D&D General DM Authority

[Charlaquin]

I hold the opinion that cake is better than pie? I do not hold that as a fact, because.............subjective!!! Just like what is or is not D&D. My belief is mine alone, just as your opinion on which is better is yours. You don't get to turn someone's opinion into a declaration.

That’s a preference. You like cake more than pie, and you acknowledge that some people like pie more than cake. That’s very different that saying a way of playing D&D isn’t D&D. If you said “I like this way of playing D&D more,” that would be a preference. Saying “that way of playing isn’t D&D” would be more analogous to calling pie “not dessert.”

 

[Campbell]

That’s a preference. You like cake more than pie, and you acknowledge that some people like pie more than cake. That’s very different that saying a way of playing D&D isn’t D&D. If you said “I like this way of playing D&D more,” that would be a preference. Saying “that way of playing isn’t D&D” would be more analogous to calling pie “not dessert.”

Exactly this. From my perspective qualifiers like in my opinion or the way I see it can help to soften the blow, but fundamentally a statement like x is not a roleplaying game or y is not D&D in the context of a discussion between people who enjoy playing RPGs or games derived from OD&D is questioning the legitimacy of x or y. I think in certain contexts that can be a fruitful discussion to be had, but you should not be surprised if you receive pushback for doing so. It's also unlikely to bear much fruit on these particular boards given the history of such discussions here.

 

[Lanefan]

Heck, I love white noise when I'm sleeping. If I went to a band and said "That isn't an instrument , it is some sort of ad-hoc white noise generator" don't you feel like that would... probably be an insult?

When I'm playing it, that's what any instrument sounds like.

 

[Maxperson]

“Your way is not D&D” is a judgment. Appending “in my opinion” to it doesn’t make it any less of a judgment, it just acknowledges the fact that other people may judge it differently. Which counts for nothing, because of course other people will judge it differently, you would have to be deluded to think otherwise.

Acknowledging that other people may judge it different does count. With that acknowledgement, you are quite simply not declaring one way to be true and all others to be false. It doesn't matter if "of course other people would judge it differently."

Take the Earth. It's round. This is a fact. And "of course other people will judge it differently." We call those people Flat Earthers. Even with facts you will have "of course other people will judge it differently."

Now, there are certainly things that aren’t D&D. Football. The Avengers. Club soda. These things are not D&D, and saying so is a statement of fact. But when someone plays the game Dungeons and Dragons in a different way than you do, judging that way of playing to be “not D&D” is an act of One-True-Wayism, whether you acknowledge that others’ opinions may differ or not.

Those are too easy. What about Tunnels and Trolls or Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay? Are those D&D? Because if they aren't, then there comes a point where if enough rules change, D&D ceases to be D&D and becomes a different game.

 

[Oofta]

I have the Castle Ravenloft board game. It's basically a slightly simplified version of (4E) D&D. All the powers are basically there, it just gives you what you can do on cards, simplifies initiative. The rules it uses could easily have been part of a "beginners" set of rules for kids.

Like the DM-less version of D&D it's semi-random dungeons using tiles. You use minis, attack, take damage, cast spells, level up, get items and so on. Options are a bit limited, but most of what happens could be implemented as house rules in a normal game if you wanted such as the initiative order where all the players go and then all the monsters/traps go.

There are other D&D board games as well - Murder in Baldur's Gate for example, which is really Betrayal at House on the Hill with D&D characters. But the use of D&D rules is minimal, it's more set dressing.

In the same way that I wouldn't consider a D&D based video game D&D, I don't consider the board game D&D. That doesn't make it any less fun. Which is, last time I checked, the point of playing a game.

So here's the question. Do you consider the Castle Ravenloft D&D? If not, how is it different than what's been described as a DM-less game? If it is, would you consider Murder in Baldur's Gate D&D? Where do you draw the line and why?

 

[Chaosmancer]

Does it remove judgment? No. Does it render that judgement only his opinion and not a declaration? Absolutely.

And your notion that an opinion is viewed as fact is bupkis. I hold the opinion that cake is better than pie? I do not hold that as a fact, because.............subjective!!! Just like what is or is not D&D. My belief is mine alone, just as your opinion on which is better is yours. You don't get to turn someone's opinion into a declaration.

If you say "all pies are created equally" then also say "In my opinion, Pumpkin Pie is not pie" then you don't believe one of those two things.

Either you don't really believe that Pumpkin pie is not pie, or you don't really believe that all pies are equal.

If you compound that by not only stating that Pumpkin pie is not pie repeatedly, but by also saying "Pumpkin pie is just an ad-hoc cheesecake, not real pie" then it seems increasingly likely that you don't really believe all pies are created equally.


You can't go around preaching about how everyone's opinions are valid, that everyone's preferences are fine, then single out something you don't like and say "but not this, this isn't fine." And considering how often Oofta has made this claim that we are attacking him for his preference, and we shouldn't because he supports everyones preferences, I think it is perfectly fair to say "hey, insulting someone else's preference and saying it doesn't count, really doesn't support this idea that everyone's opinions are equal and okay."

