D&D General Why Editions Don't Matter

[Oofta]

Okay.... so why must we keep the bit about "the rules don't run the game, you do" in favor of less problematic language? This is my point. There is a way to phrase that which can't be used to justify awful GMing.

You guys each said that the example of awful GMing technically was within the rules.

What if it wasn't? That's all.



Does it do that? If you're referring to the Role of the Dice section, it does not do that. It says that not using dice promotes creativity by making players look at the situation rather than their character sheets.

I wouldn't say that the book describes not using dice as a negative in any way. But if you're aware of another section where it does so, I'm all ears.



No, it's not about my ability to trust my GM. It's about the ability to define the role without the need to grant the role absolute authority which is then cited to somehow justify GMing that's clearly awful.

The example of play (which while many said was absurd, @Oofta shared one of his own which was just as absurd) was one we all agree on is bad.

What would be wrong with the PHB or DMG saying it's bad? Or "Here's a list of best practices" or "Here are things to try to avoid"? How would this be a bad thing?

What if the social contract, such as it may be, was defined in the books? Or if not defined, discussed with some pros and cons? Why do these things need to remain distinct?



I didn't say it was confusing, nor did I say it was a bad design choice. Honestly, it's pretty genius. Doesn't mean there isn't a drawback to it.

My point is in the seeming dichotomy between the rules of the game, and the social contract. I don't think there should be such a dichotomy, nor that there needs to be.

The rules of the game are just as important as the GM. I don't think it's a good idea to place the GM above the rules. The reason is that you then get GMs who make decisions that they think are justified even if everyone else thinks they're awful.

I'd prefer if the rules point out things that are awful instead of just saying "It's all up to you" and then expecting everyone to get it right.




Clarity equals spoon feeding? Ha okay.

As for advice and guidance in the text, I would say that yes, that will help people improve. I would offer specific examples, but maybe I'll just let all of human history and endeavor speak for me on that one.

Do you really think any amount of text in a book could convince a jackass DM to not be a jackass? Because yes, the DMG tells the DM that they're in charge not the rules, which is a good idea. It let's people know that house rules and tweaks are part of playing D&D. But let's look at the entire paragraph instead of just taking things out of context

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. Describe to the players how you envision the game experience and let them give you input. The game is theirs, too. Lay that groundwork early, so your players can make informed choices and help you maintain the type of game you want to run.​

​

If someone is going to ignore that last sentence along with several other sections in the DMG I'm not going to bother looking up, no amount of text is going to make them a good DM. There are obviously other ways of running games. They can never guarantee that one person at the table, whether GM or player, won't ruing the experience for others.

 

[Aldarc]

Do you really think any amount of text in a book could convince a jackass DM to not be a jackass? Because yes, the DMG tells the DM that they're in charge not the rules, which is a good idea. It let's people know that house rules and tweaks are part of playing D&D. But let's look at the entire paragraph instead of just taking things out of context

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. Describe to the players how you envision the game experience and let them give you input. The game is theirs, too. Lay that groundwork early, so your players can make informed choices and help you maintain the type of game you want to run.​

​

If someone is going to ignore that last sentence along with several other sections in the DMG I'm not going to bother looking up, no amount of text is going to make them a good DM. There are obviously other ways of running games. They can never guarantee that one person at the table, whether GM or player, won't ruing the experience for others.

Not every bad GM has a personality problem that needs fixed like you are implying here. You are trying to make it about jackass GMs when it can be as simple as kind-hearted GMs who are pretty clueless about running the game. You can't fix jackasses, but the goal of providing cogent game guidelines for newcomer GMs or even struggling GMs should not come from a place that presumes they are jackasses.

 

[Baron Opal II]

In part I think it's a mistake to believe the core books are supposed to teach the game. They have some general stuff, but there's a reason we have starter sets. Starter sets are supposed to help new DMs, the core books are support for the game with a bit of teaching.

I absolutely expect the rule books to a game, any game, to teach me how to play. They might not do a great job, but buying a game that doesn't teach you how to play is unfathomable. Starter sets could aid in understanding, certainly. But having them be a requirement would be foolish.

 

[Imaro]

Okay.... so why must we keep the bit about "the rules don't run the game, you do" in favor of less problematic language? This is my point. There is a way to phrase that which can't be used to justify awful GMing.

You guys each said that the example of awful GMing technically was within the rules.

What if it wasn't? That's all.

I don't find it problematic at all...

Does it do that? If you're referring to the Role of the Dice section, it does not do that. It says that not using dice promotes creativity by making players look at the situation rather than their character sheets.
I wouldn't say that the book describes not using dice as a negative in any way. But if you're aware of another section where it does so, I'm all ears.

It's the same section in the DMG...

"A downside is that no DM is completely neutral. A DM might come to favor certain players or approaches, or even work against good ideas if they send the game in a direction he or she doesn't like. This approach can also slow the game if the DM focuses on one "correct" answer that the characters must describe to overcome an obstacle.

Not sure how you missed all of that.

No, it's not about my ability to trust my GM. It's about the ability to define the role without the need to grant the role absolute authority which is then cited to somehow justify GMing that's clearly awful.

