Snarf Zagyg
Notorious Liquefactionist
This is a topic that I've been noodling about with for a while, and most recently I've been thinking about it because of a particular quote in another thread-
Other games do that. D&D doesn't. Could you houserule D&D to be like that? Sure. But it wouldn't be D&D anymore, so why? Just play that other game.
Weirdly, I've seen this exact sentiment from two different groups of people-
A. Those who are attempting to "defend" whatever they believe D&D to be from those that would alter or change it; and
B. Those who don't play D&D (5e), don't believe in "Big Tent" games (or think they are incoherent or something), and think you should just play some other game.
I've written a few posts, previously, that are related to this topic, and they might be helpful in understanding this essay. But it's not required reading, and ... well, it's not like you're going to follow the links.
Why 5e is Like the Cheesecake Factory- "Good Enough" Wins Out
D&D, and 5e, is Both a Ruleset and a Curated Hobby
The purpose of this essay is to really examine why 5e functions in a manner that is dissimilar to many other TTRPGs (hereafter, "RPGs"), and why the various mantras about RAW are not an applicable to 5e as they might be to other RPGs.
1. The single biggest problem in communication on the internet is the illusion that it has taken place.
The most fundamental advantage that 5e has over all other RPGs is its ubiquity combined with its history. D&D has always dominated the RPG sector; 5e is currently dominating the RPG sector; the dominance of 5e (and the audience for 5e) means that when people livestream on twitch, have videos on youtube, create 3PP, they will most likely be creating for the market leader- D&D. And when potential new players are hobnobbing around the internet, they are most likely to encounter 5e. Older DMs (and players) who played previous editions and want to start up again will most likely re-enter the hobby through 5e. And so on. All of these inherent advantages tend to build on each other.
This ubiquity comes with a major advantage for an RPG- learning how to play. D&D is not the most beginner-friendly game out there. But D&D does have, by far, the largest community. Once you have become steeped in "D&Disms," it is often difficult to remember just how weird they are to a new player. For that matter, unless you have watched a group of completely new players and a new DM struggle to have a game recently, you won't recall how unnatural some aspects of RPGs can be.
This came up in a conversation on another thread; one poster mentioned the inherent superiority of Cthulhu Dark, which is a lite, two-page rule system. It is certainly an elegant set of rules, but for it to work, it presupposes a number of things- that the table (the whole table) have a working knowledge of the Lovecraft/Cthulhu mythos, that everyone at the table is familiar with RPGs and how they work, and that everyone at the table have a level of comfort with a specific type of narrative-oriented RPG. It's similar to the classic Mitchell & Webb Kitchen Nightmares skit (caution, NSFW language) - the reason the kitchen is failing is because the chef isn't Gordon Ramsay and doesn't have that knowledge.
5e has the inherent benefit- despite being occasionally clunky, and more complicated, and weird at times ... there are so many places and ways to learn how to play it (both in-person and on-line) that any difficulties are overwhelmed by scale.
2. We didn't stop playing D&D because we grew old; we grew old because we stopped playing D&D.
D&D has never been a static thing, or "RAW." Famously, OD&D is practically impossible to play "RAW." It required a hobbyist's sensibility, a background in the hobby, keeping up with The Strategic Review (and later Dragon Magazine) and a large amount of DIY. This trend continued on - here's the thing- if you ask five different grognards how AD&D was played, you will get seven different versions. If you haven't before, I recommend viewing the ADDICT (available here, among other places) by DMPrata, showing just how convoluted the rules were.
Arguably, 3e and 4e in different ways attempted to make the game more "RAW" friendly, but even there, the influence of the original game- of homebrewed settings, of new classes, of creation; it was always there. There has always been a culture of hobbyist playing D&D, of altering D&D, of extending D&D, of curtailing D&D, of adapting other rules into D&D, of bending D&D to different playstyles. Nothing was proscribed; from the beginning through today, there remain schisms in D&D on such fundamental playing issues such as "ToTM or Minis."
It's at this point that I think it's helpful to briefly address the most common argumentative digression people have when it comes to playing RAW (or not); on the one hand, "But Rule 0," on the other hand, "But Oberoni fallacy." To be blunt, these are both orthogonal to the point I am making- no one should be in favor of releasing obviously broken rules, instead I am saying (as I get into more fully in the next section) that D&D generally, and 5e specifically, invites a departure from RAW; more than any other RPG, it invites this type of rule experimentation.
3. I have learned from experience that no one ever learns anything from experience.
In certain high-falutin' circles, there is a conceptual difference between power control and conduct control. Power control is achieved those mandatory rules enforced by law, while conduct control is achieved by mandatory norms. Or, to make it more concrete- power control is a judge sentencing you to 30 days in the pokey for urinating in your neighbor's pool every night because you don't like the fact that he is blaring Bon Jovi during the day; conduct control is your friends shunning you because you think that personal hygiene is overrated.
