D&D 5E 2 year campaign down the drain?

[prabe]

I don't feel the force of the distinctions you're drawing here.

The captain's trunk and his daughter's hope chest are just placeholders I came up with to make a point. I could equally have said, as I've also been doing, Place X and Place Y. Or I could say the widget is in the captain's house and the players look for the widget on the captain's ship. Or I could say that the widget is in the possession of the captain (ship, house, trunk, who knows?) and the players look for the widget in the cathedral's baptismal font.

My point is that, in 5e D&D as canonically run, the players cannot establish the stakes of we look for the widget in the font. All they can do is find out what the GM says in response. If the GM answers A retributive angel materialises in anger well I guess that's the GM's prerogative. But I would find it poor GMing to (i) do that and then (ii) be surprised that combat started.

I agree that the DM who has the retributive angel materialize should be expecting a fight, and that if there isn't some foreshadowing of the possibility it's poor DMing.

To me, there's a functional difference between saying the book is in a specific piece of furniture, and saying it's in a specific room. Part of it is having played with DMs (or read adventures) where it was clear the PCs needed to search the specific piece of furniture to find the widget. I don't think much of insisting the PCs search the wardrobe specifically in order to find the widget (barring some specific reason to look in wardrobes).

I think that over the course of the Great Widget Hunt, the stakes of finding it/not finding it are likely to emerge, so that while the players don't have narrative authority of the sort that lets them put the widget in the baptismal font, they have arguably established the stakes of the broader outcome (or at least they know those stakes).

I would think of a "story element" as (say) the book or other widget, the font, the trunk, the hope chest, the ship, the captain, the daughter, the PCS, etc. The impression I get from your accounts of your play is that you as GM largely control the introduction of these into the shared fiction - with the PCs as an exception.

And I have been using "story elements" to mean things that happen in the story. The widget is a prop, or maybe a McGuffin; NPCs aren't really "story elements" most of the time. Very much most of the time, what happens in the story is dependent on what the PCs do. Yes, I introduce what you're referring to into the game, and I also from time to time instigate story arcs, though after the first one or two I try to have multiple arcs instigated and allow the players/characters to choose among them, but I also encourage the players to have a story arc or two pending in their backstories.

It is possible to have the introduction of story elements connected to action resolution. For instance, in Apocalypse World if the player succeeds on a check to have his/her PC read a charged situation then s/he can requre the GM to tell her which enemy in the situation is the biggest threat. This obliges the GM to introdcue a new element into the fiction - namely, one which explains why that enemy is so dangerous.

In this sort of RPG, the player's have more responsibility for what happens in the fiction. Eg if a player declares and succeeds in an action to learn who is the bigget threat, s/he can hardly complain if the GM starts telling her about the heavily armed bodyguards!

Funny. If a player in my D&D games asks about what's the biggest threat, there'll probably be a heavily-armed bodyguard (whether I'd intended that or not).

 

[Guest 6801328]

I'd like to interject to say that although I strive to DM more in the manner that @Ovinomancer and @pemerton are describing, so largely agree with what they are saying, I feel like there's an undercurrent...unintentional, I'm sure...that the other way, the GM-controlled-secret way, is "wrong".

It's not wrong, of course. It's very traditional, it's very common, and it's the method implied by the structure of most/all official 5e adventures. It just has pitfalls, as demonstrated by the OP's situation.

And it should also be acknowledged that the method Ovinomancer and pemerton are explaining is a big leap for many gamers, and may seem counterintuitive and even antithetical to RPGing.

My fear is that in their zeal to share their enthusiasm for this alternative, it may be coming across as criticism of those who don't seem to grasp it.

And, on the other side, I'm also seeing some posters resist the message from a position of thinking they fully understand the distinctions being made, even thought it seems clear...at least from my point of view, in reading their responses...that they don't fully understand it.

(Really it's the same pattern, and with some of the same participants, that has unfolded during discussions about ability checks and "metagaming".)

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

I'd like to interject to say that although I strive to DM more in the manner that @Ovinomancer and @pemerton are describing, so largely agree with what they are saying, I feel like there's an undercurrent...unintentional, I'm sure...that the other way, the GM-controlled-secret way, is "wrong".