The only one(s) who did this in the thread were those already pre-disposed to a bias against GM authority... so...SURPRISE... of course they paint it in the worst light possible.

The example of play (which while many said was absurd, @Oofta shared one of his own which was just as absurd) was one we all agree on is bad.

What would be wrong with the PHB or DMG saying it's bad? Or "Here's a list of best practices" or "Here are things to try to avoid"? How would this be a bad thing?

What's wrong with it not doing this if we all (well the majority) realize it is a bad way to DM in most cases? But also leaving the possibility on the table for DM's to realize there may be small fringe cases (I am running a prelude adventure where the characters are NPC's that were killed by Orcus in order to open a dimensional gate) where it is a great way or necessary way to run the game. See that's the type of creativity I don't need prescribed out of the game...

What if the social contract, such as it may be, was defined in the books? Or if not defined, discussed with some pros and cons? Why do these things need to remain distinct?

Because our groups are distinct and we aren't all looking for the same experience or the same social contracts. Some groups want PvP some don't... some want player driven games other groups don't want or need that level of player authorship. Again once you start to prescribe these things as right or wrong you limit what can be done with the game and who the game appeals to.

I didn't say it was confusing, nor did I say it was a bad design choice. Honestly, it's pretty genius. Doesn't mean there isn't a drawback to it.

My point is in the seeming dichotomy between the rules of the game, and the social contract. I don't think there should be such a dichotomy, nor that there needs to be.

The rules of the game are just as important as the GM. I don't think it's a good idea to place the GM above the rules. The reason is that you then get GMs who make decisions that they think are justified even if everyone else thinks they're awful.

I'd prefer if the rules point out things that are awful instead of just saying "It's all up to you" and then expecting everyone to get it right.

Ok now we get to the crux of it. The thing is... this actually does boil down to YOU not trusting your DM. For those of us who do the possibility that some theoretical DM out there somewhere might make a ruling that ruins the entire game for all of his players just isn't a big enough concern. The other thing I find interesting is your phrasing of the issue as I don't believe that just because the players don't like a decision doesn't in turn mean that it wasn't a justified decision.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Yes but there is literally no guarantee that advice in a book vs youtube or the internet will be better or worse.

Guarantee? No. But at the end of the day, if you don't think the people who wrote the game know how to give good advice, why are you even trying to play it?

 

[Thomas Shey]

So ... you try somethin out and it doesn't work. You learn from your mistake and have a better understanding of the game. It's only a problem if you don't get, or pay attention to, feedback from your players. As a software developer I've had to learn multiple new technologies over the years, it's not really that different. Some advice works, some thing your try and their crap.

How else do you expect to learn?

By having people who already are experienced with the system at hand teach me, either directly or elsewhere. But not everyone is created equal there, and as I said, if the people who wrote the game can't do a better job of that, why should I assume they were going to do a decent job of writing it?

(Which doesn't mean they can't do a bad job of explaining it, since that's two different skill sets, but I still expect them to know how it works better than some random person. This is sometimes a bad assumption, but when it is, the game usually has enough other problems staying away is the best thing to do in the first place).

 

[Thomas Shey]

Not every bad GM has a personality problem that needs fixed like you are implying here. You are trying to make it about jackass GMs when it can be as simple as kind-hearted GMs who are pretty clueless about running the game. You can't fix jackasses, but the goal of providing cogent game guidelines for newcomer GMs or even struggling GMs should not come from a place that presumes they are jackasses.

Yeah, its not the guys who are trying to be jackasses who the issue; its the people who fall into it accidentally while thinking what they're doing is a good idea.

 

[Oofta]

Not every bad GM has a personality problem that needs fixed like you are implying here. You are trying to make it about jackass GMs when it can be as simple as kind-hearted GMs who are pretty clueless about running the game. You can't fix jackasses, but the goal of providing cogent game guidelines for newcomer GMs or even struggling GMs should not come from a place that presumes they are jackasses.

The percentage of GMs that would be better because of walls of text is minimal. It's not like there's no amount of support for DMs between advice in the DMG, starter sets and videos. But I still say that 80% of learning how to become a GM comes from doing and there simply is no substitute.

Could WOTC do a better job? Sure. There's always room for improvement. But we're talking scale and ROI for more text. Where that line is, where more text would be better is anyone's guess.

 

[Imaro]

Guarantee? No. But at the end of the day, if you don't think the people who wrote the game know how to give good advice, why are you even trying to play it?

Because I can determine how best too use their toolset for my own needs... I mean some of the most prolific fans of 4e swore Mike Mearls offered horrible advice around the game... yet it didn't impact their choice to play it.

 

[Oofta]

I absolutely expect the rule books to a game, any game, to teach me how to play. They might not do a great job, but buying a game that doesn't teach you how to play is unfathomable. Starter sets could aid in understanding, certainly. But having them be a requirement would be foolish.

It's not like there's zero guidance in the books, it's just not enough for some people. Not sure what people would be satisfied with, but the core books are not primarily designed to teach the games, there are multiple starter sets now for that not to mention thousands of hours of free video. People are not learning D&D in a vacuum.