D&D General Why Editions Don't Matter

[Oofta]

[Concerning a nature check to tell if a blizzard is coming while travelling through the mountains]

Do you call for a nature check, or do the players do it themselves? If the latter, how did they learn to do that?

Either. Some will just be common knowledge and exposition before travel starts, if the group is familiar with the area they will know that travel in the high mountains can be dangerous. If they're new to the area it depends on if they chatted with the locals. A lot of times it simply comes down to what I think the PCs would know or likely to do. They can also mention that they're keeping an eye on the weather or simply ask for a check.

As an example of a scenario where they know bad weather is approaching, they need to do something. I'll give them a chance to come up with ideas, possibly looking for a cave or building a shelter which could result in perception or survival checks. But I may also remind them of something they've forgotten or have them roll to see if they think of a different option I know about that they do not.

The main point is that as a DM I want to establish a fiction that has interesting challenges, ties to NPCs, motivation beyond just killing things for loot (not that there's anything wrong with that). Ultimately all I can say is that I want the world to feel "real". Sometimes the PCs have to deal with the fog of war, sometimes what they thought was fact is instead fiction, sometimes they know more about their opponent(s) than the opponent knows but sometimes it's switched.

So I'm not "training" my players to do anything, I'm trying to accommodate their style while hopefully building interesting campaigns together.

 

[Maxperson]

While I agree that it isn't exactly a friendly response, there's a valid critique in there as well. That is, the first three points can be summarized as answering the questions:

• "Does the Duke care? How much?"
• "What would it cost?"
• "How long would it take?"

The answers to all of these questions is completely up to the DM, to a degree that the players really could not even in principle question it, making this "process" little more than deciding what story to narrate.

Completely disagree. The PCs know how much they've interfered with the duke and have probably had interaction with him. They would have a very solid basis for ballparking the questions "Does the duke care? How much?" They also live in the world and would be able to ballpark the cost to the duke, as well as guess at how long it would take with his resources to catch up to them.

Based on very reasonable knowledge of those things, they can then make a very educated guess at what the duke might do and plan accordingly.

From there, they note that this isn't actually much of a procedure. Instead, it's a single, holistic, interconnected event, something that cannot be meaningfully picked apart in practice. That yet further emphasizes that this is, at rock bottom, an exercise in DM imagination more than player participation. Players can attempt to provide input, but ultimately the DM's brain is the black box that makes the system run, and truly changing how that black box turns inputs into outputs is going to be...difficult at best.

It is in fact a procedure. A procedure can have a single step, so if he always considers things in a consistent manner, figuring out from the circumstances what the best course of action for an NPC is, that is a procedure.

 

[Baron Opal II]

From my perspective in order for a game to be about rulings over rules a GM must be principally constrained to consider only the situation at hand and their understanding of the setting. For it to be a ruling it cannot just be deciding without constraints. You cannot both be lead storyteller and referee. You must choose one or the other.

Interesting thought.
I don't think that I've ever considered myself to be a storyteller, except after the fact. Maybe sometimes before when I'm figuring out the consequences of the player's actions and how that might affect the plans of others. Certainly not in the moment of play.
Hmm.

 

[Oofta]

That may mean they're enjoying the game.

Is there any skill on the player's part? That they can play the game well or poorly?

Not sure why you keep asking. Player skill does not matter.

So that's a good example. Maybe the players don't know what a legendary monster can do. But they must know that it gets legendary actions that allow it to act more than once per turn, right? There's a format there that they understand and can expect.

Nope. They may not know why things are happening at all. I'll describe what's going on, they'll understand that a geyser of magma just erupted and they need to make a dex save. If they ask why I may just shrug and say "You don't know". It depends though, under some circumstances their PC will know what's going on or at least have a chance to.

So this sounds like what you're saying is that you'd go with the rules over the story if needed. That if a PC has some implied destiny... some major goal they're working toward... but they get dropped below 0 HP and then fail 3 death saves, they're dead. Their story ends in an unsatisfying way, but the rules are upheld.

