D&D 5E [+] Explain RPG theory without using jargon

[Charlaquin]

Let's look at a dungeon. How does the play in a dungeon progress? The GM describes a room, a quick gloss of possibly interesting contents, the exits, any marks of note, and, of course, any obvious threats. The players then take actions which prompt the GM to expand on any of these. If they search the contents, the GM provides additional information. If they investigate a threat, like a possible trap, they prompt the GM to provide more information. If they investigate a mark of note, they prompt the GM to provide more information. If they exit the room via a noted passage, they prompt the GM to provide more information.

This is clearly how it's supposed to work. It's part and parcel of "exploring the world." You do things to explore the world and the GM serves up more world! If you find this reductionist, if you find this ridicule, you really need to reexamine what you think is happening. This is the crux of play in D&D. There's nothing at all wrong with it -- it's clearly very successful and fun for many people!

Stripping out the mysticism that has built up around how D&D works is bound to be controversial. If you're extremely attached to that mysticism, I suppose it can feel like ridicule. But it's not reductionist, it's a clean description of the core loop of play. GM describes a scene, players take action, this prompts the GM to narrate more of the scene. Yes, there are mechanics the GM can choose to engage with, but many of those mechanics are aimed at success getting more of the details from the GM (perception, investigation, insight all are clear, but even many of the physical skills, like thieves' tools are vehicles to open doors or chests and get more details). I recognize this, and it's made my running of D&D better for recognizing it. I know what my primary job is, at it's core level, and can keep that in mind as I run. One of my main jobs as a 5e GM is to make the setting sing and the players feel they are a part of it. And I do that with deft execution of this loop I've identified.

Look, I really don’t think there’s anything of value to be gained by belaboring this point, but if you want to know what specifically about the post I found “venomous,” here you go:

Spoiler

Having fully fleshed out character conceptions is almost never a hinderance in 5e. The odds of having that conception challenged are slim, so long as I don't put my conception in direct conflict with the GM's ideas (if the GM is gonna run a scoundrel campaign, and I bring in a goody-goody paladin, then we have issues that are likely to arise). Doing it doesn't harm anything, and actually helps if I really like play-acting because a fleshed out character helps with good characterizations.

The implication I took away from this is that the player is pressured to create the kind of character the DM wants them to create. If they want to run a scoundrel campaign and I want to play a goody-good Paladin, we’re gonna have a problem. I also read some resentment towards the hypothetical DM in the scenario into this comment, but on reviewing it, I think that was probably my imagination.

It also doesn't really help, because the GM is unlikely to be pulling in what you've done and making it the point of play.

This seems to me to suggest that you consider it abnormal for the DM to take into account what the players want out of the game, which is certainly a thing that can happen, but in my experience it’s generally considered bad DMing form. The common advice is that the game is a group experience and while the DM may have final say, it behooves one not to play selfishly; to consider the players’ interests as well as your own and try to create a campaign everyone can enjoy. The fact that you presented the likely state of affairs to be that the DM does not take the players’ conception of their characters into account, again came across as resentment to me.

 

[Charlaquin]

I agree with the sentiment, but I'm not sure I like my friends quite that much!

I know my friends don’t like me quite that much

D&D is actually the most board game-adjacent thing I can get about half of them to play.

 

[Charlaquin]

I posted on the subject a while back, but I might as well reiterate it.

The main game I run is 5e, heavily modified (concepts from diceless games and B/X etc.), but a while back I encountered FKR, which reminded me of seeing middle school and high school kids playing D&D at lunch without books or dice.

Anyway, I spent some time running FKR (Free Kriegspiel Renaissance) games, which you can either DIY or find as indie, rules-lite games, often consisting of a few pages. If you're looking for streamlined play of the type you seem to want ... well, you can't get more streamlined that that.

In addition to being fun in and of itself, it also re-invigorated my overall play.

Thanks for the recommendation! I will do some investigation into that as well.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Look, I really don’t think there’s anything of value to be gained by belaboring this point, but if you want to know what specifically about the post I found “venomous,” here you go:

Spoiler

The implication I took away from this is that the player is pressured to create the kind of character the DM wants them to create. If they want to run a scoundrel campaign and I want to play a goody-good Paladin, we’re gonna have a problem. I also read some resentment towards the hypothetical DM in the scenario into this comment, but on reviewing it, I think that was probably my imagination.

