D&D 5E What D&D should learn from a Song of Ice and Fire (Game of Thrones)

[Mistwell]

There's a very strong tension between the first line and the bolded bit, here. Unless your campaign provides roughly equal weight to combat, exploration, and social encounters, you're making it hard for the first bit to be true. Further, it ignores the very real issue of people "turning off" when their PCs are rules-excluded from a scene.

First, this assumption that anyone is ever "rules-excluded" is false. And it's the heart of my issue with this. NOBODY is arguing that characters will be rules-excluded from anything. And as far as I know, nobody has ever made that argument. But this is not the first time I've seen that claim made by people who care a lot about balance.

It's a strawman, and a common one. In my experience, when a strawman is used this often, it's a sign of an underlying problem with the position being put forth - something that's not being said, or not being examined.

If your players are "turning off" when their PCs are not shining, then you have a problem with your players and probably your DM as well. That's likely the issue not being examined enough in that situation, not the rules. If people are routinely "turning-off" like that, then I doubt any amount of balance will really address the issue you have at hand. Simple luck means someone will often be shining while others will be ineffectual just because of bad rolling or good rolling, sometimes for long stretches of a campaign just by coincidence. That game is destined for implosion if you have players who think like that, and DMs who don't know how to address it. And masking those problems with the rules (maybe damage on a miss, or DM dice fudging, or something similar) might help for a while to smooth out those rough patches, but ultimately I think those games end up having really bad problems unless that underlying issue gets addressed.

Another reason acting is a crap comparison is that actors know what they are getting in to. If you agree to play X part and understudy Y, you know the minimum and maximum amount of what you're going to get to do. If you're told you're only walk-on extra #112, you know it. Whereas a PC can be excluded by a careless DM, an adventure which excludes his role (it may even be a good adventure, otherwise!), or simply dynamics, and has no idea beforehand that this is going to happen.

I don't agree. Sometimes, in fact often, an unexpected role steals a show (in fact that's why that phrase "steals the show" is so common - one unlikely role overshadows the lead). Sometimes Beatrice is the one who shines in Much Ado About Nothing. Sometimes it's the performance of The Nurse that audiences remember from Romeo and Juliet. It's taking what you're given and doing your best to make it shine that's the challenge.

And sometimes it's the low ability score in role playing, or the unexpected effectiveness of the bard in combat against the odds due to the player's cleverness in using their environment or forgotten equipment, that ends up shining.

I also think not all games are meant for all people. If you really enjoy balance, if that's one of the highest things on your hierarchy of what makes for an enjoyable game for you, then I think perhaps 4e is a better choice of game for you. Balance is a strength of 4e. I think some balance has been (necessarily) sacrificed in 5e to better some other aspects of the game.

For me, balance isn't as important as some other aspects of the game like flexibility, reduced quantity of rules, stronger niche protection, and faster combat. And given my preferences, that likely means 5e is for me.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Not at all a reasonable comparison. D&D is played for fun. Acting is a job for money. If you are having to sit on your hands as a player, because the DM is making you irrelevant, you are likely having no fun. Whereas the actor is paid for their time.

I'm pretty sure most actors got into it for fun, and keep doing it because they enjoy it. Only for a small number of people is it ever going to be a lucrative career option.

Not JUST that, but when an actor only has to show up, film a couple of scenes and then come back in a couple of weeks to do some more scenes, they can do stuff in between. They can do whatever they like for fun.

Plays have understudies. Sports teams have bench players. This stuff happens.

When you are sitting at a table for 4 or 5 hours straight unable to leave or do anything else because most DMs don't like any distractions at the table, the fact that you are sitting there doing nothing is kind of boring. You can't even justify it based on "I may have a bit part that's boring to play but I'll get contacts and exposure and it'll open up the possibility of new and better paying roles in the future."

You can, however, justify it if the game itself is sufficiently entertaining that just watching it is enjoyable. Some people podcast their gaming sessions. I've had novices who are perfectly happy to just sit and watch while they're getting into the hobby.

And moreover, I was thinking of it because I did this with an advanced player recently and felt terrible about it, and he was very complementary about the game sessions I made him sit and watch.

There's a very strong tension between the first line and the bolded bit, here. Unless your campaign provides roughly equal weight to combat, exploration, and social encounters, you're making it hard for the first bit to be true. Further, it ignores the very real issue of people "turning off" when their PCs are rules-excluded from a scene.

If people are turning off, I don't think it's likely the rules that are causing that.

Another reason acting is a crap comparison is that actors know what they are getting in to. If you agree to play X part and understudy Y, you know the minimum and maximum amount of what you're going to get to do. If you're told you're only walk-on extra #112, you know it. Whereas a PC can be excluded by a careless DM, an adventure which excludes his role (it may even be a good adventure, otherwise!), or simply dynamics, and has no idea beforehand that this is going to happen.

Well, yes, there is a certain social contract, and honesty matters.

