What does it mean to "Challenge the Character"?

[iserith]

As far as the line between interpreting and changing a rule: it's moot. It's the DM's game. If a DM changes a rule and calls it an a interpretation, it's an interpretation, if he interprets a rule in a fairly conventional way, but lists it as a variant it's a change.

I think it's quite possible to discern what is written in the book and what is not. I don't think it's a good idea to muddle that in a discussion about the rules. Of course as to whether what is written in the book is valued by the group will vary. That's a separate issue in my mind anyway.

Nod. OTOH, there's no way any such pre-game establishment of backstory could cover every detail of the character & his connection to the world. DMs don't set their worlds in stone in every detail before play begins, if a new aspect of the world is revealed that may have had some bearing on the PC's backstories, that might be seen as re-opening that collaborative effort.

Yep, this is the argument I used in support of this sort of thing in D&D 4e where "Yes, and..." was in the rules. You can't account for everything up front, so you may as well be open to establishing things during play. The most common response to that at that time would make you think that I had personally insulted the poster's mother.

The funny thing to me about these discussions of late is that I'm making more or less the same arguments others made against me in D&D 4e that I'm now making in D&D 5e. But in most cases, I am putting forward what the rules say for the given edition, not my personal preferences or calling my personal preferences rules just because I'm the DM and what I say goes.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Wow. I'm sorry that I saw your answer as reasonable and a fair point to the disconnect I was talking about. Next time I won't include your name when I quote a relevant passage that I agree with.

Hmm. Thanks, no thanks.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I think it's quite possible to discern what is written in the book and what is not. I don't think it's a good idea to muddle that in a discussion about the rules. Of course as to whether what is written in the book is valued by the group will vary. That's a separate issue in my mind anyway.

I feel like it's varied a lot with edition, as well.

The dismissive refrain "You can do that, but it'd be a House Rule!" was a mark of 3e era discussions.

5e, not s'much. And I find it mildly amusing that in promoting & expounding upon just how much freedom the DM has in 5e, we occasionally circle back to quoting rules as such.

Yep, this is the argument I used in support of this sort of thing in D&D 4e where "Yes, and..." was in the rules.

4e was organized with rules (mechanics) vs advice/guidelines vs fluff (color) a little more clearly divvied up, and I think the whole "yes, and..." thing was more DM advice than rules. Rules in the 4e era were tight little blocks of jargon - and the definitions of said jargon and the sections on how-to-read and how-to-use said blocks.

If the basic sequence of play rules were in 4e, they'd've been seen as advice, because they invoke no mechanics and use no jargon. It's just Mike talk'n at you 'bout how to run your game. In 5e, there as much rules as a spell description, say.

You can't account for everything up front, so you may as well be open to establishing things during play. The most common response to that at that time would make you think that I had personally insulted the poster's mother.

The boards were meaner back then. There was a war on, y'know.

The funny thing to me about these discussions of late is that I'm making more or less the same arguments others made against me in D&D 4e that I'm now making in D&D 5e. But in most cases, I am putting forward what the rules say for the given edition, not my personal preferences or calling my personal preferences rules just because I'm the DM and what I say goes.

Sorry, couldn't parse that one.

The rules say that what the DM says goes, rules notwithstanding, including that one.

My point was simply that we don't see the blind devotion to RaW for it's own sake going like we saw in 3.x days, so "may way is RaW, yours is a house rule" is a very weak assertion - even moot* IMHO …

… so to say that "the rules don't support" a given DMing style isn't very meaningful. The power to support a style isn't in the rules, it rests with the DM.









* yeah, I use that word correctly, it's almost like a had to sit through Paper Chase when I was a kid.

 

[iserith]

I feel like it's varied a lot with edition, as well.

The dismissive refrain "You can do that, but it'd be a House Rule!" was a mark of 3e era discussions.

5e, not s'much. And I find it mildly amusing that in promoting & expounding upon just how much freedom the DM has in 5e, we occasionally circle back to quoting rules as such.

4e was organized with rules (mechanics) vs advice/guidelines vs fluff (color) a little more clearly divvied up, and I think the whole "yes, and..." thing was more DM advice than rules. Rules in the 4e era were tight little blocks of jargon - and the definitions of said jargon and the sections on how-to-read and how-to-use said blocks.

