4 ms·

I think this is a classic baby DM script tbh. Rolling to find mounts at a vendor is dumb. You should only roll for significant challenges with meaningful differ

I think this is a classic baby DM script tbh. Rolling to find mounts at a vendor is dumb. You should only roll for significant challenges with meaningful differences where failure is meaningfully likely and interesting in its own right. If failing makes a situation less interesting it shouldn’t be an option. Shopping is actually the bigger problem. It’s like asking players to watch other players navigate a menu one by one. And currency doesn’t scale. A lot of campaigns start with a shopping session and then the group falls apart so you never last long enough to get to shopping session 2. Interactions with the law are also a red flag. It’s a fine possible narrative of course, but when the DM and presumably other players want to do something interesting, and another player wants to do petty or egregious and otherwise irrelevant crime… that’s annoying to everyone else. You really need to be careful about giving an opportunity for that to happen. DMing is hard

dcow 4y ago
Respectfully, I think you're flavoring the DM role quite a bit. The DM in my current campaign often requires checks for things even when there's no obvious downside. The implicit downside is that the character who fails has to find a new way through the situation, change strategy, etc. IMO it adds to the game to have more roles and more probability based outcomes. You have to balance letting the characters do whatever they want with some level of rails to keep the game on track.
- fauxpause_ 4y ago
  Shrug. I think it’s a bad practice. People can have a lot of fun regardless of course. It is most “bad” for things like perception, and persuasion. In D&D specifically it creates awkward scenarios where one player is very good at things that come up all the time and has a high chance of succeeding at things unless he rolls truly terribly. In my experience players have an moment of confusion and then elation when they ask an NPC to do something, grab dice to roll persuasion, and then the DM tells them to put the dice down because the NPC just agrees with their line of thinking without a number telling them to. But yes it is all subjective.
  - dcow 4y ago
    > It is most “bad” for things like perception, and persuasion. In D&D specifically it creates awkward scenarios where one player is very good at things that come up all the time and has a high chance of succeeding at things unless he rolls truly terribly. But, what's the point of the traits in the first place if everyone is equally good at figuring stuff out and sweet talking because there are no checks? How is it awkward when one player is better than others at a specific task because of their stats? That just seems like role playing basics to me... I'm not saying you're absolutely wrong perhaps you've DM'd some campaigns where players don't like the imbalance. A good DM reads the party, of course. And I'm not saying there isn't flexibility in when a check makes sense and when it doesn't. Nobody likes things to be overbearing either. But there's got to be some reason for the stats, right? I mean the same doesn't really make sense for combat. You wouldn't generally give an enemy advantage rolling against a high AC party member just to even out the damage, would you? Otherwise AC doesn't mean anything. (Not saying you can't make up a reason for an enemy to have inspiration to try an land a hit on the tank for fun, but the idea with a higher AC is that you get hit less often.)
    - fauxpause_ 4y ago
      You’re not equally good at things. But you only roll for things that matter. Persuasion is the worst offender because rookie DMs use dice to replace actual role play. And it makes their npcs into props that are largely controlled by the party face. Persuasion checks should be used when the party is actually persuading someone to do something that they don’t want to do. Terrible DMs treat it as mind control because your silly min max bars had 20 CHA and expertise. Less experienced DMs use it as a crutch. The bare minimum thing DMs ought to do is realize the the difficulty of a persuasion check should depend on the baseline persuasiveness of the argument. If the party is making an excellent point, the check should be very easy. If the party makes no point and just asks the NPC to do something unreasonable, it should be basically impossible. If this isn’t the case, NPCs feel very stupid. There’s no particular reason for it to be a skill at all tbh. It is just more interesting to roleplay.
      - TheCleric 4y ago
tpudlik 4y ago
I agree with all these criticism. But I also know many human DMs who make the same stylistic decisions as GPT did here. It's definitely not good Burning Wheel, but it might be ok D&D? On the other hand, I appreciate the GPT's willingness to follow the players' revealed interests where they lead, instead of sticking to a predetermined railroad. The comment here about engaging zombies in a multilevel marketing scheme illustrates this nicely. That's very deft DMing in my opinion. (Whether _asking_ for such a tonal shift is deft playing on part of the non-DM player is a different question.)
jameshart 4y ago
When you see a bear dancing, you don't nitpick its choreographic decisions. Because the bear. is. dancing. Do you see? It's a bear. dancing. DM style is a matter of taste. From another perspective, this feels like quite tidy DMing in terms of letting the players explore the systems in an early non-narrative context, just to understand the mechanics. Like a tutorial. The exotic mounts were a secret you could find if you paid attention - and their existence adds color to the world and implies that greater rewards can be found through leveling. They were too expensive, but you can use your skills to work around that. Failure can happen and might have consequences, but in this case you got away with it. The players will be more careful what they ask for in future, but they know hidden rewards might be found if they are cunning. The DM taught the players a lot, added flavor to the world, and didn't wind up with L2/3 players having an overpowered mount - but also didn't let the players blow up the campaign in the first shop they walked into by letting them just go completely rogue. Although it offered hints that non heroic paths might be available, at a cost... Which is pretty impressive for a dancing bear. And besides, what's 'dumb' DMing for a human who knows that letting the game go off the rails is going to mean tossing out previously planned encounters and going digging in the DM guide to find the right table of prices, might be completely acceptable DMing for an LLM that has no idea what it's doing but can recall every stat block in the player handbook.
- obiefernandez 4y ago
  this. so much this. I'm a somewhat experienced (if irregular) DM myself going back 30+ years and the DM skill level demonstrated, and cohesiveness of the storytelling impressed the fuck out of me. Without appropriate system context setting. Without smart insertion of facts into the prompts, and with a 15 year old with atrocious spelling and grammar driving half the time. And if that's not mindblowing enough, this technology is still in its infancy?? Holy fuck
- fauxpause_ 4y ago
  I’m not debating whether it’s impressive. Sure, it’s impressive. But it’s not good.

