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

[Ahnehnois]

I'd have a lot less criticisms if you were presenting things as, "This is how I like to play" rather than, "This is the basic DMing 101 way to play and anything else is doing it wrong because most people play the way I do".

At least with regards to what you're calling "DM fiat" what I'm talking about is not a style of play or houserule from my table. It's objectively clear and explicit how these things work, and it's foundational to the rules.

So, for example, if the situation arises where a player wants to use Diplomacy on an NPC, an the DM doesn't think a check is warranted, the DM wins. They might want to talk it out, but if they can't, there is no debate as such. The player has no recourse. The DM's interpretation is the correct one by definition, so it carries. This is how the rules themselves work.

Now, in some cases, people will want to go outside of the rules "101" for whatever it is they're doing. That's fine. But to go back to the point of the original example, once you've done that, you're no longer playing the same game. So, for example, if you want to criticize the balance of a spell in a situation where the player, not the DM, controls how the spell is interpreted (and apparently the behavior of NPCs and the world around them), that's inappropriate, because the spell was written in a game where the DM has blanket authority.

D&D is very balanced, but it's balanced by the DM, not for the DM.

Remember, we were charming the chamberlain, not the king. We were trying to see the king, not charm him. We were attempting to use diplomacy to influence the chamberlain to see the king, an example for the use of diplomacy that was pulled directly from the 3e and 3.5 PHB. The idea of charm person was added when diplomacy was ruled impossible. Apparently using charm person to influence someone's reactions was breaking the rules and forcing an unreasonable outcome.

Yes, it is. Unlike, talking to someone, Charm is explicitly defined as an attack. Attacking the crown is obviously a bad idea. The rules for attack rolls don't mean that drawing your weapon on authority figures is a good idea, and the rules for Charm don't mean that charming them is a good idea.

It's putting the DM in a tough position because it derails the game and because it's irrational. A king's defenses are not going to be penetrated by a first level spell. In general, the only plausible outcome for attacking royal agents is that the player ends up in a dungeon or dead, and your outcomes might even be worse if you try it with spells than if you attack them with swords. Not the cool kind of dungeon, the one you can't get out of. This derails the campaign. It's also something that the character would not do, unless the character is mentally ill in some way. Self-destructive actions like this are the player equivalent of "rocks fall and you die".

As noted above, context does matter. So if we're talking about a case where the player is extremely high in level, or a low magic world, maybe this plays out a little differently. So, I'm assuming that the PCs are gods among men, and that they did not invent the Charm Person spell.

Barring those kinds of extremes, I go back to the idea that the actions you've described to try and illustrate the power that PCs have to rewrite history actually and up proving the opposite. Diplomacy only works when people are actually willing to engage in diplomacy. Magic only works when you can manage the consequences. Neither of those things are "player fiat".

 

[Ahnehnois]

I really don't understand the desire some people have to nail down GMing principles and play procedures down to a singular way to play as if every group of players were the same. Context matters here.

I don't think it has to be nailed down. I just think it has to be assumed. If we're talking about analysis or criticism of a published set of rules, I can't take into account what you do at your table (nor vice versa).

So in cases where what you do at your table is both outside of the game's basic assumptions and causes you certain problems, we can't conclude that those problems originate in the rules, because there's a confound: you. This is the problem I have with people saying that such and such is "objectively broken" or somesuch, when the same people have made it clear that they're playing contrary to the rules in important ways. I'm not saying that DMs can't change their role and responsibilities if they want to, I'm saying that they're responsible for the consequences when they do.

Perhaps that's where my using a mostly-homebrew system works out well, then; as even though I've got various DMs at the table only one really knows the system I'm using (he did the lion's share of designing it) so it's still easy to maintain at least a veneer of mystery.

Indeed. I'd think to think houseruling is primarily about objective improvements in the mechanics themselves, but this is a significant side benefit.

 

[Hussar]

Again, Ahn, the problem is that you are assuming that your approach the game is somehow the only supported one. That your particular take on the rules is the one true interpretation and everyone else is just pretending to play D&D. I mean, do you not understand how unbelievably arrogant this statement is:

I don't think it has to be nailed down. I just think it has to be assumed.