It's not wrong, of course. It's very traditional, it's very common, and it's the method implied by the structure of most/all official 5e adventures. It just has pitfalls, as demonstrated by the OP's situation.

And it should also be acknowledged that the method Ovinomancer and pemerton are explaining is a big leap for many gamers, and may seem counterintuitive and even antithetical to RPGing.

My fear is that in their zeal to share their enthusiasm for this alternative, it may be coming across as criticism of those who don't seem to grasp it.

And, on the other side, I'm also seeing some posters resist the message from a position of thinking they fully understand the distinctions being made, even thought it seems clear...at least from my point of view, in reading their responses...that they don't fully understand it.

(Really it's the same pattern, and with some of the same participants, that has unfolded during discussions about ability checks and "metagaming".)

This says a lot of what I wanted to say. (I'm finding hard to keep up with the layers of text and who is defending what point)

My point previously is that allowing players some narrative control doesn't have to be limited with certain games that have mechanics tied to it. The games with mechanics tied to narrative control (such as spending a Fate Point to give a player narrative control of a scene aspect) just focuses more on that angle of the game. The fact that 5e doesn't have mechanics (though, I'd argue, that's exactly the intent of Inspiration), it doesn't mean you can't or shouldn't run a game that way. It is just another style and/or tool in a GMs toolbox.

Narrative games like FATE usually involve the GM creating an adventure with a specific plot and Red Herrings and Set Pieces the same as a D&D module. So, even in a narrative game, the GM often has to decide what is possible(like the difficulty of declarations or skill checks.) But that's the job of a referee in most games. Having run both games for 15+years, I find there's a lot of cross-over.

In the end, The players took narrative control by attacking the Lord. While there were no FATE-mechanics to 'compel' the players to use diplomacy, asking them if they'd want to knock the Lord out or asking them if they thought there would be a more interesting outcome than 'the Lord is dead' is just a style of running the game.

That said, I think this was a very interesting outcome and it might have been the desired outcome even if the DM had asked the players.

 

[BookBarbarian]

One of the nobles on the boat is also a member of the Zhentarim and very pleased with that the Lord is out of the way and that the boat casino operation is up for grabs.

She offers to help the party get out of the situation and to pin the event on the Cult. She'll even create so many rumors that even though faces were seen and some names mentioned that it will be nearly impossible to pin anything on your party.

Edit: it'll cost you though

 

[Guest 6801328]

(though, I'd argue, that's exactly the intent of Inspiration)

Whoah. Really?

 

[Fenris-77]

Whoah. Really?

I'd temporize here. I think Inspiration was very much patterned after things like FATE points. I think that's especially obvious when you look at the system as a whole, wherein playing your bonds, flaws and ideals is tied to a spendable in-game resource that can impact the outcome of future character actions (sounds like a FATE point, right?). So far so good, but then WotC completely dropped the ball and only allowed you to have one at a time, and picked the most boring possible way it could be used. No fictional positioning, just a bonus to attack/save/ability check. Boo-hiss. It's a pretty useless pile of turds as-is. With a little TLC it could be great.

My thoughts:
1. Allow more than one Inspiration die at a time
2. Allow the DM to offer a die in exchange for evoking a flaw
3. Hack in a BitD flashback mechanism that you spend inspiration to activate
4. Add the limited use of tags as a mechanism to describe Environments, NPCs and Factions
5. Allow the use of an ID die to add a tag (limitations TBD)
6. Figure out some other way ID can do cool stuff in combat

Some combination of those things anyway. The goal is to fix the current issue, which is that the Inspiration mechanics are tied to the neither larger rules set nor play at the table in any meaningful way. They are easy to forget because they don't matter.

 

[Ovinomancer]

In my experience they don't play as differently as all that. The players have authority over their characters; the DM has authority over everything else. In Fate, neither is so absolute, but the amount of authority is the same.

Well, yes, we're talking about that lack of experience. That you play Fate the same way you play D&D, as a GM decides game, and do not embrace player authority to introduce binding fictional elements has been clearly established. That there's other ways to play were players have authority to introduce binding fiction is what you seem to be missing and glossing over as 'same/same.' I play 5e as GM decides, and I play Blades in the Dark as absolutely NOT GM decides (I have very restricted fictional authorities as GM in Blades) and I can tell you they deliver rather different experiences. And, you cannot hack 5e to get to Blades without a LOT of houseruling.

