to gauge that there is a formation
- Basic attack roll to launch the barrel
- Stealth to retreat under cover

Surely you've seen monies where someone (like James Bond) is being chased, and they upend something? Same thing, just (if it's oil drums) with beyond human strength involved.

So, "I'm toppling the oil drums while I continue running for/behind cover… because the 'in formation' orcs are still chasing me… and my action *may* cause the orcs to break formation, the orcs to take damage, the orcs to be pinned, the path to become difficult terrain, the path to become blocked, the orcs to take distraction penalties to keep LoS, the oil drums to break, and a great amount of noise… which in turn may give me bonuses in the chase (increased distance from pursuer, increased odds of eluding them altogether), reduce the orcs' 'in formation' bonuses, give me first-hand experience with the orcs psychology and capabilities*, draw attention to the chase, and increase the odds that the orcs change tactics".

In what way does this sound to you like more than one action + the logical consequences thereof?

* this is partially system dependent - if you aren't considered automatically "looking in all directions at once", it doubtless involves a huge "glancing over shoulder" penalty. But, even so, I expect I'll know if the "orcs", say, fly or "hulk leap" over the barrels, or phase through the barrels, or just *let* the barrels hit them (LotR style), or perform some other gross physical "lol what" maneuver.

[kyoryu]

Whether or not Intent + Task would allow for that variety of results is entirely dependent on whether or not the system in place allows for that. It's pretty much completely orthogonal.

It's about clarifying what you're doing, not how the action itself is resolved, with the exception that the GM should take the intent into account when resolving the action to ensure that "success" actually means some level of success.

If the system allows you to do all of those things, then Intent + Task wouldn't get in the way of that. If the system doesn't allow for it, then Intent + Task doesn't. It's that simple.

[Frogreaver]

Had a similar experience.

I thought I made it clear that the characters were with the coroner looking at two murder victims, both drowned in the river, found at the harbor by dockworkers.

Player of mine constantly tried spells to contact the water spirits and grew more and more agitated when I told her either that there were non present or the few that answered seemed to be old and stagnant.

Had she plainly told me "I want to use that spell to contact the river spirits to tell me something about the murder", then the situation would have cleared up.
- She thought they were at the river, not at the coroner.
- I thought she meant talking to the water that clings to the corpses.

This is a great example. The real question is: what did you do upon learning she thought she was at the river, or was she the one that finally realized she wasn't?

[Mutazoia]

Gazebo problems are always 100% the fault of the GM.
The players have no way to tell what their characters see, hear, and feel. They can only process information that the GM gives them. If they assume they are looking at something that isn't what the GM meant to present to them, there is absolutely nothing that the players could do about it. It's entirely the fault of the GM for describing things in a way that wasn't clear.

My golden rule as GM is "If a player does something that seems nonsensical, have the player confirm that he's imagining the same situation as you do before proceeding."
Players usually don't do stupid things. They do logical things based on the information they have. And the GM has exclusive control over the information they get. When you're the GM and notice that something might have gone wrong, it's your duty to clear that up before proceeding. Because nobody else in the game has the ability to do it. Letting players do something stupid because they couldn't read your mind is the same thing as arbitrarily saying "rocks fall, everyone dies".

Let me tell you a little story that happened to me one fine evening. It's a true story and, although it didn't happen while playing D&D, I'm sure you'll see how it goes to show how not all "Gazebo Problems" are the fault of the GM.

I work in a print shop (get all my printing for free, yo!). One evening, while at work, a young lady came in to have some fliers printed. Apparently there was some new law or ordinance that was pending and she was doing the leg work for a group at the local college that had something to say about it. Anyway, after printing her fliers, while ringing her up, I asked if she was going to be putting the fliers up on the columns around the campus (seeing if she needed to buy tape to hang them/make an extra sale):

Me: So, are you going to be hanging these on the columns around campus?
Her: What's a column?
Me: ??? You know...columns...the things that hold up ceilings?
Her: No...what's a column?
Me: (pointing to the column in the middle of the store) Those things, right there. They hold up the ceiling in a large room?
Her: (looking right at the frikkin column) No? What's a column?
Me: They also hold up pavilions at the part?
Her: What's a pavilion?
Me: Your total will be $X.xx, have a nice day!

Now some of you might think she was trolling me, but no...she honestly had no clue what a column or a pavilion was. And she was in college.

Then there was the time a friend of mine mixed up the word Brassiere (pronounced Bra-Zir), and Brasier (pronounced Bra-zer). For a moment we all thought we had found the Temple of Militant Feminists lit by big piles of burning bra's.

Depending on the region that a person comes from, they will have different linguistic references. You may say "Soda" and someone else will call it "pop". Both are correct, but the person using "soda" may never have heard of "pop" (or Soda-pop), and become confused. Everyone assumes that everyone else has the same frame of reference that they do, and use the same labels for things that they do.

I take the Gazebo story with a HUGE helping of salt. Even the dumb girl from my first example stopped to ask what a column was. I can't imagine Eric not stopping to ask what a gazebo was.

[Tanarii]

Then there was the time a friend of mine mixed up the word Brassiere (pronounced Bra-Zir), and Brasier (pronounced Bra-zer). For a moment we all thought we had found the Temple of Militant Feminists lit by big piles of burning bra's.
The correct pronunciation is Bruh-zeer vs Bray-zi-er. Also it's spelled Brazier.

