this post was submitted on 20 Aug 2023
43 points (87.7% liked)
Dungeons and Dragons
11125 readers
1 users here now
A community for discussion of all things Dungeons and Dragons! This is the catch all community for anything relating to Dungeons and Dragons, though we encourage you to see out our Networked Communities listed below!
/c/DnD Network Communities
- Dungeons and Dragons - Art
- DM Academy
- Dungeons and Dragons - Homebrew
- Dungeons and Dragons - Memes and Comics
- Dungeons and Dragons - AI
- Dungeons and Dragons - Looking for Group
Other DnD and related Communities to follow*
- Tabletop Miniatures
- RPG @lemmy.ml
- TTRPGs @lemmy.blahaj.zone
- Battlemaps
- Map Making
- Fantasy e.g. books stories, etc.
- Worldbuilding @ lemmy.world
- Worldbuilding @ lemmy.ml
- OSR
- OSR @lemm.ee
- Clacksmith
- RPG greentext
- Tyranny of Dragons
- DnD @lemmy.ca
- DnD Memes@kbin.social
DnD/RPG Podcasts
*Please Follow the rules of these individual communities, not all of them are strictly DnD related, but may be of interest to DnD Fans
Rules (Subject to Change)
- Be a Decent Human Being
- Credit OC content (self or otherwise)
- Posting news articles: include the source name and exact title from article
Format: [Source Name] Article Title
- Posts must have something to do with Dungeons and Dragons
- No Piracy, this includes links to torrent sites, hosted content, streaming content, etc. Please see this post for details
- Zero tolerance for Racism/Sexism/Ableism/etc.
- No NSFW content
- Abide by the rules of lemmy.world
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I never said that individuals are "good/bad". I said they approach the game with either good faith or bad faith, which is radically different to what you're talking about.
Yet your argument still ignores all nuance. I just chose to simplify the phrasing since it boils down to the same thing: "good group doesn't need session zero and bad group isn't helped by it". You may as well use the same argument to repeal all criminal laws, since good people don't commit crimes and bad people will do bad things anyhow.
Now you're just doing some pedantic backpedaling, as though it changes the fact that your argument hinges on a false binary.
There are no nuances needed to be acknowledged in this specific distinction. People playing in good faith, WILL try to overcome any obstacles according to their experience, skills and maturity. People who don't, will invent problems and actively search for them rather than focus on solutions. Neither needs Session #0.
It's absolutely wrong take on the dillema. GOOD group doesn't have to play in good faith - they are good players, experienced veterans, that know the art of role playing well. But they don't have to put all their skills into good outcome. They may, for many reasons try to undermine the experience, break the game, test the ruleset for weaknesses, focus on one singe aspect of the game (for example, on combat) rather than on the whole adventure. And the other way around - bad gamers, clueless and inexperienced might still try to save their game, make the best of it.
As you can see, what you're discussing is wildly different to what I've been talking about.
From where I sit - it's you who didn't think through your position and when asked about details became passively-aggressive. Usually a strong hint that you feel you're/were wrong.
And it's ironic that you simultaneously accuse me of lacking nuances and simultaneously of being "too nuanced". 😬
I didn't acuse you of being too nuanced. I accused you of being pedantic, which you were in both your previous comment and on the one I'm replying to right now because you've been making this an argument over semantics.
I never said "a group of good players" or "a group of bad players". I think it's extremely obvious from context that by "good group" I meant the scenario you were talking about, so "a group of people playing in good faith", and likewise meant "a group not playing in good faith" when I said "bad group".
You're still making this an argument over terminology (literally an argument over semantics) rather than addressing my point, which is that the thrust of your argument hinges on a false binary. Groups with players playing in good faith can still grow frustrated with each other, such as when two different existing friend groups are playing together for the first time and there are two competing ideas about how best to play or communicate. Different people are comfortable with different things and a session zero can help eliminate a lot of that friction, especially in groups with lots of new players.
Otherwise you might find your sessions devolving into pointless arguments over semantics due to a simple miscommunication, for instance. I'd much rather have this debate with you before a game ever started rather than mid-session.
As far as I can tell we're both trying to engage in good faith, but talking past each other. If I knew you had no tolerance for the kind of conversational context I relied on with my initial comment in advance, I wouldn't have said "good/bad" as shorthand for "people playing in good faith/people playing in bad faith" and we would've finished talking about this already. This type of miscommunication is extremely easy to avoid in-game by using a session zero to establish everyone's communication styles and gameplay preferences in addition to integrating characters with the setting and balancing the party composition.