D&D General The Problem with Talking About D&D

[James Gasik]

The core issue when discussing D&D is that everyone has different expectations of not only how the game should be played, but what the game is. Some people think it's a throwback to the games of long ago.

Some people think it's a "rules lite" game that allows them to easily develop their own settings and focus on story over grit and realism.

Still others think it's "My First D&D" and only accept it as the newest version of the Red Box, and want to quickly get new players into playing "The Real Game (tm)", whatever that happens to be.

You run into all kinds, whether in the wild or on the internet, and every group insists their vision is the correct one. In truth, they are all valid, but I see a lot of resistance and pushback to alternate points of view. As if D&D can only be one thing to all people.

In the end, there is only one thing that matters. A group of players gather to play a game. Is it an epic adventure set amidst the crumbling castles of a once great kingdom? A low to the ground tale of thieves and cutthroats set in a corrupt metropolis? Or just a bunch of friends off to seek fortune and glory in the crumbling crypt of an undying Warlock?

The sky is the limit, but in the end, it comes down to the players, and the one who takes on the role of the DM. Without a DM there is no game. Without players there is no game. They have to match their expectations to proceed.

What the rest of us old fogies in the internet think, far and away from their game, is irrelevant until they seek us out for our, ahem "wisdom". That many will have fun and their time at the table becomes the stuff of legends to pass onto the next generation is all that matters.

 

[Hussar]

I really thought I was fairly clear before, but since you asked again I'll reiterate:

You made the decision based on the narrative of the scene which is exactly what the DM is supposed to do.

/snip

I hope that is clearer?

I don’t think so.

I made a decision that had nothing to do with the narrative of the scene. I made a decision based entirely on meta considerations that I could then justify within the narrative but justifying something like that is trivial.

If fudging is purely changing numbers, well it would be hard for me to do that since all my die rolls are 100% in the open.

But that seems like a fairly narrow definition. I can’t make an encounter easier by lowering the monster’s hp - which the players never actually know, but it’s okay to play the monster “softer” and that’s not doing exactly the same thing?

 

[Oofta]

It's the poster child race for "DMs hate it, players love it," and in particular, DMs citing that they won't allow it because it's OP or "ridiculous" but they do allow, y'know, three-foot-tall halfling barbarians with 24 Strength (assuming they reach level 20, that is), or half-elves, which are objectively superior to dragonborn in almost every mechanical way (more stat points that were, pre-Tashas, among the only flexible ones; extra skills, or the option to pick up benefits from any elf subrace; darkvision; and, although it's a minor benefit, an extra language.)

If you have an adult conversation with your players about it, you have not been a poor beleaguered DM--you either found a way to resolve the issue, or you found the issue was irresolvable and you went your separate ways. It is ludicrous to claim, and I quote, "houserules are so often maligned that even saying no...generates reactions once reserved for the most oppressive abusive hostile GM styles." No, it does not. That is way beyond the limits of "hyperbole" and into satire, except that I know Tetrasodium is completely serious.

Either have the adult conversation--which, y'know, this very thread seems to be all about "talk out what you're going for, don't just assume people are on the same page--or accept that the group you want to play with has a fundamental impasse about how to play.

Also, you're the one who injected "scum of the earth" into this. I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of claiming all that phenomenal cosmic DM empowerment and then getting upset when players don't instantly kowtow to it. With great power comes great responsibility--or, if you prefer a more storied version of that phrase, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, --That...Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government..."

If your players challenge you this hard, you don't have their consent anymore. Their actions demonstrate it. Getting petulant and wailing about horrific pushback doesn't solve anything. It just blames the players for a two-way-street problem. The only actual solutions are to abandon the effort as insoluble (which is unfortunate, but it is the eternal fallback), or to talk it out, to earn the players' consent.

DMs put in far more work than players. The world has to make sense to them and they have to make a world that works for all the players.

There's no one true way. Anything goes is one option. A curated list of allowed races is another is another. Telling people they're doing it wrong if they don't do it your way is exactly what Matt was complaining about. You don't get to tell me or my group we're doing it wrong.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I don’t think so.

