D&D 5E Resting and the frikkin' Elephant in the Room

[shoak1]

That said, though your style seems like an odd juxtaposition of elements usually combined in different ways into more conventionally-(on these boards anyway)-recognized circles of wagons.

Yes, I think that's true, though I would quibble with the "odd juxtaposition" part lol. Although I might not have all the right command of the proper terms, i believe my style is consistent with how many D and D players have played throughout its history, and with how most board games are played. Board game players are used to someone creating their game but then not interfering once play begins. That really sums up how we play. A majority of people I meet like playing D and D that way and don't like DMs manufacturing content on the fly. Its just that these forums as well as 5e seems to be dominated by people who see D and D as an improvisation-acceptable-and-desirable game. Its fine that people play that way, it just seems like they have trouble understanding why people wouldn't want to play that way, no matter how I articulate it.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Yes, I think that's true, though I would quibble with the "odd juxtaposition" part lol. Although I might not have all the right command of the proper terms, i believe my style is consistent with how many D and D players have played throughout its history, A majority of people I meet like playing D and D that way and don't like DMs manufacturing content on the fly.

No offense, but everyone always does.
Well, not everyone, there's the ones convinced their style is the the way all D&D has always been and/or was always meant to be played.

and with how most board games are played. Board game players are used to someone creating their game but then not interfering once play begins. That really sums up how we play. Its just that these forums as well as 5e seems to be dominated by people who see D and D as an improvisation-acceptable-and-desirable game. Its fine that people play that way, it just seems like they have trouble understanding why people wouldn't want to play that way, no matter how I articulate it.

Part of that could be symptomatic of a pendulum-swing away from the last edition (or a straw-man, thereof) I suppose. Though the 'improv' in question was more supposed to be on the player side. Part of it may be an on-line attitude.
IMHO, these style variations are often pretty local phenomena. Though I've seen groups, personally, that are OK with DM improv, those for whom it's a sort of unacknowledged 'open secret,' and those who wouldn't care for it, the last isn't what I've found to be the most common, IMX, gaming with people just in the greater SF bay area.



...

Hey, BTW, this is still Zapp's 'Resting...' thread, isn't it?
::checks top of page::

OMG, we're ignoring the Elephant in the thread!

 

[Caliban]

Yes, I think that's true, though I would quibble with the "odd juxtaposition" part lol. Although I might not have all the right command of the proper terms, i believe my style is consistent with how many D and D players have played throughout its history, and with how most board games are played. Board game players are used to someone creating their game but then not interfering once play begins. That really sums up how we play. A majority of people I meet like playing D and D that way and don't like DMs manufacturing content on the fly. Its just that these forums as well as 5e seems to be dominated by people who see D and D as an improvisation-acceptable-and-desirable game. Its fine that people play that way, it just seems like they have trouble understanding why people wouldn't want to play that way, no matter how I articulate it.

Strange. Most people I play with recognize that D&D isn't a board game, and don't expect it to be run like one. I can honestly say that in my 20+ years of playing D&D, the DM has created content on the fly at one point or another in every campaign I've run or played in. Even if they are using a pre-written module, the DM will often modify things on the fly.

That is for home games where the DM is running their own campaign.

When running a pre-written module in an Organized Play setting (Living City, Living Greyhawk, Pathfinder Society, Adventure League, etc) the DM is expected to stick with what is in the module, although even then they have the ability to modify encounters within a limited range if they so desire.

As for why people have trouble understanding why you would want to play D&D as if it were little more than a tactical board game with the encounters loosely connected...that's because for a lot of people that seems to be missing the entire point of playing a roleplaying game. It's also a cooperative storytelling game, as well as being a fantasy combat simulator.

If the DM can't adjust things on the fly to react to events within the game, they may feel that it robs the DM of their creative freedom, and sucks the life out of the story.

Or you may feel that the DM adjusting things on the fly gives them an "unfair advantage" because you are playing a more adversarial style of D&D where the story takes a backseat to the tactical aspects.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

You just seemed to be understanding us, then said that style is only valid in a tournament, why is that?

I'm not saying that the playstyle is only valid in a tournament.

But if you're not running a tournament, you can't really see who did it "best." In order to see who did it best, there has to be somebody else doing the same thing.

But you can certainly play the game tournament-style.

 

[hawkeyefan]

In the latter scenario the DM exercises judgement between player cause and effect and in the former he doesn't. In your way of thinking, since the DM decides it anyways, then it doesn't matter - but surely you know that that is the exception to the way most people play most games right?