Unless, you know, you're not American. :smallbiggrin:

[Keltest]

Then there was the time a friend of mine mixed up the word Brassiere (pronounced Bra-Zir), and Brasier (pronounced Bra-zer). For a moment we all thought we had found the Temple of Militant Feminists lit by big piles of burning bra's.

This happened to my group as well. Somebody spend a solid month thinking the party wizard was summoning a fire elemental out of a bra he kept suspended from his belt.

[Mutazoia]

The correct pronunciation is Bruh-zeer vs Bray-zi-er. Also, it's spelled, Brazier.

Unless, you know, you're not American. :smallbiggrin:

Just like I was talking about, Brazier and Brasier are alternate spellings and mean the same thing.

[Quertus]

Let me tell you a little story that happened to me one fine evening. It's a true story and, although it didn't happen while playing D&D, I'm sure you'll see how it goes to show how not all "Gazebo Problems" are the fault of the GM.

I work in a print shop (get all my printing for free, yo!). One evening, while at work, a young lady came in to have some fliers printed. Apparently there was some new law or ordinance that was pending and she was doing the leg work for a group at the local college that had something to say about it. Anyway, after printing her fliers, while ringing her up, I asked if she was going to be putting the fliers up on the columns around the campus (seeing if she needed to buy tape to hang them/make an extra sale):

Me: So, are you going to be hanging these on the columns around campus?
Her: What's a column?
Me: ??? You know...columns...the things that hold up ceilings?
Her: No...what's a column?
Me: (pointing to the column in the middle of the store) Those things, right there. They hold up the ceiling in a large room?
Her: (looking right at the frikkin column) No? What's a column?
Me: They also hold up pavilions at the part?
Her: What's a pavilion?
Me: Your total will be $X.xx, have a nice day!

Now some of you might think she was trolling me, but no...she honestly had no clue what a column or a pavilion was. And she was in college.

Then there was the time a friend of mine mixed up the word Brassiere (pronounced Bra-Zir), and Brasier (pronounced Bra-zer). For a moment we all thought we had found the Temple of Militant Feminists lit by big piles of burning bra's.

Depending on the region that a person comes from, they will have different linguistic references. You may say "Soda" and someone else will call it "pop". Both are correct, but the person using "soda" may never have heard of "pop" (or Soda-pop), and become confused. Everyone assumes that everyone else has the same frame of reference that they do, and use the same labels for things that they do.

I take the Gazebo story with a HUGE helping of salt. Even the dumb girl from my first example stopped to ask what a column was. I can't imagine Eric not stopping to ask what a gazebo was.

In your story, the GM speaker with the superior knowledge recognized the confusion, and attempted to clarify. So I don't think your story has the inevitable takeaway you intend.

Also, I absolutely do not expect my players to metagame and ask what a Glabrezu is. Of course, I also don't call it by name unless the PCs should know what it is… at which point, perhaps confused players *should* ask if that's something that their characters should understand. Point is, in the oldschool gaming environment which birthed this story, asking for details about a Named Monster should not be *expected*.

And don't get me started on college girls. The sheer "how could anyone but God comprehend that you have a 1-in-6 chance of rolling a given number on a (normal, d6) die?" level of confusion one gave in statistics class… just… I can't even.

[kyoryu]

Let me tell you a little story that happened to me one fine evening. It's a true story and, although it didn't happen while playing D&D, I'm sure you'll see how it goes to show how not all "Gazebo Problems" are the fault of the GM.

No, they're not necessarily the fault of the GM. However, the GM has the responsibility to correct them, since the GM's interpretation of the facts is authoritative (in most systems).


Depending on the region that a person comes from, they will have different linguistic references. You may say "Soda" and someone else will call it "pop". Both are correct, but the person using "soda" may never have heard of "pop" (or Soda-pop), and become confused. Everyone assumes that everyone else has the same frame of reference that they do, and use the same labels for things that they do.

I take the Gazebo story with a HUGE helping of salt. Even the dumb girl from my first example stopped to ask what a column was. I can't imagine Eric not stopping to ask what a gazebo was.

Correct, and in most cases that's just a miscommunication and both sides should be aware and fix it.

In RPGs, however, the difference is that since the GM is responsible for adjudicating actions, their opinion has the force of truth. And, as such, the responsibility lies more on their shoulders to ensure people understand their vision of what is going on.

In reality, there is objective realilty, and subjective views - objective reality can be pointed out, and subjective views are all (effectively) equal. That's not the case in an RPG.

[Duff]

Depending on the region that a person comes from, they will have different linguistic references. You may say "Soda" and someone else will call it "pop". Both are correct, but the person using "soda" may never have heard of "pop" (or Soda-pop), and become confused.
As an Australian English speaker who serves "Soft Drink" to his kids, American English is weird. You know that, right?

[Mutazoia]

As an Australian English speaker who serves "Soft Drink" to his kids, American English is weird. You know that, right?

All language is weird lol

[Imbalance]

As an Australian English speaker who serves "Soft Drink" to his kids, American English is weird. You know that, right?

Soda is short for sodium carbonate, the stuff that makes it fizz. Pop is what the fizz bubbles do. What's "soft" about it?

[Darth Credence]

Soda is short for sodium carbonate, the stuff that makes it fizz. Pop is what the fizz bubbles do. What's "soft" about it?

