D&D 5E Simulation vs Game - Where should D&D 5e aim?

[Hussar]

For me in this disagreement and those like it the devil is in the details.

If the PCs are low level nothings smelling of manure, my default is they don't get a diplomacy check, they'll be turned away at the gates.

If they are obviously rich high level PCs, my default is they get the diplomacy check (or may automatically succeed depending on their approach).

This is of course modified by preestablished history and context, and most importantly by the actions of the players.

A game which always keeps PCs poor and miserable can default to the former, a game starting with powerful, high status PCs the latter.

Either way I will interleave context and reasoning in any ruling, as players need this, especially if they are unhappy with the ruling.

I would tend to say that a ruling that is arbitrary, unilateral and ignores relevant context is a bad ruling. Who knows about examples stated baldly without context, there are so many relevant factors that it's impossible to say without making dangerous assumptions.

Not the approach I take. My approach is, the players have chosen a particular course of action and have the character resources to actually achieve this goal, I will almost never have a default answer in any direction. A rich, powerful PC with no diplomacy can be turned away and a poor, smooth talking diplomatic PC can succeed. I refuse to decide the outcome of player actions beforehand. It's far more interesting to me to let the campaign proceed organically based on the capabilities of the PC's.

If you decide success or failure beforehand, what's the point in playing?

 

[Ahnehnois]

If you decide success or failure beforehand, what's the point in playing?

Well, someone decides it at some point, yes? I'd much rather have the DM be deciding things in real time than some game writer deciding them years beforehand.

 

[Aenghus]

Not the approach I take. My approach is, the players have chosen a particular course of action and have the character resources to actually achieve this goal, I will almost never have a default answer in any direction. A rich, powerful PC with no diplomacy can be turned away and a poor, smooth talking diplomatic PC can succeed. I refuse to decide the outcome of player actions beforehand. It's far more interesting to me to let the campaign proceed organically based on the capabilities of the PC's.

If you decide success or failure beforehand, what's the point in playing?

I don't decide beforehand, the default is the initial framing before the players respond. Now, the players may not be interested, or they may work hard to accomplish their goals, it's up to them. Absolutely, poor people can succeed in diplomacy, but the odds may be initially stacked against them. I don't make my pseudo-medieval worlds as horribly class-bound and brutal as real history seems to have been, but it's not all sweetness and light.

And sometimes players attempt courses of action without some of the character resources required or relevant.

Mostly the situation is neither ideal nor worst-case for the players and there may be some player-DM negotiation re the exact framing of the conflict. I prefer to use the rules for resolution the vast majority of the time.

What I work hard to avoid is misunderstandings where players think certain plans are viable and the referee doesn't, or vice versa. This sort of difference of opinion is really damaging to a game IMO as it can discourage players from playing the game. Sometimes the main cause is differences in worldview that are unresolvable.

 

[Hussar]

Well, someone decides it at some point, yes? I'd much rather have the DM be deciding things in real time than some game writer deciding them years beforehand.

Yup, it gets decided after the attempt. Success or failure. If it's being decided beforehand, that's not a game I want to play.

So, how is the game designer deciding anything beforehand? You can make the check and succeed or fail. Nothing is pre-determined.

Now, as Aenghus says, the DC's can certainly be adjusted based on situation, but, IMO, if you are adjusting to the point where the check is pointless, that's too far. You've now pre-determined outcomes, and invalidated play. I have no interest in playing any game where the outcome is determined beforehand.

What I work hard to avoid is misunderstandings where players think certain plans are viable and the referee doesn't, or vice versa. This sort of difference of opinion is really damaging to a game IMO as it can discourage players from playing the game. Sometimes the main cause is differences in worldview that are unresolvable.

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=6302608#ixzz32DRoMvl2

Totally agreed. And I take it a step further that if this conflict does come up, I now almost always default to the players views rather than my own. It's the whole "say yes" approach to gaming that I have very much embraced.

 

[Ahnehnois]

What I work hard to avoid is misunderstandings where players think certain plans are viable and the referee doesn't, or vice versa. This sort of difference of opinion is really damaging to a game IMO as it can discourage players from playing the game. Sometimes the main cause is differences in worldview that are unresolvable.

