D&D General Can we talk about best practices?

[Ovinomancer]

Okay, but I'm pretty sure you can do that in Fate or the BW example as well (you hope to meet your brother and you do, but he immediately dies). That's just bad practice on the DM's part (as opposed rolling with the scene and continue to build on what has already been established).

Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.

Sure, but there it's expressly against the rules of the game and easily detectable as such -- the GM is wrong to do so. In D&D, this is the GM's right and expectation that they have this power.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Sure, but there it's expressly against the rules of the game and easily detectable as such -- the GM is wrong to do so. In D&D, this is the GM's right and expectation that they have this power.

Not if you're playing a narratively oriented game. Hence why session zero is important. If you give the players plot points (which strongly implies a narrative orientation) and then pull these kinds of... shenanigans... you're not DMing in good faith and the players would be fully in the right to call you out on it, just as if you tried to pull this in a Fate game.

(Just as a reminder, I do NOT mean a "narrative game" like Fate when I say "narratively oriented game".)

 

[Ovinomancer]

The early editions of D&D did have something resembling an assumed play style (although not everyone played this way). 4e also had a much more deeply rooted play style inherent to it.

I think that 5e was designed to be a roof under which all the various styles can fit. Now, how well they succeeded is open to debate. Some will point to the lack of explicit support for OS dungeon crawls and claim 5e doesn't support that play style. I would point to the bevy of 3P products that support this style of play as evidence that it does.

Crit Role does follow a playstyle, so you can absolutely write best practices if that's the particular playstyle you're interested in addressing. It's simply relevant to note that these practices won't be universally applicable to all D&D games (such as the aforementioned OS dungeon crawl).

I disagree -- 5e has a detectable assumed way to play presented. It then, though, embraces the cultural zeitgeist of D&D and say that you're absolutely free to ignore this -- that you're encouraged to ignore this -- and play however. But, this isn't really true, as you can see from a brief perusal of the 5e forum, where so many thread topics revolve around how 5e isn't doing a good job supporting this or that person's play and how can 5e be changed. Yet, when people show up to say that you can avoid this by playing 5e in the mode it's presented, these people are often strongly dismissed in no uncertain terms that this is not what it wanted.

5e has reasonably solid rules for social interactions, if you use the system as presented. 5e has solid rules for encounter design and daily balance between classes, if you use the system as presented. There's quite a lot of assumed playstyle in 5e, even as it's core mechanic is "GM decides." Arguing otherwise is ignoring what's in the actual text in favor of the sales pitch. Kinda like going to Burger King, who's slogan is "have it your way!" but you're still pretty darned limited by what's allowable under "your way" -- mostly it's just the dressing -- the burger is still the same burger.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Not if you're playing a narratively oriented game. Hence why session zero is important. If you give the players plot points (which strongly implies a narrative orientation) and then pull these kinds of... shenanigans... you're not DMing in good faith and the players would be fully in the right to call you out on it, just as if you tried to pull this in a Fate game.

(Just as a reminder, I do NOT mean a "narrative game" like Fate when I say "narratively oriented game".)

Oh, sure, I mean, we can play Monopoly as Risk if we all sit down and agree to an extensive set of house rules before play. That we can agree to play whatever doesn't mean that what we end up playing is the thing we started from. I can make up whatever I want, and say that you cannot kill orcs in 5e, no matter what, and it's exactly as correct as your conjecture here -- it's not 5e at all, or the system, but rather something else we've tacked onto it.

For the base system, it is absolutely the GM's authority to alter the premise after the use of a Plot Point (provided that optional rule is in place). This may be a dick move, but it's exactly aligned to the authorities of the GM and they are not abusing the system nor breaking any rules if they do this.

In PbtA games, or FitD games, though, the GM is actively breaking the rules of the system if they do this. It's not just a dick move, it's violating the game system.

I do, however, love how so many of the critiques of 5e (and the above isn't actually a strong critique, there's a lot of good in this function as well) are met with "but I have a house rule."

 

[pemerton]

The early editions of D&D did have something resembling an assumed play style (although not everyone played this way). 4e also had a much more deeply rooted play style inherent to it.

I think that 5e was designed to be a roof under which all the various styles can fit. Now, how well they succeeded is open to debate. Some will point to the lack of explicit support for OS dungeon crawls and claim 5e doesn't support that play style. I would point to the bevy of 3P products that support this style of play as evidence that it does.

Crit Role does follow a playstyle, so you can absolutely write best practices if that's the particular playstyle you're interested in addressing. It's simply relevant to note that these practices won't be universally applicable to all D&D games (such as the aforementioned OS dungeon crawl).

I can read ENworld and find hundreds of posts saying the bolded bit. That's fairly trivial, and seems to take no more than the one sentence that you and all those other posts have provided.

