D&D General DM's: How transparent are you with game mechanics "in world?"

[Lyxen]

And that's one scene I've always found jarring, in that while watching it I can't help thinking that after the first minute or so those two should be nothing more than little bits of ash.

Same for me, actually, it was way over the top, and made really silly at the end when the clothes catch fire, when thet seemed totally fireproof for the whole length of the scene.

 

[jasper]

Depends on the player. I am generally open. But if they are FISHING for information, but not expending an action to do so, I tell them, "The numbers are correct. Ask me AFTER the Game, and I will explain why then."

 

[Lyxen]

Keep in mind also that many (most?) of the NPCs encountered are going to be either non-classed commoners or 0th-level grunts; and those really need no "building" at all. Opposing NPCs e.g. bandits etc. will usually be statted out by the module.

Again, where is the rule that say that NPCs with power have to have levels ?

More significant NPCs - major opponents, patrons, nobility, etc. - are likely to be either around for much longer or (in the case of opponents) will be very relevant for the short time they remain around, and thus need to be either fully statted out or put together enough such that I-as-DM know what they've got going for them.

It still does not mean that their skillset has to have anything to do with the member of an adventuring party.

I couldn't disagree more.

DMs playing in bad faith give rise to about 99% of the bad-DM horror stories we hear here and elsewhere; and I'll happily - and unapologetically - call out bad-faith DMing as badwrongfun all day long.

And most of these stories are hearsay or grossly deformed by players who were not happy with their DM, usually because of differing playstyles. And, compared to the number of players worldwide, it would still be an extremely low number of cases to base anything upon. And, in any case, I will not make an opinion until I've heard both sides. I've had enough players coming to forums to complain about having horrid DMs but who, when grilled about their own attitude and what really happened, just revealed themselves to be entitled little ****.

I'm not saying that bad DMs don't exist, but what I think is that most of the problems come from different playstyles and no proper session 0.

You're defending what are to me some of the very worst aspects of 5e; things that make it a system I don't want to use.

Nobody is forcing you, you know... And nobody is forbidding you to play 5e with your preferred style, just don't judge others for playing in a different style...

Monsters, sure. Githi casters are going to work totally differently from normal Elf and Human casters; and Githi are not a PC-playable species. Elves are PC-playable, however, which means either a) all Elvish casters have to follow the rules for PC casters or b) I have to change the rules for PC casters to accommodate what the NPC Elves can do.

Again, why ? Which cosmic law are you invoking to justify this ? It's written nowhere in any book ?

Only to a point, and only if they're used to thinking that way, and only if the NPC is an opponent.

And that's reason enough not to encourage it.

New spells are rare things; acadamies (willingly or not) share the spells that exist; and thus Magic Missile here is going to work the same as Magic Missile a continent away. Not a biggie for me.

Again, why ? MM might be working differently, or it just might be a fairly different spell or power. Again, show me the rule that say that there can be only one way to do missile that do force damage in the entire multiverse. There is no such thing.

 

[Lanefan]

Again, where is the rule that say that NPCs with power have to have levels ?

The (unwritten) rule of internal setting consistency; in that without levels (or magic items) where does that power come from and how can it be explained?

And note that simply saying "it can't be explained" is a non-starter.

It still does not mean that their skillset has to have anything to do with the member of an adventuring party.

Indeed. Not all "classes" are adventuring-based*, and even those that are have stay-at-home equivalents. For example: a stay-at-home lab wizard will still acquire experience points and levels through doing what she does and learning in the process, albeit much more slowly than her field-adventuring counterpart. And I have "classes" that aren't field-adventuring based - artificer being the one most commonly encountered by PCs. If someone really wanted to play an artificer as PC I'd allow it, but the projected survival rate would be extremely low (they don't gain h.p. by level, for one thing) and very few of their abilities would be of any use in the field: the character would be a passenger.

* - 3e took this concept completely overboard with dumb things like the Commoner class, but the underlying idea has merit.

And most of these stories are hearsay or grossly deformed by players who were not happy with their DM, usually because of differing playstyles. And, compared to the number of players worldwide, it would still be an extremely low number of cases to base anything upon. And, in any case, I will not make an opinion until I've heard both sides. I've had enough players coming to forums to complain about having horrid DMs but who, when grilled about their own attitude and what really happened, just revealed themselves to be entitled little ****.

I'm not saying that bad DMs don't exist, but what I think is that most of the problems come from different playstyles and no proper session 0.

I've had one or two bad DMs and luckily managed to avoid a few others by hearing the stories from trusted friends. I've also had some very good DMs, and for a much longer time.

Again, why ? Which cosmic law are you invoking to justify this ? It's written nowhere in any book ?

Refer above to the unwritten rule of internal setting consistency.

