I think play outside of dungeon/site-based crawls has been a part of D&D since it expanded beyond the red box plain and simple. BECMI/RC has an optional skill system (most of which has little to do with dungeon delving), a domain management system, wilderness traversal rules, rules for becoming an immortal, naval rules and so on... this was all in one edition not over various ones.
That’s largely my point. The expansion of things beyond the dungeon happened incrementally, across the early editions, and with rules systems to support the new areas.
5E largely doesn’t provide those systems. Or does so in such a way that the support is minimal. Instead, 5E empowers the GM to create those structures. They offer some suggestions in the DMG, but I’d say those are mostly of minimal help.
What 5E also does is promote rulings over rules. The game grants the GM a significant amount of authority.
So GMs have two options. Create new rules ahead of play or make rulings during play.
I think either is fine, but the latter is far less structured. And I think far more likely.
What exactly do you believe is being offloaded to the DM (creation of structure, creation of mechanics, something else) ? I can't really engage with this until I understand what you mean...
The authority that would otherwise come from rules and processes.
So for example, in BX D&D, if the players decide to stay and search a room thoroughly, there’s going to be a random encounter roll made, and so they have to decide if the search is worth that risk. This is the way the game works.
In 5E, there’s no such structure in place, so when asked if they want to search the room, what makes it a meaningful choice?
The GM can give them information to help make it informed, but that’s not required, despite the fact that we’d probably all agree it’s good for the game.
But 5E just says “roll sometimes or just decide… do whatever feels right”. And that’s garbage as far as guidance goes.
Why does this matter as long as their tables are enjoying what they bring?
It depends on how much they care about D&D as a game.
Wait so you wing it and don't explain to your players what the basis you're using to wing it is? I'm confused about this and am trying to picture a situation where I don't inform my players about the mechanical ramification for choices in a situation... could you give some example? Unless you're winging it has no logic in it's basis I'm wondering how you can't provide them information that helps them make informed choices...
Yeah, when I run 5E, I absolutely wing it. I’m not saying that I don’t share details with my players, because I do. I always share the numbers such as DCs before they commit.
But I don’t write my own rules systems. I could do it, but my time’s better spent on other things.
But I benefit from my home gaming group consisting of people I’ve known and been gaming with for decades. So I have a good sense for what they expect and how to deliver it.
If I was GMing for a new group, I’d have to really change my approach. I’d probably not even bother.
I don't put much stock in the distinction... IMO nearly all ttrpg's have some component of "playing the GM"... doesn't mean the players have to make choices without being informed about choices, chances, consequences, difficulty, etc..
It’s a different thing, I’d say. I’ve recently started playing 5E after GMing for years and I find it hard to gage things. The GMs I’m playing with are a bit rusty and combined with the lack of specific mechanics, there’s not always something to grab onto, so to speak.
Either one can work… you can know and rely on rules, or you can know and (probably?) rely on the GM. If you don’t know the GM, or if they’re new, then it’s gonna be hard to know how they’ll handle things.
You're comparing different published games to homebrews of the same game... I guess my counter would be what new mechanics are those playing BitD in their home adding to make their games different... My money would be that D&D groups are adding and moding alot more than BitD groups. I mean can you have it both ways? on the one hand it's argued the lack of structure in 5e means you don't know what the experience will be when you sit down to play it but there's also a question of whether actual changes and modification is taking place to the point where games are being differentiated... well which one is it.
Okay, so there are two things. Official adaptations or hacks of games. So you have Adventures in Middle Earth and Doctors & Daleks both using the 5E system, among many others. Or you have Scum & Villainy and Band of Blades using FitD.
These games change the mechanics of the game… subtracting and adding as needed to deliver the experience they want to deliver. Because that’s the case, we can actually pinpoint and discuss or debate the impact of those changes.
With someone’s home brew, we can’t necessarily do that. Not unless they choose to share the actual mechanical changes. If they’re just winging it, we can’t do that.
What I’d love to see is an actual example of a change to 5E and why it was made, and how it changed play. I expect there are examples. I’d hope for something a bit meatier than using the gritty healing rules in the DMG.