Why I brought it up in this thread is I see the culture (and the advice in books perhaps to an extent) shifting towards more and more entitlements, more and more things that players feel they should expect just by virtue of showing up. I'm suggesting a shift incrementally towards less of that.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

[MENTION=2525]Mistwell[/MENTION] - Dude, you often make excellent and convincing arguments, but here you have hopelessly contradicted yourself.

Your first bit is a long unsupported, assertion and assumption-filled piece on how the rules are never the problem and as a bonus features an amusingly hypocritical claim that the players or DM are the problem (an argument you have faulted others for using)!

The second bit is far more reasonable, but then says "Go play 4E if you like that sort of stuff!", which would be reasonable position, except that you just claimed that the rules are never the problem, so obviously playing 4E will make zero difference (and additionally 5E has not making a sacrifice, by logic).

You might want to pick one of those arguments and run with it - "Go play 4E!" is a more reasonable and logical one.

Plays have understudies. Sports teams have bench players. This stuff happens.

Horrible analogy. You KNOW if you are the understudy. People quit all the time when they are forced to be benched long-term. You're talking about telling people they can be the star, then forcing them not to act or even practice, by that analogy.

You can, however, justify it if the game itself is sufficiently entertaining that just watching it is enjoyable. Some people podcast their gaming sessions. I've had novices who are perfectly happy to just sit and watch while they're getting into the hobby.

Some people like that. Many don't. If you make one of the latter do this, he is going to be unhappy, whereas the former will be fine. So that's random.

If people are turning off, I don't think it's likely the rules that are causing that.

They're a factor. Please don't pretend situations like early Shadowrun's Matrix runs don't bore other players, it's insulting to everyone involved.

Why I brought it up in this thread is I see the culture (and the advice in books perhaps to an extent) shifting towards more and more entitlements, more and more things that players feel they should expect just by virtue of showing up. I'm suggesting a shift incrementally towards less of that.

I feel that you're replacing their "entitlement" with your own, there. The shift you're suggesting is because initially, DMs were treated as gods who could not be denied, which was a crap position for everyone. Any claim that players are advantaged over DMs now, or ever will be, is, frankly, a bad joke.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Horrible analogy. You KNOW if you are the understudy. People quit all the time when they are forced to be benched long-term. You're talking about telling people they can be the star, then forcing them not to act or even practice, by that analogy.

You also know if you're playing a dirt farmer (which people do, apparently). Or any character who isn't going to jump out and adventure. Players often knowingly make characters that are less apt at combat or other adventure-relevant tasks, and I don't see the need to shoehorn them into being something they're not.

But yes, sometimes people do leave. And then the game continues. Attrition does not mean that something is wrong, necessarily. Depending on who's leaving, it may be a fact of life, a sign of trouble, or weeding out the undesirables.

Some people like that. Many don't. If you make one of the latter do this, he is going to be unhappy, whereas the former will be fine. So that's random.

True. But you can shift things a bit with culture and expectation towards, like I said, less of a sense of entitlement.

Sending players on carefully crafted monty hauls creates one expectation. Crushing characters under your fists creates another. There's a balance there somewhere.

I feel that you're replacing their "entitlement" with your own, there. The shift you're suggesting is because initially, DMs were treated as gods who could not be denied, which was a crap position for everyone. Any claim that players are advantaged over DMs now, or ever will be, is, frankly, a bad joke.

I'm not saying they're advantaged over DMs. I'm saying they're advantaged over what they should be as players. If you as a player feel that your character is not going to die because an encounter surely must be within a certain challenge level, or that if you have a particular ability, the world around you is going to contrive to make it useful, that's a degree of entitlement that I don't support.

 

[Mistwell]

[MENTION=2525]Mistwell[/MENTION] - Dude, you often make excellent and convincing arguments, but here you have hopelessly contradicted yourself.

Your first bit is a long unsupported, assertion and assumption-filled piece on how the rules are never the problem and as a bonus features an amusingly hypocritical claim that the players or DM are the problem (an argument you have faulted others for using)!

No, you don't get to strawman me. I never said the rules are never the problem. I said for the thing you're describing, it sounds like the players and DM have a problem they need to work out, regardless of rules.

And you conveniently opted to not quote that section, which makes it harder for others to see that's what I said.

There is no contradiction there. If you have a player or players who "turn-off" whenever the spotlight is not on them, that is a problem REGARDLESS of the rules. Because as I described, given the variable of luck, that's going to happen even in the most balanced of games. Which means it's not the rules that's at issue with that problem. Not that the rules can never be an issue with a problem, just for the problem you're describing it doesn't make sense to be pointing at the rules as the issue.

The second bit is far more reasonable, but then says "Go play 4E if you like that sort of stuff!", which would be reasonable position, except that you just claimed that the rules are never the problem, so obviously playing 4E will make zero difference (and additionally 5E has not making a sacrifice, by logic).

Yeah, again, I never said the rules are not the problem. And you claiming it a second time makes me feel like you're doing this in bad faith. You know what I said.