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/newreply.php?p=6304184&noquote=1#ixzz32S3RLzsY

You're essentially saying that your take on the game is so fundamental that it is the only reasonable interpretation. It's so "right" that it shouldn't even have to be talked about, just assumed to be true.

Well, as was so recently pointed out to me, one should not assume.

 

[Ahnehnois]

When everyone gathers around the table to play the game, you're in charge. That doesn't mean you can tell people what to do outside the boundaries of the game, but it does mean that you're the final arbiter of rules within the game. Good players will always recognize that you have ultimate authority over the game mechanics, even superseding something in a rulebook.

I make no statement about any games other than this one, but there is no ambiguity here. There is no reasonable interpretation of that text that would provide for any limitation on a DM's authority or establish any form of "player fiat". The simple fact that I can read does not make this statement arrogant.

So there's two kinds of assumptions at play. I'm not assuming that everyone actually read or understood this, or that they play their home games any particular way. I am, however, stating that in any discussion of this game in this public space, we should assume that the above text is how the game works.

 

[Aenghus]

I make no statement about any games other than this one, but there is no ambiguity here. There is no reasonable interpretation of that text that would provide for any limitation on a DM's authority or establish any form of "player fiat". The simple fact that I can read does not make this statement arrogant.

So there's two kinds of assumptions at play. I'm not assuming that everyone actually read or understood this, or that they play their home games any particular way. I am, however, stating that in any discussion of this game in this public space, we should assume that the above text is how the game works.

This rule isn't there to beat the players like a club, though, and this seems to be what you are advocating some of the time. I've seen games where the DM prevents the players from doing anything to affect their wonderful world and/or plotline and they were terrible games I shouldn't have tolerated as long as I did at the time. This type of DMing can drive people away from the hobby in horror IMO.

Not every game has players who will kill random NPCs at the drop of a hat. It's common but far from universal and I strongly, strongly disagree that the reactionary defensive gamestyle you advocate should be the default for everyone, I think it's bad for the hobby.

The question "Can (actual) rulers be low level relative to the PCs" occurs to me. I've seen long debates on this topic over the years, without consensus. Low level rulers and homicidal PCs are a lethal combination, and it's understandable that DMs resort to making every kingdom a hyperefficient totalitarian dictatorship to firewall vulnerable NPCs from the PCs, possibly along with overuse of fiat. But this sort of thing is a waste of time if the PCs aren't ridiculously homicidal.

My personal resolution of the ruler issue was that my actual rulers always have a reasonable class level, though they might be NPC levels or equivalent, so may or may not have concomitant offensive power. This means they aren't as vulnerable and can actually do their jobs without being killed by a random housecat, or automatically charmed by low level magic.

 

[Ahnehnois]

This rule isn't there to beat the players like a club, though, and this seems to be what you are advocating some of the time.

If we're talking about intended or appropriate use, I would suggest we should also acknowledge that the other rules are not there for players to break the game, which seems to be what certain others are advocating some of the time.

Not every game has players who will kill random NPCs at the drop of a hat. It's common but far from universal and I strongly, strongly disagree that the reactionary defensive gamestyle you advocate should be the default for everyone, I think it's bad for the hobby.

Not everyone, but I think it's natural. I don't expect people to be better in the game than they are in real life. And I'm not really sure that "defensive" is what I'm advocating; I'm simply saying that the DM is not "defenseless". There is nothing that could happen in a game against his will.

In practice, I will frequently let my players walk all over whatever plans or ideas I might have, but it's important to understand that this is me letting them do it because I think it's wise, not them exercising an entitlement. What I won't let them do is behave irrationally or dictate parts of the game that they don't control or break the world. Fortunately, they don't try that stuff much anymore, partially because of relationships and trust and all that, but partially because they are no longer teenage boys.

The question "Can (actual) rulers be low level relative to the PCs" occurs to me. I've seen long debates on this topic over the years, without consensus. Low level rulers and homicidal PCs are a lethal combination, and it's understandable that DMs resort to making every kingdom a hyperefficient totalitarian dictatorship to firewall vulnerable NPCs from the PCs, possibly along with overuse of fiat. But this sort of thing is a waste of time if the PCs aren't ridiculously homicidal.