If the basic sequence of play rules were in 4e, they'd've been seen as advice, because they invoke no mechanics and use no jargon. It's just Mike talk'n at you 'bout how to run your game. In 5e, there as much rules as a spell description, say.

Rules are the things you find in the rules books. Unless you ignore them in which case they are just "advice." Or if you're an experienced DM, you don't bother reading anything anyway so none of it matters, especially not the DMG because what could you possibly learn by reading that?

The rules say that what the DM says goes, rules notwithstanding, including that one.

My point was simply that we don't see the blind devotion to RaW for it's own sake going like we saw in 3.x days, so "may way is RaW, yours is a house rule" is a very weak assertion - even moot* IMHO …

… so to say that "the rules don't support" a given DMing style isn't very meaningful. The power to support a style isn't in the rules, it rests with the DM.

I don't hold a position that we must follow the rules, only that the rules inform us how the game is intended to be played. Ignore them if you want, but if something goes awry, ignoring those rules is often the root cause, which is what we see frequently reported on the forums and elsewhere. It's either that or somebody at the table is being a jerk.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Rules are the things you find in the rules books. Unless you ignore them in which case they are just "advice."

Depends on the organization of the rulebook. (I mean, apart from fiddly technicalities, like the title, author, and copyright statements /clearly/ aren't rules.) In 4e, mechanics and flavor text in powers, for instance, were neatly segregated from eachother, a format unique in D&D history.

In every edition there have been sections clearly presented as DMing advice (and in some cases advice to players). As ambiguous as natural language may be, it's hard not to take "you should generally ...' as a hard-and-fast rule, rather than as advice.
There's also tons (or ounces in 4e) of flavor text. And there's actual mechanics, if sometimes hard to tease out. And (as usual, apart from 4e) there's a LOT of grey areas among those.

Even in 5e there are sidebars clearly meant to be taken differently than the rest of the text.
Aside from that, though, in 5e, there's not a strong case to be made for excluding anything between the covers from being "part of the rules," since the rules of 5e, like the more-clearly-delineated 'advice' or 'flavah' - or for that matter, filler - of other editions, are written in natural, even conversational, language.
Yet, at the same time (or maybe as a consequence), such 'rules' carry much less force, so the lines among rule, flavor, advice, or even filler are not too important, either.

Or if you're an experienced DM, you don't bother reading anything anyway so none of it matters, especially not the DMG because what could you possibly learn by reading that?

It's not like it could have anything new to say after the preceding 5 DMGs on your shelf. No, seriously, it couldn't. There's also been an odd trend over the editions to move rules (or, to be more prices, 'mechanics?') to the PH from the DMG. It probably peaked in 4e, which even put magic items in the PH.

I don't hold a position that we must follow the rules, only that the rules inform us how the game is intended to be played.

In the case of 5e, it's intended to be played the way the DM wants, rules in the books notwithstanding*.
There is /soooo/ much leeway (Empowerment!) given the DM in 5e, that I could run 5e nominally "by the book" and make it run like FATE. I wouldn't, because it'd be a pita to flog bifts that hard, but I totally could.
More effortlessly, I can run it just like I did AD&D.

Ignore them if you want, but if something goes awry, ignoring those rules is often the root cause, which is what we see frequently reported on the forums and elsewhere. It's either that or somebody at the table is being a jerk.

More often the latter. But, seriously, I'm not see'n the primary problems people have as coming from ignoring the rules this time around (nor in 3.x, nor in older editions, for that matter). In 3.x, people /didn't/ ignore the rules, it just wasn't done, or wasn't admitted to, anyway, and if you did go off the RaWservation, you were on your own. In the TSR era changing the rules was prettymuch standard practice - even when you found DMs who insisted they were 'playing by the rules' the rule they used were a lot more different from eachother than you might expect.

If 5e can be said to have a unified RaW or RaI or much consistency at all to the experience, it's not a matter of intent of the rules (which is for the DM to take responsibility for the experience, over & above the rules), but of practicality in the context of AL.













* I'm feel'n my inner Gygax today.

