A Question Of Agency?

[Bedrockgames]

For example, do the 5E D&D core books say that once a DM assigns a DC to an Ability Check, that he actually shares the DC with the player? I'm not sure that they do (however, I could certainly be wrong). So you may have some groups that think the player should always know the DC before making the roll, some groups that think they never should, and some groups that think they should some of the time, with some vague wording in the books about using "what works for your group".

I don't know about this one as I don't play 5E. But what this would seem to allow is for both groups who think the DM should share DCs with players, and for groups who think the DM should not not share them, to play the game. It does seem like a playstyle dividing line, so I can see the utility of leaving it open to discussion. If they weigh in one way or the other, a down side is they are essentially picking a playstyle as well. It may seem like a little thing, but these kinds of playstyle differences were some of the reasons people were leaving D&D to go to other games or earlier editions/retroclones. The problem would be when you have disagreement among players. I personally have never found this to be a big issue, but others might. Generally my groups have let the GM decide on those kinds of house rules decisions for a given campaign, and if players object for any reason that is certainly up for discussion (though I don't think we get as contentious about that stuff as I've seen people in the thread here get).

 

[hawkeyefan]

I don't know about this one as I don't play 5E. But what this would seem to allow is for both groups who think the DM should share DCs with players, and for groups who think the DM should not not share them, to play the game. It does seem like a playstyle dividing line, so I can see the utility of leaving it open to discussion. If they weigh in one way or the other, a down side is they are essentially picking a playstyle as well. It may seem like a little thing, but these kinds of playstyle differences were some of the reasons people were leaving D&D to go to other games or earlier editions/retroclones. The problem would be when you have disagreement among players. I personally have never found this to be a big issue, but others might. Generally my groups have let the GM decide on those kinds of house rules decisions for a given campaign, and if players object for any reason that is certainly up for discussion (though I don't think we get as contentious about that stuff as I've seen people in the thread here get).

Yes, the versatility of allowing for more than one approach would be a pro. However, that same pro makes discussion difficult because all participants may have a different starting point for discussion. That's the con I'm talking about.

I'm not challenging the merit of this design decision in how it supports different play styles. I'm saying that approach makes discussion difficult. There's no default starting point.

Other games may not have this appeal to multiple approaches, or if so, may handle it another way. So to use the same kind of example, when a GM in Blades in the Dark establishes Position and Effect (largely the equivalent of DC in D&D) they always clearly state what those are and why, and the players are allowed to negotiate for a change if they feel it's warranted. There is a set process that can be assumed as the default because the book clearly describes this.

Anyone deviating from this process is clearly doing things differently than the book describes.

The same goes for most PbtA games because the numbers needed for success never change; 7-9 for a hit and 10 for a strong hit. Again, this gives a much easier starting point for discussion than if those numbers were able to shift per the rules, or if the rules were unclear on how those numbers may shift and whether they should be shared with the players.

 

[Campbell]

But my sense is this is because D&D is trying to accommodate a broader range of GM styles and playstyles, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. Part of the problem 5E was trying to solve was bringing together a fractured fanbase around the new edition

This is going to be a contentious post, but it is my genuine perspective.

I do not think 5e is really that accommodating to a broad range of playstyles. I think it is phenomenally well designed for the highly specific way the vast majority of groups I have encountered in the wild play which is following a GM driven plot while engaging in characterization. There might be subplots weaved in, but the focus is on an adventure/story crafted by the GM. It pays some lip service to sandbox play, but is not really crafted with it in mind.

Either as an exercise in skilled play or more character driven protagonist play I find it wholly inadequate.

I have enjoyed it for what it offers. I have played in a 5e game that has lasted for almost 3 years now. I even ran a short game of it, but am not capable of the sort of GMing it expects.

 

[hawkeyefan]

This is going to be a contentious post, but it is my genuine perspective.

I do not think 5e is really that accommodating to a broad range of playstyles. I think it is phenomenally well designed for the highly specific way the vast majority of groups I have encountered in the wild play which is following a GM driven plot while engaging in characterization. There might be subplots weaved in, but the focus is on an adventure/story crafted by the GM. It pays some lip service to sandbox play, but is not really crafted with it in mind.

Either as an exercise in skilled play or more character driven protagonist play I find it wholly inadequate.

I have enjoyed it for what it offers. I have played in a 5e game that has lasted for almost 3 years now. I even ran a short game of it, but am not capable of the sort of GMing it expects.

I would have argued with you about this earlier on in the life of 5E.

And although I do think you can kind of push (or maybe "violently shove" is a more accurate term) it towards a different style, its design is very much as you say, with a kind of adventure path mindset assumed.