Is it? What kind of games are we talking about? Games with referees? Most of those certainly expect the referee to exercise his judgment based on what happens during play.

Specifically what games are you talkkbg about?

Of course you can say that the decision you made between the cause and effect is the same that you would have made days ago before the players did all that they did, and maybe it even is - but surely you can see why many gamers would say "yeah, right lol," and prefer you not be interjecting your decision at that time, right?

Nope. I can certainly imagine a player looking at it that way, or perhaps a small group of players. I understand what you're describing. But many? No...I can only go off of my personal experience, but based on that, most people expect the DM to have to make judgments and adjust things during play based on player decisions.

And I would also expect such improvisation to be virtually "invisible" to the players. Why would they know? If it's done well, it should be no different than reading out of a prepared module or the DM's personal notes.

****

At risk of highjacking the thread even further, maybe we should look at a particular published module and discuss how we each handled that. Would that be cool? I beleive that I saw that you ran Curse of Strahd, right? I think I remember seeing one of your impressive play sets of the castle. How did you run that? Did you use all most of the sections? Did you discard things or add anything?

 

[Ilbranteloth]

Yes, I think that's true, though I would quibble with the "odd juxtaposition" part lol. Although I might not have all the right command of the proper terms, i believe my style is consistent with how many D and D players have played throughout its history, and with how most board games are played. Board game players are used to someone creating their game but then not interfering once play begins. That really sums up how we play. A majority of people I meet like playing D and D that way and don't like DMs manufacturing content on the fly. Its just that these forums as well as 5e seems to be dominated by people who see D and D as an improvisation-acceptable-and-desirable game. Its fine that people play that way, it just seems like they have trouble understanding why people wouldn't want to play that way, no matter how I articulate it.

Well, I've been playing this game for a long time (like @Tony Vargas) and it's not a playstyle that I would consider common. So it's taken me a while to understand (and I think I do).

Personally, I think you're putting a lot of emphasis on trying to avoid something that's a pretty integral part of the game design (DM input), and that's the sort of thing that for many people pushes you outside of the realm of what they consider D&D (or an RPG). That doesn't make it wrong, just not what folks are used to.

Without DM input during the game, you essentially have a choose-your-own-adventure. TSR even published a few fairly complex solo adventures that didn't require a DM at all. It would be quite possible to take a published adventure, and rewrite it to work without a DM. The problem is, for most folks, they just aren't that fun or interesting. They didn't sell well, and ultimately don't feel like D&D (or an RPG for that matter).

You're going to find further trouble from many gamers, because a lot of the players that are so focused on the rules, rather than the game, are rules lawyers. Much like a rules lawyer, you're attempting to reduce the fun of the DM, and potentially other players. Never a problem if you're all on the same page and that's the way you like to play. But you probably won't find as many supporters outside of that.

It's not that people think improvisation is acceptable-and-desirable, it's generally something that's required of a DM. It's part of what defines the game, and also differentiates it from things like computer games, video games, card games, board games, you name it. That's kind of the point of the game, is that it's much more than a board game. Of all of the players of D&D, the DM typically puts in the most work, and then you're hamstringing them by taking away one of their primary responsibilities and a big part of what makes being a DM fun. I still have an issue with your terminology too, because not only are you saying that the DM can't do a big part of their job (and potentially the most enjoyable part), but you're also using a negative term to describe what the DM does.

As I said in an earlier post, I highly doubt that the "majority of the people you meet" actually care, much less have thought about it. I know that most people I talk to about game design, DM techniques, playstyle, etc. listen more out of courtesy than really understanding it or caring about it one way or the other. I'm also not surprised that the majority of people you play with prefer that - as I said, that's my experience too. Because those are the sort of people I attract, and the sort that I want to play with. They are both sample sizes far too small to be representative.

Your play style sounds quite consistent with board games. But after DMing for 35+ years, and I think folks like @Lanefan and @Tony Vargas who are also long term players will agree from their experiences, DM input, creativity and improvisation is a core part of the game, and many would probably view the removal of that aspect moving to the edge of what they would consider D&D. So no, I don't think it's consistent with how many people have played D&D, or RPGs for that matter. In fact, the trend in RPGs in general, particularly starting on the indie side, has been more creative input, from the players and the GM. Even 5e is following that trend in part by a much simplified rule-set, and bringing the role of adjudication back to a larger part of the DMs role. This is not only in line with the current RPG trends, but a throwback to OD&D/AD&D/BECMI and the roots of the hobby as a whole.

