D&D General Can we talk about best practices?

[overgeeked]

I'm also trying to express some sort of integration of player contribution with GM contribution under the premise that the basic trajectory of play is set by the GM. This is what Edwards used to call "participationism". I think that that's the closest thing we have, to date, as a "technical" label for Critical Role-ish play.

And I think it's something for which (i) good advice is needed, and (ii) the old chestnut "You can do anything your character could do as a person in the fictional world" is unhelpful and even misleading.

I've always seen it described as a character-driven sandbox.

 

[pemerton]

I've always seen it described as a character-driven sandbox.

Do you mean Critical Role? My understanding is that it's driven by Mercer and is not much of a sandbox.

 

[overgeeked]

Do you mean Critical Role? My understanding is that it's driven by Mercer and is not much of a sandbox.

Yes, Critical Role. Mercer’s style seems to be that he wildly over prepares to cover himself and generally follows the players wherever they go. He said once he preps about four hours for every hour of game. But he definitely has clocks running on whatever the players don’t engage with. Though a large part of what he seeds in the game is pulled from the PCs’ backstories.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Fair enough. I wasn't trying to strawman. That's what I thought you were strongly implying in the posts I'd quoted.

Thank you for taking the time to explain your meaning.

Yeah, sure, 5e could certainly benefit from a more in depth explanation of the design and implications thereof. Although I'm not sure how much it would help. I suspect the people who complain without first taking the time to understand the design, would be the same people who complain without first taking the time to read the explanation of the design. I guess everyone who had read it could quote chapter and verse in response to those complaints.

Well, it counters the argument that 5e supports a broad set of playstyles. It really doesn't, as you see the evidence in all the complaints about the system not working for various approaches. Instead, 5e tells you it does, and then mostly works. The community is okay with this because they've long internalized the idea that you just make house rules when this happens, and then complain the game isn't doing it's job.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Well, it counters the argument that 5e supports a broad set of playstyles. It really doesn't, as you see the evidence in all the complaints about the system not working for various approaches. Instead, 5e tells you it does, and then mostly works. The community is okay with this because they've long internalized the idea that you just make house rules when this happens, and then complain the game isn't doing it's job.

Who said anything about supporting? It's flexible enough to allow you to play a broad set of playstyles. Optional rules and 3P products do offer support to varying degrees (and I suppose the new Ravenloft book offers support for horror games) but the core game doesn't support the broad range of play styles that the game is used for.

But it gets used nonetheless, and it handles those playstyles. Otherwise, you wouldn't hear so many people complaining about it. When was the last time you heard someone complaining that Fate doesn't support their OS dungeon crawl? I've literally never seen that complaint, because I doubt anyone is crazy enough to try, and certainly no one is crazy enough to expect it to work.

Also, you utterly fail to take into account anyone who isn't complaining (like myself) because they're happily satisfied with how 5e performs.

Yes, D&D is a game that expects to be house ruled, and kitbashed, and flavored to taste. It's not a bespoke game. If you're evaluating it using the same criteria as a bespoke game, you're missing the point. As for people "long internalizing the idea", 5e has brought in a ton of new blood. How are players who've only played a few years (or even less than a year) long internalizing this concept? The simple answer is, they aren't. And the people you think have long internalized the idea haven't, they just recognize and accept D&D for the game it is, rather than what they think it ought to be.

 

[overgeeked]

Who said anything about supporting? It's flexible enough to allow you to play a broad set of playstyles. Optional rules and 3P products do offer support to varying degrees (and I suppose the new Ravenloft book offers support for horror games) but the core game doesn't support the broad range of play styles that the game is used for.

Yeah, that one's always...bothered me. Just because you can use a game to do some things doesn't mean the game itself supports it or has rules for it. Like, you certainly can role-play your game piece in Monopoly but that doesn't mean that Monopoly is now an RPG or that there are rules in Monopoly for role-playing.

But it gets used nonetheless, and it handles those playstyles. Otherwise, you wouldn't hear so many people complaining about it. When was the last time you heard someone complaining that Fate doesn't support their OS dungeon crawl? I've literally never seen that complaint, because I doubt anyone is crazy enough to try, and certainly no one is crazy enough to expect it to work.

It takes a bit of work to use Fate for an OS dungeon crawl but it can be done. It's not a great fit, but...

Yes, D&D is a game that expects to be house ruled, and kitbashed, and flavored to taste. It's not a bespoke game. If you're evaluating it using the same criteria as a bespoke game, you're missing the point. As for people "long internalizing the idea", 5e has brought in a ton of new blood. How are players who've only played a few years (or even less than a year) long internalizing this concept? The simple answer is, they aren't. And the people you think have long internalized the idea haven't, they just recognize and accept D&D for the game it is, rather than what they think it ought to be.

To be fair, 5E has been out 7 years. The massive influx of players is largely due to Critical Role, which started streaming six years ago. So the oldest of that new blood, at a reasonable guess, have been around the hobby somewhere in the 4-6 year range.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Yes, I think best practices exist for gaming. At no point do I claim to know what they are. There are clearly better and worse ways to role-play just as there are better and worse ways to engage players and better and worse ways to run a hexcrawl. None of that means right or wrong, just more or less efficient and more or less effective. If your goal is X you should try A, B, and C while trying to avoid G, H, and I.

The problem is that you're going to be making assumptions in that discussion that color the value of the "practice" right out the gate. And your posts so far suggest you're going to assume your assumptions are automatically the right ones. Again, if you don't understand the problem here...

While I can understand what I assume is the thought behind this, it's literally impossible to do. As a group we can't even agree what a role-playing game is. To say nothing of smaller subcategories of activity commonly conducted within that space.

Which is why the functional alternative is to present the assumptions you're working on up-front when you make them. Then they're contexualized.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Okay, but so what? And I don't mean to be flippant with that......I genuinely am not sure what is the issue with the idea that my suggestions about best practices for D&D 5E could be applied to other games.

My only point was that for the most part this isn't a best practice for 5e specifically. It was more of an observation than an objection.

I mean, to be clear, I consider that true of a lot of discussion under the D&D rubic here. Its the only reason I participate, because I really couldn't care less about D&D 5e.

 

[overgeeked]

The problem is that you're going to be making assumptions in that discussion that color the value of the "practice" right out the gate. And your posts so far suggest you're going to assume your assumptions are automatically the right ones. Again, if you don't understand the problem here...

Which is why the functional alternative is to present the assumptions you're working on up-front when you make them. Then they're contexualized.

My assumptions are: 1) there are best practices in the sense that there are better and worse ways to achieve certain goals in an RPG; 2) people engaged in the hobby have accumulated knowledge on the subject, and; 3) the hobby would benefit from the attempt to gather, store, and make available that knowledge.

 

[Thomas Shey]

My assumptions are: 1) there are best practices in the sense that there are better and worse ways to achieve certain goals in an RPG; 2) people engaged in the hobby have accumulated knowledge on the subject, and; 3) the hobby would benefit from the attempt to gather, store, and make available that knowledge.

But the whole "better or worse ways" inevitably does have assumptions buried in it. How could it not?