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

[shoak1]

I'm probably what you would call a "Big Story DM" but my players have never complained about the lack of challenge in my game. Several near TPK's and one player death so far, and the party is level 7 in the current campaign.

Or maybe I'm just a "Big DM" since I handle everything (story, rules, challenges) and let the players focus on their characters and character decisions.

Big Story is very compelling to many people - I certainly don't mean to say its not a great way to play for many people. Many (most?) players don't mind Big DM tweaking challenges on the fly rather than prepping them fully and sticking with it. And different players have different ideas of what constitutes a challenge. Big Story and Big DM are popular for many reasons - they are just not the only game in town.

 

[shoak1]

Try visualizing your DM Empowerment as a lathe instead of a hammer?

While it sounds like 13A might be a close fit for you, personally, 5e /is/ meant to be for all D&Ders, and if your players are comfortable with it, that's a positive that you don't want to just throw away, so coming here and sharing/getting some ideas will hopefully be worthwhile. It may sound weird, but one strength of D&D has generally (3.x RAW-zietgeist excepted) been a system everyone would likely be able to accept, but that the DM could bang into the desired shape (even though there might already be several other games that are closer to what he wants, the chances of getting together a group who agree on which one of those to play are lower than the chances of forcing D&D into the same mold).

You could take several very different paths in trying to make the most of it.

• You could decline to DM, and just play - that assumes there's anyone in your group up to the challenge of running 5e and also better-suited to it, and that could easily not be the case.
• You could look for or author a set of variants (that could be a lot of work) that works the way you want, and present it as the rules you'll be using for the campaign, take it or leave it.
• You could see if your players would be willing to collaborate on a set of house rules that you'd all find acceptable. Also a lot of work, but potentially shared out.
• You could hammer out such a houseruleset by consensus as you go.

Like shoak1, you'll want to front-load a lot of DM work. In your case, it sounds like front-loading it at the beginning of the campaign, so the rules, and an acceptable way other than just ad hoc DM ruling for dealing with them when the unexpected happens, are taken care of, and you can focus on the story/world aspect of the campaign.

Obviously, that discussion could be a big ol' thread on its own. I'd encourage you to start that thread.

Edit: Oh, if some of your players participate, you could make it a wiki and start hammering out your house rules right here, it'd be illustrative for all of us, and you'd get lots of help (OK, and no small amount of interference, I suppose...)

5e is certainly worth playing. It fixes MANY of 3.5's and previous editions' problems. Its a strange dichotomy though - its almost like they scatter shot balance and structure and left the editing/project overview in the hands of a right-brainer. Amorphous, incomplete, and inconsistent is the best way to describe 5e's rules. The idea that it was intended to be that way (as some here have suggested) is the most disturbing thing. And the modules are all made for Big DM and Big Story....not so much as a nod to Big Challenge or DM Light. It screams "screw you 4e guys, time for us to eat cake now!"

 

[OB1]

If you emphasize both you emphasize neither right? The word focus implies a heavier weight given to one or the other. If you don't give more weight to one, then you would be in neither camp. But from everything you post it sure seems you are squarely in the Big Story Camp.

There is definitely a lais·sez-faire-rules/balance-attitude among many Big DM, and to a lesser extent Big Story practitioners, that rankles DM Lights like myself. The idea that the Big DM wand heals all balance/rules issues might be fine to Big DM guys, but to those of us that actively seek to limit DM intervention in the game and its rules, it is an outrageous proposition. What rankles me the most though is that these same lais·sez-faire-rules/balance-attitude people are among the most strident opponents to the idea of official modifications to the rules or additional material in modules to fix balance and rules issues. This seems like such an easy point of compromise for Big DM peeps - just stop fighting a battle that has so little at stake for you......

It seems like every post by every guy complaining about balance is slammed by a barrage of "just have the DM fix it this way," "balance is subjective and therefore irrelevant at the game scale, its only relevant at the individual table level," and "ugh! why are you so worried about something as stupid as balance? just have fun!" posts. If its of little import for YOU what rules/balance the game has, why fight OUR attempts at it?