This seems to me to suggest that you consider it abnormal for the DM to take into account what the players want out of the game, which is certainly a thing that can happen, but in my experience it’s generally considered bad DMing form. The common advice is that the game is a group experience and while the DM may have final say, it behooves one not to play selfishly; to consider the players’ interests as well as your own and try to create a campaign everyone can enjoy. The fact that you presented the likely state of affairs to be that the DM does not take the players’ conception of their characters into account, again came across as resentment to me.

Okay, thanks. That's a bit clearer.

Your issue seems to be two statements. The first is that if you build a character in contradiction to the GM's ideas for the game, that conflict will occur. I'm not sure how this is controversial -- there's lots of threads dealing with exactly this on the boards! Players wanting to play classes and races that don't fit with the GM's setting ideas, players creating characters with motivations that fight against what the GM's game themes are, etc. It's not exactly a statement that doesn't have lots and lots of evidence to support it. And, in any situation where you create a character and the GM incorporates it, then you've already sidestepped this problem. I don't see the concern here, perhaps you could expound?

For the second statement, I don't think it's very controversial to point out that anything you put in your background for your character, anything you state your character wants to do, is going to be 100% up to the GM to include. And, given that D&D is mostly a team focused game and not an individual character focused game, inclusions from your character are likely to be small if they exist at all. Again, pointing to Curse of Strahd (or any WotC AP for that matter), the adventure is completely anodyne to whatever characters show up for it. Given many of the comments here, it's clear that many players consider the game to be the GM's, and that the GM is presenting what they want for the players. I don't think this is controversial?

When I run 5e, I like to make an effort to include information the players have given me about their characters, but the reality is, even as I'm making an effort, I'm mostly using things I think of to prep the game. If I use their inputs, I'm putting my spin on them and certainly my execution of it in the game. Given how much 5e requires prep to function well (or ignoring of the system, which also works but I dislike), this is a necessary thing. And players are aware of this. Players that show up at the table expecting the game to be about their characters in 5e are roundly criticized on these boards, and, I believe, in general.

If this is venomous, okay, sorry you feel that way. To me it's just a blunt statement about the realities of play.

 

[overgeeked]

I posted on the subject a while back, but I might as well reiterate it.

The main game I run is 5e, heavily modified (concepts from diceless games and B/X etc.), but a while back I encountered FKR, which reminded me of seeing middle school and high school kids playing D&D at lunch without books or dice.

Anyway, I spent some time running FKR (Free Kriegspiel Renaissance) games, which you can either DIY or find as indie, rules-lite games, often consisting of a few pages. If you're looking for streamlined play of the type you seem to want ... well, you can't get more streamlined that that.

In addition to being fun in and of itself, it also re-invigorated my overall play.

That mirrors my trajectory. I still play and run 5E, and I love me some OSR, but Free Kriegsspiel Renaissance (FKR) is where my heart is at.

It’s how I want to play any game. The fictional world and immersion and staying in character as much as possible. And an absolute minimum of rules getting in the way.

I'm intrigued and I have meant to look into this FKR business. Could you perhaps provide a link or otherwise point us toward some solid iteration of rules (or perhaps it is "rules") used for this?

One of the current darlings is 2400 on itch.io.

2400 by Jason Tocci

Lo-fi sci-fi micro RPG collection

jasontocci.itch.io

 

[Charlaquin]

Okay, thanks. That's a bit clearer.

Your issue seems to be two statements. The first is that if you build a character in contradiction to the GM's ideas for the game, that conflict will occur. I'm not sure how this is controversial -- there's lots of threads dealing with exactly this on the boards! Players wanting to play classes and races that don't fit with the GM's setting ideas, players creating characters with motivations that fight against what the GM's game themes are, etc. It's not exactly a statement that doesn't have lots and lots of evidence to support it. And, in any situation where you create a character and the GM incorporates it, then you've already sidestepped this problem. I don't see the concern here, perhaps you could expound?

Like I said, I think I may have imagined a resentful tone that upon further review wasn’t really present in the statement. There’s nothing untrue in saying that trying to create a character that clashes with the themes of the campaign is likely to cause friction. But I got the impression that you were suggesting the DM just picks whatever themes interest them personally and the players are obligated to make characters that will suit those themes, with no room for negotiation or compromise. Something about your phrasing gave me the impression of a DM saying “If you want to play a Paladin in my scoundrel campaign, we’re gonna have a problem…” (New York accent optional). But, again, that was probably me reading too much into it.

