D&D 5E (2024) I have the DMG. AMA!

[Staffan]

Shall we dispatch the D&D Orthodoxy to destroy them for their unforgivable sin?

No need, Crawford will remove their dice-rolling ability.

 

[Vaalingrade]

No need, Crawford will remove their dice-rolling ability.

Excellent. They shall rue the day they played D&D that one person decided wasn't D&D.

 

[Belen]

I feel like exploring their character via roleplay isn't going rogue.

While working with the DM on planning character arcs is a good idea, it shouldn't be mandatory or punished.

If it is going to affect the game, then yes, the player needs to discuss the intended arc with the DM.

The DM cannot plan or prep otherwise.

I always work with my players and make sure their stories are central to the campaign but if someone starts violating the setting with no warning, then that is not cool.

 

[Vaalingrade]

If it is going to affect the game, then yes, the player needs to discuss the intended arc with the DM.

The DM cannot plan or prep otherwise.

I always work with my players and make sure their stories are central to the campaign but if someone starts violating the setting with no warning, then that is not cool.

It's not really violating the setting until the DM decides to violate the character using the setting as a fig leaf.

 

[pemerton]

I think we actually see this pretty similarly. I absolutely do not see this as some sort of tool for the GM to bully the player playing their character "correctly." If we at the session zero roughly establish what the particular religion entails, I trust any player I would play with to begin with, to then take that into account in how they play their character. Like I said, the only real situation where I could see the power loss coning into play, is the player effectively intentionally choosing it by having their character to knowingly commit actions that would make them an apostate, and thus intentionally choosing subclass or even class change. Like if a wizard chose to burn their spellbook or something like that.

Cool.

How hard can I push? To me, the clearest way to describe this approach is that the player is the one who decides what counts as conforming to the divinity's desires/dictates. But that often causes controversy, as the divinity is conventionally seen as a NPC and necessarily, therefore, under the control of the GM.

But I don't see how to reconcile that conventional thought with the player-directed approach to PC faithfulness.

 

[Belen]

It's not really violating the setting until the DM decides to violate the character using the setting as a fig leaf.

You and I are coming at things very differently.

You seem to assume that bad DMs are having a power fantasy and want to take player agency.

I, as a DM, adore player agency because it makes my life easier but the player needs to work with me so that I can prepare and accommodate things in game.

Now, I may talk with them about how to fit it into the setting or work with them to flesh it out. I rarely say no unless it is really outside the bounds of setting or campaign.

To me, it is about mutual respect. I want to make the game fun for everyone but also want to have fun too. I will work with the player and the player should be willing to work with me.

 

[pemerton]

It is funny and illustrative of why we disagree so often. To me that is utterly terrible advice. Like literally the exact opposite what one should do! I would say the GM should know the personalities, convictions and weaknesses of NPCs, and play those NPCs with honesty and integrity based on those.

Well, I did describe it as a technique, not as advice. It is a technique that is applicable in some RPGs and some contexts, but not all RPGs all the time.

A very early application of the technique (or a variant of it) goes back to classic D&D and the reaction roll: the GM rolls the reaction dice, thereby works out how the NPC/creature is going to respond to the PCs, and then imputes an appropriate mood/personality to the NPC/creature to fit that reaction.

Most recently I have used the technique in my Torchbearer game both for Fori the Beardless and for Lareth the Beautiful. By keeping their aspirations and personalities somewhat unfixed until I need to present them in play, I can have their behaviours and responses play the role I want them to play, which is to put pressure on PC beliefs about Elves and Dwarves and their fates an destinies (and in a context where Lareth - who is a Half-Elf in this game - is the half-brother of one of the Elven PCs, and Fori is connected to the mysterious background of the Dwarven PC).

Have to agree with this. Changing NPCs' personalities to support a narrative is blatant cheating in my book. NPC personalities should be established before the players meet them, then they react to the players' actions in accordance with their established personalities. It needs to be that way to be fair.

If the game is a challenge-based game and one where overcoming the challenge requires acquiring particular information from the GM, this might be true.

If the game is a challenge-based one, but doesn't rely in the same way on acquiring information from the GM - eg it is not mystery-based or "breadcrumb"-based - then it's not true that fairness requires pre-established personalities. The classic reaction dice provide an illustration of the point.

If the game is not exploration-based, or significantly subordinates exploration - and this is the case for my Torchbearer 2e game - then there is nothing unfair about using the technique that Czege describes. The point of play is to prompt the players to make emotionally/thematically laden decisions. The manifestation of appropriate NPC personalities, moods and behaviours is one way of doing that - as Czege explains in the passage that I quoted.

 

[pemerton]

Fiction and system should feed back from and support each other. Also, I strongly disagree that losing the powers should be an unilateral player choice.

You and I apparently play very differently. This is the same problem I have when people argue about "fluff" Vs "crunch". The game doesn't need to become any more generic than it is right now. Things are what the text say that are, unless the DM explicitly changes something.

In my table, flavour is not free.

I don't really understand what your point is, and especially the last sentence. What does it mean for "flavour to be costly"?

 

[Vaalingrade]

You and I are coming at things very differently.

You seem to assume that bad DMs are having a power fantasy and want to take player agency.

I, as a DM, adore player agency because it makes my life easier but the player needs to work with me so that I can prepare and accommodate things in game.

Now, I may talk with them about how to fit it into the setting or work with them to flesh it out. I rarely say no unless it is really outside the bounds of setting or campaign.

To me, it is about mutual respect. I want to make the game fun for everyone but also want to have fun too. I will work with the player and the player should be willing to work with me.

For me, I don't see the character's personal faith to be something I need to okay, same as I don't need to okay their physical appearance or family.

Like I said before, if they want to work with me to make it a bigger thing in the game I'm happy to, but I don't need to give permission for them to not interpret their god's tenets the way I do. That's what I consider mutual respect.

 

[pemerton]

It's not unfair. It's just boring. It's the old "One of the Paladins is a traitor? You all know the drill. Everyone down into the courtyard and we'll see who can no longer Lay On Hands." issue. It's boring and controlling and therefore a symptom of bad DMing.

It certainly can be boring (and a symptom of bad GMing), if the game is meant to be one in which loyalty and faithfulness and the like are meant to be interesting focuses of play.

In its original Gygaxian manifestation, I think it was just meant to be another part of the challenge framework: good PCs are under restrictions that evil PCs are not, but they get access to bennies (reaction rolls, and friendly NPCs who might heal them) that evil PCs don't.

But that approach to play is pretty far from the contemporary mainstream.