I made a decision that had nothing to do with the narrative of the scene. I made a decision based entirely on meta considerations that I could then justify within the narrative but justifying something like that is trivial.

If fudging is purely changing numbers, well it would be hard for me to do that since all my die rolls are 100% in the open.

But that seems like a fairly narrow definition.

The narrative is the monster deciding to return to face the PCs again (the re-occurring villain--which it can't do if it is dead).

The pacing is entirely meta, but that isn't fudging either, that is you controlling the pace of the game to keep the players interested is part of the game. But, if you chose to have the monster leave because it was turning into a TPK which you didn't want, but the monster really has no reason to leave, that is fudging to me.

I can’t make an encounter easier by lowering the monster’s hp - which the players never actually know, but it’s okay to play the monster “softer” and that’s not doing exactly the same thing?

Well, look at what you are doing. If you lower the hp so the PCs kill the monster, that is very different from playing the monster and having it (reasonably) decide to retreat/leave. Not the same thing. If the monster is winning and has no reason to leave, why should it other than you choosing to make the encounter "easier". Why make it easier? If it is too hard the PCs can always leave, surrender, etc.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

DMs put in far more work than players. The world has to make sense to them and they have to make a world that works for all the players.

There's no one true way. Anything goes is one option. A curated list of allowed races is another is another. Telling people they're doing it wrong if they don't do it your way is exactly what Matt was complaining about. You don't get to tell me or my group we're doing it wrong.

You have, again, projected something onto me that I did not advocate. I recommend not doing that.

I never said "anything goes." I said have a conversation. Talk it out. Find out what people want, and pursue that if it's possible--and it is, usually, possible. Believe it or not, Colville himself advocate exactly that in his video specifically about "curated list"-type stuff, titled simply "No." The following quoted section starts at about 11:18:

Now, this is very rare, and when it happens, just saying "No!" is probably not the best (heh) solution. Better is to just remind the player of their character's perspective and ask, "Is this really what your character would do?" I'm lucky. Every time it's come up, for me, my players always at least think about it, and that's really all I ask. Because just thinking about it for a second usually either causes them to tweak what they were going to do, or come up with a better reason for doing it, and I'm okay with either of those.

So saying "no" doesn't always mean just, y'know, crossing your arms and being stubborn. Usually it means trying to find some common ground. I could have let OD play his character the way he wanted, if I had just said, "How about you play a half-elf, and instead of the half-elf bonus, you get the elf bonus you want?" I guarantee you, he would have been perfectly happy with that, and then we'd both be happy. He'd get to play the outrageous character he imagined, and I'd still have alien-seeming elves in my game. Because who says all half-elves have to get this one ability? Why can't they sometimes get the ability of their elf parent? Makes sense to me.

So I think the two reasons you say "no" are because you're trying to preserve the tone or themes or just uniqueness of your world, because that uniqueness is what makes it your world; or you think the player wants their PC to behave wildly out of character. In both instances, there are ways to say "no" that bring the player on board. Try to find out why the player wants to do something wildly out of genre or out of character. Because once you know why they want to do this weird thing, you can come up with something that lets them do what they want without damaging...verisimilitude (heh). So that's basically my advice!

In other words, in a video specifically about telling people to say no, he explicitly tells people to have a conversation, listen, find out what players really want, and pursue ways to give them what they want without the negative consequences. AKA, literally what I've been advocating, in this thread and for quite some time already, without having ever seen this video before yesterday.

 

[pemerton]

I can’t make an encounter easier by lowering the monster’s hp - which the players never actually know, but it’s okay to play the monster “softer” and that’s not doing exactly the same thing?

I still want to say that it depends on table expectations, the underlying rationale of play, etc.

If we're playing ToH in its original spirit, softballing anything is terrible GMing.

If you're GMing for my daughter and her friends, and you softball a bit to manage pacing and consequences (I mean, D&D doesn't give the GM many options to do that that won't seem like softballing), then you're doing a good job.

Horses for courses and all that. It doesn't seem very complicated to me.

 

[James Gasik]

Quote attributed to God. Maybe.