For the second statement, I don't think it's very controversial to point out that anything you put in your background for your character, anything you state your character wants to do, is going to be 100% up to the GM to include. And, given that D&D is mostly a team focused game and not an individual character focused game, inclusions from your character are likely to be small if they exist at all. Again, pointing to Curse of Strahd (or any WotC AP for that matter), the adventure is completely anodyne to whatever characters show up for it. Given many of the comments here, it's clear that many players consider the game to be the GM's, and that the GM is presenting what they want for the players. I don't think this is controversial?

Again, there’s nothing untrue about that, but in my experience it is advised and considered to be the normal state of affairs for the DM to make an effort to account for the players’ interests and conceptions of their characters and incorporate them into the campaign. You saying that the opposite was likely is what made it seem resentful, perhaps because of unpleasant experiences with DMs not making any such effort in games you may have played in.

When I run 5e, I like to make an effort to include information the players have given me about their characters, but the reality is, even as I'm making an effort, I'm mostly using things I think of to prep the game. If I use their inputs, I'm putting my spin on them and certainly my execution of it in the game. Given how much 5e requires prep to function well (or ignoring of the system, which also works but I dislike), this is a necessary thing. And players are aware of this. Players that show up at the table expecting the game to be about their characters in 5e are roundly criticized on these boards, and, I believe, in general.

If this is venomous, okay, sorry you feel that way. To me it's just a blunt statement about the realities of play.

Are players who expect the game to be about their characters roundly criticized? The impression I get is that the criticism is more commonly directed towards DMs who don’t bend over backwards to make the game about the player characters, and your comment came across to me as a veiled example of such criticism. Sorry if I misinterpreted you, like I said, I don’t think there’s really anything of value to be gained by obsessing over this. I just mistook your intent. Sorry about that.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

Maybe it is? I'm not in it, so only have your account of it to go on!

If you suspect it's not, then I can have a guess or two about where you're probably differing from the 4 steps mentioned:

* Most D&D players do not adopt the "advocacy role" for their PCs. They have regard to other considerations, like the ones that @Charlaquin and I were talking about upthread: following the scenario, keeping to the mission, not splitting the party. (I think in the other thread you referred to a "sidequest". Implying that there is a main quest. Which implies that the players may not be adopting the advocacy role.)​

​

* Most D&D GMs don't adopt the approach described in the 4 steps: they don't frame scenes by reference to dramatic need so as to prompt a consequence-laden choice. Normally they frame scenes that are driven by some external concern (a classic one: the PCs come across a NPC under attack and get dragged into a conflict/conspiracy), or else present a bit of environment - say, a dungeon entrance - and invite the players to poke at it. (The idea of main quest/side quest is suggestive of a non-narrativist approach to scene framing and scenario design.)​

​

* When it comes to consequences/results of checks, most D&D GMs determine this at least in part by reference to bits of the fiction that are hitherto-unrevealed to the players (the classic one is missing a find traps roll leads to being hit by a trap), not by reference to an imperative of placing pressure on PCs' dramatic needs.​

If nothing in those 3 dot points is within cooee of describing your D&D play, then perhaps you are playing narrativist.

It's probably been said 500 times already in this thread, but perhaps an issue is that 5e (or most any TTRPG) can be played in very different ways.

One table could have a prepublished campaign, characters with no personal story, and a GM that is going to run a series of sections from the book exactly as they are written.

A second table perhaps has a GM with a prewritten adventure that is crafted with a few connections to the players stories weaved into it.

A third GM (me) might have absolutely no prewritten adventure in mind and instead some loose ideas of interesting things that they might throw at the PCs if the opportunity presents itself. Their session revolves around asking the players "what does your character want to do?" and then parsing how the world would react to the answers to that question. It MIGHT be "Go check out that dungeon for loot" or possibly "Go look around town for exotic animals" or even ""Go gather up supplies, build, and advertise a sandwich shop in the ground floor of our temple".

In the check out a dungeon request, then as a GM I will maybe switch modes of play and use something prewritten, and it may or may not connect to other storylines.

I'm the other two requests, however, I'm just creating things on the fly to give the player an interesting and challenging stream of feedback for as long as they want to pursue the idea. A trip to the exotic animal market might spin into a multi session trek across the world as the players direct the story.


And this is why I disagree when a game system is given a GNS label, because most games can be used to give the players whatever they want out of it.

You can have a session of 5e that's basically a tactical miniatures combat game followed by one solely roleplay that never touches a die and is about the characters confronting a mentor who let them down.

Most game are versatile enough to accommodate many playstyles, and many groups use multiple playstyles in their gaming session.

In short...why do I keep seeing the GNS labels that I have been told are for describing players tacked onto game systems themselves?

