D&D General Why Editions Don't Matter

[Imaro]

Well, that was pretty condescending.

I mean just proclaiming something doesn't feel different without explaining why... doesn't leave much room for discussion. Can't argue someone's feelings...

 

[Vaalingrade]

Well, that was pretty condescending.

Maybe they just reeeeally don't like Homicide: Life on the Street.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I can understand tweaking a spell, skill, background, etc, and I'm not saying house-ruling is bad but its just not my thing as both a player or DM. Would I play in a campaign where the DM had a page or two of rule tweaks, probably. Would I play in a game with 150-200 pages of rule changes, absolutely not. If a gaming group has been together for years or decades, then of course the players know what to expect as far as what's house ruled and most likely even had a say in their implementation. In my experience the players in my gaming group fluctuate every few years so that has mostly been my reason for not house-ruling. In all honesty off the top of my head I can't think of one thing in the core 5E books that I think are so broken or incomplete to make me want to fix them or fill in the blanks. As we're playing as the DM I'll make a ruling and get on with life.

Also that much hard codification of rulings into houserules would, IMO, be bad for the game.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I mean just proclaiming something doesn't feel different without explaining why... doesn't leave much room for discussion. Can't argue someone's feelings...

Exactly.

Also it’s just odd to me. if Dimension20 isn’t different from CR, then the only metric of difference I can imagine they are using is purely mechanical, ie they use the same rule book? Like…okay?

 

[Oofta]

You know, I think I need to do a better job of explaining why procedures are important, and how they relate to framing and player choices. This (way, way too long) post is me trying to clarify a couple of things before taking a break from this thread for a while (I've got to actually do some work sometime!).

Let's imagine that an adventuring party is delving into a lich's tomb to recover the Staff of Judgement, for reasons that don't concern us. I'm the DM, running 5e. I have a map of the dungeon, and will describe each room as the party explores it. I put a carrion crawler in one room, the lich in his chamber with the staff, and a big demon on the wandering monsters list. Examples are fictional, but extrapolated from personal experience.

In scenario (a), we use traditional exploration procedures, reaction rolls, supply tracking, the whole works, all imported from Basic or AD&D. Since we're going old-school, there will be no dice fudging.

In scenario (b), I play it by the book: which means, I just kind of wing it, aside from travel speeds and stuff like that, but I do use the keyed map, as the DMG suggests.

In scenario (c), I completely wing it, ignoring the DMG, throwing out the map, and running a linear dungeon like I've seen other people do, using only the stat blocks from the MM as guidance.

When we play (a), the PCs run into the carrion crawler, but my roll says it is asleep in its lair. The party backs up and manages to find a clever path around, then presses on until they find the lich. The fresh party sneaks up on the lich, and launches a clever attack involving holy water and an ersatz trebuchet, which I allow with an improvised ruling. Their ingenuity helps them secure a win (minus one PC, who dies in the fight), and, now low and health and supplies, they grab the staff and make a run for the exit. We're all ready to call it a night, when I roll a random encounter on the way out: the demon! The reaction roll says it is in a bad mood but will not immediately attack; I decide that this means it demands they hand over the staff. The party is not ready to take this thing on. I guess we end on a cliffhanger!

When we play (b), they PCs also run into the carrion crawler. As far as we know, beast is alert and the party can't outrun it (lots of rules for combat and none for chases mean that no-one thinks to try), so they decide to face it, taking some damage. Then they move on to the lich. The lich fight is exactly the same as in (a), including the holy water trebuchet, except that one of the PCs nearly dies. I feel bad and go easy on them, following the DMG's advice to fudge rolls occasionally. After a tough fight, I feel they've earned some downtime and we're all nearly ready to call it a night, so I decide it's not necessary to check for wandering monsters, following the DMG's advice to use them at my discretion. The party clears the remaining rooms of treasure and leaves.

In scenario (c), I decide the party needs a warm-up fight, so it encounters a quantum carrion crawler and defeats it, taking some damage. Then they say they want to push on and get the staff, so I ad-lib some gloomy dungeon descriptions and we get to the lich. The lich fight goes exactly the same as before; when it comes to the possible character death, I feel bad, since I forced them into a carrion crawler fight they didn't want, so I fudge things a bit. The PCs live happily ever after.