It doesn't have alcohol in it.

[Imbalance]

It doesn't have alcohol in it.

And why should your alcohol be hard? Let it thaw before consumption, I say!

[Pex]

And why should your alcohol be hard? Let it thaw before consumption, I say!

Alcoholic beverages are hard to drink. Beer is bitter, which is why college students chugging is a thing. Wine is tart, which is why it's served in a small glass and not even full. Vodka is stronger tart, which is why it's common to have it with orange juice (screwdriver) or tomato juice (bloody mary). Then there's rum and whiskey which are sometimes called hard liquor. The fizz of soda is reminiscent to how alcohol feels yet palatable and doesn't make you drunk.

[Segev]

This is only a guess based on attempts to reconstruct an explanation post-hoc, but my guess is that "hard drink" being a term for alcohol is the origination point. That's not all, though: think about hard liquors and how people react when they slam them back. Especially people not used to them. That pained expression, the tears in the eyes, the sense they feel their throat seizing up.

Soda carbonation has a similar effect if you slam it back too hard. Thus, it might feel similar in the throat to "hard drink." But it has no alcohol in it. Therefore, it's a "soft drink."

That's based on my efforts at deduction, again. Not any historical etymological knowledge.

[Zhorn]

... And then there's 'water softener' ...

[Imbalance]

Alcoholic beverages are hard to drink. Beer is bitter, which is why college students chugging is a thing. Wine is tart, which is why it's served in a small glass and not even full. Vodka is stronger tart, which is why it's common to have it with orange juice (screwdriver) or tomato juice (bloody mary). Then there's rum and whiskey which are sometimes called hard liquor. The fizz of soda is reminiscent to how alcohol feels yet palatable and doesn't make you drunk.

Beverages with varying difficulty? What game is this?


This is only a guess based on attempts to reconstruct an explanation post-hoc, but my guess is that "hard drink" being a term for alcohol is the origination point. That's not all, though: think about hard liquors and how people react when they slam them back. Especially people not used to them. That pained expression, the tears in the eyes, the sense they feel their throat seizing up.

Soda carbonation has a similar effect if you slam it back too hard. Thus, it might feel similar in the throat to "hard drink." But it has no alcohol in it. Therefore, it's a "soft drink."

That's based on my efforts at deduction, again. Not any historical etymological knowledge.

Lemonade, ginger beer, rosewater, etc. aren't called soft drinks, though.


... And then there's 'water softener' ...

There's a gazebo...

[Zhorn]

Lemonade, ginger beer, rosewater, etc. aren't called soft drinks, though.
Here in Australia they are. Well lemonade and ginger beer are. I've never seen rosewater.

[OldTrees1]

Here in Australia they are. Well lemonade and ginger beer are. I've never seen rosewater.

I know where I am we have Lemonade and Hard Lemonade. I don't know if Lemonade is considered a soft drink, because soda has cornered the soft drink branding market. Sometimes "Coke" or "Cola" is used to mean Coca Cola, and other times it is used to mean any pop (ex: Pepsi).

[Keltest]

I know where I am we have Lemonade and Hard Lemonade. I don't know if Lemonade is considered a soft drink, because soda has cornered the soft drink branding market. Sometimes "Coke" or "Cola" is used to mean Coca Cola, and other times it is used to mean any pop (ex: Pepsi).

Coke pretty much invariably means Coca Cola here, but cola refers to that general flavor of soda. Root Beer is not cola, for example.

[Imbalance]

Here in Australia they are. Well lemonade and ginger beer are. I've never seen rosewater.

Like someone above, I'm only speculating, but it seems the industry term became the more widely used in Australian vernacular while regions where the drinks were earlier introduced carried names that were more traditional from a time before the marketing told us what to call it. If I order a soft drink and am served a lemonade, I'll remember to check what part of the world I'm in before going full Karen. On the other hand, this frequent exchange at local eateries always amuses me:
Server: And what would you like to drink?
Me: Coke, please.
Server: Is Pepsi ok?
Me: Even better.

Facetiously, how much alcohol is in hard water and what would you set the DC at? Can the sorcerer soften it with fire?

[gloryblaze]

"Lemonade" itself is a bit of a contentious term based on geography, if i recall correctly. In the US (or at least the parts I've lived in), it refers to a non-carbonated beverage made of lemon juice, sugar, and water; but my understanding is that in some other parts of the world, it more commonly refers to lemon-lime carbonated beverages such as Sprite (which in my corner of the world we would probably just call "Sprite", even if we were actually referring to 7-Up, Sierra Mist, or what have you. I guess "lemon-lime soda" if you're feeling particularly precise.)

[OldTrees1]

Facetiously, how much alcohol is in hard water and what would you set the DC at? Can the sorcerer soften it with fire?

No alcohol in hard water. That is why it is so hard to get drunk on the stuff. DC 15 Wis save to disbelieve reality.
A sorcerer can't soften it with fire, but they can harden it with fire. +1 AC and +1 Hardness per spell level.

[Quertus]

Fire water = hard alcohol?

[Tanarii]

I don't know if Lemonade is considered a soft drink, because soda has cornered the soft drink branding market.
Lemonade is a clear carbonated soda with a slightly lemony taste. Not sugar lemon water.

Just like iced tea is nice and bitter. Not super sweet.