Just wanted to point out that D&D 5e does in fact choose to emphasize one over the other based on what it learned from the playtest and subsequent surveys and sales data, and it seems that choice is not one you prefer.

My question is, why is it so important for you to have WoTC release an official change to fit your playstyle? Why can't you take one of the very good suggestions offered in this thread and go with it? Or publish your own rules supplement on the DM Guild and make money for your effort? Why does it have to be official WoTC published material to work for your group? I'm really asking and trying to understand this part.

WoTC has limited bandwidth and page-count to make official modifications, and the changes you propose mean that other changes that could benefit others won't be worked on or won't fit into the book.

If there is bandwidth and space I have no problem with them adding it, but you act that there isn't an opportunity cost to do so, and there is.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

If you emphasize both you emphasize neither right? The word focus implies a heavier weight given to one or the other. If you don't give more weight to one, then you would be in neither camp. But from everything you post it sure seems you are squarely in the Big Story Camp.

Well, I would consider myself more in the "do not limit my available tools" as a DM camp. But you know what, even that's fine to a large degree. There are already limitations.

Most of the time, my input as far as rules are concerned during the game is minimal. I present the world, play the NPCs and monsters, etc. and we follow the rules.

I use passive skills extensively, so we don't have to roll skill checks frequently, but that's still skill vs DC. Although there are plenty of actions the players attempt that may not have a direct correlation in the rules. So I choose the most logical fit.

If the players go in a direction that's unexpected, I need to deal with that. It's based on a combination of rules, random tables, and improvisation.

But my goal is to influence the narrative as little as possible. My input into the narrative is through the NPCs and monsters. For everything else I'm just there to referee the world and setting.

So I don't know what you want to call it. The rules are good at mechanics. It also maintains consistency. I have goals and personalities for NPCs I expect them to meet, but if they go in a different direction I can work from tables, or do it on the fly. However it's most seamless for the players. If I roll it randomly then I have to see how, if at all, that ties into whatever else is going on.

So I'm not sure I would use the term Big DM. I'm here to provide the stage for the characters. The players write their characters' story.

Perhaps my approach is more about putting the focus on the characters, and letting the players have full control over their actions and decisions? I don't know, that sounds pretty DM Light to me. The DM interferes and controls as little as possible.

An adventure designed with a set plot and expected outcome as determined by the DM? That sounds more like Big DM to me. Many of the APs and certainly a lot of adventures from the past fit that approach. It seems like that approach is more about the characters playing the DM's story.

I don't want the focus on me, and it's not about my story. I do provide a framework, and you can say it's my world, but I'm most interested in seeing how the characters, as people, handle life in a dangerous and magical world. I'm more interested in what they can come up with than me.

That to me is far more interesting to me to see if they can successfully get from point A to point B efficiently in something I preplanned for them. I guess for me there is no point B.

And that's the thing, from my perspective, it's not about the DM at all. Really, I prefer for the DM and the rules to be as invisible as possible. I think both are essential, but neither are the focus of my game.

 

[shoak1]

Obviously, that discussion could be a big ol' thread on its own. I'd encourage you to start that thread. Edit: Oh, if some of your players participate, you could make it a wiki and start hammering out your house rules right here, it'd be illustrative for all of us, and you'd get lots of help (OK, and no small amount of interference, I suppose...)

While that idea sounds compelling, I think I'm more inclined to stay with this thread. This is the first time I have ever felt true progress toward mutual understanding and perhaps appreciation. The biggest problem has always been the different ways of thinking that Big Story peeps seem to have as compared to Big Challenge peeps like me. Big Story peeps seem to eschew labels and generalities, whereas Big Challenge peeps tend to see labels and generalities as necessary to meaningful communication. Invariably therefore discussions about playstyles tends to therefore devolve rapidly from discussing the issue to discussing the discussion or arguing over labels. (Steve sighs as he realizes he will invariably catch heat over his use of labels in this paragraph....)