Put into RPG terms, RAW is power control, while the norms that govern how a game operates that aren't written down are conduct control. In order to move this from the high-falutin' language, let's use the terms "Rules" and "Norms" instead.
There are a lot of norms when it comes to RPGs that we take for granted, that are unexamined. In order to discuss them, it's helpful to differentiate them into three categories:
A. Social norms. Social norms are the general norms that we have that govern how we interact as a group; they aren't specific to RPGs, but they are the social grease of any social situation. Since RPGs are inherently a social game, these always apply. This would be simple things like, "Don't commit to playing and not show up." Or, "Remember to wear pants."
B. RPG-specific norms. These are the norms that apply specifically to RPGs in general and are not codified into any ruleset. "Don't hog the spotlight" is a useful one, and there are certainly additional norms regarding when to speak etc. that are generally applicable in different RPGs.
C. Game-specific norms "GSN". The GSN are, arguably, the most interesting ones. Mostly because very few games have them.
And this is where we get to D&D. Imagine you are writing a brand-new game from scratch. One thing you would have to do is to make sure that you make the RAW define the game. You can depend on social and RPG-specific norms, but there won't be any GSN.
Meanwhile, a core aspect of D&D, a GSN, is that the game itself is hackable- it's DIY. But not just on the "lore" or "narrative" level. To be clear- there are a lot of very good games that invite table to create their own stories through excellent rules; but D&D is one of the few games that consistently invites tables to change the rules of the game.
I want to really underscore this last point- there are three core books in 5e- the PHB, the MM, and the DMG. If you read the DMG, it is basically a compendium of optional rules and ways to change the system. In addition, D&D has not only published consistent rules expansions (as are expected), but hosts a website for the publication of additional self-published rules ... in addition to all the homebrew that is out there.
And from this observation, I circle all the way back to the original quote:
Other games do that. D&D doesn't. Could you houserule D&D to be like that? Sure. But it wouldn't be D&D anymore, so why? Just play that other game.
The essential nature of D&D is that D&D is a game that is houseruled. There is nothing that is "more D&D" than a houseruled version. D&D doesn't just expect that you alter it- D&D DEMANDS IT.
In fact, I would say that the only game of D&D that isn't very D&D is a game that is entirely RAW.
Other games do that. D&D doesn't. Could you houserule D&D to be like that? Sure. But it wouldn't be D&D anymore, so why? Just play that other game.
Weirdly, I've seen this exact sentiment from two different groups of people-
A. Those who are attempting to "defend" whatever they believe D&D to be from those that would alter or change it; and
B. Those who don't play D&D (5e), don't believe in "Big Tent" games (or think they are incoherent or something), and think you should just play some other game.
I've written a few posts, previously, that are related to this topic, and they might be helpful in understanding this essay. But it's not required reading, and ... well, it's not like you're going to follow the links.
Why 5e is Like the Cheesecake Factory- "Good Enough" Wins Out
D&D, and 5e, is Both a Ruleset and a Curated Hobby
The purpose of this essay is to really examine why 5e functions in a manner that is dissimilar to many other TTRPGs (hereafter, "RPGs"), and why the various mantras about RAW are not an applicable to 5e as they might be to other RPGs.
1. The single biggest problem in communication on the internet is the illusion that it has taken place.
The most fundamental advantage that 5e has over all other RPGs is its ubiquity combined with its history. D&D has always dominated the RPG sector; 5e is currently dominating the RPG sector; the dominance of 5e (and the audience for 5e) means that when people livestream on twitch, have videos on youtube, create 3PP, they will most likely be creating for the market leader- D&D. And when potential new players are hobnobbing around the internet, they are most likely to encounter 5e. Older DMs (and players) who played previous editions and want to start up again will most likely re-enter the hobby through 5e. And so on. All of these inherent advantages tend to build on each other.
This ubiquity comes with a major advantage for an RPG- learning how to play. D&D is not the most beginner-friendly game out there. But D&D does have, by far, the largest community. Once you have become steeped in "D&Disms," it is often difficult to remember just how weird they are to a new player. For that matter, unless you have watched a group of completely new players and a new DM struggle to have a game recently, you won't recall how unnatural some aspects of RPGs can be.