Does that sound right?

I'm always careful with destinies, prophecies and making one PC too central to the story because I never assume a PC will live. I don't typically do super deadly campaigns but permanent PC death is never off the table.

It's why I also avoid truly apocalyptic scenarios. I'm too lazy to write up a whole new campaign world and I don't guarantee the PCs will succeed. On the other hand if the PCs stop the dragon emperor from taking over a nation that just gives me cool stories to build on in the future if I want.

Sure, these procedures help to constrain the GM so that the game doesn't consist solely of things the GM has decided, but instead many outcomes are determined by dice. The GM is less free to just establish what happens, and I think you guys are conflating that for lack of flexibility, but I don't think it's the same thing.

The players have to follow processes and procedures all the time. Why should the GM be different?

Now, if you don't like to have to keep track of all that stuff and be aware of what processes are called for and when, then sure, get rid of them. Just be aware of how that impacts the game.

We ignored the expected process back in the day, after a while I tossed skill challenges as written in 4E. I also don't do random monsters as another example, at least not at game time. Sometimes I'll roll the dice for inspiration while prepping but the only time I'll use dice is if there's uncertainty on the chance of encountering something I had already planned. For example if there's a patrol that walks the perimeter of a fort there's uncertainty of if the patrol will come across the PCs. But the patrol was always there, it was always walking the perimeter.

For the actions of the NPC/monster encountered I follow the rules of action economy and effects. Sometimes, based on their motivations and role in the scenario, their actions may be uncertain. Simple example would be who is attacked first if no PC stands out as particularly vulnerable or threatening.

Yeah, but with a book you're not also helping to write it. If you were, you'd likely need to keep in mind that you're writing a book.

I can still get immersed in the story whether DMing or playing. Many authors talk about how the individuals end up doing things they never expected. I've had PCs and NPCs do things I never would have anticipated because for that character it made sense in the moment. While I establish a fair amount of background and motivation, most interactions are improv and can surprise me.

This kind of implies that other ways of playing render Bjorn as nothing more than stats.

I'm sure there's a spectrum of role playing. For some Bjorn will just be a build, for others it's very personal. I'm only discussing my personal preference, I make no judgement calls on what others enjoy.

 

[FrogReaver]

And, in this we can note there are reasons why players may be more or less proactive, and it doesn't all come down to, "that's just the way they are."

And the difference between them may seem, to many, to be equivalent to "confinement".

I’m the worlds worst for sandboxy video games. As an example my experience with oblivion was that once i was past the intro and had freedom to do whatever. I’d wander the map aimlessly looking for anything remotely shiney. Eventually I’d wander near the edge of the map and spend a few hours trying to jump scale up the mountains, eventually reaching as high as possible. Then when that got boring I was too far away from any story quests, too much time had elapsed for me to remember what they were anyways, and if I would have been presented any significant choices in them I’d waffle to long deciding what to do to the point it wouldn’t be fun. And this was all after spending countless hours figuring out character creation down to a science.

Did I have to play it that way. Probably not, but that’s how it ended up for me. Could I explain why that was? Nope.

 

[Xetheral]

I don't really accept the manual vs. toolkit analogy. I see all rules as toolkits. To extend the analogy: I want a complete set of tools to work with, and clear instructions on what they do. Then I can make informed decisions about how I employ them.

I'd be good with a system with a complete set of tools and clear descriptions of what they can do. 5e definitely could be improved on the later count! (The deliberately ambiguous stealth rules, for example, would have been aided by a thorough discussion of the decision points left to the DM and the gameplay implications of the DM's choices.) And whether or not the provided gameplay mechanics of 5e are sufficiently complete (see mentions upthread of the lack of naval combat mechanics and individualized magic item pricing) is of course a matter of taste.

But you've argued that 5e needs more DMing procedures--in the toolkit analogy, are you viewing those missing procedures as missing tools from the kit, or missing instructions on how to use them?

As for your system, a couple of points. The first is that this seems like a massive cognitive load to me; I'd want some kind of mechanical shorthand for some elements, so that I don't forget something important.