More importantly, I was moving on to a different topic of your personal hierarchy of things that you like from an RPG. If balance is near the top of your list, then probably 4e is more for you than 5e, because it does balance better. You can like balance for reasons other than the issue you outlined concerning players "tuning-out" when the spotlight is not on them. Indeed, I think the reasons to prioritize balance don't have anything to do with that issue.

 

[Umbran]

They're a factor. Please don't pretend situations like early Shadowrun's Matrix runs don't bore other players, it's insulting to everyone involved.

Given that I initially banned Deckers from my early Shadowrun games, I know that issue well.

I'm now looking at 5e Shadowrun, and Deckers are better, so I'm allowing them in my current game.

I'll continue with Shadowrun, and my current game as an example, to show that definition of "problem with game", "problem with players" and "problem with rules" is by no means clear cut. Frequently enough, you can shift the "blame" to any one of those three, with the blink of an eye.

In 5e Shadowrun, it is entirely possible to build a character with lots of awesome social skills, but little combat ability, and vice versa. The typical run, in my experience, contains *both*. So, it is possible to have a combat monster and a social monster, and each one of them is kind of on the bench while the other is doing their thing. I have, in fact, exactly his issue - one player has a social character with little combat skill, the other has created a gun-bunny who is *incapable* of taking certain social skills, by the rules.

We can view this as a GM-problem: I, as GM, may not structure the encounters such that there were always clearly things for the non-Combat monster to do in a fight, for example. And I allowed a socially-inept character into the game, making it totally my fault.

We can view this as a Player-problem: The players chose to build their characters in such a way as they'd be sidelined. Knowing the general structure of runs, the issue is all their own fault.

We can view it as a rules-problem: The rules *allow* you to create a character with blind spots, so it is the rules' fault.

All of these are equally reasonable positions to take. Which says (to me, at least) that in general this is just a fact of life, and we have to manage it. You can manage it in rules - but then some concepts are impossible to represent accurately. You can manage it in the players, with them giving full acceptance to how they may put themselves into a quiet corner for a while. You can manage it in the GM, by paying lots and lots of attention to the adventures and encounters, to make sure quiet corners don't ever occur.

Or, you can try to strike a happy medium - a little control in rules, a little in players, a little in GM. I take this last position, as I find theoretical assertions don't hold a candle to actually thinking about the instance you have at and, and finding useful compromises in the field.

 

[steeldragons]

I'm not saying they're advantaged over DMs. I'm saying they're advantaged over what they should be as players. If you as a player feel that your character is not going to die because an encounter surely must be within a certain challenge level, or that if you have a particular ability, the world around you is going to contrive to make it useful, that's a degree of entitlement that I don't support.

[emphasis mine]

Here here!

 

[Ahnehnois]

We can view this as a GM-problem:
...
We can view this as a Player-problem:
...
We can view it as a rules-problem:
...
All of these are equally reasonable positions to take. Which says (to me, at least) that in general this is just a fact of life, and we have to manage it.

I think that suggests the idea that instead, you could view it as not a problem at all, simply one of the normal dynamics of play in an open-ended and complex game.

 

[SavageCole]

So my question: what sorts of things happen in a Song of Ice and Fire (the novels, not the RPG) that you would like to see included, in one way or another, in D&D 5?

What I would enjoy seeing in D&D 5e games would be the sort of play with narrative expectations we see in SoIaF. The way the series plays with tropes and cultural expectations so that you're comfortable and feel you know what's going to happen, but BAM something else happens ... and it is surprising and awesome. The gift of the unexpected.

Obviously DMs and adventure writers are in the best position to deliver this in 5e, but so is anyone who steps up to the table, and thereby assumes a share of storytelling responsibility.

 

[GMMichael]

So I feel like, unless you have veteran and rule-savvy players, multiple characters in D&D is likely to result in a lot of stress/frustration. It's also challenging with D&D's advancement methods - unless you do something like adopt "You level when the DM says so" (which is a fine method, to be sure!), PCs are likely to get widely out-of-whack level-wise, and even with "flatter" versions of D&D like 2E and 5E, that's going to be a problem.

So: Dear D&D: make character creation easier?

Further, it ignores the very real issue of people "turning off" when their PCs are rules-excluded from a scene.

SoIaF doesn't rules-exclude anyone. This is proven by Samwell surviving through an entire book. GRRM 1, D&D 0.

It's especially bad if your character is benched for multiple sessions. Since there's no script you don't know if you're character will show up again next session, so you have to keep coming anyways.

Not a problem if you have multiple characters.

For me, balance isn't as important as some other aspects of the game like flexibility, reduced quantity of rules, stronger niche protection, and faster combat. And given my preferences, that likely means 5e is for me.

SoIaF has lots of rules. Through the third book, those rules are mostly social, and something like "he who bleeds, dies." Combat is pretty fast in SoIaF too. From what I've seen of 5E, combat speed hasn't changed significantly.

What could 5E learn from a Song of Ice and Fire?

PCs should be nobility by default. Or become nobility, like the Onion Knight.