 

[iserith]

Depends on the organization of the rulebook. (I mean, apart from fiddly technicalities, like the title, author, and copyright statements /clearly/ aren't rules.) In 4e, mechanics and flavor text in powers, for instance, were neatly segregated from eachother, a format unique in D&D history.

In every edition there have been sections clearly presented as DMing advice (and in some cases advice to players). There's tons of flavor text. And there's actual mechanics. And (as usual, apart from 4e) there's a LOT of grey area among those.

Even in 5e there are sidebars clearly meant to be taken differently than the rest of the text. Aside from that, though, in 5e, there's not a strong case to be made for excluding anything between the covers from being "part of the rules," since the rules of 5e, like the more-clearly-delineated 'advice' or 'flavah' - or for that matter, filler - of other editions, are written in natural, even conversational, language. Yet, at the same time (or maybe as a consequence), such 'rules' carry much less force, so the lines among rule, flavor, advice, or even filler are not too important, either.

Yes, yes, heard it all before. This is a rule, but this isn't because I choose not to follow it, so it couldn't be a rule. That sounds like fluff, so ignore it or reflavor it however you want. And on and on. And yep, you can do all that and it's fine. Until it isn't.

It's not like it could have anything new to say after the preceding 5 DMGs on your shelf. No, seriously, it couldn't. There's also been an odd trend over the editions to move rules to the PH from the DMG. It probably peaked in 4e, which even put magic items in the PH.

The D&D 4e DMG doesn't apply to D&D 5e. The D&D 3.Xe DMG doesn't apply to D&D 4e. And so on. Best to ignore other games when learning and playing a new game in my view.

In the case of 5e, it's intended to be played the way the DM wants, rules in the books notwithstanding*.

Again, play how you want. Just don't be surprised if there are issues when playing the game as if it's some other game.

More often the latter. But, seriously, I'm not see'n the primary problems people have as coming from ignoring the rules this time around (nor in 3.x, nor in older editions, for that matter). In 3.x, people /didn't/ ignore the rules, it just wasn't done, or wasn't admitted to, anyway, and if you did go off the RaWservation, you were on your own. In the TSR era changing the rules was prettymuch standard practice - even when you found DMs who insisted they were 'playing by the rules' the rule they used were a lot more different from eachother than you might expect.

If 5e can be said to have a unified RaW or RaI or much consistency at all to the experience, it's not a matter of intent of the rules (which is for the DM to take responsibility for the experience, over & above the rules), but of practicality in the context of AL.

There was a conversation just this week with someone who was dissatisfied with the D&D 5e skill system. As soon as we popped the hood on that one, whatdoyaknow we find that the players are declaring they are using "skill checks" instead of describing what they want to do and leaving the calls for checks to the DM. Which is basically the same conversation as the people who are freaked out by an NPC blacksmith's chances of making a weapon or whatever - a misunderstanding of how the adjudication process works. Game issues related to ignoring the fundamental processes of play and treating this game like it's some other game.

While some groups can play that way with no issue by implementing kludges or ignoring the rough edges, other groups find fault with the system, only to discover they aren't playing the system in the manner that is intended.

 

[Celebrim]

But you haven't answered the underlying question. Does Francis the Guard exist? Can the player track them down in that town, now that they have pulled that from their backstory?

You've already called me on this, so yes I know the question isn't for me, but, for my part at least, I'm happy to say that Francis the Guard exists (or at least did exist). I'm even happy to go with any reasonable suggestion regarding the existence of any NPC implied to exist by the backstory. What I'm not happy about is a player dictating to me that a particular NPC is Francis, or something like that Francis is a 12th level fighter, or what have you. I might decide that those things make for an interesting game or at least is reasonable for the games demographics*, but I can do that as an impartial judge. A player, because they are managing an avatar in the game world and trying to "win", doesn't have the impartiality to decide that.

*(This guard is much more likely to be Francis, if this is a village of 80 people, and only has one guard, than it is to be Francis in a city of 50,000 people which has a town watch of 500 individuals, etc.)