Cognitive load is a definite downside to my approach. However, it allows for gameplay results that can (try to) balance in-fiction considerations (the duke's motivations and resources, PC efforts to avoid/attract attention) with out-of-game considerations (pacing tailored to players' emotional state, an intentional emphasis on effectuating player agency) that a mechanical shorthand can't consider.

The second is about this line: "My deliberate bias towards ensuring that the PCs' actions impact the course of events and/or the state of the game setting." That's a huge, positive, and arguably even necessary step, IMO. My belief is that 5e does next to nothing to support this out of the box (and arguable subverts it, with the emphasis on things like easy fights and pre-plotted adventures).

I entirely agree. By leaving decisions on the impactfulness of the PCs' actions to the DM, 5e leaves open the possibility that the DM won't emphasize (or, worst case, won't permit) such impact. I agree that is a drawback of 5e's emphasis on DM resolution. But, even assuming that a hypothetical mechanical resolution of (e.g.) whether/when the duke catches up to the PCs could ensure impactfulness, by removing the DM's input to the resolution process you'd also lose the DM's ability to balance in-fiction and out-of-game considerations on the fly.

More broadly, I don't see any way to add to 5e enough mechanical DMing procedures that you'd consider it "complete" without losing what I consider to be 5e's strengths.

 

[FrogReaver]

@hawkeyefan

Above is an excellent example by @Xetheral criticizing 5e while simultaneously liking it.

It’s not the only example but I thought I’d point it out as a common complaint has been that people object to criticism of 5e.

 

[Xetheral]

While I agree that it isn't exactly a friendly response, there's a valid critique in there as well. That is, the first three points can be summarized as answering the questions:

• "Does the Duke care? How much?"
• "What would it cost?"
• "How long would it take?"

The answers to all of these questions is completely up to the DM, to a degree that the players really could not even in principle question it, making this "process" little more than deciding what story to narrate. The bullet-points which follow can be summarized with "be consistent" x2 and "do what sounds fun (to me as DM)" x3. While the players' interests are considered in an oblique way, those interests only exist insofar as they feed into Xetheral's own interests; note the repeated use of phrases like "my preference," "my deliberate bias," "my perception." This reinforces the DM-as-author (or at least DM-as-director) stance being taken here.

From there, they note that this isn't actually much of a procedure. Instead, it's a single, holistic, interconnected event, something that cannot be meaningfully picked apart in practice. That yet further emphasizes that this is, at rock bottom, an exercise in DM imagination more than player participation. Players can attempt to provide input, but ultimately the DM's brain is the black box that makes the system run, and truly changing how that black box turns inputs into outputs is going to be...difficult at best.

Despite being holistic rather than step-by-step my procedure can be picked apart in the sense that I don't just end up with a decision on when/if the duke shows up, I also end up with decisions regarding the duke's priorities and resources, as well as the effectiveness of actions the PCs have taken (deliberately or otherwise) to influence those priorities and resources.

As @Maxperson noted, the answers to those questions can be interacted with in-character by the PCs. The PCs can learn about and interfere with the duke's resources and motivations either in an attempt to influence whether/when the duke catches up to them, or (assuming the duke encounter or lack thereof leads to further intrigue) after the fact. Even in the case where the PCs didn't know which political figure would be coming after them, the encounter itself is going to "show my work" so to speak, so the players will learn about the duke's motivations and resources, as well as see how their past actions led to the encounter at that particular time and place. (Or, if the duke decides not to pursue, whatever actions he takes instead will provide similar information to the players.)

Ultimately, my process is as transparent as I can make it from an IC perspective. How I'm balancing the competing in-fiction and out-of-game priorities in my decision making is indeed a "black box" during play, but if players are interested I'm happy to discuss how I balanced the factors after the game.

So I disagree with your claim that my players have no input. To the contrary, through my admitted bias towards towards ensuring that PC actions are impactful, my process is deliberately intended to honor player input via their PCs' actions.