That's where good DMing, not just DMing, comes in.

As the DM, your creative vision needs to guide everyone. You need to convey it. You also need to solicit communication from players, and you're the one who has to incorporate their perspective into your vision. Avoiding misunderstandings involves everyone at the table, but like the in-game happenings, it's ultimately up to the guy at the head of the table.

Basically, DMing is leadership.

 

[Hussar]

That's where good DMing, not just DMing, comes in.

As the DM, your creative vision needs to guide everyone. You need to convey it. You also need to solicit communication from players, and you're the one who has to incorporate their perspective into your vision. Avoiding misunderstandings involves everyone at the table, but like the in-game happenings, it's ultimately up to the guy at the head of the table.

Basically, DMing is leadership.

Wow, so not the game I want to play in. To me, DMing is facilitation. Leadership is what the players do.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Wow, so not the game I want to play in. To me, DMing is facilitation. Leadership is what the players do.

Well, an okay leader gets people to do what he wants them to do, but a really good leader gets people to want to do what he wants them to do.

Which again, applies equally to DMing and non-D&D examples. A good boss makes his employees feel like their contributions matter. Generally, part of doing this is making their contributions actually matter. A DM will do the same.

So, how is the game designer deciding anything beforehand? You can make the check and succeed or fail. Nothing is pre-determined.

The game designer is deciding everything but the check result. For example, he's the one who decided that your fighter couldn't cast a spell, or that if your wizard tries to punch someone, he's doomed to failure. The designer established those categories and forces you to play within that box. Every affirmative ability that one character has is a predetermined answer of "no" to anyone who tries to use that ability and doesn't have it. The entire game is about pre-determining stuff you can't do.

Moreover, if you play with the guidelines and not just hard rules, designers are essentially deciding outcomes. A standard 3e encounter has a CR equal to the party's level and drains 20% of their use-limited resources. That sounds like pre-determination to me.

And then if you're using published settings, NPCs, or entire adventures, whoever wrote those is determining an enormous number of things about your game before it even starts.

***

Whereas I don't like any of those things. I don't like exception-based mechanical design, metagame guidelines on how to play, or premade content, precisely because I don't want so much of what's happening at my table to be written in stone before the session starts.

 

[Hussar]

Well, an okay leader gets people to do what he wants them to do, but a really good leader gets people to want to do what he wants them to do.

Which again, applies equally to DMing and non-D&D examples. A good boss makes his employees feel like their contributions matter. Generally, part of doing this is making their contributions actually matter. A DM will do the same.

A good boss won'T just make his employees feel like their contributions matter. A good boss will make sure his employees DO matter.

The game designer is deciding everything but the check result. For example, he's the one who decided that your fighter couldn't cast a spell, or that if your wizard tries to punch someone, he's doomed to failure. The designer established those categories and forces you to play within that box. Every affirmative ability that one character has is a predetermined answer of "no" to anyone who tries to use that ability and doesn't have it. The entire game is about pre-determining stuff you can't do.

Moreover, if you play with the guidelines and not just hard rules, designers are essentially deciding outcomes. A standard 3e encounter has a CR equal to the party's level and drains 20% of their use-limited resources. That sounds like pre-determination to me.

Wow, that's a complete misrepresentation of CR. CR means that an EL par encounter is expected (as in the likely outcome) is that it will use 20% of their resources. However, there is no dictation going on. An EL par encounter can be a cakewalk or a TPK. The likely result isn't either of those, but neither are precluded. If you've never killed a PC with an EL par encounter, you're not trying very hard.

And then if you're using published settings, NPCs, or entire adventures, whoever wrote those is determining an enormous number of things about your game before it even starts.

But absolutely none of the outcomes of the PC's actions are pre-determined. Which is what this conversation is about.

***

Whereas I don't like any of those things. I don't like exception-based mechanical design, metagame guidelines on how to play, or premade content, precisely because I don't want so much of what's happening at my table to be written in stone before the session starts.