So, at my table, I don't necessarily disagree with any of this. I would say that it is a bit harsh to lock a player into only the backstory they come up with before play begins, but only because I often have players who can't come up with a backstory until two or three sessions in. In fact, even on fairly robust backstories, I, myself, and my players have found new inspiration which led to refining and adding details to those. So, knowing my full backstory is locked after session one is fair, but not something I would do personally.

I find that players that don't make backstories aren't interested in backstories and generally don't have literary goals for their character - that is to say, they don't really care if the character is involved in any sort of narrative arc except supporting the "plot" and meta-plot of the campaign. The characters growth as a person is not interesting to them compared to the characters growth as a playing piece. And that's OK.

I strongly encourage long backstories even if I don't always get more than a few sentences. Adding to a backstory at any point generally requires mutual consent of both the GM and the player, although typically when a character is created I ask the player how much they are willing to have me "mess with them", by which I mean introduce complications based on their backstory and even elements of their backstory which they themselves didn't realize ("you are an illegitimate child", "you are adopted", "your family is suffering from a curse", "turns out, you aren't even human", etc.). Some players want me to run wild and introduce complications. Others feel that if you do that, you are bullying them. I try to accommodate both desires.

However, if you cannot tell a player what they think, which was iserith's position both in this thread with the orc elder telling stories about monster weaknesses and the insight thread, then even getting to this point can be troublesome. Because the player may have established that the guard named Francis does exist.

IF we cannot ever tell a player what they think, and they state "I once saved this Red Dragon's life by healing it of Dragon Pox" then we have a disconnect in the game reality. The player believes this, something must have triggered this belief, but the DM says it never happened. So why does the player have these memories? This is where the "false dilemma" you see comes from.

You probably aren't doing this on purpose, and I've certainly used the terms inappropriately a ton of times, but for this passage the difference between the player and the character really matters and I can't be absolutely sure which you mean. Does the character believe that the guard is Francis, or does the player believe that the guard is Francis?

If the player believes that the guard is Francis, we have an out of game problem that has to be addressed as an out of game problem. Somehow the player got confused as to the fictional state of the game world or his role as a player, and we have to iron that out - just as if the player started performing a plan, and I have to explain something like, "You did understand that there is a deep chasm running across the middle of the room." and it turns out that they thought it bisected the room in a different manner, or if the player starts outlining a plan and I have to explain, "I'm not sure if I made this clear, but the thing I described is about 400 yards away."

But if the character believes that the guard is Francis, then I am not telling the player how to play their character or what the character believes. They are free to tell me that the character believes that the guard is Francis and has whatever memories that he wants to have regarding "Francis". And they are free to invent their own reasons why the character thinks as they do or however they want to rationalize this false belief.

Again, describing the setting as it actually is - no matter how you twist words around - is not telling the player what to think or how to play their character. It's just trying to communicate as many relevant facts as the player needs to make a judgment of how they want to play. The player can no more tell me that the NPC is Francis the Guard than they can tell me that the chest actually contains a fortune in gems. If the player asserts, "My character believes that this is Francis the guard" or "My character believes that the chest contains a fortune in gems.", that's swell, but the characters belief doesn't make the asserting true. A player can ask, "Hey, according to my backstory I grew up in this town, and was friends with a young man named Francis that became a guard. Is Francis among the guards?" And that's a perfectly valid question, and the answer may be, "Yes. Yes he is." Luke's player can say, "Heh, my friend Biggs Darklighter wanted to join the Rebellion, and this is a rebel base. Is he here?", and that might make a great call out. But you can't assert things like, "Biggs Darklighter is here", "Biggs Darklighter is the base commander.", or whatever you want and expect them to be true just because you say that the character thinks it is true.

And if you do, it's not my job to explain why the character thinks it is true, or to get the player to back down. It's not my character.

Honestly, part of what drew me into this example was how close it was to the Elder telling the character how to slay various monsters when they were a child, which everyone on one side accepted this was perfectly fine, but this example raised an outcry of players far overstepping their bounds and declarations they would be better off playing a different game. The difference between the two, in a narrative sense, is minimal. The only difference is one establishes knowledge a player likely already had and would use in fights, and the other gives them a social benefit in a situation.