 

[Ovinomancer]

Like I said, I think I may have imagined a resentful tone that upon further review wasn’t really present in the statement. There’s nothing untrue in saying that trying to create a character that clashes with the themes of the campaign is likely to cause friction. But I got the impression that you were suggesting the DM just picks whatever themes interest them personally and the players are obligated to make characters that will suit those themes, with no room for negotiation or compromise. Something about your phrasing gave me the impression of a DM saying “If you want to play a Paladin in my scoundrel campaign, we’re gonna have a problem…” (New York accent optional). But, again, that was probably me reading too much into it.

This seems true of at least a plurality of the playerbase, though. It's certainly true if I announce I'm running a WotC AP. And, honestly, if the GM is up front about the paladin being a problem as you suggest, I think that's loads healthier than some of the things I see on these boards far too often.

Again, there’s nothing untrue about that, but in my experience it is advised and considered to be the normal state of affairs for the DM to make an effort to account for the players’ interests and conceptions of their characters and incorporate them into the campaign. You saying that the opposite was likely is what made it seem resentful, perhaps because of unpleasant experiences with DMs not making any such effort in games you may have played in.

I'm not resentful. That's the game. If I sign up to play in a WotC AP, I should not expect my character's backstory to have any impacts (unless I pick one of the specific AP backgrounds, in which case nothing else about my character matters but I'll get a nod at specific places due to that choice). This carries over into non-AP games as well, and fairly often if the discussions about it on ENW are any guide. Any inclusion of PC backgrounds is also likely to be de minimus.

Are players who expect the game to be about their characters roundly criticized? The impression I get is that the criticism is more commonly directed towards DMs who don’t bend over backwards to make the game about the player characters, and your comment came across to me as a veiled example of such criticism. Sorry if I misinterpreted you, like I said, I don’t think there’s really anything of value to be gained by obsessing over this. I just mistook your intent. Sorry about that.

Oh, no, we're verging into the conflict between Neotrad and Trad, and how Neotrad is slowly pushing trad out of the D&D space. The new things coming out in UA and hints on the 5e update are strongly indicating a return to 3e era Neotrad leaning PC build rules.

 

[overgeeked]

And in the spirit of the thread, here's an explanation of that bit of jargon we're using.

Free Kriegsspiel Renaissance or Revolution or Revival (FKR). Comes from Prussian Kriegsspiel (literally wargames) invented in 1812. The rules for those wargames were incredibly complex and difficult to learn, and, as time went on, more and more rules were added (ostensibly to add realism). But the huge amount of rules were prohibitive and fewer and fewer people were willing to learn the rules or run the game. And, because of the arcane rules, games would take longer to play out than the actual battles they were meant to emulate. Which was a problem as Kriegsspiel were meant as a teaching tool for Prussian officers. So along came free Kriegsspiel in 1873. The rules are too restrictive, too rigid to evoke realism, the rules slow things down, not enough people are willing to run the game because there are too many rules. So they chucked the rules and let the referee make rulings. Applying that to RPGs we get FKR. Basically, the idea is that rules get in the way, limit imagination and creativity, cause games to take far too long, and more often than not the complexity and precision of the rules in no way correlates to added realism. So we get the adage, "play worlds, not rules."

A useful video from Questing Beast.


And an explanatory blog post or two for good measure.

Play worlds, not rules: Juggling ideas for stone age rpg sessions

… and I don’t mean The Flintstones here. What really is driving my interest these days (in terms of roleplaying games) is to go as far back as possible with the rules. And since it&#821…

darkwormcolt.wordpress.com

How I Run and Play an Ultralight Game

I take it for granted that I know how I run and have been running my games for a few years now according to the "free kriegsspiel/FKR" (henc...

d66kobolds.blogspot.com

 

[Campbell]

@Charlaquin

There's a lot of talk about Main Character Syndrome on these boards. One recent thread (Things Pro DMs Do That You Shouldn't) put a good deal of emphasis on the conceit that you should not give individual characters too much attention (with much of the commentary coming from a player's perspective). Look at all the commentary on this thread alone on "not running 4 games" you see on these boards all the time as another example of this at work.

I have personal experience of receiving significant pushback when I have tried to accomplish individual goals in traditional games despite being wildly supportive of other players doing the same. It has taken me years of wandering to find a group that supports and appreciates a focus on individual characters.

When I mentioned seeking out the sort of play that was focused on individual characters on these boards and being willing to leave games that did not feature it I was told that I was selfish for having that desire. This has happened to me on multiple occasions over the years on these boards.