If I'm allowed to play an Elf then my Elf should in theory be able to potentially do things that any other Elf of the same class and level can do; and further should be able to be the same class as any other Elf in the setting. Just because someone in the setting happens to be a PC does not excuse them from also being an intrinsic part of the setting's population; and this is where 5e gets it so awfully, horribly wrong.

Again, why ?

Sheer simplicity.

I've already got far too many spells in my system, inventing regional variants for all of them would just add to the mess and also probably take a stupendous amount of time. Deity-specific variants on Clerical spells, which IMO are far more likely to occur, also haven't yet been done for the same reason.

 

[Maxperson]

Same for me, actually, it was way over the top, and made really silly at the end when the clothes catch fire, when thet seemed totally fireproof for the whole length of the scene.

That part was silly, but I chalked that scene as a whole up to them using the force to enable survival. The force equivalent to resist elements or energy wouldn't be visible.

 

[Maxperson]

Okay, but answer the question. What is this tool? Unlimited authority to do anything? "Anything" includes abuses, so why do we want a tool that definitionally has to involve abuses? Can we not try and imagine a better way?

Because that's how tools work. The design of the hammer tool includes the ability to bash people in the head repeatedly or vandalize someone's car. The design of the car tool allows me to run people over or deliberately drive through someone's house wall. The design of the fork, spoon and knife tools allow me to shove them through someone's eye.

You don't get rid of tools just because their design is abusable in ways that harm others. The solution is not to get rid of that tool, but rather to impose penalties for abuse. In the case of the above tools, there are laws that will punish me if I do those things. In the case of the DM authority tool, I would lose my players if I abuse that authority.

There is no problem with the way the game is designed.

There are multiple ways to change the current status quo, but all you seem interested in is declaring that it won't work so it is a waste of time to make the attempt. Whether it is rules, culture, ect.

Name one that doesn't involve rules changes.

Personally, I think you overstate what the rules allow the DM to do, so it is less of a need to change the rules, because I don't think they provide the level of authority you seem to think they do.

I can and have quoted multiple spots allowing the DM to do what he likes with the rules and there are no such quotes limiting that power.

And I think you are wrong. I know a guy who was a Bad DM. He was also a brand new DM and he wasn't a bad person. He simply mismanaged the game, and misunderstood how to best handle the game.

Bad DM =/= Bad Person who is incapable of change. That is a dangerous fallacy.

That's also wrong. A bad DM is one who goes out of his way to be vindictive, abuse authority, etc. Someone who is mismanaging the game due to a lack of understand is not a bad DM. He's making mistakes and will learn from those and improve.

How common do I want them to be? Common enough that most people have interacted or know someone who has interacted with one? And since that seems to be relatively true, after all, I, a friend of mine, and you all share that experience, I think your point is disproven.

Er, no. You have not disproven anything other than we all encounter rare things in our lives. I'm sure all or most of us have encountered multiple people with down syndrome during our lifetimes, despite only 1 in 700 people being born with it. Most of us encountering the rare bad DM in our lifetimes does not make them anything other than rare. It just means that given enough DMs over enough years, we're bound to encounter a few.

In fact, I think @Lyxen is about the only person I've seen on these forums who has seemed to not have had expeirenced a truly bad DM. And that is probably wrong, they probably have. So it is clearly common enough that people are aware of the issue.

A few posts ago you got really upset with me for saying you were mistaken and you incorrectly thought that I was implying that you were lying. Now here you are doing the same thing to @Lyxen.

 

[Lyxen]

The (unwritten) rule of internal setting consistency; in that without levels (or magic items) where does that power come from and how can it be explained?

I believe that the power comes from the world, not from levels. The fact that there are levels to explain power progression is a (not completely necessary, but useful) evil, but it does not mean that it has to be the same for everyone in the multiverse. Mindflayers don't have levels, lots of creatures can cast spell spontaneously. Some NPCs can have training just like PCs, but others might acquire things differently, through pacts or through any training that would be different from the PCs.

Indeed. Not all "classes" are adventuring-based*, and even those that are have stay-at-home equivalents. For example: a stay-at-home lab wizard will still acquire experience points and levels through doing what she does and learning in the process, albeit much more slowly than her field-adventuring counterpart. And I have "classes" that aren't field-adventuring based - artificer being the one most commonly encountered by PCs. If someone really wanted to play an artificer as PC I'd allow it, but the projected survival rate would be extremely low (they don't gain h.p. by level, for one thing) and very few of their abilities would be of any use in the field: the character would be a passenger.

* - 3e took this concept completely overboard with dumb things like the Commoner class, but the underlying idea has merit.

Not to everyone, it's again a totally artificial limitation.

I've had one or two bad DMs and luckily managed to avoid a few others by hearing the stories from trusted friends. I've also had some very good DMs, and for a much longer time.