dcow 4y ago

Respectfully, I think you're flavoring the DM role quite a bit. The DM in my current campaign often requires checks for things even when there's no obvious downside. The implicit downside is that the character who fails has to find a new way through the situation, change strategy, etc. IMO it adds to the game to have more roles and more probability based outcomes. You have to balance letting the characters do whatever they want with some level of rails to keep the game on track.

fauxpause_ 4y ago
Shrug. I think it’s a bad practice. People can have a lot of fun regardless of course. It is most “bad” for things like perception, and persuasion. In D&D specifically it creates awkward scenarios where one player is very good at things that come up all the time and has a high chance of succeeding at things unless he rolls truly terribly. In my experience players have an moment of confusion and then elation when they ask an NPC to do something, grab dice to roll persuasion, and then the DM tells them to put the dice down because the NPC just agrees with their line of thinking without a number telling them to. But yes it is all subjective.
- dcow 4y ago
  > It is most “bad” for things like perception, and persuasion. In D&D specifically it creates awkward scenarios where one player is very good at things that come up all the time and has a high chance of succeeding at things unless he rolls truly terribly. But, what's the point of the traits in the first place if everyone is equally good at figuring stuff out and sweet talking because there are no checks? How is it awkward when one player is better than others at a specific task because of their stats? That just seems like role playing basics to me... I'm not saying you're absolutely wrong perhaps you've DM'd some campaigns where players don't like the imbalance. A good DM reads the party, of course. And I'm not saying there isn't flexibility in when a check makes sense and when it doesn't. Nobody likes things to be overbearing either. But there's got to be some reason for the stats, right? I mean the same doesn't really make sense for combat. You wouldn't generally give an enemy advantage rolling against a high AC party member just to even out the damage, would you? Otherwise AC doesn't mean anything. (Not saying you can't make up a reason for an enemy to have inspiration to try an land a hit on the tank for fun, but the idea with a higher AC is that you get hit less often.)
  - fauxpause_ 4y ago
    You’re not equally good at things. But you only roll for things that matter. Persuasion is the worst offender because rookie DMs use dice to replace actual role play. And it makes their npcs into props that are largely controlled by the party face. Persuasion checks should be used when the party is actually persuading someone to do something that they don’t want to do. Terrible DMs treat it as mind control because your silly min max bars had 20 CHA and expertise. Less experienced DMs use it as a crutch. The bare minimum thing DMs ought to do is realize the the difficulty of a persuasion check should depend on the baseline persuasiveness of the argument. If the party is making an excellent point, the check should be very easy. If the party makes no point and just asks the NPC to do something unreasonable, it should be basically impossible. If this isn’t the case, NPCs feel very stupid. There’s no particular reason for it to be a skill at all tbh. It is just more interesting to roleplay.
    - TheCleric 4y ago

tpudlik 4y ago

I agree with all these criticism. But I also know many human DMs who make the same stylistic decisions as GPT did here. It's definitely not good Burning Wheel, but it might be ok D&D? On the other hand, I appreciate the GPT's willingness to follow the players' revealed interests where they lead, instead of sticking to a predetermined railroad. The comment here about engaging zombies in a multilevel marketing scheme illustrates this nicely. That's very deft DMing in my opinion. (Whether _asking_ for such a tonal shift is deft playing on part of the non-DM player is a different question.)

jameshart 4y ago

When you see a bear dancing, you don't nitpick its choreographic decisions. Because the bear. is. dancing. Do you see? It's a bear. dancing. DM style is a matter of taste. From another perspective, this feels like quite tidy DMing in terms of letting the players explore the systems in an early non-narrative context, just to understand the mechanics. Like a tutorial. The exotic mounts were a secret you could find if you paid attention - and their existence adds color to the world and implies that greater rewards can be found through leveling. They were too expensive, but you can use your skills to work around that. Failure can happen and might have consequences, but in this case you got away with it. The players will be more careful what they ask for in future, but they know hidden rewards might be found if they are cunning. The DM taught the players a lot, added flavor to the world, and didn't wind up with L2/3 players having an overpowered mount - but also didn't let the players blow up the campaign in the first shop they walked into by letting them just go completely rogue. Although it offered hints that non heroic paths might be available, at a cost... Which is pretty impressive for a dancing bear. And besides, what's 'dumb' DMing for a human who knows that letting the game go off the rails is going to mean tossing out previously planned encounters and going digging in the DM guide to find the right table of prices, might be completely acceptable DMing for an LLM that has no idea what it's doing but can recall every stat block in the player handbook.

obiefernandez 4y ago
this. so much this. I'm a somewhat experienced (if irregular) DM myself going back 30+ years and the DM skill level demonstrated, and cohesiveness of the storytelling impressed the fuck out of me. Without appropriate system context setting. Without smart insertion of facts into the prompts, and with a 15 year old with atrocious spelling and grammar driving half the time. And if that's not mindblowing enough, this technology is still in its infancy?? Holy fuck
fauxpause_ 4y ago
I’m not debating whether it’s impressive. Sure, it’s impressive. But it’s not good.