[Duff]

Soda is short for sodium carbonate, the stuff that makes it fizz. Pop is what the fizz bubbles do. What's "soft" about it?

Based on this link and a lifetime of Austalian living I have this theory...

Beer is the default drink and requires no further explanation.
Hard liquor is stronger, more powerful (hard like a boxer might be called hard) and more difficult to drink without extra additives.

Soft drink is the opposite of hard


https://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/why-alcohol-is-hard#:~:text=Why%20Is%20Alcohol%20Called%20'Hard'% 3F&text=From%20this%20sense%20comes%20the,Not%20usual ly%20the%20best%20combination.

[Imbalance]

Lemonade is a clear carbonated soda with a slightly lemony taste. Not sugar lemon water.

Just like iced tea is nice and bitter. Not super sweet.

But are they hard?

[Max_Killjoy]

Lemonade is a clear carbonated soda with a slightly lemony taste. Not sugar lemon water.

Just like iced tea is nice and bitter. Not super sweet.

Plenty of drinks that are not carbonated are called "lemonade" in my experience.

[Keltest]

Plenty of drinks that are not carbonated are called "lemonade" in my experience.

Ditto. Lemonade is, in my part of the States, pretty much any lemon flavored drink made primarily with water. If its alcoholic, its hard lemonade. If its carbonated, it might be bubbly lemonade, or lemonade soda. If its lemon-lime, then its lemon-limeade, etc... but theyre all variants of just Lemonade.

[Hellpyre]

Also, probably worth noting that the US in general has a very odd habit of referring to things by the name of a specific brand of that thing, instead of a simple generic name. And not even always the same brand if you go to different parts of the country.

[Tanarii]

Ditto. Lemonade is, in my part of the States, pretty much any lemon flavored drink made primarily with water. If its alcoholic, its hard lemonade. If its carbonated, it might be bubbly lemonade, or lemonade soda. If its lemon-lime, then its lemon-limeade, etc... but theyre all variants of just Lemonade.
Yup. That's a USA thing.

[Talakeal]

And don't get me started on college girls. The sheer "how could anyone but God comprehend that you have a 1-in-6 chance of rolling a given number on a (normal, d6) die?" level of confusion one gave in statistics class… just… I can't even.

Think about having that same conversation with your game master...

[Max_Killjoy]

Yup. That's a USA thing.

Online etymology lookups aren't being helpful in determining which usage if either is derivative.

[Max_Killjoy]

Think about having that same conversation with your game master...


I regularly come across game systems that were clearly written without a basic knowledge of probability...

(Or if that's not the case, then for example, they genuinely want the average PC to fail 2/3 or more of their rolls even where there was deep investment in the relative values...)

[Willie the Duck]

Online etymology lookups aren't being helpful in determining which usage if either is derivative.

Do they say when the term originated? The process of carbonating water was discovered early-mid 1700s and only made widely known towards the end of the century.

[Max_Killjoy]

Do they say when the term originated? The process of carbonating water was discovered early-mid 1700s and only made widely known towards the end of the century.

All they say is that it's from French sometime in the 1600s, and entered English usage around 1660.

[Tanarii]

Do they say when the term originated? The process of carbonating water was discovered early-mid 1700s and only made widely known towards the end of the century.
Cloudy lemonade (US style)

[Pelle]

I regularly come across game systems that were clearly written without a basic knowledge of probability...

(Or if that's not the case, then for example, they genuinely want the average PC to fail 2/3 or more of their rolls even where there was deep investment in the relative values...)

Or the games expects the players to try to come up with solutions to problems without having to roll at all. Rolling is considered a fail state and is seen more as a saving throw. Or the games may have mechanics for pushing the rolls, granting rerolls at a cost, but which makes the total chance of succeeding much higher.

[kyoryu]

Or the games expects the players to try to come up with solutions to problems without having to roll at all. Rolling is considered a fail state and is seen more as a saving throw. Or the games may have mechanics for pushing the rolls, granting rerolls at a cost, but which makes the total chance of succeeding much higher.

Or cases where you're lumping in "mixed success" with failure, like AW, where "succeed, but with complications" is supposed to be the default the majority of the time, until you advance a bunch.

[Max_Killjoy]

Or the games expects the players to try to come up with solutions to problems without having to roll at all. Rolling is considered a fail state and is seen more as a saving throw. Or the games may have mechanics for pushing the rolls, granting rerolls at a cost, but which makes the total chance of succeeding much higher.




Or cases where you're lumping in "mixed success" with failure, like AW, where "succeed, but with complications" is supposed to be the default the majority of the time, until you advance a bunch.


I'm not talking about that sort of thing, though I'm not a fan of those push mechanics.

What I'm talking about is when the game is just vanilla task-resolution, no rerolls or push, no "yes but", and yet the math and odds just don't match up with the expectations.

[kyoryu]

I'm not talking about that sort of thing, though I'm not a fan of those push mechanics.

What I'm talking about is when the game is just vanilla task-resolution, no rerolls or push, no "yes but", and yet the math and odds just don't match up with the expectations.

That sounds pretty bad.

Examples?

[Max_Killjoy]

That sounds pretty bad.

Examples?