That's a lot of words to say that the game is as flexible as the DM is, which means it can be very flexible indeed (or rigid as granite).

Sigh. Again, if that's your reduction, you're missing the point. 5e is always going to be GM decides. It doesn't allow for player introduction of material that isn't approved by the GM. Players have no way to introduce binding resolutions on the GM without GM allowing it. The "flexible" exists only insomuch as the GM allows it. That's not flexibility, it's permission. It's like claiming that totalitarianism is a good form of government because you might get an enlightened dictator. It's a form of special pleading.

In other words, 5e is not flexible because it states GM decides is how it works. That's intransigent. If an individual GM decides to graciously allow players to have some input, subject to veto or alteration by the GM of course, that doesn't change the fundamental nature of the game.

And, that's not a dig. Lots of games work this way and are still fun. This is due largely to there being more enlightened dictator GMs out there, or at least a preponderance of GMs that try, compared to the smaller pool of tinpots. So, the game works, but it's not flexible. I does D&D super well and everything else poorly, if at all. You cannot run Ocean's Eleven in D&D without hacking the system, for instance.

No, I ran it like a Fate game. I actually ran it with more player input into the world, especially at setting creation, than even Fate Core seems to envision. It was mostly freeform, or I tried to make it so; the characters had ability to go wherever they wanted in the setting, and there were plenty of times when they defined what the adventure was right before I ran it. It's clear that part of my problem with Fate is that the people I played it with didn't get it or didn't embrace parts of it. Running Fate with players who don't want to author anything, who want to save their Fate Points for bonuses or re-rolls, especially if you as a GM don't like telling players what their characters do (Compelling) gets tiring quickly. I guess it's fairer to say the players didn't play it like a Fate game in a lot of ways. It's also fair and accurate that the setting felt muddled to me (everyone wanted different things in the setting), trying to keep things coherent enough that I could run the game was a lot of mental effort.

It sounds like the group as a whole, you included, didn't embrace the core differences of the system. And, as you say, if you felt compels were unfair usurpation of the player's control, then you indeed miss a fundamental part of how that system works, so it's hard to blame your players for the failure. I'm sure they missed it, too, but you didn't do a great job teaching if you didn't grasp the system differences.

Also, iirc correctly, you stated beforehand that you did build adventures. Perhaps that was someone else, but I recall a description of a game that was as tightly scripted as a usual D&D adventure and that floored me. Willing to accept a misattribution, here.

I agree with this, as far as the actionable advice, anyway. It's probably going to be difficult to get the party back onto the written adventure's path, but there's the possibility of interesting stuff if the OP is willing to write and run it. One can argue this is the weakness of published adventure paths, and I wouldn't disagree.

It's a piece of cake to rerail that adventure. As others have noted in this thread, provide a different path to the information. You can make it a bit more painful to pay off the failed attempt, but it's trivial to find a way to place that information. Honestly, it's not much info, anyway, as the source of it is fiat killed before the juicy bits are served up anyway, so you just need to get the limited info out some other way. It's one of the poorer parts of that adventure, honestly, as it's written that this is the way to find out what's going on, but it's just another fiat cut-scene scripted to give just enough to move to the next section without any real answers. The PCs don't actually get real plot points until the next chapter, and, even then, it's limited. SKT is a huge adventure, spanning lots of area, with a great middle section that's an awesome sandbox. That middle part, though, is gated by a very linear, scripted adventure and then ends with more of the same. The middle part is tremendous, though.

I ran it (the only official adventure I've run in 5e, I tend to homebrew, but events led to the necessity to get into something quickly and that was new at the time), but I ended up with heavy revisions to the plotline.

 

[Ovinomancer]

This says a lot of what I wanted to say. (I'm finding hard to keep up with the layers of text and who is defending what point)

My point previously is that allowing players some narrative control doesn't have to be limited with certain games that have mechanics tied to it. The games with mechanics tied to narrative control (such as spending a Fate Point to give a player narrative control of a scene aspect) just focuses more on that angle of the game. The fact that 5e doesn't have mechanics (though, I'd argue, that's exactly the intent of Inspiration), it doesn't mean you can't or shouldn't run a game that way. It is just another style and/or tool in a GMs toolbox.

