clearstream
(He, Him)
Take a look at PHB 174 with attention to the requirements of an ability check (chance of failure). Then read DMG 237 with attention to the necessary pre-framing of ability checks (to have meaningful consequences in view).
D&D General Respeckt Mah Authoritah: Understanding High Trust and the Division of Authority
Scott Christian
Hero
How is it horrible?
You can't squeeze all types of examples and scenarios into one little book. These are all supplements, and they all teach inexperienced DMs how to be better DMs. They take almost a year to play through. They take a week to read and reflect on for a DM that's interested. Almost all of us were taught via module. I am sure many people on here learned a lot by running The Keep on the Borderlands or Sinister Secrets of Saltmarsh or Queen of the Demonweb Pits or Cult of the Reptile God.
Was it horrible, that as kids, we had to save some money or ask for it for our birthday? Was it horrible that TSR published those and enticed us to buy them? Was it horrible that we didn't learn about sentient magic items from the DM's Guide, but instead White Plume Mountain? Was it horrible that we had to explain to our non-nerd friends that we asked for a D&D book for our birthday? (Well, yes, that was actually horrible. But you get my point.)
payn
He'll flip ya...Flip ya for real...
Actually preparing modules, and more importantly, discussing them with other GMs online has been much more useful to me than the DMG ever has been.
Snarf Zagyg
Notorious Liquefactionist
Great conversation so far!
So while I like to let the OP speak for itself, I just wanted to add a few notes that came to mind while perusing the thread-
First, regarding epigrams ( @Whizbang Dustyboots )- I like to think of my essays like Raisin Bran. They keep you regular. No, wait. That's not it. They are guaranteed to contain two scoops of epigrams!
Second, regarding the jargon "high trust" (@RareBreed @kenada )- I think I wrote this in the OP as an aside, but to make sure the point is driven home... all styles of play are valid. Different styles work for different tables at different times. In addition, I think that if you look at the history of TTRPGs holistically, you will see that different paradigms rise as a reaction to what came before. So while OSR came as a reaction to 3e (for example), 3e itself was a reaction to TSR-era D&D. That's why I think it's important to note that a lot of jargon is not neutral, but is both descriptive of a particular style of play favored by proponents of a style of play while also being an implicit critique of another style of play. That's why I don't find it particularly helpful to use a specific term of jargon generally to apply to other TTRPGs.
To use an easy example, people describe the early OD&D model as "Skilled Play." While this is a perfectly apt description of a style of play, it doesn't follow that other modes of play are "unskilled." And while I think that the term "high trust" has value in describing OSR and FKR, I would avoid, myself, call other models of play "low trust." Because that tends to end conversations, as it would put people that rightly enjoy 3e/PF1 (which was, and is, a successful game) in the position of using a pejorative to defend a game that they love. That's an issue with a lot of the jargon we see in our hobby- most of it was developed to critique some then-current style of gaming in order to elevate a different style of gaming.
Third, regarding some of the issues raised (@EzekielRaiden ). I always say that some games work great in practice even if they are not appealing in theory (and, contrariwise, some things that sound great in theory don't work at all in practice). If you find it unbelievable that, say, OSR or FKR could possibly work, then you will probably have difficulty explaining why this style is so appealing to a decent segment of the population. Just because something doesn't work for you, doesn't mean that it doesn't work. People have their own preferences, and I think it's always best to play the things that you like!
So while I like to let the OP speak for itself, I just wanted to add a few notes that came to mind while perusing the thread-
First, regarding epigrams ( @Whizbang Dustyboots )- I like to think of my essays like Raisin Bran. They keep you regular. No, wait. That's not it. They are guaranteed to contain two scoops of epigrams!
Second, regarding the jargon "high trust" (@RareBreed @kenada )- I think I wrote this in the OP as an aside, but to make sure the point is driven home... all styles of play are valid. Different styles work for different tables at different times. In addition, I think that if you look at the history of TTRPGs holistically, you will see that different paradigms rise as a reaction to what came before. So while OSR came as a reaction to 3e (for example), 3e itself was a reaction to TSR-era D&D. That's why I think it's important to note that a lot of jargon is not neutral, but is both descriptive of a particular style of play favored by proponents of a style of play while also being an implicit critique of another style of play. That's why I don't find it particularly helpful to use a specific term of jargon generally to apply to other TTRPGs.
To use an easy example, people describe the early OD&D model as "Skilled Play." While this is a perfectly apt description of a style of play, it doesn't follow that other modes of play are "unskilled." And while I think that the term "high trust" has value in describing OSR and FKR, I would avoid, myself, call other models of play "low trust." Because that tends to end conversations, as it would put people that rightly enjoy 3e/PF1 (which was, and is, a successful game) in the position of using a pejorative to defend a game that they love. That's an issue with a lot of the jargon we see in our hobby- most of it was developed to critique some then-current style of gaming in order to elevate a different style of gaming.
Third, regarding some of the issues raised (@EzekielRaiden ). I always say that some games work great in practice even if they are not appealing in theory (and, contrariwise, some things that sound great in theory don't work at all in practice). If you find it unbelievable that, say, OSR or FKR could possibly work, then you will probably have difficulty explaining why this style is so appealing to a decent segment of the population. Just because something doesn't work for you, doesn't mean that it doesn't work. People have their own preferences, and I think it's always best to play the things that you like!
payn
He'll flip ya...Flip ya for real...
That explains everything, Snarf is on the Raisin Bran Crunch!
I think a missing link here is organized gaming. Suddenly, it became much more important to have consistent experiences at tables and it has had an effect on rules design. Which, has also swung back like a pendulum over time. I think there are examples that are easy to understand how these designs can be exhausting. I could also see rules over rulings taking over again with reliance on VTT. Who knows what the future holds.
Also, borrowing terminology from other concepts is always a tricky proposition. Folks wont be able to let go of the original construct or allow it to conceptualize into a new paradigm. I think its a good place to start when building your own model, but change up your terms to alleviate this baggage. I know, its too late for that now, and to be fair you probably didn't originate this concept either.
Micah Sweet
Level Up & OSR Enthusiast
He's talking about adventures, not the DMG.
payn
He'll flip ya...Flip ya for real...
Yes, I was confirming their value.
Snarf Zagyg
Notorious Liquefactionist
I personally, have a suspicion that 5e24 might be driven, at least in part, by some of these concerns.
A desire to harmonize rules in order to make it more VTT (and CRPG) friendly.
Not to mention that, unlike 5e14, there is serious interest in upper management now.
....I'm not sure that either of those factors make for a better TTRPG, or for better design, but that's a topic for a different thread.
payn
He'll flip ya...Flip ya for real...
Im sorry, I might be out of the loop (yet again). What are 5E24... oh never mind I get it now. Most folks have been putting the year in front.
Yeap, back on '14 they sort of tossed their hands up and just figured D&D would be an odd ball game book they sell with little needed development. Now in 2024 they see a cash cow possible again.
Snarf Zagyg
Notorious Liquefactionist
Similar Threads
