D&D 5E D&D compared to Bespoke Genre TTRPGs

[dave2008]

Is this a joke? They bought the dmg. They read the dmg. Wotc failed basically everyone as even the variant rules in it tend to immediately run into a host of required GM calls that those optional rules rarely hint at
or provide even a shred of guidance on
.

You realize you are agreeing with the post you quoted while also calling it a joke. You're a funny person I guess!?

 

[Aldarc]

If you narrate a result that contradicts the outcome of a check, you're breaking the rules. If there's a success--whether from fiat or from a roll--and you don't know what the PC wants, you can't narrate that success until you find out what the PC wants.

I have sadly been a part of way too many arguments here on ENWorld since 5e's release where a number of people have vehemently told me in full earnest good faith that (a) "the GM can't cheat" and/or (b) "the GM can't break the rules" for me to take what you say as a given truth.

Personally, I think "rulings not rules" was part propaganda, and part exhaustion from the neverending errata of previous editions, and part encouraging DMs to make decisions and move on at the table. I think calling it "anti-design" or "anti-rules" is ... a bit of a reach, in practice.

"Rulings not rules" was most definitely propaganda, but it is propaganda that has taken root into the hearts and minds of the community.

No wonder Monte left the team? lol. I don't think I can believe this frankly, Mike Mearles is too smart a guy. This was not an accident. It was an attempt to do something which basically failed. IMHO very solid class design and an adequate reprise of old AD&D tropes carries 5e, DESPITE the skill system and basically ALL of the DMG (I don't have anything against magic items particularly).

Likely a good way to tell would be to read through the first Numenera book at the GM advice therein. That should provide some insight about Monte Cook's GMing philosophy, even if it's not applied directly to D&D.

 

[pemerton]

I'll admit the DM in 5E decides on an ability check if it's necessary to roll (as opposed to autopass or autofail) and the DC if the dice are involved. That's where the decisions end, though.

Doesn't the GM decide what happens next once the check is made?

EDIT: Ninja'd by @loverdrive and @AbdulAlhazred (and maybe some others too?).

 

[Argyle King]

Is the "their" above WotC?

If so, it is is definitely their take on it. The playtest was both barrels of all of the things I wrote above and the "surveys" were extremely slanted toward "on a scale of GM Empowerment...how much do you want to see Natural Language take Damage on a Miss and Warlords shouting arms back on behind the woodshed and beat them to death with some Rulings Not Rules?"

Now does everyone who plays 5e agree with all of its micro-design decisions and class iterations? Of course not. And as the honeymoon flames (it was basically heresy to complain about anything 5e for probably the first year after release) reduced to a healthy simmer, people who loved and played the game challenged aspects of its design more and more (the "big ones" you mention are probably Bounded Accuracy and the Top Down Adventuring Day design and the impacts on play of both of those decision).

But its still as beloved as it gets and I doubt hardly anyone who plays it doesn't appreciate (and defend...like we see here) the core tenants of its Modular, Rulings Not Rules, GM Empowerment, Table Heterogeneity design.



Less than you think I'm sure. I've seen people play D&D games they hate, under GMs they loathe (both socially and as in their actual game-running), for years...week-in...week-out.

Humankind is capable of all brands of Stockholm Syndrome and TTRPGing is one of the more interesting instantiations of it.

Full disclosure: quick response from my phone, so I may have mixed some context within the past few pages

Not disagreeing with your points, simply adding my 2 copper

•I agree that the things you mentioned (bounded accuracy, natural language, and etc) were design goals.
•From my perspective, I'm not entirely sure those desire goals were met. If they were, the words used to describe them mean something very different to the design team than what I understand them to mean.

I have a bit of Deja Vu because I believe I had a similar conversation about 4E once upon a time. Even though I'm speaking the same language as the people designing the game, I don't know that I understand how they're applying certain words, nor do I fully understand how they see the game working in actual play. Which isn't to say it doesn't work; it does, but I am a little lost one how what's been stated as goals for the game lead to some of the choices made.

 

[loverdrive]

The truth of 5e is that it takes the GM to decide how it works. Don't give this hard earned skill back to 5e by claiming that it's the rules and not you doing it.

I'm gonna steal this.

 

[Hussar]

Yes but if I stated to my players the DC is X, a success will grant you Y and a failure will cause Z... then I figure a social contract now exists for me to stick to my word... otherwise it's not a system issue it's a bad DM'ing issue... as I could just as easily disregard any social contract for any other game as well since nothing in any game can stop me from lying and being disingenuous if that's what I choose to do.

Question - do you often state both and the DC before any rolls are made? Do your players always know the 2 (presumably 2, more if you're using some form of graduated success/fail module) potential results of a skill check?

 

[Hussar]

I was wondering if all those DMs knew each other or had played together. It seems like the sort of thing that--aside from whether it's the way the game is--could become part of how, at those tables, the game is played. I mean, at some point, experience is going to shape expectations, which will in turn shape play.

EDIT: I also wonder how many of the players are in common at those three or four tables, just pondering further the matter of "table culture" and expectations.

All three have extensive experience with other groups.

 

[Hussar]

Accept it lets you know it can be run differently. However, it is advice of similar use to you as advice to "play another game," is to the OP and others.

Except that "play another game" is simply a case of, well, buying another game and running it. I can never reproduce your players, no matter what I do. So, no, it's not of similar use. Heck, even if you're just going to incorporate those rules into your D&D game, you still have to buy and read the other game. Well, if you buy it, read it, understand it, then it's not a big jump to actually play it.

 

[Hussar]

See this isn't how I interpret that... again it seems to imply that in order for a roll to take place a task must have a success and failure state... that means it should be clear to player and GM what those two things are.

Well, yeah, it is absolutely clear. Couldn't be clearer. Success means you get past. Failure means the alarm is raised. Seems pretty clear. Failure might mean the alarm is raised is less clear no?

 

[Imaro]

Question - do you often state both and the DC before any rolls are made? Do your players always know the 2 (presumably 2, more if you're using some form of graduated success/fail module) potential results of a skill check?

Don't have much time to post today but I can answer this pretty quickly... In all honesty I thought the majority of, if not all, DM's stated the DC before the roll, myself included. To the point where I'd find it odd to be in a game that did not. In nearly every streaming show I've seen they announce the DC... in the few games I've gotten to play in, the DM's announced the DC.. inmy games I announce the DC.

As for the fail and success state I as a DM make sure I'm clear on what the PC is trying to accomplish as opposed to just knowing their action to the point where I ask to have them state it if its not clear from the action statement. I also tell them what will happen if they fail if its not obvious. Now admittedly if I have more that two states in D&D I don't go through all of them with the player just success and failure, mainly because as a DM I tend to have to improvise those if the roll warrants it. I'll also readily admit I don't think this is something alot of DM's actually do... as opposed to staring the DC.

The usual process for me is...

Player 1: I try to get the guards attention by pretending to faint near him.
DM: Ok what exactly are you trying to do by fainting?
Player 1 : I'm trying to keep him from noticing our rogue from sneaking into the library he's stationed in front of.
DM: OK if you fail the guard will get a check to notice the rogue sneaking past. Give me either deception or perform versus a DC of 15
Player 1: rolls dice...