I disagree with this on the basis that it's a different thing for the player to be able to leverage authority to create binding resolutions on the GM versus the GM allowing players the leeway to suggest things, pursuant to GM approval. It leads to rather different feels and different outcomes.

Narrative games like FATE usually involve the GM creating an adventure with a specific plot and Red Herrings and Set Pieces the same as a D&D module. So, even in a narrative game, the GM often has to decide what is possible(like the difficulty of declarations or skill checks.) But that's the job of a referee in most games. Having run both games for 15+years, I find there's a lot of cross-over.

Yes, if you run Fate like this, then it loses much of it's narrative game feel. You can do it, but at the cost of a lot of the interesting bits of the system. And, no, narrative games do not usually involve the GM creating an adventure. That's, largely, the part that doesn't happen at all.

When I run Blades, my prep is almost zero. Maybe some thinking of some neat complications that can be quickly added if they fit, but nothing planned, no set pieces, no red herrings, no plot at all. Doing so would actually violate the concept of the game. Instead, play starts with the players identifying a score -- they tell the GM and that's what it is, it's binding on the GM. Then, they have to answer two questions about how the score starts -- the plan (from a list of six types) and detail about that plan. Say, the plan is Stealth, then the detail is the entry point. The players define this, not the GM. Then you have the engagement roll, which sets the stage for the starting position. Only now, at this point, do I, as GM, have input -- I set a scene that must adhere to the plan and detail -- ie, they are sneaking in via the designated entry point -- with an immediate complication based on the engagement roll. Play begins now with the players saying how they deal with the complication, and however they say is how it gets dealt with. The GM gets to either accept that (if it's not important or boring) and move on or challenge with a check. If challenged, the GM sets through negotiation the position (risk) and effect (the impact of the action) and the players can deploy resources to improve odds or increase effect. The mechanic is engaged (it's the same mechanic for all checks, roll the relevant skill in d6 plus bonuses, take the highest, 6 is success, 4-5 is success with cost/complication, 1-3 is failure). On a success, the player's intent is binding on the GM -- what they wanted happens to the level of effect set. If complication or failure, though, the GM gets to introduce negatives, which can be damage (damage in Blades is nasty), complications, costs, gear, etc. The GM has a lot of leeway in complications/costs, limited only by the position (risk) of the action. Play proceeds.

This looks a lot different from a 5e game, even with a permissive GM (which I am), who still runs a check against what they think is acceptable/desirable before approving player suggestions. Nothing the players do can bind the GM.

I submit, stongly, that these are different beasts altogether and 5e doesn't have any way, short of hacking (and that heavily), to do these things.

AND, that's fine. 5e is a great game, it just doesn't deliver everything possible. It does deliver well on D&D.

In the end, The players took narrative control by attacking the Lord. While there were no FATE-mechanics to 'compel' the players to use diplomacy, asking them if they'd want to knock the Lord out or asking them if they thought there would be a more interesting outcome than 'the Lord is dead' is just a style of running the game.

Arguably, there's aren't FATE mechanics to compel diplomacy either, unless a PC set their compellable trait as "would rather talk than fight" or similar. FATE compels are handles the players choose for their PCs to evoke their PCs, not things the GM does to make things go the way the GM thinks they should. This is why I contest @prabe's description of compels as usurping player control. The player made that choice because they wanted that to factor into their character, so it's not usurping control to offer the player an opportunity to make that trait matter in the current scene.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

I disagree with this on the basis that it's a different thing for the player to be able to leverage authority to create binding resolutions on the GM versus the GM allowing players the leeway to suggest things, pursuant to GM approval. It leads to rather different feels and different outcomes.


Yes, if you run Fate like this, then it loses much of it's narrative game feel. You can do it, but at the cost of a lot of the interesting bits of the system. And, no, narrative games do not usually involve the GM creating an adventure. That's, largely, the part that doesn't happen at all.

