D&D General Why Editions Don't Matter

[Micah Sweet]

I don't think it's confusion over the basic play loop (though I don't want to put words in other people's mouths).

Suppose I say 'I want to punch this innkeep in the face' (using my authority over my character).

The DM is expected to respond. Fine. Does this trigger an initiative roll? What if the DM says 'OK, you punch him in the face', and I say, 'no, I want to fight him, roll initiative.' Or vice versa. Who is in the right?

Obviously, it's not an insurmountable problem. It is an absence in the rules, though: as @hawkeyefan said, you're expected to insert your own expectation.

I wouldn't say this is a complete non-issue in actual play, by the way. For example: as DM, I've occasionally resolved fights without going to initiative, especially in a dungeon situation where there are lots of weak enemy groups, or in situations like duels or fistfights where it seemed more sensible to handle them narratively. Some of my players were surprised by this. If the rules had some simple guidelines as to when to roll, and when not to roll, this wouldn't be an issue. It might also help novice DMs who might not realise that not rolling initiative is even an option.

I would just tell the player to make an unarmed attack roll, and see what happens. If the innkeep wants to fight back, then we roll initiative.

Now, if the innkeep was expecting a punch to the face, I might have everyone roll initiative right away. Ultimately, it's a DM call, not a player one, to roll initiative IMO.

 

[Oofta]

I don't think it's confusion over the basic play loop (though I don't want to put words in other people's mouths).

Suppose I say 'I want to punch this innkeep in the face' (using my authority over my character).

The DM is expected to respond. Fine. Does this trigger an initiative roll? What if the DM says 'OK, you punch him in the face', and I say, 'no, I want to fight him, roll initiative.' Or vice versa. Who is in the right?

Obviously, it's not an insurmountable problem. It is an absence in the rules, though: as @hawkeyefan said, you're expected to insert your own expectation.

I wouldn't say this is a complete non-issue in actual play, by the way. For example: as DM, I've occasionally resolved fights without going to initiative, especially in a dungeon situation where there are lots of weak enemy groups, or in situations like duels or fistfights where it seemed more sensible to handle them narratively. Some of my players were surprised by this. If the rules had some simple guidelines as to when to roll, and when not to roll, this wouldn't be an issue. It might also help novice DMs who might not realise that not rolling initiative is even an option.

The DM decides if it's initiative or just an intimidation check. The PCs don't know if the bartender, a werewolf or an Ancient dragon that will start laughing and start making demands of the PCs. Or, as you mentioned the DM waves combat.

The DM describes, players say what they do, DM decides what happens. Rinse and repeat.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Does this thing that was said mean this other thing that wasn't even hinted at?

No, there is no implication here that thinking editions matter means one is anti-D&D.



Well, from here, it looks like you are reading a lot into it that isn't actually present in the statements. That would lead to it seeming bizarre.

Okay then...what does "the whole pro D&D side" mean in this context? Because it sure confused the hell out of me.

 

[FrogReaver]

Okay then...what does "the whole pro D&D side" mean in this context? Because it sure confused the hell out of me.

The immediate context around the 'pro D&D side' comment.

Such a sad world in which "play to find out what happens" is a radical and innovative idea basically unheard of in the mainstream.

Even more sad when people are made to feel as if their preferences somehow make the world a worse place.

To be fair, I think the pro D&D side (as a whole) are just as guilty of that toward other preferences.

 

[Campbell]

The immediate context around the 'pro D&D side' comment.

I do not think it makes a lot of sense to link not liking D&D to not liking linear adventures and/or GM storytelling. If that were truly the case then the entirety of the OSR movement would be anti-D&D. Is that really a hill anyone wants to die on? Lot's of people who are primarily D&D DMs and players have similar feelings. I think @Yora fits that category based on other posts I have seen.

The Dragonlance ruined everything comment in particular is a meme within OSR spaces. I don't really agree although I appreciate the frustration that it expresses. I personally do not think any particular way to play roleplaying games should be seen as radical. It can be somewhat fraught on these boards to express a preference for games without GM storytelling or fudging.

 

[pemerton]

Well, from here, it looks like you are reading a lot into it that isn't actually present in the statements. That would lead to it seeming bizarre.

As I read it, I am being described as "anti-D&D". Despite having played D&D on-and-off for 40 years, playing regular RPG sessions using one of the most iconic of D&D settings, etc.

I don't understand why one small group of posters get to own being "pro-D&D".

 

[FrogReaver]

I do not think it makes a lot of sense to link not liking D&D to not liking linear adventures and/or GM storytelling. If that were truly the case then the entirety of the OSR movement would be anti-D&D. Is that really a hill anyone wants to die on? Lot's of people who are primarily D&D DMs and players have similar feelings. I think @Yora fits that category based on other posts I have seen.

The Dragonlance ruined everything comment in particular is a meme within OSR spaces. I don't really agree although I appreciate the frustration that it expresses. I personally do not think any particular way to play roleplaying games should be seen as radical.

I've been in countless other threads where the notion of 'play to find out what happens' is always contrasted with D&D play - and always done so by speaking negatively of D&D. 'Mother May I' is the pejorative that most immediately comes to mind, but there's been others too. Heck, even when I suggest sandboxy D&D play is 'play to find out' that idea gets hard pushback too.

So IMO, the phrase 'play to find out' especially in the context of calling it a 'sad world' where such an idea is essentially not well known. That's an anti-D&D stance. The world knows D&D - if that concept was part of D&D then the world would also know it.

 

[pemerton]

I've been in countless other threads where the notion of 'play to find out what happens' is always contrasted with D&D play - and always done so by speaking negatively of D&D. 'Mother May I' is the pejorative that most immediately comes to mind, but there's been others too. Heck, even when I suggest sandboxy D&D play is 'play to find out' that idea gets hard pushback too.

So IMO, the phrase 'play to find out' especially in the context of calling it a 'sad world' where such an idea is essentially not well known. That's an anti-D&D stance. The world knows D&D - if that concept was part of D&D then the world would also know it.

So you're saying its "anit-D&D" to have the view that RPG designers other than D&D designers have made innovations/discoveries in the space of RPG play and design?

 

[FrogReaver]

As I read it, I am being described as "anti-D&D". Despite having played D&D on-and-off for 40 years, playing regular RPG sessions using one of the most iconic of D&D settings, etc.

I don't understand why one small group of posters get to own being "pro-D&D".

IMO, you are anti-D&D. We could go through the evidence of all the other threads where you use pejorative terms to refer to D&D play, where you talk about D&D play as if it's derogatory or negative, but I have a feeling that won't be beneficial. It just really baffles me how you are now trying to say you are pro-D&D.

 

[FrogReaver]

So you're saying its "anit-D&D" to have the view that RPG designers other than D&D designers have made innovations/discoveries in the space of RPG play and design?

No. I didn't say that or anything remotely like that.