D&D General Why Editions Don't Matter

[Oofta]

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?




You hadn't answered yet.

I've told you repeatedly I don't judge my players or evaluate their skill in any way that affects the game. Occasionally I'll discuss lack of tactics with my wife outside of the game but it has zero impact on the game itself.

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).

I'll tell the people make a dex save for half, most of the time I'll tell them the DC if it affects multiple people. I won't tell them that it's the legendary action of an adult red dragon in it's lair.

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.

I don't care if you don't see what it adds. Maybe it's a lair action. Maybe it's an invisible goblin pulling a lever. The players know what the PCs know; although of course many people will know just because of past player experience. In yesterday's game they were freaking out because a glowing spectral sword was attacking. It was a spiritual weapon, but they didn't know that. It added to the fun and immersion of the game for us.

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.

I follow the rules of the game. The rules state how a nature or arcana check can be used but are silent on what kind of action it would require in combat. I now use XGtE guidance for identifying a spell, it's a reaction. Some checks are free others take an action.

You've never played at my table. You don't get to tell me whether how I DM has a negative impact on the game, especially when it comes to rulings on how things work.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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.

At least half the things being spoken of are simply outside the players' ability to know or see, until after the DM has made this decision--and much of it is inaccessible to them even then. Unless you mean to say they can instantly read the Duke's mind at any time, no matter their location?

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.

When the procedure is "make up whatever my intuition tells me," it's not a procedure, or else we've watered down what the word "procedure" means until it applies to literally all actions, ever, under any circumstances. Given your past stances on the absoluteness of definitions, I'm more than a bit surprised you'd argue this.

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.

I don't see how that's even remotely possible. You explicitly called it "intuition," which isn't something that can be broken down into smaller parts; intuition simply is, otherwise it's not intuition, it's something else.

And all those other decisions are inaccessible to the players until after you make them. Which is kind of important here, isn't it? You're authoring all components of the story and then narrating it to them. They can only discover these things once you write them. Prior to you writing them, they either literally don't exist at all, or they're wibbly-wobbly quantum stuff until you decide what they are.

As @Maxperson noted, the answers to those questions can be interacted with in-character by the PCs.

After you decide them. That's still you writing the story and the players investigating to find out what it is you've written.

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

Again, your phrasing: "show [your] work," because you are authoring the scenario. The players simply react to what you've authored, which you authored by intuition, guided by your preferences.

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.

Only once you have authored it. They get no participation in the authorship--only in the response.

(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.)

Well...your above example, the "show my work" comment, pretty clearly indicates that it is, in fact, your work. That you wish to see your players enjoy it is unrelated to whether they are directing the story or not. You are the one in the driver's seat. The players are reactive to the story your intuition produces.

 

[Maxperson]

At least half the things being spoken of are simply outside the players' ability to know or see, until after the DM has made this decision--and much of it is inaccessible to them even then. Unless you mean to say they can instantly read the Duke's mind at any time, no matter their location?

I can know all of that without the DM. But then I've been playing the game a long time. Brand new players might know some, all or none of it, based on their knowledge of the game and ability to put themselves into the fiction. A bit of experience is all it takes to know these things.

None of it requires the DM to make the decision first. Being able to make a very educated guess doesn't mean that it's going to be 100% correct. It just means that I'm very likely to make the correct choice.

When the procedure is "make up whatever my intuition tells me," it's not a procedure, or else we've watered down what the word "procedure" means until it applies to literally all actions, ever, under any circumstances. Given your past stances on the absoluteness of definitions, I'm more than a bit surprised you'd argue this.

It's not make up whatever my intuition tells me, though. It's based on solid in fiction information and is well reasoned. Reason is the opposite of intuition. It's a procedure.

I don't see how that's even remotely possible. You explicitly called it "intuition," which isn't something that can be broken down into smaller parts; intuition simply is, otherwise it's not intuition, it's something else.

He said intuition, but what he spelled out in the steps for his procedure was reason, which as I pointed out is the opposite of intuition.

 

[FrogReaver]

At least half the things being spoken of are simply outside the players' ability to know or see, until after the DM has made this decision--and much of it is inaccessible to them even then. Unless you mean to say they can instantly read the Duke's mind at any time, no matter their location?


When the procedure is "make up whatever my intuition tells me," it's not a procedure, or else we've watered down what the word "procedure" means until it applies to literally all actions, ever, under any circumstances. Given your past stances on the absoluteness of definitions, I'm more than a bit surprised you'd argue this.