 

[Hussar]

/snip
Well, look at what you are doing. If you lower the hp so the PCs kill the monster, that is very different from playing the monster and having it (reasonably) decide to retreat/leave. Not the same thing. If the monster is winning and has no reason to leave, why should it other than you choosing to make the encounter "easier". Why make it easier? If it is too hard the PCs can always leave, surrender, etc.

Well, if the monster never returns, then it's pretty much the same thing.

But, yes, I think we're agreeing here. Where you draw the line on "fudging" depends on a lot of very personal choices about the game. Which makes it very difficult to apply more broadly. About all you can say, with any degree of accuracy, is that "I wouldn't do it that way because I don't like it".

As @pemerton mentioned, the normative language is what becomes the problem. There's nothing wrong with saying, "Well, that wouldn't work for me, because i wouldn't enjoy it". But, "You shouldn't do that because I consider it to be cheating" is going to get a lot more push back.

Note, I'm not necessarily saying that you are calling it cheating. I'm simply spring boarding off your replies and the broader conversation that's going on.

 

[Oofta]

You have, again, projected something onto me that I did not advocate. I recommend not doing that.

I never said "anything goes." I said have a conversation. Talk it out. Find out what people want, and pursue that if it's possible--and it is, usually, possible. Believe it or not, Colville himself advocate exactly that in his video specifically about "curated list"-type stuff, titled simply "No." The following quoted section starts at about 11:18:

I never said you were promoting anything goes. I said anything goes is one option. Because it is.

In other words, in a video specifically about telling people to say no, he explicitly tells people to have a conversation, listen, find out what players really want, and pursue ways to give them what they want without the negative consequences. AKA, literally what I've been advocating, in this thread and for quite some time already, without having ever seen this video before yesterday.

When I invite people to my game I ask them to read a brief document that gives them an idea of my DMing style. One is that I have an established world and for consistency I don't normally allow anything outside of a specific list of races. We can always discuss it but unless the PC can pass as an established race it's probably not going to happen, but discuss your ideas with me and we'll talk. On the other hand if someone said "I'm running a campaign and the only race allowed is X" I'd be okay with that as well. I may not be interested in that campaign, but it's up to the DM. As long as people are open and honest about expectations, I don't see an issue.

You on the other hand have not given much indication that you, as a player, are willing to compromise. You're the one talking about

...Such poor, misunderstood, abused creatures DMs are. They only have near absolute power and zero checks on that power other than players dropping the nuclear option and abandoning the table. How can they hope to have any fun or do anything interesting in the face of such cruel, malicious players, with their petulant and mocking demands?! How can they fulfill their artistic vision with pugnacious players who won't even listen to their weary, browbeaten DM trying to explain that no, you can't play a dragonborn, they don't fit in this world of crazy fantastical creatures and open defiance of physics and biology, they're insufficiently verisimilitudinous, no it has nothing whatever to do with the absolutely objective fact that they're a dumb powergamer* snowflake race.

Maybe that vaunted "DM empowerment" so many crowed about, back when 5e was in playtest, created more of a pushback than you expected. Maybe people expect DMs who actually talk with them and work through their reasoning, being open to alternate paths or pursuing consensus if it can be reached.

That all seems pretty one sided to me. That it's only ever the DM that is destroying the fun of the game. Which I know now you'll say "I never used the word destroy". You may have never stated that but the message comes across as "Give the players what they want or you're being a bad DM" whether that was your intent or not.

There is no one true way. In some cases, the DM makes all the decisions about the campaign world. In some cases the DM has some restrictions because they have an established world and preferences but are quite open after that. In some cases the campaign world is built collaboratively. If you want people to believe that you'll have an open and honest discussion as an adult about those options, perhaps toning down the rhetoric a notch or ten would help.

 

[loverdrive]

RE: houserules. My stance is quite simple: if you introduce house rules, you're playing your own game now. Give it a name of its own because it deserves one.

RE: the "problem". Yeah, there is one, and I'd say it's very deliberately created. WotC have a financial interest in keeping players playing their game, even if they don't actually want to, so of course they'll go out of their way to avoid finally growing a pair and prescribing a way of playing. Capitalism did what capitalism does, I guess.