I try to run it with as much player input as possible. I've even adopted elements from other games to try and help with that. But in its bones, it's very much a plot based game, I think, and so even the strongest attempts to go a different route are faced with some serious obstacles.

 

[prabe]

I don't think @prabe had to roll on a random NPC prosthetics table or anything similar in order to be able to make this true in the shared fiction.

I did not. I did (as I said ) need to make it clear to the players that the character had always had a leg brace, so this was a retcon (because the DM changed his mind) not that the character had suddenly put on a leg brace.

Random NPC Prosthetics Table ... Sounds like Rolemaster to me. ;-)

Yet you appear to object to systems that permit players - via whatever resolution process - to establish their PCs' memories and recollections.

Speaking only for myself, I have problems as a player with using memories and recollections to change the fiction (such as putting a Contact in town, or placing a landmark nearby) if and when they raise questions along the lines of "Why didn't we go to the Contact sooner?" or "If the landmark is so close, and so tied to our goals, why didn't we go there instead of here?" Plausibly this connects to my preferences for a more GM-authored world, though it at least feels as though it's looking at that preference from a different direction.

 

[prabe]

I do not think 5e is really that accommodating to a broad range of playstyles. I think it is phenomenally well designed for the highly specific way the vast majority of groups I have encountered in the wild play which is following a GM driven plot while engaging in characterization. There might be subplots weaved in, but the focus is on an adventure/story crafted by the GM. It pays some lip service to sandbox play, but is not really crafted with it in mind.

And although I do think you can kind of push (or maybe "violently shove" is a more accurate term) it towards a different style, its design is very much as you say, with a kind of adventure path mindset assumed.

I believe @hawkeyefan has it about right. 5E is built pretty much from the ground up for AP-style play, but you can run it for different preferences, if you're willing to work at it a little. I don't really prep things as plots--for a given session, I prep where things are and I prep for a few things that seem particularly likely to happen (sometimes for what will happen if the PCs do nothing). I have a few things as vague over-arching ideas, but they're not set in stone or anything. I try to run things based on goals the PCs have set for themselves--some of those take a while, and might feel from the outside like an AP.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Memories and other recollections are not things outside a character. Yet you appear to object to systems that permit players - via whatever resolution process - to establish their PCs' memories and recollections.

Memories might be internal to the character but the things that the memories are about are not. Please stop this obfuscation.

 

[Campbell]

I believe @hawkeyefan has it about right. 5E is built pretty much from the ground up for AP-style play, but you can run it for different preferences, if you're willing to work at it a little. I don't really prep things as plots--for a given session, I prep where things are and I prep for a few things that seem particularly likely to happen (sometimes for what will happen if the PCs do nothing). I have a few things as vague over-arching ideas, but they're not set in stone or anything. I try to run things based on goals the PCs have set for themselves--some of those take a while, and might feel from the outside like an AP.

I think you can definitely move 5e more towards a group based adventure oriented sandbox. I have several games I would put above it on that list, but with a decent amount of effort it can work.

When it comes to more protagonist oriented play it has things actively going against it. First of all characters in most iterations of D&D feel like space aliens to me. They have barest of connections to their environment. Backgrounds are a plus here, but are firmly in the past. Characters are unmoored. Secondly characters are entirely too specialized in 5e. Outside the confines of a group characters are not very capable of making their way through their environments.

That's not really criticism from my perspective though. The game is damned good at what it does. So much that it's fairly resistant outside of that area of strength,

I actually have the opposite opinion of PF2. It's terrible at adventure paths. It's pretty strong at providing a skilled play environment and it's more broadly capable characters can excel in games that drift more towards active protagonism. It's not good for GM plots in my opinion even if it's what they have been trying to sell.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Memories might be internal to the character but the things that the memories are about are not. Please stop this obfuscation.

Right! The player is doing something outside of the character by establishing some fiction, but the character is perfectly situated in the fiction. This is an argument that the player should not have these abilities to establish any fiction -- that this is only the GM's purview. Arguing that this is somehow meta to the character, though, is odd, because from the point of view of the character (if such a thing could be said to exist), there's no weird here at all.

In other words, let's drop the obfuscation that this is about keeping the character situated firmly in the fictional world and recognize that it's really about who has agency over the fiction where.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

When it comes to more protagonist oriented play it has things actively going against it. First of all characters in most iterations of D&D feel like space aliens to me. They have barest of connections to their environment. Backgrounds are a plus here, but are firmly in the past. Characters are unmoored.

What, how, why? What would you need to moor them?

Secondly characters are entirely too specialized in 5e. Outside the confines of a group characters are not very capable of making their way through their environments.

Certainly bounded accuracy does the opposite? Even though you're not specialised in some skill, you still have decent chances of success in more routine tasks.