D&D General Why Editions Don't Matter

[Oofta]

That's how most people probably play, and it makes sense, given that we tend to give DMs authority over this stuff. But...


Right, but: 'DM decides' doesn't effect everything. At least, if we were playing out the fight, and the DM said 'you missed' after I rolled a nat 20 against the innkeep, I'd be annoyed. So, there are situations where we tend to assume the rules do apply, and others where we assume it is the GM's job to decide. The rules don't really say anything about that.

Does 'DM decides' mean that the DM decides what's going on in the fiction and apply the (singular) appropriate rule; that they decide what's going on in the ficiton, and apply the rule they prefer; that they decide and apply any or no rule; or something else?

If a DM regularly f's over the players, they probably won't be a DM for long.

Beyond that I'm not sure what your asking. The players are responsible for their PC, the DM is responsible for everything else. As far as advice, there's quite a bit in the DMG. That includes "The D&D rules help you and the other players have a good time, but the rules aren’t in charge. You’re the DM, and you are in charge of the game."

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

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.

Mod Note:

While the person you were addressing was seeing things in prior posts that may or may not have been there, THIS post is a gatekeeping personal attack that also raises the spectre of that poster’s past behavior in other threads.

Don’t do that. Don’t do ANY of that.

 

[FrogReaver]

Yet you seem to consider yourself pro-D&D. Even though you've never gone back and drunk from the well.

You seem to consider yourself pro-D&D, even though a huge chunk - probably the majority - of the D&D-themed material published by TSR and WotC deals with worlds invented by their authors.

So you are pro-D&D - though you've never played AD&D and don't use published settings - while I'm pro-pemerton-D&D, which is some baroque thing that involves AD&D, B2 Keep on the Borderlands, the World of Greyhawk, and almost the whole of 4th edition.

Perhaps we could say you're pro-FrogReaver D&D?

It's not mysterious what I dislike: railroaded adventures (including the "three clue rule" and "node-based design"); GM decides; setting tourism; filler combats; failure offscreen (based on the GM imagining stuff on their own, and then bringing the results of that imagining back into play so as to defeat player goals for their PCs). Basically the suite of tools that I saw become predominant from the mid-80s on, and that AD&D 2nd ed tended to promote.

The use of those tools is not unique to D&D. Disliking them is not an attitude towards D&D. I don't like them in Rolemaster or RQ play either.

First, apologies for making this too personal.

Secondly, in light of my recent moderation I think it's best for me to drop this tangent.

That said, I have one question to leave, which may help me address some topics in the future. What do you think would be a good shorthand to refer to people that dislike how 95% of D&D tables currently play D&D but likes how the remaining 5% play it?

 

[pemerton]

'DM decides' doesn't effect everything. At least, if we were playing out the fight, and the DM said 'you missed' after I rolled a nat 20 against the innkeep, I'd be annoyed. So, there are situations where we tend to assume the rules do apply, and others where we assume it is the GM's job to decide. The rules don't really say anything about that.

An example I gave in a different recent thread was this:

The PCs are high level (20th or thereabouts). They have planned to assault Orcus on the Abyss. They have teleported (via some appropriate magical effect) into Orcus's throneroom. And the GM describes a Balor demon standing not far from them, obviously Orcus's personal bodyguard.

The player of the fighter PC declares "I charge at the Balor, ready to cut it down!" The PC has good AC and hit points for a character of that level, is equipped with a +1 Demon-slaying sword, and has been buffed a bit by the PC spellcasters and some potions.

The GM replies straight away (ie no dice are rolled or anything like that) "The Balor ducks your charge, and pulls to the floor with its whip about your legs. Then it decapitates you with its flaming sword!"​

In a technical sense that satisfies the play loop: the GM describes the PCs' immediate circumstances, the player declares what their PC is doing, and then the GM says what happens next. Is the player nevertheless entitled to an initiative roll, an attack roll, their AC and hp buffer, etc?

 

[FrogReaver]

An example I gave in a different recent thread was this:

The PCs are high level (20th or thereabouts). They have planned to assault Orcus on the Abyss. They have teleported (via some appropriate magical effect) into Orcus's throneroom. And the GM describes a Balor demon standing not far from them, obviously Orcus's personal bodyguard.​

​

The player of the fighter PC declares "I charge at the Balor, ready to cut it down!" The PC has good AC and hit points for a character of that level, is equipped with a +1 Demon-slaying sword, and has been buffed a bit by the PC spellcasters and some potions.​

​

The GM replies straight away (ie no dice are rolled or anything like that) "The Balor ducks your charge, and pulls to the floor with its whip about your legs. Then it decapitates you with its flaming sword!"​

In a technical sense that satisfies the play loop: the GM describes the PCs' immediate circumstances, the player declares what their PC is doing, and then the GM says what happens next. Is the player nevertheless entitled to an initiative roll, an attack roll, their AC and hp buffer, etc?