There's one about "Vikings" I can't recall the name of right now, Yggdrasill, where an average PC characteristic will fail to succeed on certain challenges set at average difficulty about 60% of the time because everything is set up to be characteristic + skill, but there are certain things that no skills apply to. The example that jumps out is Strength tests, which from what I can see often have no skill that applies.

[Friv]

Another game system for which that was the case was Serenity, the first edition of the much-improved Cortex system. In Serenity, you rolled one die for your Attribute and one for your Skill; in both cases, the die was between d4 and d12 (at very high levels, you could get a 'die' of d12+d2.) Generally, starting characters could get one or two Attributes and one or two Skills at d10, with the rest cascading down from there. They also set it up so that there were 23 skills, of which you could reasonably purchase 8 to 10, and also if you bought a skill past d6 you had to choose a Specialty and you only got the d6 on any other application (so for example, if you took Medicine d10, you would actually have Medicine d6 and Surgery d10.) You could buy extra specialties at full cost from a base of d6.

Difficulties looked okay on the surface - 3 for easy actions, 7 for average, 11 for hard, and then scaling up through Formidable (15), Heroic (19), Incredible (23), Ridiculous (27), and Impossible (31). This meant, in theory, that if you had 2d6 you had a 58% chance of success on average difficulty tasks, and if you had 2d10 you were at 55% chance of Hard. The problem is that the scale went way up past Hard and what was defined as "Hard" was... all over the map.

Hard tasks included things like "Open professional locks", "shoot a cola can at close range", "run a daily business for a major corporation", or "remember information from a college textbook." This is a difficulty that you can only manage 3/5 of the time at a high level of specialization, which the absolute best possible build in the game is still messing up three times in twenty, and which a moderately skilled and talented person will only succeed at one time in five.

Heroic tasks, something that a person with 2d10 could only manage 10% of the time, included such impossibilities as "shoot the guy holding your friend hostage", "intimidate a hardened war veteran", or "break five cinder blocks in one hit." It is impossible to reach a level of skill that allows for accomplishing these feats with a 1 in 3 chance of success. And there are three more difficulty tiers above it.

In theory, you're supposed to use your plot points to improve your rolls when you want to do something heroic, but you don't get very many of them, they don't give you a very large advantage, you need them for non-roll abilities, and you need to not spend them if you want to gain experience.

[Segev]

On the other hand, this frequent exchange at local eateries always amuses me:
Server: And what would you like to drink?
Me: Coke, please.
Server: Is Pepsi ok?
Me: Even better.


When that happens to me, I excitedly order Mountain Dew. (If the have Pepsi, they usually also have Mountain Dew.)

[Zhorn]

usually the result of having a supply contract with either PepsiCo or the Coca-Cola Company

If they have Coke, they'll have Sprite, Fanta, and sometimes Lift

If they have Pepsi, they'll have Mountain Dew, and sometimes 7up (a bit rarer to see here)

Here in Australia, if a place has Solo, they'll be unlikely to have Lift, and in turn will more likely have the Pepsi line up than the Coke line up.

[Max_Killjoy]

Another game system for which that was the case was Serenity, the first edition of the much-improved Cortex system. In Serenity, you rolled one die for your Attribute and one for your Skill; in both cases, the die was between d4 and d12 (at very high levels, you could get a 'die' of d12+d2.) Generally, starting characters could get one or two Attributes and one or two Skills at d10, with the rest cascading down from there. They also set it up so that there were 23 skills, of which you could reasonably purchase 8 to 10, and also if you bought a skill past d6 you had to choose a Specialty and you only got the d6 on any other application (so for example, if you took Medicine d10, you would actually have Medicine d6 and Surgery d10.) You could buy extra specialties at full cost from a base of d6.

Difficulties looked okay on the surface - 3 for easy actions, 7 for average, 11 for hard, and then scaling up through Formidable (15), Heroic (19), Incredible (23), Ridiculous (27), and Impossible (31). This meant, in theory, that if you had 2d6 you had a 58% chance of success on average difficulty tasks, and if you had 2d10 you were at 55% chance of Hard. The problem is that the scale went way up past Hard and what was defined as "Hard" was... all over the map.

Hard tasks included things like "Open professional locks", "shoot a cola can at close range", "run a daily business for a major corporation", or "remember information from a college textbook." This is a difficulty that you can only manage 3/5 of the time at a high level of specialization, which the absolute best possible build in the game is still messing up three times in twenty, and which a moderately skilled and talented person will only succeed at one time in five.

Heroic tasks, something that a person with 2d10 could only manage 10% of the time, included such impossibilities as "shoot the guy holding your friend hostage", "intimidate a hardened war veteran", or "break five cinder blocks in one hit." It is impossible to reach a level of skill that allows for accomplishing these feats with a 1 in 3 chance of success. And there are three more difficulty tiers above it.

In theory, you're supposed to use your plot points to improve your rolls when you want to do something heroic, but you don't get very many of them, they don't give you a very large advantage, you need them for non-roll abilities, and you need to not spend them if you want to gain experience.

That sort of thing is very common in systems that use escalating die size, especially if they go from d4 to d20, which I've seen.

[OldTrees1]

That sort of thing is very common in systems that use escalating die size, especially if they go from d4 to d20, which I've seen.

What? You mean a 1d20 is not analogous to a 1d4+8 when facing a DC of 5 or 15?

[kyoryu]

Another game system for which that was the case was Serenity...

Interesting. I think I've got that so I'll have to check it out.