(As an aside, I'd like to note that my repeated use of personal statements when describing my procedure was intended to avoid any appearance of making normative statements about how the game should be played. My intent was not to convey that I place my own sense of fun over that of my players. Indeed, what I most enjoy about DMing is seeing my players' enjoyment.)

 

[hawkeyefan]

Completely disagree. The PCs know how much they've interfered with the duke and have probably had interaction with him. They would have a very solid basis for ballparking the questions "Does the duke care? How much?" They also live in the world and would be able to ballpark the cost to the duke, as well as guess at how long it would take with his resources to catch up to them.

Based on very reasonable knowledge of those things, they can then make a very educated guess at what the duke might do and plan accordingly.

What are the amounts? How do they know them? How can the players act on them?

Players, not PCs. How do these things come to the players attention? In what format? Narration of events by the GM? More than that?

Even if they know these odds, what does that matter if the GM is free to just decide how it all turns out?

Not sure why you keep asking. Player skill does not matter.

You hadn't answered yet.

Nope. They may not know why things are happening at all. I'll describe what's going on, they'll understand that a geyser of magma just erupted and they need to make a dex save. If they ask why I may just shrug and say "You don't know". It depends though, under some circumstances their PC will know what's going on or at least have a chance to.

So a couple things on this. Clearly, they know there is something causing a magma geyser... I'm guessing the scene was in a volcanic type location, or the enemy was some kind of fire themed monster. If so, they're likely to grasp "this is a property of the environment/monster" even if they don't know exactly how it works (i.e. determined randomly in some manner, or GM decides who gets hit and when). That they will need to make a saving throw is also understood, likely for half damage? (Uncertain, but that's pretty typically for area attacks like that).

They likely also know that they may be able to use applicable skills to learn more. They understand that these are the processes of play, and what goes into them. It's all part of a combat encounter, which has as much structure to it as 5E offers.

Now, I'd question what withholding any of that really adds to play. Like if you want there to be uncertainty on the part of the players.... like "I'm worried when one of those magma geysers will hit" you can actually replicate that with the uncertainty of a dice roll. Uncertainty doesn't have to come from withholding information from the players.

My second thought on this is what if you just discarded some of the structures that are involved? Like, they don't get a save, they just are hit by magma and take 20 damage. No, they can't use Nature or Arcana or Investigation checks to learn any more. And so on. Removing the structure would likely have a negative impact on the play of the game.

 

[Maxperson]

What are the amounts?

Not really relevant. This isn't a board game where you need to now the precise numbers of everything to act.

How do they know them?

They are part of the fiction and will know things about the fiction that you or I would not know, including how resources could be spent by a duke who wants revenge.

How can the players act on them?

Non-detection. Veering away from where they were intending to go to lose any pursuers. Setting a trap. Laying in wait to ambush. Hiring mercenaries to defend or go on the offense. Hiding their trail. Going back to get the duke first. And the list goes on and on and on and on and on and on.

These things each alter the narrative, so the DM is not "telling a story." with his actions and narrations of what the duke is doing. It's collaborative based on DM and player actions and reactions.

Players, not PCs. How do these things come to the players attention?

Players could have their PCs do research if they feel that the PC might not know.

The players could just assume information based on what the PCs would know. I don't need to ask the DM if the duke that I've pissed off 10 times, spoiling 9 lengthy and costly plots, wants revenge on me. I know he does and can act to head that off.

The DM informs if the players aren't thinking of something that the PC would just know. The DM is failing at his job if he doesn't do this. None of us, DM or player, has the expertise at knowing how the fictional world works as well as the PCs do.

NPCs.

Magic.

The list goes on.

In what format? Narration of events by the GM? More than that?

It has to be more since the DM and players are acting and reacting to one another.

Even if they know these odds, what does that matter if the GM is free to just decide how it all turns out?

Because he's not. At least not without violating the social contract not to be a douche and being a really horrible DM. The DM has the power to do that, but it's an abuse of that power to use it that way. Abuses are social contract violations.