When I run Blades, my prep is almost zero. Maybe some thinking of some neat complications that can be quickly added if they fit, but nothing planned, no set pieces, no red herrings, no plot at all. Doing so would actually violate the concept of the game. Instead, play starts with the players identifying a score -- they tell the GM and that's what it is, it's binding on the GM. Then, they have to answer two questions about how the score starts -- the plan (from a list of six types) and detail about that plan. Say, the plan is Stealth, then the detail is the entry point. The players define this, not the GM. Then you have the engagement roll, which sets the stage for the starting position. Only now, at this point, do I, as GM, have input -- I set a scene that must adhere to the plan and detail -- ie, they are sneaking in via the designated entry point -- with an immediate complication based on the engagement roll. Play begins now with the players saying how they deal with the complication, and however they say is how it gets dealt with. The GM gets to either accept that (if it's not important or boring) and move on or challenge with a check. If challenged, the GM sets through negotiation the position (risk) and effect (the impact of the action) and the players can deploy resources to improve odds or increase effect. The mechanic is engaged (it's the same mechanic for all checks, roll the relevant skill in d6 plus bonuses, take the highest, 6 is success, 4-5 is success with cost/complication, 1-3 is failure). On a success, the player's intent is binding on the GM -- what they wanted happens to the level of effect set. If complication or failure, though, the GM gets to introduce negatives, which can be damage (damage in Blades is nasty), complications, costs, gear, etc. The GM has a lot of leeway in complications/costs, limited only by the position (risk) of the action. Play proceeds.

That's a very different style than FATE even. I've never played it but it looks cool. Just because there's a game that gives most of the control to the players and codifies it in the rules, doesn't mean that 5e can't involve out of character conversations regarding how things can play out. The two things aren't mutually exclusive. 5e doesn't codify out of character conversations regarding the direction of the plot, nor does it include rules to do so but it doesn't prohibit them. That's a choice the DM makes when they run a game. They choose whether or not to include the players in the decision making. It depends on your DM style how much control you want your players to have.

Arguably, there's aren't FATE mechanics to compel diplomacy either, unless a PC set their compellable trait as "would rather talk than fight" or similar. FATE compels are handles the players choose for their PCs to evoke their PCs, not things the GM does to make things go the way the GM thinks they should. This is why I contest @prabe's description of compels as usurping player control. The player made that choice because they wanted that to factor into their character, so it's not usurping control to offer the player an opportunity to make that trait matter in the current scene.

Actually, there are mechanics that do exactly that. In fact, there's usually Campaign aspects that can be invoked and compelled and PCs can invoke or be compelled by any aspect on the scene. Players have agency because they can introduce new aspects as well. On the other hand, some aspects are only discoverable through play because the GM has put them on the scene but have not yet been discovered by the players. The OPs adventure was one where they weren't supposed to have weapons so a scene aspect of, "NO VIOLENCE ZONE" (or whatever, pardon my inability to be creative) would be reasonable and could have been compelled. But I digress.

 

[pemerton]

I'd like to interject to say that although I strive to DM more in the manner that @Ovinomancer and @pemerton are describing, so largely agree with what they are saying, I feel like there's an undercurrent...unintentional, I'm sure...that the other way, the GM-controlled-secret way, is "wrong".

It's not wrong, of course. It's very traditional, it's very common, and it's the method implied by the structure of most/all official 5e adventures. It just has pitfalls, as demonstrated by the OP's situation.

I want to dissent from this. I'm not criticising the OP. And I'm not saying that what s/he did had pitfalls. As far as I can tell, s/he producd a fun session that resulted in an interesting situation!

What I'm saying is that if you are GMing in that fashion then you have some responsibilities. That's all. Because you the GM are the one who establishes all stakes and all consquences, it's on you what those stakes and consequences are. So if you don't want lethal violence as part of the fall-out of your scenes, you're the one who has control of the relevant levers, rg by deciding what NPCs turn up on the scene, for what reasons and with what motivations.

I made this point not in direct resonse to the OP, who as far as I can tell is taking full ownership of his/her game and what s/he's done, but in response to some other posters who were suggesting that the players had done something wrong in having their PCs resort to vilence.

As far at the OP and the issues it raises go, that's it from me. The side-discussion with @prabe and @Ovinomancer is just that - a side discussiion.