D&D 3E/3.5 Thoughts of a 3E/4E powergamer on starting to play 5E

[Guest 6801328]

Speaking purely in the abstract, I think that non-combat needs just as many rules as combat does. Namely, for both cases there need to be rules (or principles/guidelines/whatever you want to call them) for framing checks, and for establishing what will happen if the check succeeds or if it fails.

More complexity can then be added to either if it will add something of fun to the game.

C.f. The One Ring for for social encounters with greater-than-average complexity.

I'd love to see some well thought out rules for traps, too, beyond "Roll Perception. Ok, now roll Intelligence. Ok, you've disarmed it."

Nor do I like the opposite extreme: "You see three red wires... (insert long complication description of mechanism)...what do you do?"

 

[Manbearcat]

The idea that the GM is in charge of deciding whether the proper approach to an encounter is combat ("ultra-violence") or is social interaction ("talking") posits a very high degree of GM control over the game. This is the sort of removal or player agency ("GM, not players, moving the planchette") that I mentioned upthread (post 642). At post 658 [MENTION=6802951]Cap'n Kobold[/MENTION] said that this encounter-design suggestion has no bearing on "player agency during encounters", but I can't see that at all. It seems to be very much about dictating how encounters should be resolved.

Speaking of "moving the planchette" and Illusionism, from another thread:

My job is to create a challenging and fun adventure.

<snip>

If that means an extra unplanned encounter here or there, or doubling a monsters HP mid fight to keep it interesting or occasionally fudging rolls for or against the players, so be it.

Again; the DM is the conductor and the players are the orchestra. They make the music but I wave the stick, control the tempo, and ensure the different instruments are balanced against each other and playing in harmony.

You know the post I'm talking about.

The first sentence is benign enough (and good, orthodox sense). However, the depiction of the GM's role and latitude as "conductor", "tempo-setter", "harmony-inducer"...the placing of the players as primarily that of "reactive cue-responders"...and the techniques/system latitude used to facilitate all of this. Well, it doesn't scream action declaration/resolution mechanics having autonomy nor does it scream unfiltered agency to drive outcomes.

And I'm 100 % certain that a fair portion of GMs reading that not only won't see a thing wrong with it, but they'll tip their hat and say "there is no player agency being subordinated here and that sounds like good GMing to me!"

 

[Manbearcat]

Interesting. I like the breakdown (though I wonder if there might be other axes to consider too?), and yeah, it covers that side of the argument nicely. Absolute latitude given to the GM is seen as almost a sacred and inalienable right, to be encouraged to the exclusion of all other factors. I, of course, fundamentally disagree, and feel that moderating the other two categories (giving good, reliable instruction and controlling overhead where possible) is well worth the occasional compromise in latitude.

He hasn't voiced it (at least not explicitly) in such a fashion, but a big part of [MENTION=59096]thecasualoblivion[/MENTION] 's issues here lies in the realm of latitude.

AD&D 2e became further and further codified (even if incoherently so) toward the end of its run (with Combat and Tactics and Skills and Powers). This seems to be about the point when he started playing. His experience with the culture of AD&D 2e reflects this (rather than reflecting what [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] and I know of it).

He played 3e (fairly religiously?)

He played 4e.

These seem to make up the primary components of his playing experience? What is the common denominator here? What contracted progressively in the run described above?

GM latitude.

Overhead spiked with 3.x and bottomed out with 4e (in a good way).

Instruction was all over the place (4e battling Moldvay Basic for D&D supremacy imo).

However, the latitude of the GM became further and further constrained.

While it doesn't map perfectly (eg, I'm certain Dungeon World wouldn't be his cup of tea), there is a fairly strong signal there (especially in reading his posts about "trust" and "action resolution/ruling opacity/inconsistency", both making him insecure as a player).

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Well, in the quote I posted you did refer to a social rule being broken - whether or not that is a "technical" or other form of wronggoing I don't have a firm view on!

I don't see these as the only options. For instance, you might ask them to change their tastes in how they play the game.

And even if you decide not to ask them to change their tastes, you might address the issue of sharing approaches as a social matter, rather than try to regulate it via encounter design.

I'm assuming that one of the first actions to resolve the issue was an OOC talk between the problem player and the DM. That is how things like the actual preferences of the player and what they would be happy with playing would be determined.

The idea that the GM is in charge of deciding whether the proper approach to an encounter is combat ("ultra-violence") or is social interaction ("talking") posits a very high degree of GM control over the game. This is the sort of removal or player agency ("GM, not players, moving the planchette") that I mentioned upthread (post 642). At post 658 [MENTION=6802951]Cap'n Kobold[/MENTION] said that this encounter-design suggestion has no bearing on "player agency during encounters", but I can't see that at all. It seems to be very much about dictating how encounters should be resolved.

That might be a case of the lack of definition of player agency. Players are still at liberty for their characters to attempt anything that they want to. The difference made by doing something like setting the encounter in a different place is to adjust the chances of what they want to do. Its just one of the types of decision when putting together an adventure. No player agency lost any more than deciding that the characters will encounter zombies in the twisting catacombs for a fight where the more defensive characters can shine this time around for example.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

That? That is *not* "biggest tent ever" attitudes. That's not even "moderately large tent that can try to accommodate." That's, "I am altering the deal, pray I don’t alter it any further."

