D&D 5E 2 year campaign down the drain?

[Guest 6801328]

To me, this comes back to questions about the role of the players in the game. 5e D&D doesn't have a whole lot of mechanics for "Ocean's 11"-ing a situation beyond figuring out what the GM has in mind and then doing that.

Eg if a player declares I look in place X to find the widget that we need to do that other thing in place Z there is no canonical resolution framework beyond the GM looks at his/her notes to see what they say about place X. And if the players do succeed in having their PCs fing the widget, then unless the widget is a magic item or spell component there is no canonical way for working out whether deploying it at place Z to try and do that other thing wil work, beyond The GM consults his/her notes and/or makes a decision.

Given that, I think the responsibility falls heavily on the referee. There are many other things that can happen besides armed guards turning up.

I should add, I'm not faulting the GM in the OP here. There's nothing wrong with having the guards turn up! It's just that, when a GM makes that decision, it then seems to me pretty pointless to complain - in the context of a D&D game - that lethal combat was the outcome.

Spot on.

I put zero stock in the idea that the world is fixed and the DMs job is to impartially (or, gods forbid, “realistically”) interpret it.

In the scenario described, for example, maybe a rival, or even hitherto unknown faction also shows up with smuggled weapons.

 

[TwoSix]

The characters do things, the DM decides how to handle them (which could be autofail, autosuccess, roll, something else)? That seems a lot different to me than "figuring out what the GM has in mind and then doing that." The latter at least implies to me there's one and only one solution for the PCs to hit upon in some way. The former implies multiple solutions--in the case of my games, at least sometimes they're solutions I didn't think of.

It's possible one of us is misunderstanding the other, here.

I believe the implication here is that the players have no mechanical recourse other than suggesting different approaches to the problem and seeing if one of them sticks. Having multiple possible responses available to you as a DM doesn't change that suggesting and winning DM approval is the only path forward for the players.

This would be in contrast to other more narrative systems where the players can author methods in which their characters could have multiple paths forward. Blades in the Dark seems to be the most popular game currently for describing that method of play.

 

[prabe]

I believe the implication here is that the players have no mechanical recourse other than suggesting different approaches to the problem and seeing if one of them sticks. Having multiple possible responses available to you as a DM doesn't change that suggesting and winning DM approval is the only path forward for the players.

This would be in contrast to other more narrative systems where the players can author methods in which their characters could have multiple paths forward. Blades in the Dark seems to be the most popular game currently for describing that method of play.

Leaving aside that one can consider the DM's judgment to be a mechanic ...

I would describe the process more as the players decide on a course of action, the DM decides how difficult it is (and in some cases how to resolve it), resolution happens (which could be entirely roleplay, or dice, or a combination). I suppose you could say the DM is "giving approval" by determining difficulty, but it doesn't feel that way from inside my head; if I'm doing something like assigning a DC and figuring out what to roll, I'm doing that more or less in ignorance of how good the characters are at what.

I still think that "figuring out what the DM has in mind and then doing that" sounds as though there's One Thing that will work.

I skimmed through Blades in the Dark a few months ago in a game store, and it didn't particularly appeal, and it didn't really stick. I should probably give it another shot, at least so I can make a more informed judgment.

 

[pemerton]

This would be in contrast to other more narrative systems where the players can author methods in which their characters could have multiple paths forward. Blades in the Dark seems to be the most popular game currently for describing that method of play.

You don't have to go that far, either. 4e skill challenges are enough, because they establish a framework in which the players can achieve a success that is binding on the GM in a finite series of action declarations.

Any system with binding conflict resolution that covers all significant sorts of action declarations will fit the bill. At the moment I'm GMing Prince Valiant and Cortex+ Heroic campaigns that fit this description, and also Classic Traveller which mostly does as well (it has a few weak spots which I carefully manoeuvre around as a referee).

The characters do things, the DM decides how to handle them (which could be autofail, autosuccess, roll, something else)? That seems a lot different to me than "figuring out what the GM has in mind and then doing that." The latter at least implies to me there's one and only one solution for the PCs to hit upon in some way. The former implies multiple solutions--in the case of my games, at least sometimes they're solutions I didn't think of.