When I see stuff like that I have to always wonder if there's other aspects of hte system (like plot points, etc.) that are supposed to come into play. Like, with Fate Core, if you don't use Create Advantage you're gonna have a bad time.

[Friv]

Interesting. I think I've got that so I'll have to check it out.

When I see stuff like that I have to always wonder if there's other aspects of hte system (like plot points, etc.) that are supposed to come into play. Like, with Fate Core, if you don't use Create Advantage you're gonna have a bad time.

Based on how Cortex developed, my theory is that the designers were expecting that plot points would really take over and be a massive resource that is constantly being spent and recovered. The rules note that the maximum number of plot points you can hold at a time is 12, which seems to indicate that they think it's not uncommon to have ten of them in your pool, and it's conceivable that the "1 plot point for doing something really cool" reward was actually meant to be given out multiple times per scene. If one set of designers assumed "each player will only roll once or twice per scene" and "each player will have 2-4 more plot points to play with each scene", scaling difficulties so that you have to keep spending those plot points makes sense. But then you have other sections of the rules that definitely assume that players are rolling for everything and that you're only getting plot points for really cool things, and the whole system falls apart.

(Plus in general, any system that says "at the end of the session, you don't get any experience points if you have six or fewer plot points left" is going to wildly discourage spending them. But that's a huge experience mistake, not a huge die scaling mistake.)

[Max_Killjoy]

Based on how Cortex developed, my theory is that the designers were expecting that plot points would really take over and be a massive resource that is constantly being spent and recovered. The rules note that the maximum number of plot points you can hold at a time is 12, which seems to indicate that they think it's not uncommon to have ten of them in your pool, and it's conceivable that the "1 plot point for doing something really cool" reward was actually meant to be given out multiple times per scene. If one set of designers assumed "each player will only roll once or twice per scene" and "each player will have 2-4 more plot points to play with each scene", scaling difficulties so that you have to keep spending those plot points makes sense. But then you have other sections of the rules that definitely assume that players are rolling for everything and that you're only getting plot points for really cool things, and the whole system falls apart.

(Plus in general, any system that says "at the end of the session, you don't get any experience points if you have six or fewer plot points left" is going to wildly discourage spending them. But that's a huge experience mistake, not a huge die scaling mistake.)


Tying XP to the same same general pool of points used to affect rolls, and forcing that choice on players, has always struck me as less than great. It was the one thing I really disliked about WEG d6 Star Wars, with character points also being used to affect rolls. It puts a player with bad luck in a couple sessions terminally behind, because they're using their CPs to save rolls instead of making their actual stats that go into those rolls better, which just means they'll end up facing that choice more often in the future too.

On Cortex/Serenity, it almost sounds like some of the devs were thinking it was "task resolution", and others were thinking it was "conflict resolution", or that half were thinking "roll for everything" and the other half were thinking "only roll when there's a question" or "only roll when the outcome is 'interesting'".




What? You mean a 1d20 is not analogous to a 1d4+8 when facing a DC of 5 or 15?

Heh.

But it's not just that, it makes any sort of difficulty target number hard to set such that it doesn't become a big gap between characters.

If it's just a d4 and a d20, a TN/DC/whatever of just 5 becomes impossible for the d4 and an 80% success rate for the d20. That's a huge range of capability.

From various discussions with and comments by game devs who use these systems, I get the feeling that they think "d4, d6, d8, d10, d12, d20, there's our scale of stats" is so elegant and simple, so obvious, so clever, that they don't stop to look at how it doesn't fit a lot of settings.

[kyoryu]

Heh.

But it's not just that, it makes any sort of difficulty target number hard to set such that it doesn't become a big gap between characters.

If it's just a d4 and a d20, a TN/DC/whatever of just 5 becomes impossible for the d4 and an 80% success rate for the d20. That's a huge range of capability.

From various discussions with and comments by game devs who use these systems, I get the feeling that they think "d4, d6, d8, d10, d12, d20, there's our scale of stats" is so elegant and simple, so obvious, so clever, that they don't stop to look at how it doesn't fit a lot of settings.

In the given example, part of the point is that both have the same mean result.... so an inexperienced designer might think they're equivalent and that they don't represent a range in capability.

[Max_Killjoy]

In the given example, part of the point is that both have the same mean result.... so an inexperienced designer might think they're equivalent and that they don't represent a range in capability.

I get that part of it, but like I said, there are other issues beyond just mean vs range disparity when it comes to scaling die size systems. :smallsmile:

[Pex]

Based on how Cortex developed, my theory is that the designers were expecting that plot points would really take over and be a massive resource that is constantly being spent and recovered. The rules note that the maximum number of plot points you can hold at a time is 12, which seems to indicate that they think it's not uncommon to have ten of them in your pool, and it's conceivable that the "1 plot point for doing something really cool" reward was actually meant to be given out multiple times per scene. If one set of designers assumed "each player will only roll once or twice per scene" and "each player will have 2-4 more plot points to play with each scene", scaling difficulties so that you have to keep spending those plot points makes sense. But then you have other sections of the rules that definitely assume that players are rolling for everything and that you're only getting plot points for really cool things, and the whole system falls apart.

(Plus in general, any system that says "at the end of the session, you don't get any experience points if you have six or fewer plot points left" is going to wildly discourage spending them. But that's a huge experience mistake, not a huge die scaling mistake.)