I am not disagreeing with you on that point. I just think the tent they were suggesting was impractical, and the tent they ended up with is still too large for my comfort.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

He hasn't voiced it (at least not explicitly) in such a fashion, but a big part of [MENTION=59096]thecasualoblivion[/MENTION] 's issues here lies in the realm of latitude.

AD&D 2e became further and further codified (even if incoherently so) toward the end of its run (with Combat and Tactics and Skills and Powers). This seems to be about the point when he started playing. His experience with the culture of AD&D 2e reflects this (rather than reflecting what [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] and I know of it).

He played 3e (fairly religiously?)

He played 4e.

These seem to make up the primary components of his playing experience? What is the common denominator here? What contracted progressively in the run described above?

GM latitude.

Overhead spiked with 3.x and bottomed out with 4e (in a good way).

Instruction was all over the place (4e battling Moldvay Basic for D&D supremacy imo).

However, the latitude of the GM became further and further constrained.

While it doesn't map perfectly (eg, I'm certain Dungeon World wouldn't be his cup of tea), there is a fairly strong signal there (especially in reading his posts about "trust" and "action resolution/ruling opacity/inconsistency", both making him insecure as a player).

Latitude sounds about right. I was never really on board with the AD&D God-DM concept.

 

[Guest 6801328]

He hasn't voiced it (at least not explicitly) in such a fashion, but a big part of [MENTION=59096]thecasualoblivion[/MENTION] 's issues here lies in the realm of latitude.

AD&D 2e became further and further codified (even if incoherently so) toward the end of its run (with Combat and Tactics and Skills and Powers). This seems to be about the point when he started playing. His experience with the culture of AD&D 2e reflects this (rather than reflecting what [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] and I know of it).

He played 3e (fairly religiously?)

He played 4e.

These seem to make up the primary components of his playing experience? What is the common denominator here? What contracted progressively in the run described above?

GM latitude.

Overhead spiked with 3.x and bottomed out with 4e (in a good way).

Instruction was all over the place (4e battling Moldvay Basic for D&D supremacy imo).

However, the latitude of the GM became further and further constrained.

While it doesn't map perfectly (eg, I'm certain Dungeon World wouldn't be his cup of tea), there is a fairly strong signal there (especially in reading his posts about "trust" and "action resolution/ruling opacity/inconsistency", both making him insecure as a player).

Interesting analysis. That actually could explain a lot of the disconnect in this debate. As an older player who pretty much skipped 3e and 4e, I see the DM as a lot more than just a referee/rules adjudicator. The DM is the "master storyteller", and although I as a player am participating in the fiction, I willingly delegate authority to the DM to do whatever he/she deems necessary to make it a good, edge-of-your-seat story. I *expect* all DMs to have different styles...I don't want them to be as impartial/neutral as a sports referee...and like dropping an author and trying a new one if I don't like a book, if I don't like a DM I'll look for a new table.

 

[hawkeyefan]

In my games, the players and GM aren't adversaries in general. But when I run an encounter, I like to be able to push hard without the mechanics breaking. Being able to do that also requires there to be outcomes that are binding on me - otherwise, there would be no limit on how hard I push other than my own choice to stop pushing hard!

Well yes, at times there is an adversarial angle to the game; the DM is in control of the players' opponents, and should try to run them believably and effectively. But what I mean is deeper than that aspect of the game.

Speaking of "moving the planchette" and Illusionism, from another thread:

You know the post I'm talking about.

The first sentence is benign enough (and good, orthodox sense). However, the depiction of the GM's role and latitude as "conductor", "tempo-setter", "harmony-inducer"...the placing of the players as primarily that of "reactive cue-responders"...and the techniques/system latitude used to facilitate all of this. Well, it doesn't scream action declaration/resolution mechanics having autonomy nor does it scream unfiltered agency to drive outcomes.

And I'm 100 % certain that a fair portion of GMs reading that not only won't see a thing wrong with it, but they'll tip their hat and say "there is no player agency being subordinated here and that sounds like good GMing to me!"

There are. And their opinion is just as valid as yours.

There's no one right way to DM. In my opinion, a good DM knows when to allow player choices to shape and mold the events, but knows that at times it is equally important to take the reins a bit. Whether it is to steer the story back on track a bit (example: the characters are doing everything except go to Castle Ravenloft) or to avoid a TPK (by having a critical hit that would put the entire party at risk be only a hit, or something similar).

Player agency is important to the game...and that very may well be true for some players/DMs more than others...but it isn't the only concern. Nor should it be.

So, it's perfectly fine if someone read [MENTION=6788736]Flamestrike[/MENTION]'s post in the Design Debate thread and found nothing to be wrong with it. Especially within the context of that thread and the ongoing discussions happening there.

GM latitude

Both the DM and the players need some latitude for the game to work. This edition swings the pendulum back toward the DM a bit. Obviously, whether that's good or bad is a matter of opinion.