Heck, I'm not even aware of that argument or all the agendas that lie behind this thread. For my part, you can assert that someone told your character how to slay various monsters when you were a child, and I consider that a perfectly fine thing for you to assert. Trouble is, it doesn't change the fact that you will get no special treatment from me unless your character also has spent CharGen resources on whatever lore skills are necessary to actually learn facts about monsters. If you, as a player of a character that has no lore skill regarding monsters, assert that your character was told a lot of stuff, the very fact that your character does not have a bunch of points spent on monster lore proves that what you were told was probably incomplete, or common knowledge, or just plain wrong. The facts on your character sheet disprove your claim of special knowledge - or else they don't. That call out to your background may perfectly explain why you do have all that lore on your character sheet. Or it may just explain that natural 20 you rolled to identify this particular monster.

If your character has BAB +0, telling me how you were taught for years by a swordmaster how to fight in your youth, won't convince me to give you a +20 bonus on attacks. It just convinces me you weren't a very good student because the facts say you aren't a great sword master.

Or else it convinces me you are a problem player that is going to require special handling to deal with your emotional needs.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Yes, yes, heard it all before. This is a rule, but this isn't because I choose not to follow it, so it couldn't be a rule. That sounds like fluff, so ignore it or reflavor it however you want. And on and on. And yep, you can do all that and it's fine. Until it isn't.

I get it, and in the case of 5e, in particular, that's arguably very much the case: there's no saying that one passage is a hard-and-fast 'rule' and another is just 'advice' - unless there's some nice helpful label like "Advice of DMs" as a header, or some clear-even-if-natural language like "it can generally be a good idea to..."

But just as 5e leaves plenty of ambiguity as to what's a rule and what's rule-adjacent, it also leaves plenty of ambiguity to what each passage means, so the DM has a lot of room for interpretation.

To circle back a bit, we're both happy to take the basics of play as rules. I find no issue in interpreting "...player declares an action..." to allow an action that assume facts about the situation that have not already been detailed by the DM. Even if I were to choose to interpret it otherwise, a player /could/ still functionally insert such details by asking a careful series of leading questions, so it's not even like there's some huge pandora's box opened by allowing players, up front, to fill in details under the rubric of action declaration.

The D&D 4e DMG doesn't apply to D&D 5e. The D&D 3.Xe DMG doesn't apply to D&D 4e. And so on. Best to ignore other games when learning and playing a new game in my view.

The rules don't apply, specifically (though, a LOT of them are carried over), but the experienced gained is a definite boon (or obstacle).

Again, play how you want. Just don't be surprised if there are issues when playing the game as if it's some other game.

Don't be surprised if there are issues if you try to run strictly "by the book." Seriously, you're making an inference that there's some way to play that's going to work better than all others - (and, if I'm being honest, there is: it's to mostly ignore the rules! but that's not helpful) - and that's not what 5e is. It's not a puzzle that the DM has to crack to extract the correct rules that will actually work. It's a starting point that different DMs will take in different directions to find what works best for them & their players.

There was a conversation just this week with someone who was dissatisfied with the D&D 5e skill system. As soon as we popped the hood on that one, whatdoyaknow we find that the players are declaring they are using "skill checks" instead of describing what they want to do and leaving the calls for checks to the DM.

Yep. Which was a case of paying too much attention to the rules (the 'hard' mechanics of skills, such as they are), instead of the DM taking full responsibility for resolution, details of the rules notwithstanding.

 

[iserith]

I get it, and in the case of 5e, in particular, that's arguably very much the case: there's no saying that one passage is a hard-and-fast 'rule' and another is just 'advice' - unless there's some nice helpful label like "Advice of DMs" as a header, or some clear-even-if-natural language like "it can generally be a good idea to..."

But just as 5e leaves plenty of ambiguity as to what's a rule and what's rule-adjacent, it also leaves plenty of ambiguity to what each passage means, so the DM has a lot of room for interpretation.

To circle back a bit, we're both happy to take the basics of play as rules. I find no issue in interpreting "...player declares an action..." to allow an action that assume facts about the situation that have not already been detailed by the DM. Even if I were to choose to interpret it otherwise, a player /could/ still functionally insert such details by asking a careful series of leading questions, so it's not even like there's some huge pandora's box opened by allowing players, up front, to fill in details under the rubric of action declaration.