I don't see how that's even remotely possible. You explicitly called it "intuition," which isn't something that can be broken down into smaller parts; intuition simply is, otherwise it's not intuition, it's something else.

And all those other decisions are inaccessible to the players until after you make them. Which is kind of important here, isn't it? You're authoring all components of the story and then narrating it to them. They can only discover these things once you write them. Prior to you writing them, they either literally don't exist at all, or they're wibbly-wobbly quantum stuff until you decide what they are.


After you decide them. That's still you writing the story and the players investigating to find out what it is you've written.


Again, your phrasing: "show [your] work," because you are authoring the scenario. The players simply react to what you've authored, which you authored by intuition, guided by your preferences.


Only once you have authored it. They get no participation in the authorship--only in the response.


Well...your above example, the "show my work" comment, pretty clearly indicates that it is, in fact, your work. That you wish to see your players enjoy it is unrelated to whether they are directing the story or not. You are the one in the driver's seat. The players are reactive to the story your intuition produces.

Every rpg has the GM direct what happens (there’s a few shared DM ones where maybe that’s not the case).

in blades in the dark anytime there is a failure or success with a complication, the dm is the one that’s looking at the fiction and setting the initial position and effect. The dm is the one defining exactly what complication occurs (the player wasn’t privy to the exact nature of the complication beforehand). *Note complication or failure happens roughly 5/6 of the time.

Pretty much the only thing the dice are deciding is success or failure or complication and not the exact nature of what occurs.

There’s no procedure for how a blades GM actually produces any of that fiction. There are some principles to adhere to and a process to constrain the fiction to either success, failure or consequence, but no procedure to actually produce any particular resulting fiction. I know as one of my biggest struggles with blades is coming up with an appropriate fictional complication in certain scenarios.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I'll tell the people make a dex save for half, most of the time I'll tell them the DC if it affects multiple people. I won't tell them that it's the legendary action of an adult red dragon in it's lair.

I don't care if you don't see what it adds. Maybe it's a lair action. Maybe it's an invisible goblin pulling a lever. The players know what the PCs know; although of course many people will know just because of past player experience. In yesterday's game they were freaking out because a glowing spectral sword was attacking. It was a spiritual weapon, but they didn't know that. It added to the fun and immersion of the game for us.

Sure, I was just saying that I don't see what it adds, but I was assuming that we were talking about legendary actions. If the source of something is meant to be uncertain, I get that... but I was assuming like a red dragon in it's lair isn't something worth maintaining a mystery about what's causing the magma. If it's an invisible goblin with a lever and not a lair action, I would likewise not share that with the players.

I follow the rules of the game. The rules state how a nature or arcana check can be used but are silent on what kind of action it would require in combat. I now use XGtE guidance for identifying a spell, it's a reaction. Some checks are free others take an action.

You've never played at my table. You don't get to tell me whether how I DM has a negative impact on the game, especially when it comes to rulings on how things work.

I'm not telling you anything about your game. I'm describing how not adhering to rules can damage a game for many participants. It seems you would agree with that since you say you follow the rules. But even if you didn't, and you broke every rule in the book, if your players are all enjoying the game and so are you, then it's all fine.

My point about that was that the areas of the game that lack structure such as combat can be equally frustrating to people. I was trying to demonstrate that.

 

[FrogReaver]

On that note. D&D is often criticized for treating combat differently than other aspects of the game. Blades in the dark does exactly the same thing. Scores (basically their version of a scene/mission) follow different rules than downtime for example.

 

[Oofta]

At least half the things being spoken of are simply outside the players' ability to know or see, until after the DM has made this decision--and much of it is inaccessible to them even then. Unless you mean to say they can instantly read the Duke's mind at any time, no matter their location?


When the procedure is "make up whatever my intuition tells me," it's not a procedure, or else we've watered down what the word "procedure" means until it applies to literally all actions, ever, under any circumstances. Given your past stances on the absoluteness of definitions, I'm more than a bit surprised you'd argue this.


I don't see how that's even remotely possible. You explicitly called it "intuition," which isn't something that can be broken down into smaller parts; intuition simply is, otherwise it's not intuition, it's something else.