Why is player latitude to be valued so highly, but GM latitude is so frightening?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Both the DM and the players need some latitude for the game to work. This edition swings the pendulum back toward the DM a bit. Obviously, whether that's good or bad is a matter of opinion.

Why is player latitude to be valued so highly, but GM latitude is so frightening?

It's not "a bit." Literally every single question that any player asks about 5e must be prefaced (or postfaced, I guess? postscripted?) with "Your DM can override absolutely everything, including the explicit rules text." Meaning there's really not a damn thing anyone can advise, recommend, or discuss with them--because the DM has absolute, universal, unquestioned and unquestionable latitude.

It's not "frightening." It's just annoying. For one, I want my choices to matter--to have consequences, that I at least could have foreseen. A DM that overrides a critical hit when the chips are down is a DM who prevents my mistakes, including the mistake of "trusted the dice too much," from mattering. I cannot learn what not to do, by seeing how something I did had bad consequences, because those consequences got taken away. (The same argument applies to padding an enemy's HP when it goes down "too fast" for the DM's liking).

For two, it frustrates the hell out of me that the books quite literally go out of their way to disparage my preferences. The book where the authors had the intestinal fortitude to explicitly recognize and affirm a deeply marginalized group in our society (trans* people) is the same book where I get intentionally marginalized as a member of the D&D community. That's pretty f*cked up--and it was done, not just in the name of "DM Empowerment!", but in the name of empowering a specific set of DMs.

Third: DMs kinda never haven't had latitude. They are not just the creators of the world and the active agents behind the array of opponents and obstacles players face, which alone is a pretty gorram huge amount of latitude. They're also the purveyors of all information about that world. Players can only know that which the DM tells them; players cannot see, or hear, or touch, without the DM acting as the go-between. Players are blind, deaf, and numb without them. That's an even more enormous form of latitude--and real DMs absolutely exploit that information disparity to the fullest, and expect players to like it, as the "Was I in the wrong?" thread demonstated. Before we even get into any part of the rules or their workings, or the books' advice to DMs, or anything else, those three facts (world-creator, opposition manager, sensory go-between) always guarantee an enormous amount of latitude for the DM.

Player latitude is to be valued because of that last point, by the way--no game that has any meaning to the role of the DM (whatever name the game chooses to give it) can avoid placing those three enormous forms of latitude squarely in that role's corner. A little bit of certainty--some space of consistency and reliability for the players to hang onto--is a drop in the bucket compared to all of that. Why shouldn't we value giving some of that, given what the DM must necessarily receive by *being* DM?

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Latitude sounds about right. I was never really on board with the AD&D God-DM concept.

In every edition of D&D, the DM has always had power way beyond that of any god of any setting.

It's not "a bit." Literally every single question that any player asks about 5e must be prefaced (or postfaced, I guess? postscripted?) with "Your DM can override absolutely everything, including the explicit rules text." Meaning there's really not a damn thing anyone can advise, recommend, or discuss with them--because the DM has absolute, universal, unquestioned and unquestionable latitude.

This is true of all editions of D&D.
While I can't find anything stating anything like your initial statement in 5e, the ability to override specific rules has always been within the DM's perogative. That is literally what houserules are.

For two, it frustrates the hell out of me that the books quite literally go out of their way to disparage my preferences. The book where the authors had the intestinal fortitude to explicitly recognize and affirm a deeply marginalized group in our society (trans* people) is the same book where I get intentionally marginalized as a member of the D&D community. That's pretty f*cked up--and it was done, not just in the name of "DM Empowerment!", but in the name of empowering a specific set of DMs.

Which book was this? What did it say?

Third: DMs kinda never haven't had latitude. They are not just the creators of the world and the active agents behind the array of opponents and obstacles players face, which alone is a pretty gorram huge amount of latitude. They're also the purveyors of all information about that world. Players can only know that which the DM tells them; players cannot see, or hear, or touch, without the DM acting as the go-between. Players are blind, deaf, and numb without them. That's an even more enormous form of latitude--and real DMs absolutely exploit that information disparity to the fullest, and expect players to like it, as the "Was I in the wrong?" thread demonstated. Before we even get into any part of the rules or their workings, or the books' advice to DMs, or anything else, those three facts (world-creator, opposition manager, sensory go-between) always guarantee an enormous amount of latitude for the DM.

Pretty much this. The only way that this edition differs is that it has less complex rules for specific situations, but all editions have had sections that required DM interpretation.
Now, you get bad DMs, but you get them in every edition. The phrase "What the DM says, goes. But if he says too much crap, so do his players." did not originate in a recent version of D&D.

Player latitude is to be valued because of that last point, by the way--no game that has any meaning to the role of the DM (whatever name the game chooses to give it) can avoid placing those three enormous forms of latitude squarely in that role's corner. A little bit of certainty--some space of consistency and reliability for the players to hang onto--is a drop in the bucket compared to all of that. Why shouldn't we value giving some of that, given what the DM must necessarily receive by *being* DM?

Is there anything in particular that makes you feel like you don't have that player latitude?