 

[Chaosmancer]

“Your way is not D&D” is a judgment. Appending “in my opinion” to it doesn’t make it any less of a judgment, it just acknowledges the fact that other people may judge it differently. Which counts for nothing, because of course other people will judge it differently, you would have to be deluded to think otherwise.

Now, there are certainly things that aren’t D&D. Football. The Avengers. Club soda. These things are not D&D, and saying so is a statement of fact. But when someone plays the game Dungeons and Dragons in a different way than you do, judging that way of playing to be “not D&D” is an act of One-True-Wayism, whether you acknowledge that others’ opinions may differ or not.

This exactly

 

[prabe]

Exactly this. From my perspective qualifiers like in my opinion or the way I see it can help to soften the blow, but fundamentally a statement like x is not a roleplaying game or y is not D&D in the context of a discussion between people who enjoy playing RPGs or games derived from OD&D is questioning the legitimacy of x or y. I think in certain contexts that can be a fruitful discussion to be had, but you should not be surprised if you receive pushback for doing so. It's also unlikely to bear much fruit on these particular boards given the history of such discussions here.

I think the formulations people are looking for, that are clearly opinion, and (IMO) express minimal-to-no judgment are on the lines of "I haven't played that style, but it doesn't seem to me as though it would feel like D&D," and "I've played that style, and it didn't feel to me like D&D."

I've never played a TRPG without a GM, but I can't see how it would feel to me like D&D, even if we were using published rules with the words "Dungeons & Dragons" on the cover.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Acknowledging that other people may judge it different does count. With that acknowledgement, you are quite simply not declaring one way to be true and all others to be false. It doesn't matter if "of course other people would judge it differently."

Take the Earth. It's round. This is a fact. And "of course other people will judge it differently." We call those people Flat Earthers. Even with facts you will have "of course other people will judge it differently."

You realize that in this case comparing Oofta to a Flat Earther is far from complimentary, and that people tell Flat Earthers they are wrong constantly.

Those are too easy. What about Tunnels and Trolls or Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay? Are those D&D? Because if they aren't, then there comes a point where if enough rules change, D&D ceases to be D&D and becomes a different game.

Okay, let me play this out just for laughs and giggles.

Hack and Slash, Megadungeon play, with few or no NPCs. Let us set the DM issue aside, as I did in the post where Oofta declared this style of play "Not DnD" (because yes, I did set it aside. I had already shown this style could work without a DM, and was told this style was not DnD and that was what I was defending in that post)

What rules are we changing?

Still rolling the same dice.
Still making characters using race, Class, Background.
Health, Class abilities and AC are unchanged.
Skill Check rules are unchanged.
Monster statblocks from the Monster Manual, as they generally are
Still using the DMG to adjudicate stone, wood, ect.
Still using all the spells in the PHB, though some are obviously less useful without NPCs.


Sure, there are plenty of rules we aren't using.... but no rules were changed. So if we are playing DnD, using DnD rules, why isn't it DnD?

 

[Chaosmancer]

I have the Castle Ravenloft board game. It's basically a slightly simplified version of (4E) D&D. All the powers are basically there, it just gives you what you can do on cards, simplifies initiative. The rules it uses could easily have been part of a "beginners" set of rules for kids.

Like the DM-less version of D&D it's semi-random dungeons using tiles. You use minis, attack, take damage, cast spells, level up, get items and so on. Options are a bit limited, but most of what happens could be implemented as house rules in a normal game if you wanted such as the initiative order where all the players go and then all the monsters/traps go.

There are other D&D board games as well - Murder in Baldur's Gate for example, which is really Betrayal at House on the Hill with D&D characters. But the use of D&D rules is minimal, it's more set dressing.

In the same way that I wouldn't consider a D&D based video game D&D, I don't consider the board game D&D. That doesn't make it any less fun. Which is, last time I checked, the point of playing a game.

So here's the question. Do you consider the Castle Ravenloft D&D? If not, how is it different than what's been described as a DM-less game? If it is, would you consider Murder in Baldur's Gate D&D? Where do you draw the line and why?

As I stated, repeatedly, I was talking about the style of gameplay being DnD. I made that very clear in the post. I made it even more clear when I stated it outright in my response to Scott who brought this discussion back up again.

But, again, let us go through this.

What is truly different about what you are describing?

PLaying with Dungeon Tiles. I've done that in a DnD game.

All the rules for health, damage, AC, abilities, monsters, ect seem to be the same. In fact, group initiative (all the monsters then all the players) is something I've done in a DnD game before (we had armies, it made it a lot easier to handle)

But, from what you described (as I don't own it and have never played it) I don't see any reason to say that Castle Ravenloft is different that DnD. Seems like it is just a pre-made module with pre-gen characters. No different than taking Exedition to the Barrier Peaks and playing it with a pre-generated cast at a con game.