Not necessarily, by any means.

One of the reasons I went down that particular road is simply because it's a familiar one to me. In searching for an example of impossible skill checks, the idea of getting in to see a dignitary is something that is notably impossible for me, despite the fact that I walk by them (being a Washington, DC resident) on a regular basis. I cannot go to the White House right now and talk to the President. How persuasively I ask (which maps to a Diplo check in D&D) is irrelevant; the Secret Service will not entertain this notion regardless. If I try to drug the escort of some foreign ambassador surreptitiously (the closest equivalent of a charm), I will end up in jail. These things obviously fail. So the idea of sheltered or inaccessible people seems apparent to me. There are, and have been for most of human history, many people who were simply walled off from society.

I also think that a naturalistic application of game rules results in a certain magic as technology situation, that suggests that rulers in D&D must be concentrating power the way that actual rulers do, both contemporary and historical. I don't necessarily think that every ruler must be a high-level character, but I do think that every ruler must have a decent portion of the powerful characters in his area under his direct or indirect employ. I'm sure that someone tried charming his way into a king's chamber once, and maybe it even worked once. And then the world adapted.

I struggle to understand the style some people have wherein the people in their fantasy worlds are unaware that they live in fantasy worlds and are unprepared for common supernatural phenomena. Low magic settings I understand, but not high magic settings where everyone other than the PCs is unaware that they are in a high magic setting.

 

[Neonchameleon]

The question "Can (actual) rulers be low level relative to the PCs" occurs to me. I've seen long debates on this topic over the years, without consensus. Low level rulers and homicidal PCs are a lethal combination, and it's understandable that DMs resort to making every kingdom a hyperefficient totalitarian dictatorship to firewall vulnerable NPCs from the PCs, possibly along with overuse of fiat. But this sort of thing is a waste of time if the PCs aren't ridiculously homicidal.

My personal resolution of the ruler issue was that my actual rulers always have a reasonable class level, though they might be NPC levels or equivalent, so may or may not have concomitant offensive power. This means they aren't as vulnerable and can actually do their jobs without being killed by a random housecat, or automatically charmed by low level magic.

If you can't have low level rulers you can't have hereditary monarchies. And that means that you've just cut out vast swathes of Fantasy.

 

[Aenghus]

If you can't have low level rulers you can't have hereditary monarchies. And that means that you've just cut out vast swathes of Fantasy.

No I haven't, because of my sneaky (actual) ruler clause in my previous post. Younger heirs have regents and advisors who actually rule for them till (if) they can take over themselves. A fair amount of the time the power behind the throne is the actual ruler, which allows for low level nominal rulers and a high level seneschal, vizier, chamberlain etc.

 

[Aenghus]

If we're talking about intended or appropriate use, I would suggest we should also acknowledge that the other rules are not there for players to break the game, which seems to be what certain others are advocating some of the time.

Not everyone, but I think it's natural. I don't expect people to be better in the game than they are in real life. And I'm not really sure that "defensive" is what I'm advocating; I'm simply saying that the DM is not "defenseless". There is nothing that could happen in a game against his will.

In practice, I will frequently let my players walk all over whatever plans or ideas I might have, but it's important to understand that this is me letting them do it because I think it's wise, not them exercising an entitlement. What I won't let them do is behave irrationally or dictate parts of the game that they don't control or break the world. Fortunately, they don't try that stuff much anymore, partially because of relationships and trust and all that, but partially because they are no longer teenage boys.

Not necessarily, by any means.

I think players are entitled to more consistency than your statement above allows. If they aren't entitled to anything ever, they can't earn success by good play, and any success they achieve is actually due to you not vetoing it. Everything is due to the DM, nothing to the players? Or is this finally too far?