This came up in a conversation on another thread; one poster mentioned the inherent superiority of Cthulhu Dark, which is a lite, two-page rule system. It is certainly an elegant set of rules, but for it to work, it presupposes a number of things- that the table (the whole table) have a working knowledge of the Lovecraft/Cthulhu mythos, that everyone at the table is familiar with RPGs and how they work, and that everyone at the table have a level of comfort with a specific type of narrative-oriented RPG. It's similar to the classic Mitchell & Webb Kitchen Nightmares skit (caution, NSFW language) - the reason the kitchen is failing is because the chef isn't Gordon Ramsay and doesn't have that knowledge.
5e has the inherent benefit- despite being occasionally clunky, and more complicated, and weird at times ... there are so many places and ways to learn how to play it (both in-person and on-line) that any difficulties are overwhelmed by scale.
2. We didn't stop playing D&D because we grew old; we grew old because we stopped playing D&D.
D&D has never been a static thing, or "RAW." Famously, OD&D is practically impossible to play "RAW." It required a hobbyist's sensibility, a background in the hobby, keeping up with The Strategic Review (and later Dragon Magazine) and a large amount of DIY. This trend continued on - here's the thing- if you ask five different grognards how AD&D was played, you will get seven different versions. If you haven't before, I recommend viewing the ADDICT (available here, among other places) by DMPrata, showing just how convoluted the rules were.
Arguably, 3e and 4e in different ways attempted to make the game more "RAW" friendly, but even there, the influence of the original game- of homebrewed settings, of new classes, of creation; it was always there. There has always been a culture of hobbyist playing D&D, of altering D&D, of extending D&D, of curtailing D&D, of adapting other rules into D&D, of bending D&D to different playstyles. Nothing was proscribed; from the beginning through today, there remain schisms in D&D on such fundamental playing issues such as "ToTM or Minis."
It's at this point that I think it's helpful to briefly address the most common argumentative digression people have when it comes to playing RAW (or not); on the one hand, "But Rule 0," on the other hand, "But Oberoni fallacy." To be blunt, these are both orthogonal to the point I am making- no one should be in favor of releasing obviously broken rules, instead I am saying (as I get into more fully in the next section) that D&D generally, and 5e specifically, invites a departure from RAW; more than any other RPG, it invites this type of rule experimentation.
3. I have learned from experience that no one ever learns anything from experience.
In certain high-falutin' circles, there is a conceptual difference between power control and conduct control. Power control is achieved those mandatory rules enforced by law, while conduct control is achieved by mandatory norms. Or, to make it more concrete- power control is a judge sentencing you to 30 days in the pokey for urinating in your neighbor's pool every night because you don't like the fact that he is blaring Bon Jovi during the day; conduct control is your friends shunning you because you think that personal hygiene is overrated.
Put into RPG terms, RAW is power control, while the norms that govern how a game operates that aren't written down are conduct control. In order to move this from the high-falutin' language, let's use the terms "Rules" and "Norms" instead.
There are a lot of norms when it comes to RPGs that we take for granted, that are unexamined. In order to discuss them, it's helpful to differentiate them into three categories:
A. Social norms. Social norms are the general norms that we have that govern how we interact as a group; they aren't specific to RPGs, but they are the social grease of any social situation. Since RPGs are inherently a social game, these always apply. This would be simple things like, "Don't commit to playing and not show up." Or, "Remember to wear pants."
B. RPG-specific norms. These are the norms that apply specifically to RPGs in general and are not codified into any ruleset. "Don't hog the spotlight" is a useful one, and there are certainly additional norms regarding when to speak etc. that are generally applicable in different RPGs.
C. Game-specific norms "GSN". The GSN are, arguably, the most interesting ones. Mostly because very few games have them.
And this is where we get to D&D. Imagine you are writing a brand-new game from scratch. One thing you would have to do is to make sure that you make the RAW define the game. You can depend on social and RPG-specific norms, but there won't be any GSN.
Meanwhile, a core aspect of D&D, a GSN, is that the game itself is hackable- it's DIY. But not just on the "lore" or "narrative" level. To be clear- there are a lot of very good games that invite table to create their own stories through excellent rules; but D&D is one of the few games that consistently invites tables to change the rules of the game.
I want to really underscore this last point- there are three core books in 5e- the PHB, the MM, and the DMG. If you read the DMG, it is basically a compendium of optional rules and ways to change the system. In addition, D&D has not only published consistent rules expansions (as are expected), but hosts a website for the publication of additional self-published rules ... in addition to all the homebrew that is out there.
And from this observation, I circle all the way back to the original quote:
Other games do that. D&D doesn't. Could you houserule D&D to be like that? Sure. But it wouldn't be D&D anymore, so why? Just play that other game.
The essential nature of D&D is that D&D is a game that is houseruled. There is nothing that is "more D&D" than a houseruled version. D&D doesn't just expect that you alter it- D&D DEMANDS IT.
In fact, I would say that the only game of D&D that isn't very D&D is a game that is entirely RAW.
