D&D General Railroads, Illusionism, and Participationism

[Lyxen]

Aside from at least one person's strikingly absurd one-true-way-ism and humorously arbitrary rules for verisimilitude (which I will admit was once my ideal), what I mostly get from this thread is that many, if not most, people use a range of these tools in different ways, at different times, to different degrees, sometimes more or less expertly than other times or other people - and steadfastly holding on to the extremes at either end, while fine if everyone at the table is into it, is more likely to lead to boring lulls, needless frustration, absurd unchallenging results, just acting out the DM's screenplay and less fun all around.

And even then, I am pretty sure that, when actually playing with real players around a real table, the "extreme" proponents are actually not that strict around their table practices, this is the internet, you need to be extreme to think that you will convince anyone (and then you will probably fail anyway, even if you instill some ideas, I don't think that anyone around here actually changes their mind after someone else's post, and even if they do, they won't tell).

Once again, I want to do my "I sit in on your home game" docu-series.

That would be really interesting, but probably hard to do. That being said, some of us have summaries of play (mine are always done by the players, which I think is more representative of what really happened), it can give you an idea as to how the games really go. One might argue that, linked to this thread, you will not get the DM's perspective, but when the DM is making the summary, I have never seen one say "there, I fudged because..."

 

[Oofta]

You do realize that his is not necessarily true, right? That you are oversimplifying and making assertions that aren't clearly correct?

Because the GM does NOT necessarily know the outcome before the fight starts. The GM may be watching events, and making decisions based on the pacing and feel of the table. For example, if the fight's been going on for a while, and the party's not doing so great, and the Paladin lands a smite with a critical hit. You know, maybe just letting the beast die at that moment might be better dramatically than dragging it out for later.

The original tweet was from a DM that never tracks HP. It's one thing to cut a fight short when the outcome is inevitable, it's another to never care how much damage was done along the way. Some of the biggest cheers in my games have come when that cleric is down to sacred flame, rolls minimum damage and still takes out the monster.

Never tracking makes most of combat pointless. IMHO of course.

 

[Umbran]

This may be due to his habit of creating new threads to reframe an already ongoing discussion so that it's more under his control. Of course, if you try to argue against Snarf, his mild and inoffensive posting style rapidly changes. YMMV.

Mod Note:

The personal potshots are not acceptable. Play nice, or don't play at all.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Eh. I agree, but it's not necessarily about winning. One of the virtues of playing a game by the rules, using the random number generators, to see what happens rather than narrating it collectively in a group storytelling exercise, is that it creates a different feel.

Absolutely. 100% agree. Any game any of us play is going to have a different feel. And when we choose to play a particular game, it's because we are aiming for that feel.

Which is exactly why someone would choose to play D&D rather than Fiasco. Or choose to play Vampire rather than D&D. Or choose to play Ticket to Ride instead of Risk. Every game has its own feel, and thus you do into it hoping, expecting, and desiring that feel.

Which is also why when I and my players play D&D, we are perfectly fine using the dice mechanics to determine hits and misses just like everyone else. While we COULD just improvise it, there is a different feel when we give up some of our decision-making and let the fickle finger of fate make some of our choices for us. Nothing wrong with it... dice rolling is exceedingly enjoyable more often than not... but we also aren't beholden to it. Since we know we don't HAVE to use it, we don't go searching for the moments when the DM doesn't. It never enters our mind to look for when the DM fudges a roll or makes an arbitrary decision, because we don't care. The "winning the game by the rules" doesn't matter. That's not why we choose to play the game.

 

[Helpful NPC Thom]

I really like the post, but this sort of bugs me. Does this mean that deciding that the PCs have no chance to "talk down the Evil Overlord into changing his ways and accepting the goodness and light of Pelor" is Roll Calibration ? Isn't a DM allowed to decide that it's not only impossible but even a stupid thing to do ? As far as I know, the DM is absolutely allowed to decide even automatic failure on things that he deems impossible, so why is this a negative thing ? Do you think that Luke could convince the Emperor and that he really should have had a chance, however slim ?