It's all rules as I see it, and you're free to ignore the rules you don't want to use. Again, just be aware that this may impact the game experience negatively and require adjustment. There isn't much value in picking and choosing which are rules and which are not in my view. Accept them as one big bag of rules that are instructing you on how to play the game, then pare them down if you wish (or add to them).

I'm also finding it a rather tedious to discuss what is or isn't a rule so I'll just say that this is my last on this point. I'm telling you how I see it. You're free to disagree.

The rules don't apply, specifically (though, a LOT of them are carried over), but the experienced gained is a definite boon (or obstacle).

As an exercise, I think it's worth it to examine each game on its own without reference to the editions that came before it.

Don't be surprised if there are issues if you try to run strictly "by the book." Seriously, you're making an inference that there's some way to play that's going to work better than all others - (and, if I'm being honest, there is: it's to mostly ignore the rules! but that's not helpful) - and that's not what 5e is. It's not a puzzle that the DM has to crack to extract the correct rules that will actually work. It's a starting point that different DMs will take in different directions to find what works best for them & their players.

The game runs smoother in my view if you follow the rules. A group still might not like that play experience, but that is a different matter.

Yep. Which was a case of paying too much attention to the rules (the 'hard' mechanics of skills, such as they are), instead of the DM taking full responsibility for resolution, details of the rules notwithstanding.

I diagnose the problem not as paying too much attention to the rules, but discounting the fundamental process of play as "advice" or "rules-adjacent" as you say above. Also there appears to be a fair amount of viewing and playing the game as if it's some other game which no doubt leads to the aforementioned discounting.

 

[Tony Vargas]

It's all rules as I see it, and you're free to ignore the rules you don't want to use. Again, just be aware that this may impact the game experience negatively and require adjustment. I'm also finding it a rather tedious to discuss what is or isn't a rule so I'll just say that this is my last on this point. I'm telling you how I see it. You're free to disagree.

Since we're actually in pretty close agreement, we are going around in a pretty tight little circle. The way you're putting it that keeps making me want to push back is just too reminiscent of that 3.x era "..but it'll be a house rule." Dismissal. There is on one RaW of 5e, it can be interpreted and worked from in a variety of ways. You've found one that works very well for you, and, in particular in the "goal + method" concept, I certainly applaud it.

But deviating from it is not 'ignoring the rules,' nor are there "issues" to watch out for in doing so. The rules of the game /require/ interpretation. They require judgement from the DM. Issues arise from failing to put in that work on the DM side.

As an exercise, I think it's worth it to examine each game on its own without reference to the editions that came before it.

As an exercise, it could be interesting. And it is fair to try to judge a game's merits in a vacuum like that.
In a practical sense, designers of each edition have been decidedly familiar with the ones that came before, and, clearly, motivate to address issues past eds had, be that with their mechanics, or their fanbase. IMHO, much of 5e makes a lot more sense if you come at it from past experience with the TSR era, for instance - I suppose, in part, because Mr Mearls was intentionally going back to that era looking for inspiration, as part of that elusive quest to re-capture the peak popularity the game enjoyed in the 80s.
Miraculously, he succeeded.
Hard to argue with that.

The game runs smoother in my view if you follow the rules. A group still might not like that play experience, but that is a different matter.

The game runs smoother, IMX, if you don't follow them too closely.
They're a starting point.

I diagnose the problem not as paying too much attention to the rules, but discounting the fundamental process of play as "advice" or "rules-adjacent" as you say above.

They're a much higher-level part of the ruleset, sure. If you follow them faithfully, you /will/ end up ignoring some lower level rules much of the time. Not that the rules contradict, just that the higher level rules spell out the precedence of the DM. For instance, a group could run into much the same issue with "the skill system" if the DM's style tended towards calling for checks in virtually all circumstances. He's still playing by the high-level rules, following the process, but by focusing on the less functional details of the system, he gets into trouble. Hypothetically, that can be solved by changing his style and exercising more judgment, or by overhauling the skill system. Neither is better - though one is certainly more work.