The most far-reaching bad descisions in RPG design?

[Lord Raziere]

Existence: RPG's really should never have existed. Bad decision overall as ever since they started we've never heard the end of all the issues.
*snip*

Whoa. let me stop you right there.

RPG's got 99 problems but their existence ain't one of them. and really, "it was a bad idea because we've never the end of the problems with the thing"? you could argue that for anything ever made, because everything has problems, because the world is imperfect. you just remind of a certain Douglas Adams quote:

In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.

{scrubbed}

[johnbragg]

Whoa. let me stop you right there.

RPG's got 99 problems but their existence ain't one of them. and really, "it was a bad idea because we've never the end of the problems with the thing"? you could argue that for anything ever made, because everything has problems, because the world is imperfect. you just remind of a certain Douglas Adams quote:

{scrubbed}

I don't think you read the rest of his post. I'm pretty sure his first line was sarcasm (even if it wasn't in blue text), complaining-about-the-complaining, since he then goes on to argue:

In any case as a medium that evolves with its audience I can't say there have been issues so far reaching as to merit my disdain. Most of the really nasty decisions I've encountered have been policy issues involving individual companies and creators. Everything else is just game rules, which are easier to deal with than company policies and stupid people.

For example...

Pathfinder made too big a fetish of 3.5 compatibility; WOTC's GSL and no-PDFs decisions; big companies using Kickstarter.

I think you're over-reacting, Lord Raziere.

[TarkXT]

^Got the joke.

Though I'm happy to remind anyone of Douglas Adams.

[Segev]

I don't care how many ranks in healing you have, if you tell me you're shoving the Sword of Healing into your partner, they're dying, and no amount of "Obviously a physician of my caliber would never believe such a trick" will prevent that. Likewise, I don't care how many ranks of diplomacy you have, if you tell me "I opine at length about the sexual practices and history of the King, his parents, his extended family and make allusions to the Family Bush" you're going to insult the king. I refuse to deny player agency simply because the player is unwilling to take advantage of their agency. I'm not asking for an eloquent speech from you, but if you want the king to get friendly and offer material support for your quest, you're going to have to at least make some effort into explaining how you plan on doing that.

Eh... this is also kind-of straw mannish. "I do this thing that is very clearly not in keeping with what the mechanics I'm invoking cause" is grounds for the DM to say, "What you just described would call for this other set of mechanics, and your character knows it won't have the effect of the mechanics you want to invoke. Would you like to try something else that would have the effect of the mechanics you want to use?"

In less general terms, the healer example would get a response of, "A doctor of your caliber does, indeed, know that this is not a 'sword of healing,' but is in fact just a sword, and that stabbing your patient with it will kill him. You will not get to roll a Healing check if you do that; you will instead roll a coup de grace. Is that what you want?"

The "diplomacy" example would have the DM say, "You know before you even open your mouth that there is no way to phrase that which will not be offensive to the king. Here are some topics and suggestions for approaches which would be more reasonably flattering. If you wish to roll Diplomacy, you'll need to use something which will not offend him."

These are similar to if a player of a Barbarian said, "My character pulls out a set of wicker reeds and begins to weave baskets. He uses his rage and has his battle axe equipped, so I will roll to hit and damage these goblins..."

The DM is completely within his rights to say, "Er, no. You have to swing your axe at the goblins to be able to roll to hit and damage them with it. Weaving baskets is not a viable way to do this, and would take your action up for an extended period of time."

Mechanics do have the ability to specify what you're doing, at least in broad terms. Attacks involve moving weapons in the direction of the targets. Diplomacy involves trying to get on the target's good side. Healing involves actions which plausibly (within the setting) could be reparative.

If you truly don't know what would be reasonable, you can describe it in as vague of terms as needed and let the mechanics handle it. More power to you if you can describe it well. But nobody is arguing that "I describe this activity that is definitely NOT what I am rolling to accomplish" should qualify as a valid way to achieve something. At BEST, if it's a misunderstanding of the tone of the game, the GM should be warning the player that that isn't going to do what he thinks it is, and his character would know that. Then let the player choose something that would do what his character is trying to achieve. If it comes down to, "Well, um, can I just roll?" the answer should be, "Yes."

[1337 b4k4]

If you truly don't know what would be reasonable, you can describe it in as vague of terms as needed and let the mechanics handle it. More power to you if you can describe it well. But nobody is arguing that "I describe this activity that is definitely NOT what I am rolling to accomplish" should qualify as a valid way to achieve something. At BEST, if it's a misunderstanding of the tone of the game, the GM should be warning the player that that isn't going to do what he thinks it is, and his character would know that. Then let the player choose something that would do what his character is trying to achieve. If it comes down to, "Well, um, can I just roll?" the answer should be, "Yes."