I don't think framing it as entitlement is really correct.

I would say the player's expectations and sense of fair play were likely violated. In D&D this issue would be more of a social contract violation than a game rules violation, unless one includes the social contract as part of the game and in that case it would be both a game and social contract violation.

 

[pemerton]

What do you think would be a good shorthand to refer to people that dislike how 95% of D&D tables currently play D&D but likes how the remaining 5% play it?

Well, a good shorthand for me is @pemerton. I have suggested general descriptions for play approaches in the past, but they have not proven uncontroversial. For instance, I would tend to refer to the play that you attribute to 95% of current D&D tables, and that I described as

railroaded adventures (including the "three clue rule" and "node-based design"); GM decides; setting tourism; filler combats; failure offscreen (based on the GM imagining stuff on their own, and then bringing the results of that imagining back into play so as to defeat player goals for their PCs). Basically the suite of tools that I saw become predominant from the mid-80s on, and that AD&D 2nd ed tended to promote​

as GM-driven RPGing. I use that brief description because it succinctly picks up who decides what happens next, and what the focus and much of the content of the fiction will be.

I find it hard, even impossible, to conceive of RPGing in which the GM decides all those things and yet the players are driving play.

Conversely, I prefer RPGing where the players do more of the driving, which is to say exert more influence over what happens next and what the focus and much of the content of the fiction will be. As I've posted in the past, I worked out myself how to approach RPGing in this sort of way in the mid-1980s inspired by the original OA, and about 20 years later found The Forge very helpful for better understanding what it was I was trying to do with my RPGing.

I anticipate that there may be one or more replies to this thread that assert that a game in which the GM has the pre-eminent role of deciding what happens can also be one in which the players are the main determiners of what happens next.

I don't think framing it as entitlement is really correct.

I would say the player's expectations and sense of fair play were likely violated. In D&D this issue would be more of a social contract violation than a game rules violation, unless one includes the social contract as part of the game and in that case it would be both a game and social contract violation.

I don't really follow the contrast, here, between social contract violation and rules violation, especially once we feed in the idea of "invisible rulebooks".

I mean, why is the player's sense of fair play violated? Once possible answer is that in fact there was no failing on the GM's part, and that the player has made a mistake in that regard. But to me the more obvious explanation in most cases would be that the player's sense of fair play is tracking the actuality of fair play, and that they have been treated unfairly by the GM. And the most obvious way of explaining that unfairness, it seems to me, is that they were entitled to something - to a particular process for finding out what happens when their PC charges the Balor demon - and they didn't receive that entitlement.

The relevance of what's immediately above to the first half of this post is this: that at many D&D tables, especially where combat is concerned, the approach to resolution is not primarily GM decides. The players are able to drive play to at least some extent by invoking the combat rules.

The spellcasting rules are another example here, but when the spells fall outside of the combat context the analysis gets more complicated, and the range of approaches I think becomes more varied.

 

[Oofta]

An example I gave in a different recent thread was this:

The PCs are high level (20th or thereabouts). They have planned to assault Orcus on the Abyss. They have teleported (via some appropriate magical effect) into Orcus's throneroom. And the GM describes a Balor demon standing not far from them, obviously Orcus's personal bodyguard.​

​

The player of the fighter PC declares "I charge at the Balor, ready to cut it down!" The PC has good AC and hit points for a character of that level, is equipped with a +1 Demon-slaying sword, and has been buffed a bit by the PC spellcasters and some potions.​

​

The GM replies straight away (ie no dice are rolled or anything like that) "The Balor ducks your charge, and pulls to the floor with its whip about your legs. Then it decapitates you with its flaming sword!"​

In a technical sense that satisfies the play loop: the GM describes the PCs' immediate circumstances, the player declares what their PC is doing, and then the GM says what happens next. Is the player nevertheless entitled to an initiative roll, an attack roll, their AC and hp buffer, etc?

That is a very oddly specific example of bad DMing. I've seen bad DMing in the past (i.e. "A hand comes out of the wall and [DM rolls dice] Bob's PC is now dead.") and sadly nothing can prevent that other than to remind the DM that their supposed to make the game fun for everyone. If that doesn't work, find a different DM.

It happens, I don't see a way of preventing it other than to vote with your feet and walk away from the table.

