Quote from: JesterRaiin;908595Neither do I and I'm not claiming someone said that.

However what I see is this:

...I don't agree with "EVERY" part. Hell, no. When it comes down to food, truckloads of animals are dumb as a box of rusty nails. Which is "very".

Which again is not the "learning from experience" part that was pointed out. A bear, or a human being for that matter, with no prior experience with people or their weapons has a pretty good chance of doing something possibly life ending if its gut reaction isnt "run away." But with experience its likely going to figure something out. That could be anything from "Dont attack those." to "Dont attack those with the pointy things." to "Dont attack those with the pointy things unless you can ambush it." and so on.

The smaller and/or more primitive the animal the less its likely to learn or react in more than the most basic manner. Which is why I started off with limiting the example to things big enough to pose a threat.

Which comes back to the initial niche point that Rangers and Druids did not have any inherint skills with animals past tracking for the Ranger. Even in 5e you can end up with a Druid or Ranger who knows effectively nothing about animals. And these are the two classes youd think would have some niche protection as "nature savvy person". Pre-3e we just assumed they "knew stuff" even if it wasnt stated as it seemed inherint to the class. Dont know about 3 or 4e but 5e doesnt really back that up now. Though you can just say even a Druid without Nature proficiency still knows alot of basics. They just may not be as clued in as someone who has actually hit the books (or forest). Or know things very differently. Lots of leeway for interpretation or embellishing.

Quote from: Ravenswing;908599I disagree, actually.

A staple of geek culture discussions (it sure as hell isn't limited to RPGdom) is to come up with some explanation, ANY explanation -- no matter how bizarre, implausible or unrealistic -- to avoid having to admit that a certain element just doesn't make any sense.  

Except this isnt coming up with an explanation. It just assuming that since Z is there then some sort of Y and X must be there to support that and just moving on rather than bogging down in whats often needless details.

EG: The PCs encounter a pirate ship. For there to be a pirate ship someone had to build it (or conjure it) and all the support infrastructure needed to build it.

EG: You encounter a dungeon. There are people living in it. For that to happen there must be some ventilation mechanism going on. Depending on its nature there must be some other support infrastructure too. The inhabitants are getting food and gear from somewhere.

This rather than going "The pirate ship doesnt make any sense!"

Quote from: Omega;908603Which again is not the "learning from experience" part that was pointed out. (...)

The keyword is "EVERY". It's still not applicable, since animal kingdom in its diversity features plenty of species that are hardly any trainable, or can't evolve its intelligence past certain level, no matter how many times you're gonna repeat same experience.

QuoteBut with experience its likely going to figure something out.

But you yourself use fluid "likely" rather than hard "most definitely", "all", "always", or "every". Because that's exactly how it is. Some animals might be naturally good at doing some stuff, some might learn and get better, and some are lost cases that are never gonna learn it, no matter what. Just like sharks who repeatedly swallow inedible things, as presented by plenty of examples.

That's the gist of it - just because someone was awed by some rodent's skill at stealing food (which is, frankly, weird, since simple, plain domesticated kitten might prove to be ingenious when it comes to getting food) doesn't mean that suddenly every animal is (or will be) "smart" at getting their food.

This is unreasonable.

Side note: In context of RPG?

One should never, never-ever produce animal-based encounters along certain patterns, based on his own experience only. It's equally stupid to assume animals must be always dumb, or always smart. In the animal kingdom there's enough room for every type of behavior, every tactics, every twist of events one could think about, and there's high probability for finding real-world examples supporting it.

So:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]254[/ATTACH]

In most of our dungeon adventures we never cared about how the air circulated, what the monsters ate when they couldn't get adventurer, where things went to the bathroom, what they did for dinking water, etc. It just wasn't important to us.

It can be a fun exercise to design a dungeon with full logistical support, but I don't think that level of realism is demanded for every dungeon crawl. Sometimes you just want to kick in doors and loot treasure.

Dungeons are a genre convention. The same as physics defying dragons, multiple humanoid species all occupying the same ecological niche, and societies that function like medieval Europe despite the presence of world altering magic.

When it comes to the ventilation and animal discussion, at this point should we consider the "rocks fall, everybody dies" solution?:-) (kidding! kidding! argue away [heads to kitchen for snacks]).

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;908566Not to mention, what is your idea of "tactics" and "fun" and "cool"?  For instance, in Peter Jackson's movie "The Two Towers," where Legolam goes skateboarding down the stairs on a shield while shooting arrows?  I thought that was pants-shittingly stupid.  One of the stupidest things I've ever seen in my life.  I literally groaned out loud.  But I'm sure there are people who thought that was oh-so-cool and want to do that in a game and that's their idea of "good tactics".

Those people and I will never have a fun game together, which is why I try to make my expectations explicit as early as possible.

What is particularly funny is that game designers will take stunts like these and shape combat rules around them thus turning them into legitimate good tactics for a particular system that promotes the rule of cool over common sense. I have nothing against people playing games that tickle their own fancy but when these jackholes start playing at tables using rules that still value actual tactics and common sense, they get all butthurt because the "good tactics" they learned aren't working.

