Why do RPGs have rules?

[FormerlyHemlock]

Are we still discussing the gamist concern of skill in play? On surface, the expertise demanded is expertise in game system.

(I know of complexities to that, but it seems like a safe place to start.)

Expertise in the problem domain is still very helpful.

E.g. hanging out on r/WarCollege listening to military enthusiasts analyze past and current wars from an operational and strategic perspective is affecting the way I will approach GMing war scenarios in the future. I'll be better at modeling how they work.

Concrete example: instead of only scenario hooks like "you must (please!) destroy XYZ enemy army" and "steal the superweapon and use it against its creators", after reading about how one side S1 in a certain ongoing war seems to have developed the ability to real-time decrypt the encrypted (Motorola 256-bit encrypted tactical communications systems) drone communications of the other side S2 and thinking about how S1 must have done it (both sides are very corrupt so simply bribing or blackmailing someone in S2 for a high-level private key seems plausible)...

The GMing impact of that increased knowledge is a scenario hook where someone approaches the PCs offering to sell them information that can help their side of the war. If they pay up they learn that Famous General XYZ on their side has been sandbagging his own army's efforts because his twin children have been kidnapped and are being held hostage by the enemy. If someone rescues them, XYZ will stop being curiously ineffective and the eastern front will likely solidify.

 

[Maxperson]

If you only allow for actions explicitly stated in PHB, and basically turn it into an overcomplicated boardgame, yeah, it will be a fair and unbiased test of skill, I guess. Would be a pretty different game, though.

It all flies out of the window the moment one of the players decides to, say, improvise a trap from a piece of rope connected to a bow and lure one of the goblins into it.

There are guidelines for coming up with DCs and damage from traps. There are rules for persuading/tricking creatures. How is it all out the window by using official guidelines and rules for that improvised trap?

 

[Emberashh]

That's because you can't seem to wrap your head around the fact that the traditional game just isn't run that way.

I think its more accurate to say a trad game shouldn't be run that way, not that it isn't ever.

Bad GMs exist, and the problems they cause have been ubiquitous from the very beginning.

And in the here and now, theres a rather large elephant in the room that is 5e thats ushered in a wave of DMs that collectively have no fixed starting point to learning how to DM well, precisely because the system does a poor job at making it clear how you're supposed to learn from it (by reading the PHB, not the DMG), and thats before you get into whether or not what it teaches is even good in the first place.

 

[loverdrive]

There are guidelines for coming up with DCs and damage from traps. There are rules for persuading/tricking creatures. How is it all out the window by using official guidelines and rules for that improvised trap?

How this improvised trap is actually made? What roll (if any) should be made? What will be the DC? What makes a trap made out of a rope and a bow legitimate, and one made out of old ration another PC had in the backpack not?

 

[Maxperson]

I think its more accurate to say a trad game shouldn't be run that way, not that it isn't ever.

It just plain isn't. Once you get into extreme bad faith DMing, which is required for @loverdrive's fears to come to pass, you've left traditional play. If the DM is railroading the players, using adversarial DMing to "win," etc., that's not traditional play.

Bad GMs exist, and the problems they cause have been ubiquitous from the very beginning.

Sure, but by their very nature they are not playing a traditional game of D&D.

As an analogy, let's take NFL football. If you get two teams of people together and some referees and you play the game just as the NFL runs it, you are playing NFL football. If, however, you get two teams together and the referees are not impartial, allowing one side to win by allowing tackles below the knees, punching the other team and giving them 8 downs before a turnover, they are no longer playing NFL football. They're playing some other kind of football.

D&D is the same way. Traditional play does certain things in a certain way, like impartial DMing, no railroading, etc. If you step out of that by engaging in extreme bad faith, you are playing a different style of D&D, not traditional.

And in the here and now, theres a rather large elephant in the room that is 5e thats ushered in a wave of DMs that collectively have no fixed starting point to learning how to DM well, precisely because the system does a poor job at making it clear how you're supposed to learn from it (by reading the PHB, not the DMG), and thats before you get into whether or not what it teaches is even good in the first place.

The DMG has lots of good advice for DMs. It's organized poorly, and many sections really should be expanded to include more examples and detailed advice, but if the new DMs read it they will have plenty enough to be able to DM well. That a lot of people aren't reading the DMG is a failure of those people, not the edition.

 

[Emberashh]

How this improvised trap is actually made? What roll (if any) should be made? What will be the DC? What makes a trap made out of a rope and a bow legitimate, and one made out of old ration another PC had in the backpack not?

You're basically complaining about mother may I, and the answer is, obviously, GM dependent.

The thing about MMI is that it only reveals that you and your GM have incompatible preferences. That isn't the games fault that it hasn't been structured in a way to make those preferences irrelevant, and this goes to the heart of why, especially when this in reference to 5E, its important to realize you're not obligated to play that specific game if it doesn't mesh well with the group.

If my gaming group really enjoys Survival simulators, it isn't a problem with Call of Duty that it isn't a survival sim.

 

[Emberashh]

If the DM is railroading the players, using adversarial DMing to "win," etc., that's not traditional play.

But the game being played may in fact be a "trad" game, which is where the disconnect is.

In other words, we're both right.

but if the new DMs read it they will have plenty enough to be able to DM well.

The core gameplay loop of 5e is not, at any point, ever explained or even directly referenced in the DMG. That is only in the PHB, as is the bulk of actual practices for running a game as a DM.

Theres a reason nearly a third or so of the PHB is very clearly not talking to the players, but to DMs.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

That's because you can't seem to wrap your head around the fact that the traditional game just isn't run that way. As long as you continue to misunderstand and misportray the playstyle, you will continue to believe that it isn't possible or is very unlikely.

Out of curiosity: when you say "traditional game" how do you mean "traditional"? Is that a reference to Six Cultures of Play and the classic/trad/Nordic LARP/storygame/OSR/neo-trad distinction?

 

[loverdrive]

You're basically complaining about mother may I, and the answer is, obviously, GM dependent.

That is the point, though.

There's no and can't be no skilled play in D&D, because the only possible skill being expressed is players' ability to please the GM who pretends to be impartial. Some even go further and gaslight themselves into thinking that they are actually impartial, and their decision-making is predicated on anything other than their left foot.

 

[clearstream]

The core gameplay loop of 5e is not, at any point, ever explained or even directly referenced in the DMG. That is only in the PHB, as is the bulk of actual practices for running a game as a DM.

Theres a reason nearly a third or so of the PHB is very clearly not talking to the players, but to DMs.

The core texts layer on top of one another. So that the PHB layers over the Basic reference. And DMG layers over PHB. It'd be redundant to restate the core loop in the DMG.