It's possible one of us is misunderstanding the other, here.

I've bolded the key bit. I think you are putting a lot of stock in the surface temporal grammar of my statement figuring out what the GM has in mind whereas I'm not very interested in that particuarl feature of it - the GM might apply his/her mind in advance of or subsequent to the action declaration - but rather in the fact that we have GM decides as the resolution method.

That may be a good or bad method - I've got my own views but they're not really relevant to this thread - but if that's the method being used, then the GM incurs a lot of responsibility for what unfolds. Because almost tautologically, everything is up to him/her.

And in D&D there's an extra consideration that combat is normally not resolved as "GM decides", which means that the players can feel a pressure to shift the arena of conflict to combat if they feel things are spiralling out of their control or comprehension.

Originally during the session when the Druid killed the Lord in the upstairs chamber and alerted the party by roaring, our Ranger attempted to cause a distraction by acting drunk on the lower level. With the guards seeing this they attempted to control the situation by grappling him first. There were no weapons drawn.
Yes there are other ways to defuse the situations, but in the moment, I was shocked that the PCs chose to attack the Lord and Bodyguard in stead of trying to come clean and talk their way out of it.

I really mean it when I say I'm not expressing any criticism of how you handled it.

My disagreement is with some other posters who are saying - in effect - that the players should be punished for having resorted to combat.

As I said in my first post in this thread, I think you've got an interesting situation and I'd run with it rather than try and shut it down.

 

[Fenris-77]

@prabe - Part of the problem is that D&D doesn't really model player control of the fiction well, nor does it support success with consequences. Both of those are key elements of Blades and lot of other games.

I'd recommend giving Blades another look even if all you ever do is mine it for ideas to port to D&D. Actually playing it is cool too. There's a Starwars/Firefly version called Scum and Villainy that I'm currently playing uses the same mechanics and is also very cool.

 

[Bawylie]

You don't have to go that far, either. 4e skill challenges are enough, because they establish a framework in which the players can achieve a success that is binding on the GM in a finite series of action declarations.

Any system with binding conflict resolution that covers all significant sorts of action declarations will fit the bill. At the moment I'm GMing Prince Valiant and Cortex+ Heroic campaigns that fit this description, and also Classic Traveller which mostly does as well (it has a few weak spots which I carefully manoeuvre around as a referee).

I've bolded the key bit. I think you are putting a lot of stock in the surface temporal grammar of my statement figuring out what the GM has in mind whereas I'm not very interested in that particuarl feature of it - the GM might apply his/her mind in advance of or subsequent to the action declaration - but rather in the fact that we have GM decides as the resolution method.

That may be a good or bad method - I've got my own views but they're not really relevant to this thread - but if that's the method being used, then the GM incurs a lot of responsibility for what unfolds. Because almost tautologically, everything is up to him/her.

And in D&D there's an extra consideration that combat is normally not resolved as "GM decides", which means that the players can feel a pressure to shift the arena of conflict to combat if they feel things are spiralling out of their control or comprehension.

I really mean it when I say I'm not expressing any criticism of how you handled it.

My disagreement is with some other posters who are saying - in effect - that the players should be punished for having resorted to combat.

As I said in my first post in this thread, I think you've got an interesting situation and I'd run with it rather than try and shut it down.

Agree. Play through natural consequences for the characters in the game; avoid punishing the players. There’s a distinction there I tried to draw in my initial response.

 

[Guest 6801328]

The characters do things, the DM decides how to handle them (which could be autofail, autosuccess, roll, something else)? That seems a lot different to me than "figuring out what the GM has in mind and then doing that." The latter at least implies to me there's one and only one solution for the PCs to hit upon in some way. The former implies multiple solutions--in the case of my games, at least sometimes they're solutions I didn't think of.

It's possible one of us is misunderstanding the other, here.

I think you are misunderstanding him. Either that or I am.