Yes, yes, and I don't view it as a negative. My post is descriptive rather than prescriptive.

A DM's primary goal is to ensure that his or her game is fun. That's the first and foremost goal. If moving an encounter will help with that, if adding three more monsters will help, if padding out the HP a bit will help? Then, more power to the DM.

I could not disagree with this more. As the GM, I am not there to make the game fun, as fun is a buzzword (insert copypasta here). I am there to make the game fair. I am not a storyteller; I am a referee. I adjudicate rules and rolls. The players are more responsible for their fun than I am. In his later years, Gygax remarked:

The new D&D is too rule intensive. It's relegated the Dungeon Master to being an entertainer rather than master of the game. It's done away with the archetypes, focused on nothing but combat and character power, lost the group cooperative aspect, bastardized the class-based system, and resembles a comic-book superheroes game more than a fantasy RPG where a player can play any alignment desired, not just lawful good.

Circa 2004, mind you. Whether or not you agree with his overall sentiment, I could not agree more with the bolded section. GMing affords me rights--the right to interpret the rules, the right to call for rolls, the right to start and end the game, the right to Rule 0 zero things I don't like--and thus it comes with respective duties. These duties are fairness and impartiality in executing my station as GM.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Never tracking makes most of combat pointless. IMHO of course.

Heh... and there might be some of us who already believe that most of D&D combat is pointless already. And we only have it because that's what the game is D&D was designed for. So a DM just making explicit the fact is actually doing a service by not pretending like the thousands of combats a D&D character gets into over its career actually had meaning and wasn't just people playing the board game.

 

[Lyxen]

Yes, yes, and I don't view it as a negative. My post is descriptive rather than prescriptive.

OK, I'll take it a such, I'm possibly just biased by opposition to people who consider all these tools of the trade (not even) (borderline) cheating...

 

[Umbran]

The original tweet was from a DM that never tracks HP.

Still doesn't mean the outcome was predetermined. One can choose dynamically based on events without tracking hit points.

It's one thing to cut a fight short when the outcome is inevitable, it's another to never care how much damage was done along the way.

So, interestingly, "not tracked" does not mean "never care how much was done". There's a spectrum, from tracking in detail, to watching in a general sense how many are done per hit, but not writing it down, to not caring at all.

Some of the biggest cheers in my games have come when that cleric is down to sacred flame, rolls minimum damage and still takes out the monster.

And that's great for your table.

But, it doesn't make it okay to make poorly founded assertions about someone else's techniques. I mean, did you even spend one minute thinking through what that technique might look like in practice, or did you just assume the worst, and state that? The ease with which I can state alternatives suggests the latter.

Having preferences and opinions is fine. Shoddy argument isn't fine.

 

[Lyxen]

Heh... and there might be some of us who already believe that most of D&D combat is pointless already. And we only have it because that's what the game is D&D was designed for. So a DM just making explicit the fact is actually doing a service by not pretending like the thousands of combats a D&D character gets into over its career actually had meaning and wasn't just people playing the board game.

So no, even the first D&D editions beyond OD&D were not designed purely for combat. I think, like all the discussions here, it's a question of degree. Some consider combat vital, CaS, no fudging, almost "boardgame style". On the other side of the scales, you, where combat is actually almost pointless, and me, not far, were combat is interesting only when woven into the story and the little bit of randomness there and the slightly different creativity enhances the game. All of these are D&D, and I think it's one of the virtues of 5e to support all that better than most previous editions apart from early ones, which in turn explains its popularity.

 

[Maxperson]

But choice implies informed decision. Flipping a coin is not an informed decision. Not exactly the same, I just don't think flipping a coin is any better.

Choice does not imply an informed decision. I can choose to flip a coin. I must choose to arbitrarily open a door of my own volition. All choice implies is more than one option.