In this thread, you and Hawkeye have been invaluable in bridging that gap. Your continued focus on the merits and meat of the different playstyles rather than the discussion of the discussion allowed the dialog to continue to a point where we started seeing peeps contributing on both sides. Also your even handedness encouraged the rest of us to limit our rancor and rhetoric....at least most of the time (somewhat guilty smile). You also fine tuned our arguments to be more clear.

But I don't know if that can ever be recreated lol so I am riding this horse to the finish line lol

 

[jasper]

...Plus, I have a massive ego ......

No! YOOU DON'T SAY.! Tear it was eye thought ewe is kind of thee laid back type.

I think what outside wants to know.
"is it okay for the rules guru to be someone other than the dm?" asked outsider.
Yes anyone can be the dude who knows the rules even if it Mom and she answering questions as she cooks dinner.

 

[Caliban]

No! YOOU DON'T SAY.! Tear it was eye thought ewe is kind of thee laid back type.

I think what outside wants to know.
"is it okay for the rules guru to be someone other than the dm?" asked outsider.
Yes anyone can be the dude who knows the rules even if it Mom and she answering questions as she cooks dinner.

No, that's not what Outside was saying. If it was just having an appointed rules guru to help shore up a DM's weakness with the rules I wouldn't be saying anything.

Why was it decided that the person telling the story is also the one running the game?

The thing Outside and I have been psuedo-bickering about is their contention that the DM shouldn't necessarily be the person running the game.

To me, that's kind of the definition of "Dungeon Master" - the person running the game.

I can conceive of a circumstance where you basically have co-DM's - one in charge of story and social stuff, and on in charge of combats and rules, etc. I've never seen it actually work in practice, but in theory, sure.

I was being snarky because I initially had the impression that Outside was advocating a kind of "player's coup" where they take control of the game and tell the DM how things work, including things like forcing house rules on the DM.

And my response to that concept was "Good luck. Try it and tell me how it works for you."

They later clarified their position, and it's not as extreme as I initially thought. So no problems anymore, except for people still talking about things neither of us said.

Really not sure why this is so difficult for people to parse. *shrug*

 

[Imaro]

I think your point is quite valid assuming the "GM constantly dithering with the players about what the NPCs he controls are going to do" part. But there is no such constant dithering at my table because I address the most common contingencies in my write-up. And the word dithering implies a lack of fair-handed cooperation on such things, and that too is something that is absent at my table.

It seems like the players in many games you and some others here have run have tended to be more interested in getting their way than they are in Big Challenge - and maybe it could also be said of them that if you give them an inch they take a mile lol. But I think that is more an issue of your specific players than it is players in general. On the other hand, maybe DMs in general tend to be the guy most mature, most knowledgeable, and most unbiased in the group, and that's why many of you seem to have similar experiences with your players.

But is "getting your way" a part of Big Challenge? I mean look at sports, a big part of the tactics of the game is to get a referee to rule in your favor on a foul, penalty, or really any call... even if you have to exaggerate or "pretend" to get said call. I mean some of the greatest basketball players in the game right now will "flop" to get a call their way.

 

[Tony Vargas]

While that idea sounds compelling, I think I'm more inclined to stay with this thread. This is the first time I have ever felt true progress toward mutual understanding and perhaps appreciation. The biggest problem has always been the different ways of thinking that Big Story peeps seem to have as compared to Big Challenge peeps like me. Big Story peeps seem to eschew labels and generalities, whereas Big Challenge peeps tend to see labels and generalities as necessary to meaningful communication. Invariably therefore discussions about playstyles tends to therefore devolve rapidly from discussing the issue to discussing the discussion or arguing over labels. (Steve sighs as he realizes he will invariably catch heat over his use of labels in this paragraph....)

Just assume I told you off for it. I want to.

I already want to go berserk anytime anyone puts credence in GNS or dissociate mechanics or any of the other stupid, counter-productive, labels that saw such heavy use in the edition war. (Heck, 'edition war' is a 'label' that can set some folks off, but if you don't acknowledge that bad things have happened, they'll just happen again.)