For example, it’s the difference between “the info they need is in a book, and the book they need is in the office, and they will have to eventually decide to look there, getting past the obstacles I have planned” and “I’ll decide where the information is, and what obstacles are in the way, once the players have decided where and how to look for it.”

The latter is more Dungeon World (for example) but I DM that way all the time. My players, as a group, think of WAY more creative ideas than I would on my own.

 

[pemerton]

I would describe the process more as the players decide on a course of action, the DM decides how difficult it is (and in some cases how to resolve it), resolution happens (which could be entirely roleplay, or dice, or a combination). I suppose you could say the DM is "giving approval" by determining difficulty, but it doesn't feel that way from inside my head; if I'm doing something like assigning a DC and figuring out what to roll, I'm doing that more or less in ignorance of how good the characters are at what.

The point I'm getting at is that what follows from a successufl check is itself all under the GM's control.

The players, in 5e D&D, have no canonical way of making the stakes of resolution be do we find the widget at place X or does the widget do what we want it to at place Z. All they can do is look to the GM and ask. The fact that the GM's response might be to call for a die roll doesn't change that.

For a clear contrast, look at how combat works in 5e D&D. It's not like that.

Again, this is not a criticism of 5e. It's just something I'm pointing out about it, which I think is then relevant to discussing what responsibilities different participants have when it comes to introducing content such as lethal violence.

EDIT: @Elfcrusher can comment better than me whether I'm being fair in my characterisation of what is canonical for 5e D&D. If a better word would be typical I'm not fussed - it's not my game. I'm trying to convey a point about what the GM's job encompasses given that a certain approach to resolution is being used.

 

[prabe]

I'd recommend giving Blades another look even if all you ever do is mine it for ideas to port to D&D. Actually playing it is cool too. There's a Starwars/Firefly version called Scum and Villainy that I'm currently playing uses the same mechanics and is also very cool.

Yeah. I was poking around looking for books in other systems to read, and didn't find anything that grabbed me. I would probably go with the SFnal version over the Fantasy. I'll probably poke around some soon and see what I can find.

 

[prabe]

The point I'm getting at is that what follows from a successufl check is itself all under the GM's control.

The players, in 5e D&D, have no canonical way of making the stakes of resolution be do we find the widget at place X or does the widget do what we want it to at place Z. All they can do is look to the GM and ask. The fact that the GM's response might be to call for a die roll doesn't change that.

The players can make the stakes of the resolution "would we find the widget if it was here?" The players can make the stakes of the resolution "Can we figure out if the widget will do the thing?" Both of those have canonical ways to decide (yes, the DM gets to decide how hard either is to resolve, but it's not implausible for the players or characters to know the difficulty) and seem reasonably close to me. Given that I'm not in love with the idea of the players deciding where the widget is or what it does, I'm fine with that.

For a clear contrast, look at how combat works in 5e D&D. It's not like that.

Unless the PCs want to do something nonstandard. Then you need to figure out how to resolve that.

Again, this is not a criticism of 5e. It's just something I'm pointing out about it, which I think is then relevant to discussing what responsibilities different participants have when it comes to introducing content such as lethal violence.

I think there's an argument that if the PCs start the lethal violence, it's on the PCs. An enemy who wants to kill you and isn't trying to now, isn't an enemy you need to kill now.

EDIT: @Elfcrusher can comment better than me whether I'm being fair in my characterisation of what is canonical for 5e D&D. If a better word would be typical I'm not fussed - it's not my game. I'm trying to convey a point about what the GM's job encompasses given that a certain approach to resolution is being used.

I run my games with a lot of flexibility. To use an example similar to the one @Elfcrusher did, if the information is in a book, I know where that book is, and there are several ways for the PCs to find out where the book is and what they'll find in it. If the information is vital to whatever the PCs are pursuing, it'll probably be available at least one other way. I try not to have anything gated behind a single check or other roll.

I know what the DM's role is in 5E. At my tables at least, there's a feedback loop between the players and me, and I'm somewhere between willing and eager to take a player's idea and run with it and turn it into the heart of an adventure (something I picked up from running Fate, to be honest). The players surprise me, and I surprise them; it's the circle of life.