jjjalljs

I don't think the GM's job is merely damage calculator. But this:

I’ll be fucked if I let a kobold derail the overall plan

I rather disagree with. If there's a plan then why are we rolling dice? I don't want to play to fulfill whatever the GM's plan is. They should just write a book. I've had many great, memorable, scenes that came about because the players had a challenge and they overcame it. Sometimes after running away and trying again. If I just decided "oh I guess the dragon's breath rolled really low" then, again, we should just write a story together. Or play a game that doesn't have such a big random factor.

Like, I also don't really enjoy a nameless kobold killing Finnigan the Fighter with a fluke natural 20 in what wasn't supposed to be high stakes. But the solution for me isn't to fudge rolls, but play a different game. I don't really like stupid deaths like that, so I don't play games that facilitate it. I know that's kind of "baby with the bathwater" for some people, but I really do think some people are fighting against what D&D trends towards, when there are better tools. It's a hammer. Sometimes you want a screwdriver or a pen.

That's one way to play. Personally, if I knew the GM was secretly adjusting the game much I'd feel dissatisfied. Why not just give me a sticker that says "You win!" if I'm always going to win anyway?

Though this does tie into a separate bugbear of mine: D&D makes it hard to reason about encounters because the stats are unbound and all over the place. You see four bandits rummaging through the wagon they stole. Do each of them have 8 hp, 16 hp, 32 hp, 64 hp? Who knows! Do they attack once or twice? Could go either way! That is not an innate property of RPGs, but it's very common in D&D, and I think leads to a lot of "oh this is going badly - let me fudge the stats". Both because the GM got the math wrong, and because the players assumed these were 8 HP bandits and they're actually "well you're 5th level the bandits should be tougher" level scaling bandits.

Are you the kind of person who thinks "Where's the any key?" when the computer says "press any key to continue"? Like, overly literal, inability to parse intent and deep meaning?

poe's law is real and i can't tell if this is sincere. It's so cliche I think it might be a joke, but some people essentially are sad little jokes so maybe it's real.

There should also be something like "slop's law" for "any post on the internet might be AI slop, or might be trash hand crafted by a person"

I don't think D&D will ever really change much. There are people that really like its quirks, and there'd be a backlash from people if they made large changes. People still repeat largely nonsense complaints about 4e, sometimes while trying to patch 5e with ideas that 4e did.

Unfortunately, some people like it without ever trying anything else. D&D is a mega behemoth. I personally think it's more popular than it should be, given how many people I've talked to that play it only with a generous heaping of house rules and practices that transform it into something else.

Depends on the system, style, and context.

For example, if I'm casting a spell on a victim in 5e, I know what the DC is.

For something like "finding the trap", in D&D that's pretty open to the GM. I usually tell players the target number before they roll, so they can better decide if they want to use more resources or rethink.

Other systems might have more specific rules.

I don't think an average user is going to know how to interpret the output of mount or findmt

One of the things I like from Fate is the concept of Conceding. It gives players the option to give up.

So when you have bad rolls or the situation is going real bad, you can concede. You all decide what that looks like. You don't get whatever you wanted in the conflict, but you decide if that means you're just left for dead, or you fall into the river and are swept away, or what. You get one or more fate points, too. Because this is written into the rules, it doesn't feel as cheaty as it would in DND for a player to say "I don't think we can win this. Can we say we escape somehow?"

You can always choose to fight to the bitter end, but then you don't really have anyone to blame but yourself.

DND is an old game and it's just missing whole concepts like this that I think would make a better experience.

I feel like I would never burn edge, but hold onto it like Elixirs in final fantasy. (Unless you can restore it somehow)

It depends on the system and GM style.

I usually would tell players the target number. Their character would typically have a sense of how hard something is, more so than a desk job nerd sitting comfortably at home trying to imagine climbing a brick wall. If I say climbing the wall is difficult enough they have slim odds, they can then make an informed choice.

DND is also largely missing meta game currency, degree of success, and succeed at a cost. All of those change how the game works, and make hidden rolls less appealing.

For stuff like "there's a hidden trap" or "they're lying to you", you don't want players to enter into meta game "I know there's something here so I'm going to be extra cautious" mode. I often find a hazard they can see and need to deal with is better than a hidden surprise. Like, all those black tiles shoot negative energy out when stepped on. And also a lot of Zombies just woke up and are shambling towards the tiles floor. Enjoy!

Personally I like how games like Fate you can mechanically reward players for going along with it. DND almost has that with Inspiration, but it's very under baked.

DND is also especially loosey-goosey about target numbers aside from physical combat defenses and damage.

Another system might have a more explicit "To bully your way past someone, roll your provoke vs their will" combined with "the bouncer's will score is 2". DND has vague rules no one uses for "asking a favor".

Sorry for a long unfocused answer. Happy to talk about whatever if you have questions

That's a valid mode of play, but I feel like if we're going to have agreed upon rules we should follow them, and not unilaterally change them. If the rules say "you spot the trap on a roll of 10 or above", the GM deciding you just don't spot it because they say so can feel wrong. It can feel like cheating. We had an agreement, and they just broke it.

On the other hand, if in your session 0 you all agree that the GM may fudge things for more drama, then have at it.

On the third hand, I've done things like "the rules say X but I think that's going to stink here. Anyone object to changing it?".

The important thing is everyone gives informed consent.

"divisive" is such a stupid attack. It has no substance. Sometimes people are divided for good reasons!