Edit: I just wanted to reiterate that I don't think the way you are playing it is "wrong." And really, kudos to anybody doing something different. A lot of games, and even RPG subgenera (didn't know that was a word, or if it's the right now - autocorrect did it), have been created by people playing the game the way they like to. It's entirely possible the relatively recent boom in D&D board games may be the result of people playing D&D the way you do. It's not the way I'd play, but it doesn't mean there isn't good food for thought, or even techniques or ideas that can be used elsewhere.

 

[Harzel]

Again I will say what the guy in the quote said - the goal is not to eliminate taint but to minimize it. Taint is not a killer virus that kills you with one drop - its a shade that can be darker or lighter. Every game is created by someone, so we cannot eliminate the need to create the scene. But we can avoid (at least to a much greater extent than you feel the need to) interjecting DM rulings/content creation BETWEEN player choice and effect .

"Interjecting" seems like an odd word to use, because if the content does not exist yet, then the DM is defining the effect; you can't interject something between one thing and another thing that doesn't exist yet. I wouldn't be so picky, but the word "interject" in this context seems not only inaccurate, but also loaded - it carries the connotation of something that is unnecessary, gratuitous, or disruptive, which seems to sort of prejudice the discussion.

Anyway, that semantic quibble aside, from things you have previously said, you have no trouble with the DM creating the content, it is a matter of timing. This is the thing that I can't quite wrap my head around. I mean, it is true that advance prep is very much required for the awesome (really!) battlescapes that you create, but you seem to have objections to improv that go considerably beyond that consideration. So what (desirable/undesirable) quality does pre-planned content necessarily (have/lack) that improv'd content necessarily (lacks/has)?

In the latter scenario the DM exercises judgement between player cause and effect and in the former he doesn't.

Since in the post you were replying to [MENTION=6785785]hawkeyefan[/MENTION] said, "In either case, the middle step requires DM judgement.", saying that DM judgement is the difference is unlikely to clarify what you mean.

In your way of thinking, since the DM decides it anyways, then it doesn't matter

"doesn't matter" is a very broad assertion, particularly when you are telling someone else that is what they are thinking. What would be helpful is if you could tell us, in terms of game play, why it does matter to you.

- but surely you know that that is the exception to the way most people play most games right? Of course you can say that the decision you made between the cause and effect is the same that you would have made days ago before the players did all that they did, and maybe it even is - but surely you can see why many gamers would say "yeah, right lol," and prefer you not be interjecting your decision at that time, right?

So if by the decision being the "same" you mean "identical" then to me it seems like a strawman. Would people be skeptical of a claim that a DM decision made during a game was identical to a hypothetical decision made days ago. Yep. But I would not make that claim and I don't think [MENTION=6785785]hawkeyefan[/MENTION] would either. Because ultimately it seems to me that the only criterion that needs to be satisfied is that the on-the-fly decision is, on average, at least as good for the game as a decision made days ago. Being identical is not necessary. (Or if you were suggesting that in your view being identical is necessary, then I would be back to asking, "Why?")

If, on the other hand, by "same" you mean something less strict, like "based on the same principles and facts about the fictional world", then, no, the reason for skepticism is not obvious to me.

 

[shoak1]

Is it? What kind of games are we talking about? Games with referees? Most of those certainly expect the referee to exercise his judgment based on what happens during play. Specifically what games are you talking about?

Does Monopoly have a referee? Does Battlestar Galactica? Does Life? It is MUCH MUCH more common for people to play games without referees !!! Why? Because most gamers don't like having someone decide things for them - they like to play in a predetermined world and BEAT IT. So it confounds me that you cant see why some people would want to minimize the referee's role in D and D, interjecting themselves in between player cause and effect. I GET that you like the DM to do so - I REALLY REALLY do.....But I'm really baffled that you don't see how it runs counter to the way most of us gamers think.

And I would also expect such improvisation to be virtually "invisible" to the players. Why would they know? If it's done well, it should be no different than reading out of a prepared module or the DM's personal notes.

Several players I have played with over the years have told me the same thing - that they have a DM that thinks his improv is invisible to them...

At risk of highjacking the thread even further, maybe we should look at a particular published module and discuss how we each handled that. Would that be cool? I believe that I saw that you ran Curse of Strahd, right? I think I remember seeing one of your impressive play sets of the castle. How did you run that? Did you use all most of the sections? Did you discard things or add anything?