But, you have absolutely no problem with pre-determining the failure or success of player actions. Again, totally not my type of game and something I want no part of. As a DM, the world is absolutely yours. I have no problem with that at all. But, once the players sit down at the table, I, as the DM, have no control at all over the outcome of their actions. I certainly don't want it either.

 

[Ahnehnois]

A good boss won'T just make his employees feel like their contributions matter. A good boss will make sure his employees DO matter.

I believe that's exactly what I said.

If you've never killed a PC with an EL par encounter, you're not trying very hard.

I doubt I ever have. Hard to do if you don't actually use such encounters.

But, you have absolutely no problem with pre-determining the failure or success of player actions.

None whatsoever.
If a player, say, wants to convince and NPC to do something by talking nicely, I've got a suite of options. I might:
*Give them what they want and move on immediately.
*Have them play the conversation out and then give them what they want.
*Have them play the conversation out and then make them roll a skill check to get what they want.
*Have them roll the skill check that determines whether they get what they want without talking.
*Have them play out the conversation and then tell them no.
*Tell them no upfront and have them do something different.

All of these options are equally supported by the rules. There is no requirement that the Diplomacy skill be used, only a description of what happens when it is used. My decision will, in the mode of the discussion above, take into account context. Who are the characters? What do they know about each other? What are their motivations? How reasonable is the request to the characters, and to those of us in the real world?

And then, the metagame stuff. How interesting is this conversation? What else do I have going on during this session? How much time until someone has to leave? Who's been in the spotlight a lot lately? How nice has this player been to me lately? Do I have this NPC statted? Am I interested in playing him?

It doesn't take a doctorate in psychology to know that all of these factors and more affect these types of decisions, whether you want them to or not. I'm just honest about it. Several of those factors are influenced by players, some knowingly and out in the open, others less so. Moreover, I might just roll a d% just to determine what kind of mood the universe is in, and rule according to how good the result makes me feel.

Ultimately, the important thing is not that the players control what happens, it's that they experience the events that their characters experience in as naturalistic a way as possible. As with life, how much control we have over things varies.

 

[Hussar]

Oh, hey, Ahn, I would never accuse you of being dishonest in your approach. You've been very forthcoming and perfectly open about it. Kudos for that.

If a player, say, wants to convince and NPC to do something by talking nicely, I've got a suite of options. I might:
*Give them what they want and move on immediately.
*Have them play the conversation out and then give them what they want.
*Have them play the conversation out and then make them roll a skill check to get what they want.
*Have them roll the skill check that determines whether they get what they want without talking.
*Have them play out the conversation and then tell them no.
*Tell them no upfront and have them do something different.

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/newreply.php?p=6302653&noquote=1#ixzz32DoEKgc2

The first four, I have no real problems with, although, I generally wouldn't do the first one either. Too much the player getting what he wants without actually engaging his character. But numbers 5 and 6 I have no interest in. Very much not to my taste.

The players have engaged with something and I, as the DM, feel that I am bound by the mechanics of the game that we have all agreed to play. I view 5 and 6 as pure railroading and have not interest in playing in that game. I don't care if the DM thinks I have a chance or not. I really, really don't. As a DM, my opinion of your chances don't matter either. I could think you have no chance, but, because your character has skills that you do not, you can still succeed.

If I am dictating outcomes, I might as well simply write a story. I want to be surprised and I cannot, as the DM, be surprised if I am dictating outcomes. The joy of DMing, for me, comes with reacting to the players, not telling the players what happens.

Ultimately, the important thing is not that the players control what happens, it's that they experience the events that their characters experience in as naturalistic a way as possible. As with life, how much control we have over things varies.

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/newreply.php?p=6302653&noquote=1#ixzz32DpJ8JJR

To me, having the DM determine my success or failure without my engaging my character's mechanics is the least naturalistic way to experience events. I'm not succeeding or failing because of my character, I'm succeeding or failing because the DM wants a specific outcome. Again, it's not a game I have any interest in. I don't want to play in a game where the DM is telling me outcomes and I refuse to DM this way.

Appealing to the mechanics doesn't matter in this case. I don't care if the mechanics say you can do this or not. As a player, I'm not interested and as a DM I won't do it. It works for you, fine, but, for me, this is the opposite of what I want in a role playing game.