I do not know this game. I do not know its rules. Only going by your description.

I'm not a fan of game systems like this where it's DM whim you get resources to do stuff. In 5E terms that does mean I don't like Wild Magic Sorcerer getting his stuff back when the DM says he can. I suppose it's the same thing with Inspiration. It means your character is only as good as you the player can impress the DM in real life play. You have no agency. I know, trust the DM. It can work with such a DM. There's a Wild Sorcerer in a 5E game I'm in, and the DM lets her always roll for surges. Works great. That should have been the default. Anyway, you don't always have the luxury of playing with friends you know. Many games start with strangers agreeing to play and hopefully find new friends enjoying the hobby together. Game systems like this is too much DM control over the player. It's easily abusable even if the DM has no ill intent. It's the player's character, not the DM's.

[KoDT69]

Not only did I have a group that fireballs a gazebo, but then they proceeded to lunch the davenport!

But for real, I have always made sure my players get what's going on. I don't name monsters unless I know they have plenty of experience to know what it is. There's still been a few times of confusion but it's never resulted in punishment of the characters in any way, and normally was because a player was distracted somehow.

A game I was a player in with a newer DM we were dealing with a special type of gate to which you pass through carrying a key item or you get disintegrated like a Sphere of Annihilation. Everyone knew the plan for safe crossing except one guy who was taking a leak during the discussion. So in his seal to be the first through the door, he mistakenly threw his key into the gate, then jumped in, getting annihilated. Now if the DM had been rational he would have retconned the player confusion because in character we made it abundantly clear to the entire party what the safe method was. The character in game KNEW better, and was a Paladin under my Cleric. Not only did he always heed my advice, but this would have been totally out of character to disobey something outright, especially considering it was a church mission and the most dire of consequences. Nope. He said it. It happened. Gone. Of course me being the usual DM was only letting a player run a single adventure hook, so I made a separate recovery mission that resulted in a nice long 3 month unforgettable subplot ;) Still doesn't excuse the ruling. He never even asked to run another adventure. He figured out it was more fun being a player for him.

[Fiery Diamond]

Kyoryu - I checked out the discussion over there, and I intend to read more of it this evening. I agree with you for the most part, but I don't think that the specific example is a good one. I do think that the GM should do a better job of explaining, and if the case ever did arise as stated that the GM has a responsibility to lay out the consequences. But I also don't think it's unreasonable to expect that players would know that insulting an absolute monarch to their face is a bad idea and likely to end up with their arrest or possibly execution. If it had been an elf or dwarf kingdom, or treants, or whatever, then I could see it being something that the player may not immediately think of as a problem, because the cultures could be different. But I know that if somehow I was introduced to the Queen of England and decided to insult her, that I would immediately be removed from her presence, and I might expect the guards to do a little covert damage to me on the way out. I can extrapolate that to a dangerous fantasy world where kings are actual rulers, and figure that this is not going to go well.

The GM should make the consequences clear. But in this particular case, I don't think the players really didn't know that there would be consequences. I think they figured the GM wouldn't actually do anything to them, and the shock was when they found out they were wrong about that, not that an absolute monarch doesn't tolerate open insults.

As to the gazebo itself, I wonder if this story was part of the reason there's a gazebo in Zork II. It sounds like something they would do, I know it was white, and I think the description said something like 'it appears to be a gazebo.' I think I need to open up the game, get to the gazebo, and attempt to attack it.


I understood that was actual, I just question whether the motivations of the players were as reported - I certainly have known players in the past that try to bully the GM, and this seems like a move they would have made.

I also thought I was clear that in that situation, I would explain the consequences before we proceeded. So clear, in fact, that I said it twice. My only point was that by using as an example something that strikes me as quite frankly ludicrous that the player didn't know that it was a bad idea, it doesn't make the point as well to people not prepared to accept the point. Let me illustrate by giving an even worse example:

GM: You come to the cliffs overlooking your destination. At the base of the cliff, 1000 feet below you, is a field of jagged rocks that have fallen from the cliff over the years. The ruins of the city stretch beyond them. You see a precarious path meandering down the cliff face, with the starting point to your right.
Player: I jump off the cliff.
GM: OK (rolls dice). You slam into the jagged rocks at the bottom, and your vision fades away as the blood drains from your body. Your character has died, and the body is in very bad shape. Do you want to roll a new character?
Player: What do you mean I died? I just wanted to get to the bottom quickly, how was I to know that would be deadly?

I don't think many people are going to argue that it was not completely clear that leaping 1000 feet onto jagged rocks was not going to turn out well. If you tell people that as an anecdote to say don't think your players are stupid, a whole lot of people are going to say that that player was, indeed, stupid, and they wouldn't want to play with someone like that. My gut reaction, and the reactions of a few people I just asked about this (one of my players, and a GM from a different group), is that the player in your anecdote was, indeed, stupid. None of us would have just gone straight to killing the character, and agree with the idea that the GM should explain the possible consequences. But we also wouldn't want to play with someone that played like that, and that they were probably being willfully obtuse and wanting to make the game all about them.


Actually, no, that's a fantastic example. It's a wonderful example.

Because in D&D, no it's not obvious at all. Since falling damage maxes out well below a mid/high level character's HP, it is a completely understandable assumption in this case that said 1000 foot drop would result in falling damage being applied which, mechanically, would result in a trivial amount of damage to said high level character.

