D&D General Why Editions Don't Matter

[ReshiIRE]

You also have to be able to suss out when advice is applicable, useful and is the solution to your problem. While I haven't ran into this while attempting to learn how to GM, I have certainly run into issues with questionable or poor advice in programming. Sometimes a source has both good, questionable, and downright bad advice; soemtimes its useful to take bits and pieces and ignore the best.

It was certainly something reading Clean Code before my first real programming job experience, and having ot learn how and when to apply certain aspects, and to start deconstructing the book and realising its downright harmfull leffects. But for me to do that took mentorship and support from senior programmers and those who understood their craft well.

That's not something that is applicable to a lot of GMs. Some will start GMing purely to kickstart their group, and may not have someone they can lean on. And asking questions online is no substitute; there is a massive difference between throwing out questions to forums and reading responses, and having someone you personally know in some manner offer advice and answer your specific questions in real time.

I do not know much about the 5e DMG, besides that there are complaints that it is poor but also that people don't read it, and that reading it would solve peoples' problems. I wonder if part of the problem is the fact that 5e splits its core rulebooks up between the Player's Handbook and Dungeon Master's Guide, for the primary play rules for both sides of the table (with the Monster Manual having the basic monsters). The DMG has a lot of rules to fulfill; it's both teaching you how to do the basics of GMing, along with advice, variant rules, and even some character elements and other small things.

That is not the case in say, something like Cypberpunk Red, which is a complete rulebook on its own (including example creatures / NPCs!) , or Pathfinder 2e, where the Core Rulebook contains all the rules and has a big section on running the game, with the Gamemastery Guide being a book dedicated entirely to variant rules and advice (along with some homebrew creation rules). I feel the way these books are organised and as a teaching guide is better than the current situation, as it seems the fact that the DMG does so much at once and apparently is poorly organised make it difficult to use as a teaching and advice tool for 5e.

 

[Aldarc]

People who are seeking GM advice are not typically jackass GMs; instead, they are the people who want to be better GMs.

IME, those who think that they don't need GMing advice or have any intention to heed it* are the jackass GMs.

* Unless the text enables their "divine right" to be a jackass, then they will appeal the text all the live long day.

 

[Campbell]

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.

I find it pretty hard to take this seriously when the games that set strong expectations also contain lengthy sections about how to change them and often require things like custom moves that require active design work. Their creators have also often posted blogs and/or Youtube videos about how to change and alter the games. It's just generally expected that changes are discussed and approved by everyone. I can't remember a single indie (or trad) game my group has played for more than 2 sessions where we did not make some adjustments.

One of our games actually went from a Lancer reskin to a Beam Saber reskin to a Wildsea based hack. We're always adjusted our processes. We just do it as a group.

 

[Vaalingrade]

From personal experience, writing out how to play an RPG without being a massive git to everyone else at the table is not easy.

And writing out how to run a game without being a massive git despite pop culture and modern social media all telling your audience to absolutely do that thing and be proud of it is a special kind of hell.

In fact, I feel it should be a penalty in our justice system.

 

[pemerton]

What does "driftable" mean?

It's a bit of Forge jargon.

 

[pemerton]

Here's an example... traditionally D&D gives the narration of resulting fiction to the DM on both a failure and success... however I can drift narrative authority pretty easily so that players can have it on successful actions and it doesn't cause any major changes or problems with the game.

I think it does tend to cause a problem when players have access to lots of abilities that generate successes with no chance of failure. In D&D these abilities are mostly spells.

 

[Imaro]

I think it does tend to cause a problem when players have access to lots of abilities that generate successes with no chance of failure. In D&D these abilities are mostly spells.

Problems such as??

 

[Campbell]

I think the idea that wanting binding mechanics and principals is intrinsically linked to a lack of trust is fundamentally flawed. I want to be bound by mechanics that influence my play. I do not want to have to actively chose to hose myself when it makes sense for my character to be influenced or when their emotions overtake them. I like knowing what happens on success and failure, not out of a lack of trust, but because that exciting! We're all looking at those dice and know exactly what the results mean. I like when the game interjects and tell us what happens, especially when it's something none of us would have chosen. That's an experience that only binding rules can provide.

There are plenty of reasons to prefer a different sort of experience, but the idea that binding rules and principles (for both players and GMs) do not provide for styles of play that would not otherwise exist seems like crazy talk given the experiences I have had.

 

[Umbran]

The thing is... this actually does boil down to YOU not trusting your DM.

Mod Note:
This thread is contentious enough. Please don't make this personal. Address what was said, not the person who said it.

 

[pemerton]

Here's an example... traditionally D&D gives the narration of resulting fiction to the DM on both a failure and success... however I can drift narrative authority pretty easily so that players can have it on successful actions and it doesn't cause any major changes or problems with the game.

I think it does tend to cause a problem when players have access to lots of abilities that generate successes with no chance of failure. In D&D these abilities are mostly spells.

Problems such as??

If the GM honours those automatic successes, then no complications emerge. This tends to make for boring play. If the GM introduces complications to make play less boring, that requires setting aside or compromising those automatic successes, contrary to the conferral of authority on players.