And all those other decisions are inaccessible to the players until after you make them. Which is kind of important here, isn't it? You're authoring all components of the story and then narrating it to them. They can only discover these things once you write them. Prior to you writing them, they either literally don't exist at all, or they're wibbly-wobbly quantum stuff until you decide what they are.


After you decide them. That's still you writing the story and the players investigating to find out what it is you've written.


Again, your phrasing: "show [your] work," because you are authoring the scenario. The players simply react to what you've authored, which you authored by intuition, guided by your preferences.


Only once you have authored it. They get no participation in the authorship--only in the response.


Well...your above example, the "show my work" comment, pretty clearly indicates that it is, in fact, your work. That you wish to see your players enjoy it is unrelated to whether they are directing the story or not. You are the one in the driver's seat. The players are reactive to the story your intuition produces.

My answer to this whole line of thought as I understand it is simple. Why would the players have any information the PCs do not? A big part of my campaigns is trying to uncover secrets, find out information about opponents. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes there's a trade-off that the PCs have to take into consideration when trying to gather information. Speak to the wrong person and the enemy learns your plan.

A lot of the fun of the game for me is not knowing everything perfectly. YMMV of course.

 

[hawkeyefan]

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.

How is he not? The GM decides the outcome. "How close are the Duke and his scary knights to tracking down the PCs" is the question.

The GM considers a lot of factors per the description from @Xetheral .

Then he decides.

It's not an abuse of anything.... it's the process as described.

It's not make up whatever my intuition tells me, though. It's based on solid in fiction information and is well reasoned. Reason is the opposite of intuition. It's a procedure.

But what does that in fiction information do? It informs the GM, but does it limit what he can decide in some way? If he looks at all those factors and determines "There's a 75% chance the scary knights find the PCs within 24 hours if they don't leave town" and then the PCs don't leave town.... what happens?

There's a 75% chance they're found
There's a 25% chance they avoid detection.

How do these figures matter if there's no roll? It's jut the GM deciding what he wants to happen, or what he considers makes sense.

The GM is just deciding what happens. He may decide the likely thing happens or he may decide the unlikely thing happens. In which case, whatever information the players may have obtained to inform their decision to flee or to stay is utterly meaningless.

 

[FrogReaver]

Well look at the process that was described by @Xetheral . The GM is deciding all the things that are going to happen. Yes, he's considering the relevant fiction and other factors to make that decision (which I would hope is always a factor), but he's still deciding what happens based on what's "most plausible", with possible exceptions based no pacing and current level of player energy and engagement.

I think often times things get evaluated as equally plausible. In which case some other consideration than plausibility takes precedence.

Are there dice rolls involved? Something else beyond the GM deciding?

Sometimes. DM's in 5e often do the equivalent of a fortune roll to help them determine what is occuring in a sandbox. When the players get involved there are usually some skill checks.

Though I'm a bit confused why dice matter so much. Dice determine success or failure. Success is usually fairly clear cut (you do the thing you were trying), but dice don't usually tell you the nature of failure. That's true in 5e as well as a game like Blades in the Dark. On failure they at most constrain the DM to pick some consequence that makes sense with the fiction. The particular fictional nature of that consequence is fairly wide open.

So this is why some of us see this as this being the GM telling a story. It affords the players the base amount of say through control of their characters, and then the rest is for the GM to decide. I mean, 5E describes the DM as the "lead storyteller".

Now, this isn't a problem. It's just the way the game works.

To me that same kind of criticism can also apply just as easily to blades in the dark. The GM does basically the same thing there.

 

[Imaro]

I think often times things get evaluated as equally plausible. In which case some other consideration than plausibility takes precedence.


Sometimes. DM's in 5e often do the equivalent of a fortune roll to help them determine what is occuring in a sandbox. When the players get involved there are usually some skill checks.

Though I'm a bit confused why dice matter so much. Dice determine success or failure. Success is usually fairly clear cut (you do the thing you were trying), but dice don't usually tell you the nature of failure. That's true in 5e as well as a game like Blades in the Dark. On failure they at most constrain the DM to pick some consequence that makes sense with the fiction. The particular fictional nature of that consequence is fairly wide open.


To me that same kind of criticism can also apply just as easily to blades in the dark. The GM does basically the same thing there.

I felt the same way about BitD when I ran it... even expressed it on these very forums and was basically told there was no way I had actually played BitD "correctly" if these were my conclusions. It's one of the reasons I don't really discuss it when it comes up now... Good luck