 

[Oofta]

What’s the right way to run a campaign? That depends on your play style and the motivations of your players. Consider your players’ tastes, your strengths as a DM, table rules (discussed in part 3), and the type of game you want to run.Well, a good shorthand for me is @pemerton. I have suggested general descriptions for play approaches in the past, but they have not proven uncontroversial. For instance, I would tend to refer to the play that you attribute to 95% of current D&D tables, and that I described as

railroaded adventures (including the "three clue rule" and "node-based design"); GM decides; setting tourism; filler combats; failure offscreen (based on the GM imagining stuff on their own, and then bringing the results of that imagining back into play so as to defeat player goals for their PCs). Basically the suite of tools that I saw become predominant from the mid-80s on, and that AD&D 2nd ed tended to promote​

as GM-driven RPGing. I use that brief description because it succinctly picks up who decides what happens next, and what the focus and much of the content of the fiction will be.

I find it hard, even impossible, to conceive of RPGing in which the GM decides all those things and yet the players are driving play.

Conversely, I prefer RPGing where the players do more of the driving, which is to say exert more influence over what happens next and what the focus and much of the content of the fiction will be. As I've posted in the past, I worked out myself how to approach RPGing in this sort of way in the mid-1980s inspired by the original OA, and about 20 years later found The Forge very helpful for better understanding what it was I was trying to do with my RPGing.

I anticipate that there may be one or more replies to this thread that assert that a game in which the GM has the pre-eminent role of deciding what happens can also be one in which the players are the main determiners of what happens next.

I don't really follow the contrast, here, between social contract violation and rules violation, especially once we feed in the idea of "invisible rulebooks".

I mean, why is the player's sense of fair play violated? Once possible answer is that in fact there was no failing on the GM's part, and that the player has made a mistake in that regard. But to me the more obvious explanation in most cases would be that the player's sense of fair play is tracking the actuality of fair play, and that they have been treated unfairly by the GM. And the most obvious way of explaining that unfairness, it seems to me, is that they were entitled to something - to a particular process for finding out what happens when their PC charges the Balor demon - and they didn't receive that entitlement.

The relevance of what's immediately above to the first half of this post is this: that at many D&D tables, especially where combat is concerned, the approach to resolution is not primarily GM decides. The players are able to drive play to at least some extent by invoking the combat rules.

The spellcasting rules are another example here, but when the spells fall outside of the combat context the analysis gets more complicated, and the range of approaches I think becomes more varied.

But all of that is just discussing DMs who are not running the types of games that the players want. A DM running node based designed linear campaigns may be running a great game that their players are enjoying. A DM that runs a true sandbox may annoy people who want more of a directed game because they don't have a clear idea of goals or where to go next.

The social contract is spelled out in the DMG:

What’s the right way to run a campaign? That depends on your play style and the motivations of your players. Consider your players’ tastes, your strengths as a DM, table rules (discussed in part 3), and the type of game you want to run.​

 

[Imaro]

An example I gave in a different recent thread was this:

The PCs are high level (20th or thereabouts). They have planned to assault Orcus on the Abyss. They have teleported (via some appropriate magical effect) into Orcus's throneroom. And the GM describes a Balor demon standing not far from them, obviously Orcus's personal bodyguard.​

​

The player of the fighter PC declares "I charge at the Balor, ready to cut it down!" The PC has good AC and hit points for a character of that level, is equipped with a +1 Demon-slaying sword, and has been buffed a bit by the PC spellcasters and some potions.​

​

The GM replies straight away (ie no dice are rolled or anything like that) "The Balor ducks your charge, and pulls to the floor with its whip about your legs. Then it decapitates you with its flaming sword!"​

In a technical sense that satisfies the play loop: the GM describes the PCs' immediate circumstances, the player declares what their PC is doing, and then the GM says what happens next. Is the player nevertheless entitled to an initiative roll, an attack roll, their AC and hp buffer, etc?

In a technical sense it satisfies the play loop... but it disregards most if not all of the advice, procedures and systems around adjudication, combat, how to DM, etc. If I give an example in Blades where the advice around adjudication and when/how to use systems was disregarded but I still technically followed the play loop... it would be considered an example of bad DM'ing... all you've done is reconstructed that here in an example with D&D. I don't think anyone is arguing agianst the fact that bad DM'ing will create a bad game... in any system so I have to honestly ask what was the point of this absurd example?

 

[gorice]

In a technical sense it satisfies the play loop... but it disregards most if not all of the advice, procedures and systems around adjudication, combat, how to DM, etc. If I give an example in Blades where the advice around adjudication and when/how to use systems was disregarded but I still technically followed the play loop... it would be considered an example of bad DM'ing... all you've done is reconstructed that here in an example with D&D. I don't think anyone is arguing agianst the fact that bad DM'ing will create a bad game... in any system so I have to honestly ask what was the point of this absurd example?

Serious question: how does 5e teach these 'best practices'?