And, honestly, where the DMs really bad or did they simply have a different playstyle, or were they just inexperienced ?

Refer above to the unwritten rule of internal setting consistency.

I prefer world consistency rather than rules consistency. The game (and in particular 5e) supports both, after that preferences depend only on your playstyle.

I'm not saying that I don't understand you, one of the advantages of 3e is that it should have been easier to compute relative power of creatures and therefore to balance encounters technically, unfortunately it did not work because powers were still not equal in particular when combined.

But as I'm not overly concerned about balance, I prefer being free to put powers where they well nice and will help NPCs look badass and provide a good story. If you assume (like I do) that there are many paths to power, the world is still totally consistent.

If I'm allowed to play an Elf then my Elf should in theory be able to potentially do things that any other Elf of the same class and level can do; and further should be able to be the same class as any other Elf in the setting.

And why should all elves have a class ? Why can't you have power without a class ? You know, PCs do not have a class tattooed on their forehead, it's just a gaming artefact that does not have to translate into the game world.

Just because someone in the setting happens to be a PC does not excuse them from also being an intrinsic part of the setting's population; and this is where 5e gets it so awfully, horribly wrong.

Only in your specialised vision of the game, but the game in itself does not have or need that kind of limitation.

Sheer simplicity.

Worlds can be complex too, it's not necessarily a bad thing, you know.

I've already got far too many spells in my system, inventing regional variants for all of them would just add to the mess and also probably take a stupendous amount of time. Deity-specific variants on Clerical spells, which IMO are far more likely to occur, also haven't yet been done for the same reason.

THe nice thing is that you don't have to prepare anything in advance. Just add small things when you feel like it. No one will explore everything that you might have prepared to audit you for overall consistency.

 

[Stalker0]

Ok 300 posts in, has anyone changed their point of view yet?

 

[Maxperson]

Ok 300 posts in, has anyone changed their point of view yet?

I'm viewing my screen from a bit to the right of where I usually view it. Does that count?

 

[Lanefan]

I believe that the power comes from the world, not from levels. The fact that there are levels to explain power progression is a (not completely necessary, but useful) evil, but it does not mean that it has to be the same for everyone in the multiverse. Mindflayers don't have levels, lots of creatures can cast spell spontaneously.

Mindflayers are monsters, which I've already noted can and do work differently.

And, honestly, where the DMs really bad or did they simply have a different playstyle, or were they just inexperienced ?

One was outright bad; he played favourites among the players and overall was on something of a power trip. Another was inexperienced (which is fine, of course) and somewhat let the players walk all over him (which isn't fine; being walked over was kind of a part of his personality, and as this wasn't likely to change it meant he wasn't really cut out to be a DM).

I prefer world consistency rather than rules consistency.

Cool! Now tell me, how can you possibly have one without the other?

I'm not saying that I don't understand you, one of the advantages of 3e is that it should have been easier to compute relative power of creatures and therefore to balance encounters technically, unfortunately it did not work because powers were still not equal in particular when combined.

But as I'm not overly concerned about balance, I prefer being free to put powers where they well nice and will help NPCs look badass and provide a good story. If you assume (like I do) that there are many paths to power, the world is still totally consistent.

We agree about balance, at least.

I put setting consistency ahead of story pretty much every time; in part because if I and-or the players can't use the setting as-is to tell a decent story then I've clearly designed a garbage setting and should start over.

And why should all elves have a class ?

They don't.

Why can't you have power without a class ?

Game mechanics. If Elves have a non-class-related power then it perforce has to apply to all Elves as a benefit of species, thus making them more powerful (probably). If only some Elves have a power then, if it's not class-related, how do they get it and why can't my Elf PC get it?

You know, PCs do not have a class tattooed on their forehead, it's just a gaming artefact that does not have to translate into the game world.

I see class as very much translating into the game world, much like occupation translates in our real world.

Real-world conversation:

"What do you do?"
"I'm an accountant with Price-Waterhouse."

In-setting conversation:

"What do you do?"
"I'm an adventuring Cleric to Tymora."

It's the same conversation.

Worlds can be complex too, it's not necessarily a bad thing, you know.

I very much agree. I just don't have the patience to do all the designing it'd take to get to that point.

THe nice thing is that you don't have to prepare anything in advance. Just add small things when you feel like it. No one will explore everything that you might have prepared to audit you for overall consistency.

Well, in the specific example of Clerical spells in fact I do have to prepare everything in advance, such that a player thinking of playing a Cleric has all the options - and the ramifications thereof, for good and-or bad - available up front. And as I've no idea ahead of time which deities the players will want to play Clerics to either now or later, to do this right means I have to design a bespoke spell list for each one of 'em; and last I checked, my setting has something like 70 deities in it.

Life's too short.