My answer is "yes, but you'll only get the minimum required to advance the game and accomplish your goal on a success". I ask for players to be specific both because I want them to engage with the world, but also because I want them to tell me specifically what they want to accomplish. I want my players to give me the things they want to do because that's the best way for me to get them what they want. If you tell me "I want to diplomance the king" and expect to just roll, then what should I give you? I assume you want to advance the story, so I can give you that, and that's all I'll give you unless you give me more. Do you want supplies? Do you want allies? Do you want to lie? Do you want fame? Do you want money? Do you want to proposition the king for a trist? As a DM, I don't act for your character. I've got too much to do figuring out what everyone else does, and frankly, it takes away your agency for me to tell you that you lied, or that you asked the king for a loan or extra supplies. If you want these other things, or you want something specific that's not covered under the heading of "The absolute minimum possible to meet the definition of this mechanic" then you need to give me something to work on.

Again, I don't need a speech. I don't even need you to tell me in character. I just want you to express your intentions and your goals. I don't allow my players to roll initiative and then sit there and say "I attack a creature". I ask for their movements, their targets, their called shots, their intentions (i.e. I want to push him back). And I don't run their fights for them. They don't tell me "I attack" and then sit back as I determine the target they choose, the movement they take to get there, the power they chose to use, the tactics they engage in etc. All of that is up to them. None of my players are expert swordsmen or fighters and yet they (and thousands and hundreds of other players just like them) manage this all the time. I hardly think it's unfair to ask the same of players trying to use diplomacy or any of the other skills to give me the specifics of what they're doing and trying to accomplish.

Edit
-----------

Just so I'm sure I understand, if no knowledge check had been made, the vines would not have been dangling from the ceiling, but if a knowledge check had been made, and failed, they would have? If so, that seems like an interesting method, but I don't think I would enjoy it.

That's the gist of it, though it doesn't have to be specifically that. Had the knowledge check been done after dispatching the vines, it could be bad news like "the vines begin releasing a cloud of gas as they decay, and you begin to cough. You need to get out of this room quickly and you'll probably need to find another way around if you need to back track" or "These vines are almost never found without being accompanied by giant spiders, and your party elf's keen hearing picks up on some vaguely arachnoid foot steps coming your way, you've attracted someone's attention."

As I said, it's definitely not standard D&D (it's a very Dungeon World esque way of doing it) but I've found it works well, makes knowledge checks interesting and risky and generally adds a bit more spice. I've even asked players to tell me what the bad news is, and they're always worse on themselves than I would be (and they always get a kick out of dropping something on the party). The key I've found is to not make the "bad news" something stupidly unfair. For example, "vines above you, roll initiative" is fair, while "vines above you, everyone takes 3d6 damage and the dwarf is being strangled" is not. Likewise, attracting the attention of the spiders is fair, spider sneak attacks from the ceiling is not. Green gas that they need to escape from and blocks their path in the future is fair, "save vs poison or die" is not.

[Segev]

Oh, sure, by all means, encourage your players to tell you how their characters do something. Be proactive in helping them figure out what their characters do to earn the success they just rolled, so they can spell it out.

But at the same time, if they're insistent that "shove a sword 'of healing' into his chest" is a valid Healing check, tell them "no." Not because you're not allowing the character to take that action or even have that delusion, but because that described action does not get modeled by a Healing check.

And, because you don't want to spring it on the players in a "gotcha" sense, you tell them so. Maybe they really thought it would work, for some reason. Maybe the Diplomacy check involving off-color remarks about the king's parentage and hobbies was something the PLAYER thought would be delivered with such charm and humor that it would break the ice and get the king laughing with him.

When they roll an amazing Diplomacy roll, you tell them that they know before they start that that's a bad idea, and help the player work out something that would be more in line with that success. If the player insists he's going with the Bad Idea instead, you tell him he didn't actually perform the Diplomacy check, but did something else. Just as you would if he said "I compare my Run speed to the enemy's, and know I can get away. So I sit down and eat lunch, and they can't catch me." If he takes an action that is not modeled by the mechanics he wishes to invoke, he just doesn't get to invoke the mechanics.

[Sith_Happens]

Didn't you know? Using dice to accomplish things is cheating. Real DMs should replace all dice with Orcus.

I just rolled a 20 on my dOrcus, is that good?

[Jarawara]

I just rolled a 20 on my dOrcus, is that good?

Yes, definately!!!

If you're Orcus!

[Flickerdart]

I just rolled a 20 on my dOrcus, is that good?

Rolling is the same as cheating. You should have just roleplayed a 20 instead. To the Orcus pits with thee!

[Sith_Happens]

Rolling is the same as cheating. You should have just roleplayed a 20 instead. To the Orcus pits with thee!

I don't know, Orcus didn't really seem to mind. Probably something to do with the hill I rolled him down.