One of the reasons I went down that particular road is simply because it's a familiar one to me. In searching for an example of impossible skill checks, the idea of getting in to see a dignitary is something that is notably impossible for me, despite the fact that I walk by them (being a Washington, DC resident) on a regular basis. I cannot go to the White House right now and talk to the President. How persuasively I ask (which maps to a Diplo check in D&D) is irrelevant; the Secret Service will not entertain this notion regardless. If I try to drug the escort of some foreign ambassador surreptitiously (the closest equivalent of a charm), I will end up in jail. These things obviously fail. So the idea of sheltered or inaccessible people seems apparent to me. There are, and have been for most of human history, many people who were simply walled off from society.

I also think that a naturalistic application of game rules results in a certain magic as technology situation, that suggests that rulers in D&D must be concentrating power the way that actual rulers do, both contemporary and historical. I don't necessarily think that every ruler must be a high-level character, but I do think that every ruler must have a decent portion of the powerful characters in his area under his direct or indirect employ. I'm sure that someone tried charming his way into a king's chamber once, and maybe it even worked once. And then the world adapted.

I struggle to understand the style some people have wherein the people in their fantasy worlds are unaware that they live in fantasy worlds and are unprepared for common supernatural phenomena. Low magic settings I understand, but not high magic settings where everyone other than the PCs is unaware that they are in a high magic setting.

I said rulers, not kings. Most rulers aren't kings and have far less personal resources. Few fantasy kingdoms have power equivalent to the USA. Even a king might be a petty king with only one castle or palace. Your view of ruler defenses seem significantly to prevent PCs misbehaving and slaughtering their way through a court to shake down or replace the king. But where are the limits ? Does every no-account lord and baron have similar defenses ? (I think it would strain credibility).

If D&D PCs are allowed to rise in level, eventually they can overthrow existing rulers or carve out their own territories, should they be interested in that sort of thing. Unless you prevent them by fiat , of course.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I think players are entitled to more consistency than your statement above allows. If they aren't entitled to anything ever, they can't earn success by good play, and any success they achieve is actually due to you not vetoing it. Everything is due to the DM, nothing to the players? Or is this finally too far?

No, it's not. Everything is due to the DM. If you're the players, you're either tracking your own internal goals, or your success is manifest in part through your ability to achieve the DMs vision, and in part through your ability to persuade him of the merits of yours.

To put it another way, the idea of a success that is manifest in the game world and is contrary to the DM's vision is nonsensical. You can't beat the DM. Which is fine, because D&D is not about players taking on the DM and winning.

Younger heirs have regents and advisors who actually rule for them till (if) they can take over themselves. A fair amount of the time the power behind the throne is the actual ruler, which allows for low level nominal rulers and a high level seneschal, vizier, chamberlain etc.

I think it's fair to say that most rulers have people working for them that are stronger than they are.

I said rulers, not kings. Most rulers aren't kings and have far less personal resources. Few fantasy kingdoms have power equivalent to the USA. Even a king might be a petty king with only one castle or palace. Your view of ruler defenses seem significantly to prevent PCs misbehaving and slaughtering their way through a court to shake down or replace the king. But where are the limits ? Does every no-account lord and baron have similar defenses ? (I think it would strain credibility).

There's some gray area there. However, I think that if anyone's defenses can be defeated by a first level spell, they must not have anything worth defending. If they did, someone would have gotten to it before the PCs.

I think even a very minor lord has mid-level NPCs of various classes working for him, and I think that anyone who is in a position of standing guard or protecting someone knows that if a person casts a spell, you should consider it a hostile act and either attack them or run for help immediately. Barring certain specific exceptions of course (spells from known friendlies, silent/stilled spells that aren't apparent as such).

It doesn't take much to beat a charm; a cantrip can detect an enchantment aura, at which point you know something is wrong. Surely no one gets in to see anyone of consequence without at least that simple test.

If D&D PCs are allowed to rise in level, eventually they can overthrow existing rulers or carve out their own territories, should they be interested in that sort of thing. Unless you prevent them by fiat , of course.

I would guess that in many campaign settings, it's entirely reasonable that players can assume/acquire positions of political power commensurate with their capacities and achievements. I don't think that will typically involve them using level 1 charm spells to work their way to the top, but it definitely may happen by other means. Most likely, they'll be awarded titles voluntarily, or perhaps they'll overthrow leaders using much more impressive methods than conversation and low-level magic.