Good idea. Maybe that will help us communicate better. I'll go first, then maybe u could reciprocate.

First I figured out how much time we had and therefore how many encounters I could do (as I recall about 8 aside from the castle). I cherry picked the best material and the places I thought would make the best 3D settings, i think i used the fortuneteller thing, the 3 villages, and both hag places. I got rid of all the ridiculous super high and low level stuff in the module.

Secondly I constructed my adventure path and the seatbelts for it. Nothing too fancy - the dude in barovia village says go to valaki, there's a legendary vampire hunter they need to get with there if they have any hope of beating strahd. Then enroute to vallaki they get fortune read, then in vallaki rictavio tells them to get 3 items , 1 each in 2 hag places and in other village to west?, then they bring them to ricctavio, he tells them there are two more located in different parts of the castle (just to make sure they explore the whole castle I painstakingly put together).

I then tied in some elements from our current campaign (zombie apocolypse) into the Strahd storyline.

Then I made a simplified version of wandering monster chart (1 roll per journey leg, modded by survival/perception skills, with level appropriate baddies not the crap on the published chart).

I then examined all the encounters to get a rough idea of how many long rests would be needed in total, calced travel time, and created my time crunch mechanism. In x days Strahd was gonna finish some huge project. Then I went back and tweaked the encounter difficulties to be right for the budget, including details of what monsters to add/subtract based on the number of players.

Then came my detailing of the encounters. I consolidated the village (Barovia, Vallaki, and the other one) stuff into 5-7 step "town sequences" where they rolled a skill challenge to gather info, got to buy/sell via skill challenge, had one or two encounters - sort of a mini-game. I made DCs for everything, contingency plans, tactics/strategy write-ups for baddies, made stat sheets, distributed of treasure based on DMG guidelines (not the crazy crap in module). I added some chrome like cool traps, some gadgets, magic items, etc. Found a printable 3D pipe organ.....

Finally I built all the sets in 3D, picked out the figures and got everything ready.

 

[MichaelSomething]

If you've been reading this thread from the beginning, take this post as an opportunity to rest and restore your HP. Here's a video of kittens to help you out with that...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmjlMgDSYFo

 

[Lanefan]

Does Monopoly have a referee? Does Battlestar Galactica? Does Life? It is MUCH MUCH more common for people to play games without referees !!!

Which highlights one of several very fundamental differences between what's defined as a boardgame and what's defined as an RPG. RPGs, almost without exception, have within their structure some sort of referee or GM or DM or whatever other term you give it, whose roles are to oversee the game, provide the backdrop, make rulings, and in one way or another keep it going smoothly. In this way...but only in this way...it's closer to many types of sports, where these functions are filled by some combination of an organized league and the in-game officials.

Why? Because most gamers don't like having someone decide things for them - they like to play in a predetermined world and BEAT IT.

Most boardgamers, maybe. However, you've here highlighted a second major difference between (almost all) boardgames and RPGs: in a boardgame you're playing as an individual, and playing to win against the other players. In an RPG you're most often playing as part of a group and not trying to win against the other players. You could be said to collectively be trying to win against the game world, except for yet another major difference:

A boardgame (almost always) has a clearly defined win condition - you reach home first, you destroy all the other armies, you checkmate the king - and the game ends when a player (or a predefined number of players) reaches this point. An RPG never has such a thing: there is no predetermined win condition, and no defined end point - you can't "win" D&D. The best you can do is survive through the campaign, which probably equates to a tie. And in some RPGs e.g. CoC you can't even hope for that much; the game dictates that you are going to lose, and the only questions are how long will it take and what can you achieve in the meantime.

Sure, in an all-out PvP game you could knock off all the other PCs - but that still doesn't mean you've won, because the game world is still out there waiting for you...

So it confounds me that you cant see why some people would want to minimize the referee's role in D and D, interjecting themselves in between player cause and effect. I GET that you like the DM to do so - I REALLY REALLY do.....But I'm really baffled that you don't see how it runs counter to the way most of us gamers think.

If in "most of us gamers" you're including boardgamers and card gamers and so on, you're likely right; if only because those games work as you say and have more players overall. But if you limit "gamers" to only RPG players then I'd say you're flat wrong, once you get beyond your own gaming community which does, I must say, seem rather unusual.

Lan-"the rest of the post I quoted here didn't make sense - did you miss a quote tag somewhere?"-efan