What I'm repeatedly puzzled by is the fact that attempts to sketch out best-practice guides, or even to posit their feasibility, seem to be met with extreme hostility. I don't really get it.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I can read ENworld and find hundreds of posts saying the bolded bit. That's fairly trivial, and seems to take no more than the one sentence that you and all those other posts have provided.

What I'm repeatedly puzzled by is the fact that attempts to sketch out best-practice guides, or even to posit their feasibility, seem to be met with extreme hostility. I don't really get it.

Hostility? I'm don't recall any hostility towards the idea. I've seen plenty of warnings along the lines of the text you bolded. As long as that's kept in mind (and advice for a particular playstyle isn't presented as general advice) I see no issue.

 

[Mort]

What I'm repeatedly puzzled by is the fact that attempts to sketch out best-practice guides, or even to posit their feasibility, seem to be met with extreme hostility. I don't really get it.

I'm extremely surprised at the number of posts in this thread claiming any attempt at a best-practice guide is not only futile but unwarranted.

I think new DMs could really use guidelines as to avoid the myriad of missteps mistakes and headaches that those before have made and learned from.

is it that many people don't like the term best as too universal?

 

[Fanaelialae]

I disagree -- 5e has a detectable assumed way to play presented. It then, though, embraces the cultural zeitgeist of D&D and say that you're absolutely free to ignore this -- that you're encouraged to ignore this -- and play however. But, this isn't really true, as you can see from a brief perusal of the 5e forum, where so many thread topics revolve around how 5e isn't doing a good job supporting this or that person's play and how can 5e be changed. Yet, when people show up to say that you can avoid this by playing 5e in the mode it's presented, these people are often strongly dismissed in no uncertain terms that this is not what it wanted.

5e has reasonably solid rules for social interactions, if you use the system as presented. 5e has solid rules for encounter design and daily balance between classes, if you use the system as presented. There's quite a lot of assumed playstyle in 5e, even as it's core mechanic is "GM decides." Arguing otherwise is ignoring what's in the actual text in favor of the sales pitch. Kinda like going to Burger King, who's slogan is "have it your way!" but you're still pretty darned limited by what's allowable under "your way" -- mostly it's just the dressing -- the burger is still the same burger.

Oh, sure, I mean, we can play Monopoly as Risk if we all sit down and agree to an extensive set of house rules before play. That we can agree to play whatever doesn't mean that what we end up playing is the thing we started from. I can make up whatever I want, and say that you cannot kill orcs in 5e, no matter what, and it's exactly as correct as your conjecture here -- it's not 5e at all, or the system, but rather something else we've tacked onto it.

For the base system, it is absolutely the GM's authority to alter the premise after the use of a Plot Point (provided that optional rule is in place). This may be a dick move, but it's exactly aligned to the authorities of the GM and they are not abusing the system nor breaking any rules if they do this.

In PbtA games, or FitD games, though, the GM is actively breaking the rules of the system if they do this. It's not just a dick move, it's violating the game system.

I do, however, love how so many of the critiques of 5e (and the above isn't actually a strong critique, there's a lot of good in this function as well) are met with "but I have a house rule."

I said, just a few posts back, that D&D runs D&D (as opposed to anything and everything under the sun) but can be used for a fairly broad variety of playstyles, unlike more bespoke games that typically have a single intended play style.

You don't agree with that? Okay. You're entitled to your own opinion. I think the vast variety of play styles evidenced by folks talking about D&D just on ENWorld contradicts that opinion pretty solidly, but it's all subjective.

 

[pemerton]

Hostility? I'm don't recall any hostility towards the idea. I've seen plenty of warnings along the lines of the text you bolded. As long as that's kept in mind (and advice for a particular playstyle isn't presented as general advice) I see no issue.

Yet in this thread the only person who has tried to even sketch "best practices" for typical 5e D&D play is me! And I don't even play 5e D&D - I'm just drawing on my observations of others 5e play together with my general knowledge of RPG design and play.

EDIT: Not quite ninja-ed by @Mort, but we seem to be on much the same page.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Yet in this thread the only person who has tried to even sketch "best practices" for typical 5e D&D play is me! And I don't even play 5e D&D - I'm just drawing on my observations of others 5e play together with my general knowledge of RPG design and play.

I've mentioned a few best practices, and I believe I've seen a few other folks having done the same.

Also the thread is technically (AFAIK) about whether and how to discuss best practices, not what those best practices specifically are. That said, all threads drift after a while (and I have been admittedly, though not outright intentionally, guilty of this here), so if you want to come up with a guide, I don't see why you shouldn't. You might get a better signal to noise ratio if you dedicated a new thread to the topic, assuming you want to go that route (especially if you make it a + thread).