Quote from: cranebump;908613When it comes to the ventilation and animal discussion, at this point should we consider the "rocks fall, everybody dies" solution?:-) (kidding! kidding! argue away [heads to kitchen for snacks]).

I prefer something along the lines of "funny that you mention that, [player's name]. I recall a lengthy discussion covering exactly this topic. Last time I checked it was

• [/B] pages long and people were still far from ultimate conclusion satisfying all sides. You're free to join them, while we're gonna continue with the game.[/I]".

Quote from: JesterRaiin;908617I prefer something along the lines of "funny that you mention that, [player's name]. I recall a lengthy discussion covering exactly this topic. Last time I checked it was

• [/B] pages long and people were still far from ultimate conclusion satisfying all sides. You're free to join them, while we're gonna continue with the game.[/I]".

But...what about my snacks?:-)

Quote from: cranebump;908619But...what about my snacks?:-)

No snacks, Sir. In this establishment we serve only pic related:

Spoiler

:cool:

Quote from: Ravenswing;908602Now now, Bren, that wasn't even the stupidest depiction of a cavalry charge in the movies.  I'll see your Pellenor Fields and raise you Helm's Deep.  No cavalry charge in the history of mortalkind could possibly negotiate a FORTY-FIVE FUCKING DEGREE downward slope without disaster.

I was going to mentioned that one, but I have seen non-CGI riders go down slopes nearly that steep in a number of old Westerns. Of course they were slipping and sliding, not charging....

Quote from: Exploderwizard;908614What is particularly funny is that game designers will take stunts like these and shape combat rules around them thus turning them into legitimate good tactics for a particular system that promotes the rule of cool over common sense. I have nothing against people playing games that tickle their own fancy but when these jackholes start playing at tables using rules that still value actual tactics and common sense, they get all butthurt because the "good tactics" they learned aren't working.

I was trying to find a way to say something similar, but couldn't. While I understand that in a narrow sense, run-climbing up the side of the enormously huge creature, bow in hand, so you can shoot it in the head and, at the same time, do extra damage by shooting multiple arrows with one draw, is a "tactical" move if the systems says and supports it being at least a remotely possible (much less an optimal) move, something in me rebels at actually calling shit like that "tactics."

I think it's because it is a private push-button solution being passed off as, (and hence replacing,) y'know, generally available "context/cooperation-powered" solutions.

Who needs the world or others when widgets provide all the permission you'll ever need? :cool:

I'm torn when it comes to Legolas and the Mumak.  It did set up one of the best lines in the movie.

But the reality is that Hollywood always goes for the over the top stuff now that they have CGI.

The hard part is explaining to people why the stunts seen on youtube are unrealistic.

How many takes?  How much preparation?  How much location and single move training in advance?

The Hobbit log flume ride will forever take this cake.

Quote from: David Johansen;908552Gronan is right that the rules cannot fix stupid or asshole but they can create a standardized consensus as to what is reasonable or, indeed possible.

The phrase "standardized consensus" gives me the heebie-jeebies. This sounds to me like the individual player being dictated to by the rest of the group. I feel it's probably the case that most players have at least one area in which they differ from the consensus. Sure. I suppose it's possible to create a standardized consensus. But how does it help? What problem does it solve? How does it make the game more fun?

QuoteIn reality very few of us have the PHDs in History, Physics, and Chemistry (let alone Philosophy and Theology though I expect those would only lead to more arguments) to claim that our understanding of the world is accurate or true.

If PhDs are such a high benchmark, why is it the most successful people in the world generally don't have one? Doesn't the survival of the human race for thousands and thousands of years in a state of relatively ignorance suggest that just a little understanding is all it takes to get by? And if that's enough to solve real world problems of life and death, why assume we would need a whole lot more information, knowledge, and/or expertise to play a game of make-believe?

QuoteIt does help if the GM describes how they see the game and setting.  I think one of the biggest places things go off the rail is unfulfilled expectations.

If unfulfilled expectations is such a drag, why is the answer always "set expectations"? Doesn't that guarantee there be strongly-held expectations that might go unfulfilled? Why can't we instead recognize and emphasize that the very nature of the game is full of mystery and unknowns such that it is premature for any player to hold any expectation strongly enough that it makes or breaks fun? Or if they do form expectations, that they should be taken with a grain of salt?

You can say "rules cannot fix stupid," but what exactly does "stupid" mean? Is it not also foolish to hanging your hat on expectations? What if we parsed the sentiment that "you can't fix stupid but you can set expectations" with the understanding of "stupid" that includes strongly-held expectations? Would it not comes out as "You can't do anything about those people who hang their hats on expectations. It's a problem, and we just can't fix it. But what you can do for all the more reasonable people out there is give them expectations to hang their hats on"? Does that even make sense? Does the conclusion and solution depend entirely upon what one considers to be "stupid" to begin with?