Some points, in no particular order:

• The loss of structure as we move from (a) through (b) to (c) reduces player choice. By the time we hit (c), the only meaningful choices made are how get past enemies/obstacles and whether to continue the adventure.
• Loss of structure increases my power as DM (in theory), but it also makes it difficult and unpleasant to exercise (in practice). Conversely, the high-structure example in (a) sometimes gives me creative prompts (like my ad-lib about the demon wanting the staff).
• The combination of strict exploration rules and players and DM reacting to those rules in (a) leads to situations no-one expected, like the sleeping carrion crawler and the demon's ultimatum. Conversely, (b) and (c) contain no surprises for me as the DM, aside from clever player tactics like the holy water.
• The ad-hoc ruling about the holy water trebuchet is in all three games.
• I am, of course, painting a picture of (a) in which the rules lead to interesting outcomes. Dull rules, a dull adventure, or bad luck might lead to rote boredom, and different people will get differing enjoyment out of different rules. So, it's not just a case of more procedure = better.

I had a longer post including how the heck does a trebuchet (or catapult of any kind) possibly work in any dungeon scenario ... but never mind. The real answer is that the entire post is pretty much a straw man. The whole point of 5E is to increase the options available to the player and DM, not limit them. You pretty much have to ignore most of the advice in the DMG to run a game as static as you describe. You've taken running thing by the book to the extreme while not explaining why any of the things that happen in your preferred scenario* could not happen using pretty much the base rules. If any DM is running a dungeon with static boring encounters, that's on the DM. No amount of rules is going to change anything.

I could see having more rules for a game focused entirely on dungeon crawls or whatever narrow style you want to name. But personally I almost never use dungeons so it would be totally a waste of time for me. Instead I want rules that help me run a dynamic game and encounters no matter where they're set. Sometimes that involves stealth or other means to avoid encounters, sometimes it involve clever tactics, sometimes it involves chase scenes (again using the rules from the DMG). All while sticking to the rules and advice for 5E.

There are dull rules. I would find OD&D static rules dull, which is probably while we ignored them. But in 5E? The DM may be dull, but that's not a result of the rules.

*Except the trebuchet thing ... you do know what that is and how they work, right? Fairly massive structure compared to it's payload that takes a significant amount to time to load, not very accurate, needs to be dialed in, sends things aloft in a parabolic arc and so on.

 

[Malmuria]

PROCEDURALISM

SLOUCHING TOWARD PROCEDURALISM “Here we come across another, very positive feature of play : it creates order, is order. Into an imperfect...

alldeadgenerations.blogspot.com

What Even Is a “Procedure”? — Prismatic Wasteland

So a game has “procedures” but what does that mean? This post presents a basic definition for an aspect of TTRPGs that is garnering more and more critical attention.

www.prismaticwasteland.com

 

[Aldarc]

Exactly.

Also it’s just odd to me. if Dimension20 isn’t different from CR, then the only metric of difference I can imagine they are using is purely mechanical, ie they use the same rule book? Like…okay?

As I am a simpleton who does not see much of a difference between them, could you explain the significant differences between the two to me?

 

[hawkeyefan]

I think D&D has moved steadily from game toward story over time and editions. The only attempt to move things back was met with vehement pushback.

I think the thing with "story" as the focus instead of game is that you lose any ability to measure anything. The reason procedures have come up in the discussion is that they offer clear and understandable processes and rules to follow in order for players to make informed choices.

When you remove a procedure like exploration turns and random encounter checks and replace it with "GM decides", you're reducing the ability of players to make informed choices. Not necessarily eliminating, but you're reducing for sure. It becomes less of a game at that point.

Now, for many people that's fine. Awesome, that's how they like their RPGs, more power to them. It would just be cool if they acknowledged that there are differences and that some things are lost with that decision.

Like, the old school dungeon crawling mechanics.... @Oofta you've mentioned how you didn't like them and ignored them and so you don't think much has changed. But that's clearly because you ignored those rules. If you followed them, you'd see how they create a different... not better or worse, just diffent... experience than what 5E delivers. 5E cannot deliver that experience "out of the box".

That's all the point has been about "completeness" and so on. What is the impact on a game when you remove a set procedure like that and replace it with one participant just deciding how that all goes? that there is an impact doesn't seem to be in doubt by anyone.... so why can't we talk about the impact.

As for Dimension20 and Critical Role, I'd say to watch the video where Matt Mercer and Brennan Lee Mulligan discuss how to GM and are largely in agreement about how they do it. Mulligan describes the players as water pouring down a hill and his job is to see where the water is going, and to then dig a channel to help guide the water along a desired path and Mercer enthusiastically agreed.


They're largely the same.

 

[Vaalingrade]

As I am a simpleton who does not see much of a difference between them, could you explain the significant differences between the two to me?

Dimension 20 is waaaay more madcap in feel. The CR crew can get zany, but Matt generally keeps the world grounded. In D20, for example, they're just straight up in a fantasy suburb where absrud mashup berween D&D and modern life is everywhere.

It's beef nachos vs chicken nachos: Both delicious, but sometimes you're vibing for one more than the other.

 

[MGibster]

I'm picturing in my mind a Modron running the most orderly game of D&D you've ever seen in your life!