D&D General Why Editions Don't Matter

[Oofta]

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?

Maybe I misunderstand. You want everyone who buys a book to get a personal tutorial session?

(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).

Which, again, they do teach. Saying they don't is a fabrication.

 

[Thomas Shey]

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.

Mearls wasn't the only designer. And someone can still tell you how they intend a game to work and you use it differently; but if you don't even have that, you have a guessing game of reading in the game system's intended play cycle from the rules. And its really easy for that to go off the rails.

 

[Cadence]

Maybe I misunderstand. You want everyone who buys a book to get a personal tutorial session?

In person sounds time consuming, but a video?

I'm wondering how many pages it would take to have a useful "1st time read through/play guide" that went with the PHB, but wasn't in the main body of it.

 

[Aldarc]

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.

Thankfully I haven't proposed walls of text. I proposed a more efficient use of text.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

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.

Fundamentally, this is not a productive conversation because people do not want to hear what you are saying. It is practically a truism that almost every singly player and GM who is coming into the indie game sphere has a background in RPGs- often because they played D&D! So a lot of the most basic issues about running and playing games can be backgrounded.

And yet, despite the inarguable fact that D&D is the most widely played TTRPG around, there is a constant pushback as to how people could possibly learn it! Let's see-

1. Starter set? But why should you have to use a starter set?
2. DMG? No one reads the DMG! Besides, wall of text.
3. The multitude of youtube videos, podcasts, etc.? How can I know which one to watch?
4. The traditional "play a game with someone else?" But I demand the ability to learn solely by walls of text!

And so on. We are living in an era where, for various reasons, there are so many different ways to learn the game, to talk about the game, and to find your own "voice" and style to play; and yet, somehow it is impossible to learn.

I am reminded of the following-
An economist is a man who, when he finds something works in practice, wonders if it works in theory.

 

[Imaro]

Mearls wasn't the only designer. And someone can still tell you how they intend a game to work and you use it differently; but if you don't even have that, you have a guessing game of reading in the game system's intended play cycle from the rules. And its really easy for that to go off the rails.

You say that but expectations are set and it becomes much harder to do your own thing because well it's not what is "expected". I just don't see this massive problem of confusion and people struggling to learn the game... regardless of how or why it's being solved, it just doesn't seem like it's a problem in need of this solution.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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

You'll find that that's the case with a lot of things--that the people who use a particular term or phrase don't find it problematic. I'm honestly surprised to see anyone respond this way given how things went down in the "Mother May I" thread.

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.

That's....not about dice. That's about DM neutrality. Different subject, at least as far as I'm concerned.

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.

I really don't think that's the case, so unless you care to back that assertion up with examples, it sounds like casting aspersions rather than discussing.

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?

Because not everyone WILL realize that. "Common sense" is not as common as one would like. Clarity helps prevent failures of common sense becoming more serious issues later.

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...

I...don't see how that has anything whatsoever to do with this? I am genuinely confused why you give this as an example. Nothing about that sounds even remotely related to the stuff being described here.

Because our groups are distinct and we aren't all looking for the same experience or the same social contracts.

That is literally the best reason to be clear, to tell people about best practices and common pitfalls, to forearm people against probable minor mistakes and possible major mistakes. Because different groups means different fundamental understandings--and thus fundamental misunderstandings.

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.

Is that being asked for? Has literally anyone here asked for that? Has even one single person said that the game should ALWAYS exclude PVP or ALWAYS demand player authorship? Or are they simply saying that the game should tell DMs about these things and how they can work, succeed, and fail?

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.

I completely disagree. I think it's someone choosing to exercise independent thought, rather than axiomatically bowing before DM will simply because it is DM will and nothing else. Which is, in fact, exactly what people in this thread HAVE spoken of, absolute authority, total DM control, that then "drifts" away from it (and yet remains absolute somehow?)