In this thread, you and Hawkeye have been invaluable in bridging that gap. Your continued focus on the merits and meat of the different playstyles rather than the discussion of the discussion allowed the dialog to continue to a point where we started seeing peeps contributing on both sides. Also your even handedness encouraged the rest of us to limit our rancor and rhetoric....at least most of the time (somewhat guilty smile). You also fine tuned our arguments to be more clear.

But I don't know if that can ever be recreated lol so I am riding this horse to the finish line lol

Complements are so rare on the forums, I'll take it.

5e is certainly worth playing. It fixes MANY of 3.5's and previous editions' problems. Its a strange dichotomy though - its almost like they scatter shot balance and structure and left the editing/project overview in the hands of a right-brainer. Amorphous, incomplete, and inconsistent is the best way to describe 5e's rules. The idea that it was intended to be that way (as some here have suggested) is the most disturbing thing. And the modules are all made for Big DM and Big Story....not so much as a nod to Big Challenge or DM Light. It screams "screw you 4e guys, time for us to eat cake now!"

One funny thing about this conversation is that I look at how you describe your desired style, and how I ran/played 4e, and don't feel like we had a lot in common. Yet, I do get the same impression that 4e was, at best, last among equals when 5e was being designed. There's lots of 4e in 5e, but it's in tiny bits, when it was the structure that made 4e what it was. A game that had no details in common with 4e, but had a solid structure and clear/consistent/balanced rules would feel more like 4e than 5e or 13A do.

But, yes, it is intended to be putty in the DM's hands, even if that does make a mess at times. It's DM Empowerment. 'Make the game your own!' 'Rulings not Rules!' 'Classic feel!' are positive ways of putting it - Negative spin is just as possible 'fragile balance,' 'needs to be fixed,' 'unplayable as written,' 'needlessly complicated' etc. :shrug: And, really, who needs any more negativity after surviving the edition war?

So, yeah, impose what you need to on 5e to make it work for you. In your case, to make it more 'DM lite' do that work up-front, before the adventure or even at the start of the campaign, and get it into shape to run above-board.

Just wanted to point out that D&D 5e does in fact choose to emphasize one over the other based on what it learned from the playtest and subsequent surveys and sales data, and it seems that choice is not one you prefer.

Yeah, I participated in the playtest and did the surveys. They never asked the questions they'd've needed to in order to find out what I wanted. So, 'meh.' 5e was going to be a return to the classic game, with faster combat and smaller numbers - the only questions were around what made the classic game classic, and what could be paired away in the name of the other two goals. The less-classic game was going to be covered in optional rules & modules. 3.x was, in a definite, if still inadequate way. 4e, not so much.

My question is, why is it so important for you to have WoTC release an official change to fit your playstyle?

First of all, there'd be no 'change' at this point, it'd be some triple-ripple-vanilla-road-monkey ex-post-optional nth-string module at this point. And the reason is, of course, to have it rather than make it, and to be able to fairly smoothly use it with others sharing the preference.

The other question is, why is it so important to deny those options that the game has provided in the past, to people who may want them, again, in the current edition?

They're options, they'd be forced on no one. They're non-core, they wouldn't change the face of the game. With WotC farming out most D&D projects, page count and development resources do not make it some sort of zero-sum game. Other business reasons are business reasons for WotC to consider, not reasons for fans on a forum to stridently oppose such additional options.

 

[jasper]

You'd be correct there. 5e is most definitely not designed for the playstyle I prefer. Trying to make it work is the same as trying to hammer a square peg into a round hole.

Not sure why I'm even bothering with this topic, TBH. ....5e is basically unfixable for my desired playstyle. My 4e group disbanded a while ago though, and I do have a 5e group, so I'm here, trying to squeeze out what fun I can from a system that runs counter to what I want from D&D.

oooookkkkkkkkaaaaaay. Read my signature. No Gaming is Better than Bad Gaming. So you are sticking around and playing 5e but not enjoying it. This means two things to me. You is a D&D addict. And/or you get your fun griping about the system.