It's also a completely reasonable assumption (and, in fact, what I would do) that in that case the GM would say "no, we use those mechanics in cases where the result isn't obvious" and declare the character to be a small greasy spot at the landing site.

I personally think the "RAW are the physics of the world, even in cases where they make no sense" style of play to be obnoxious. But it still exists. And as a GM, it's still my job to correct that misalignment when it occurs, unless I actually think the player intended to kill their character..

And, yes, it's entirely possible that the player is assuming the GM won't do anything to their character - because that's how a lot of games run.

I'd rather correct that misapprehension politely and without drama rather than after the fact.

I just finished reading the thread and I had to comment on the argument that started with these posts. I find it darkly amusing that this thread is all about communication and miscommunication and clarification and yet both sides of this argument (Darth Credence and kyoryu) seem to be entirely missing the crux of their own miscommunication with one another. Both agree on the basic premise: you should assume players aren't stupid, and that any apparent stupidity is an information or communication error, and that the GM should react accordingly. The argument over the examples used, with Darth Credence calling out the royalty and cliff examples as very bad ones to use to make the point when presenting it to people who DON'T already agree with the premise, and kyoryu countering that they are wonderful examples, comes down to one simple "vision" disconnect, yet neither side seems to understand where the other is coming from enough to understand why the other is insisting what they are insisting.

The disconnect is this:

Darth Credence: When trying to illustrate the point about players not being stupid and how one should assume information/communication error to people who aren't already in agreement about that, you should use the most "reasonable-seeming" example possible - one that your audience can easily see both sides of without having to dig very deeply - and once they understand your point, then you tell them that they need to extrapolate from there to more "ridiculous-seeming" examples, like the royalty one. They must first accept your basic point - otherwise they will just dismiss your argument-, and then you can show them how it applies to things they would normally automatically see as absurdly stupid.

kyoryu: When trying to illustrate the point about players not being stupid and how one should assume information/communication error to people who aren't already in agreement about that, you should use the most "ridiculous-seeming" example possible (which still can be very reasonably explained) - one that your audience would instantly assume the player was being absurdly stupid. Then, you can delve into WHY and HOW it could easily NOT be absurd stupidity, showing them that this concept applies even in extreme situations, emphasizing that they should NEVER assume stupidity even when stupidity, on the face of it, seems to be the only apparent possibility to the GM.

Because both of you explained the reasons you thought those example were good/bad, but neither of you explained why those reasons MADE the example good/bad, neither of you seemed to understand what the disconnect was for why you could have the same reasons but one of you thought that made the example bad and one thought that made the example good.

Either of you feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

[zeuspeo]

Did no one else think he assumed it was some kind of mimic for most of the story. Especially if the DM has done it before it's very easy to get paranoid about things like this.

[Jason]

Did no one else think he assumed it was some kind of mimic for most of the story. Especially if the DM has done it before it's very easy to get paranoid about things like this.
No, it's pretty obvious that the player doesn't know what a gazebo is, not that he thought it was something else disguised as a gazebo.

[Quertus]

No, it's pretty obvious that the player doesn't know what a gazebo is, not that he thought it was something else disguised as a gazebo.

Not terribly obvious to the GM :smallbiggrin:

And, if it was obvious to the other players, then that speaks poorly of them for not engaging to fix the miscommunication before the GM went ballistic. :smallannoyed:

[Jason]

Not terribly obvious to the GM :smallbiggrin:

And, if it was obvious to the other players, then that speaks poorly of them for not engaging to fix the miscommunication before the GM went ballistic. :smallannoyed:
The GM didn't go ballistic. He said "it's too late, the gazebo caught and ate you," but then the players all had a laugh and explained what a gazebo was, and I'm sure they replayed the encounter without having Eric attack the gazebo.

[Segev]

I dunno, man. Gazeebos are level 8, and you have to face them alone.

https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/001/534/078/dcf.jpg

[Quertus]

The GM didn't go ballistic. He said "it's too late, the gazebo caught and ate you," but then the players all had a laugh and explained what a gazebo was, and I'm sure they replayed the encounter without having Eric attack the gazebo.

Sorry, "went ballistic" should have been blue. :smallwink:

[FrogInATopHat]

I just had to throw this example in to reinforce the 'lemonade' problem...

https://img.tesco.ie/Groceries/pi/226/5011026005226/IDShot_225x225.jpg

Hi from Ireland. I'm not sure this is a thing anywhere else in the world and it has definitely never had a lemon involved in its creation.

[Max_Killjoy]

I just had to throw this example in to reinforce the 'lemonade' problem...

https://img.tesco.ie/Groceries/pi/226/5011026005226/IDShot_225x225.jpg

Hi from Ireland. I'm not sure this is a thing anywhere else in the world and it has definitely never had a lemon involved in its creation.


Does it even have artificial lemon flavor?

[FrogInATopHat]

Does it even have artificial lemon flavor?

Apparently, it's still a lemon flavour, according to google. I think the red colour might trick the tastebuds because I was veeeeerrrry surprised at that information. It's been a while since I drank it, mind you.

I have personally described the flavour as 'I dunno, just red lemonade'. It definitely doesn't taste the same as the clear stuff.

It's very popular with either Jameson or Southern Comfort.