 

[EzekielRaiden]

1. Starter set? But why should you have to use a starter set?
2. DMG? No one reads the DMG! Besides, wall of text.
3. The multitude of youtube videos, podcasts, etc.? How can I know which one to watch?
4. The traditional "play a game with someone else?" But I demand the ability to learn solely by walls of text!

And so on. We are living in an era where, for various reasons, there are so many different ways to learn the game, to talk about the game, and to find your own "voice" and style to play; and yet, somehow it is impossible to learn.

Nobody said it's impossible to learn. They--and I--said the books themselves should actually do their part in the teaching thereof. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink; but if you don't even lead the horse to water, it doesn't matter whether the horse is thirsty!

Starter sets are an extra expense. You should not need the starter set to learn the fundamental best practices. Obviously, actual practice of best practices is useful, but you shouldn't need to buy the game and then extra stuff on top to learn how to play.

The DMG should be read. I know you love the "No one reads the DMG!" line, but yes, I actually DO read DMGs and specifically want it to be useful and productive to do so.

Youtube videos are, as I said, free advice--you get what you pay for. SOME of them are useful (e.g. JoCat's Crap Guides are actually pretty good, and quite funny), some of them are questionable at best (like Matt Colville explicitly telling DMs to not only fudge, but to fake die rolls so they can lie to their players about having rolled that value), some are outright crap (I don't have specific examples.)

Trial-by-fire isn't a teaching method. It's an absence of teaching method. Written guidance, even if ignored, is a teaching method. It won't be the best for everyone. It won't be perfect. But it should be used, in a book LITERALLY CALLED A "GUIDE"!

 

[hawkeyefan]

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.

In the case of jackass GMs, yes, I think it would matter because at least it would not give them the out of being “technically right”. At least players would be able to point to the book without there being some BS justification for the GM abandoning the rules and processes of play.

But more importantly, it’s not just (or even mostly) about jackass GMs.

I have been GMing for a long time, just like many others here. I’ve made many mistakes over the years. I’ve been dissatisfied with gaming at times and didn’t know how to fix that.

Advice of all kinds, including from actual RPG texts that talked about actual play and processes, helped me quite a bit.

I mean, I feel like I’m explaining the values of education.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Nobody said it's impossible to learn. They--and I--said the books themselves should actually do their part in the teaching thereof. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink; but if you don't even lead the horse to water, it doesn't matter whether the horse is thirsty!

Starter sets are an extra expense. You should not need the starter set to learn the fundamental best practices. Obviously, actual practice of best practices is useful, but you shouldn't need to buy the game and then extra stuff on top to learn how to play.

The DMG should be read. I know you love the "No one reads the DMG!" line, but yes, I actually DO read DMGs and specifically want it to be useful and productive to do so.

Youtube videos are, as I said, free advice--you get what you pay for. SOME of them are useful (e.g. JoCat's Crap Guides are actually pretty good, and quite funny), some of them are questionable at best (like Matt Colville explicitly telling DMs to not only fudge, but to fake die rolls so they can lie to their players about having rolled that value), some are outright crap (I don't have specific examples.)

Trial-by-fire isn't a teaching method. It's an absence of teaching method. Written guidance, even if ignored, is a teaching method. It won't be the best for everyone. It won't be perfect. But it should be used, in a book LITERALLY CALLED A "GUIDE"!

...but why? Who is the target market? I mean that seriously. I see a lot (A LOT) of people here talking about how D&D should have better on-boarding procedures, but ... why? You came from 4e. Thomas Shey, IIRC, says he started playing in the TSR era.

Neither of you is going to need a lengthy introduction, right?

I don't think most of the young people, the ones who use twitch and youtube and tiktok ... I don't think they'd prefer walls of text.

I am genuinely curious as to where this complaint comes from. We have two people (you and Thomas Shey) who don't play 5e and (AFAICT) don't want to complaining that a game- with starter sets, the AL, twitch streams, TikTok, youtube, the ability to jump on to multiple platforms and play, and so on ... that this is the game that has trouble onboarding new players?

I have trouble understanding your criticism ... in practice.