D&D General Why Editions Don't Matter

[Oofta]

Let's take 4E's skill challenges as an example of how D&D tried to implement procedural approach to non-combat encounters.

NOTE: I'm talking about how I saw skill challenges used, I'm sure others had better luck. I still use something akin to skill challenges now and then, just with more flexibility for success and potential complications for failure. I think the core concept was decent and should be expanded upon for at least some challenges, but it needed more playtesting.

For those who aren't familiar, skill challenges involved multiple skill checks and required X number of successes before Y number of failures. The target DCs were dependent on challenge rating and difficulty. You could go from needing 5 successes before 2 failures up to needing 12 successes before 6 failures. The more a skill was used the higher the target DC.

The DM decided what the goals were, what happened on success and failure. They also decided which skills were appropriate. When running a skill challenge the DM was supposed to let the players know the goals and appropriate skills, it was then run similar to a combat with initiative and every PC needing to do something on their turn. Players could use a skill the DM hadn't thought of if they could convince the DM that it could be useful.

In theory, this all sounds great and I thought it was a cool idea when I first saw it. But in practice? It was just going around the table while people looked at their sheet and rolled a dice. While you could use alternative skills but that usually turned into "how can I convince the DM to allow something I'm good at" which was a player skill, not a PC skill.

In my experience to turned out to be very detrimental to creativity and I stopped using them in my home game. They became very boring and frustrating for people I played with, it had a tendency to kill role playing and alternative approaches to overcoming obstacles. If someone came up with a solution that should have ended the challenge immediately, it still only counted as 1 success. It became "Okay, Bob is good at skill X so he'll use that. Sue is good at Y, Kim what is your PC good at?"

The thing is that after a while people would literally groan at the table when someone announced we were starting a skill challenge. So I'm not sure I can disagree more with "procedures make the game inherently better." In my experience they are just as likely to make the game worse.

 

[Thomas Shey]

It is the superior system. Just a nightmare to run because, in it's largest flaw, NPCs are built like PCs. And what makes for a fun character creation, leads to days of literal worldbilding.

Eh. Its easy enough to use generic NPCs for most purposes, especially outside the superheroic genre. I did it for literally decades.

 

[Minigiant]

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.

It's thinking it's less "Moving from Game to Story" and "Moving from Dungeons to Adventures".

Because you can't do straight storyless dungeons forever and make millions of dollars and have millions of fans. Every Single Major Dungeon Crawling series, pen and paper, board, or video game, has moved to adventures outside dungeons.

And adventure outside the dungoen has 10x the rules and 10x the genres.

 

[Imaro]

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.

But... some don't agree that the impact has been a less "complete" game. I don't think anyone objects to discussing it... but this seems more concerned with the fact that some in that discussion come to a different conclusion than others.

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.

So GM styles is the determiner of difference?

 

[Minigiant]

In theory, this all sounds great and I thought it was a cool idea when I first saw it. But in practice? It was just going around the table while people looked at their sheet and rolled a dice. While you could use alternative skills but that usually turned into "how can I convince the DM to allow something I'm good at" which was a player skill, not a PC skill.

In my experience to turned out to be very detrimental to creativity and I stopped using them in my home game. They became very boring and frustrating for people I played with, it had a tendency to kill role playing and alternative approaches to overcoming obstacles. If someone came up with a solution that should have ended the challenge immediately, it still only counted as 1 success. It became "Okay, Bob is good at skill X so he'll use that. Sue is good at Y, Kim what is your PC good at?"

TIP:
This happens if you forget 2 major rules on Skill Challenges.

Rule 1: Each PC can only use a secondary skill once.
Rule 2: Secondary skills have a DC one difficulty higher

When the DM runs a skill challenge, they are supposed to announce the primary skills of the challenge. Every other skill can only be rolled once per PCand a harder DCs. Doing that forces the PCs to mostly use the primary skills and not just what they are good at.

 

[Mistwell]

=

In 5e, establishing the location is a DM's responsibility, I guess? I'm fine with that. How do I do that, though? Am I allowed to start my PCs in a jail cell with no stuff, or do they get some say in it? How do I decide if and when monsters attack? Can my players influence where we go in the next scene, or do they have to go where I tell them?

This is the kind of basic stuff I'm talking about when I say 'joining the dots'. Experienced DMs will have their own answers to these questions, but new ones often struggle.

This is all covered in the D&D Starter Set.

 

[Malmuria]

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.

IMO, it's more that the game has moved from an exploration-focus to a combat-focus. 5e still involves strongly defined procedures. Namely, there is a very well defined procedure for combat in 5e: a strict turn order, and on each turn a very concrete set of things each participant can do. Whereas in a classic dungeon crawl whatever story emerges from the way the PCs negotiate the space and from randomizing elements, in a modern (wotc) style the story emerges from a set of encounters that lead into one another 5-room dungeon style. This is also why the "random encounter" loses purpose in a modern playstyle: the wandering monster goes from an encounter that can/should be avoided, that yields relatively little xp, and that might even randomly turn up friendly to something that provides more xp and ought to fit within the daily encounter budget.

The classic dungeon crawl requires several things: keeping track of light sources and limited dark/infra vision, movement rates that require tracking encumbrance, xp for treasure which implies a motivation for each character, and a relatively dangerous environment to provide tension and stakes. Personally, I enjoy all that, but I'm not sure those features are desired by most players. In other words, the combat mini-game is more fun than the exploration mini-game for a lot of people.

Meanwhile, this doesn't make exploration into "GM decides" I don't think. Mostly the GM does not decide: dark vision, light cantrip, high encumbrance limits, guidance cantrip, goodberry and create water, ranger abilities, pass without trace, short rests etc etc, are all ways for players to obviate exploration challenges without much reference to GM adjudication. That's why, imo, transporting procedures from b/x to 5e isn't sufficient without some other house rules.

Jokes aside, yes, the edition/hack you are using will affect gameplay (and thus "matters," whatever that means) if run purely as written, but it doesn't make (for me) any edition I've played feel more authentically dnd.

 

[Imaro]

This is all covered in the D&D Starter Set.

Funny that... it's almost as if anyone brand new to the game should start with this set... go figure.

 

[Campbell]

@Imaro

I love D&D. I love multiple versions of D&D. I have 4 different versions on my bookshelf. Of course there is variety in how things are done from table to table. There is still far more that is similar from table to table then is different. The same is true for damn near any game I have direct experience with.

Look at any two Blades in the Dark APs (even the two different ones John Harper has run). You will see the same sort of differences in tone and style. You will also see that the fundamental structure of play does not differ very much from table to table. Just like modern D&D.

No one is saying there's no difference from table to table. Just that D&D is not particularly special in this regard. I don't see why we feel I need to raise D&D up by continually putting other games down or putting forward the idea that D&D can achieve the same sorts of play you find in games like Sorcerer or Blades.

 

[Hex08]

Exactly.

You could have just decided to move on, said you disagreed but the poster is entitled to his point of view or point out that you can't argue with someone's feelings. There are still mature, productive ways of responding (or not responding), instead, you just laughed at @Campbell. The laughter is what made it condescending and totally unproductive.