Manbearcat
Legend
However, the initial framing of situation by the GM would be extremely relevant here as it would narrow or broaden prospective action declarations for the PCs. Note, that, unlike classic D&D where the GM rolls a Reaction Roll for the PCs, 5e handles this initial framing in the same way as 4e does; GM determines initial attitude and framing.
This is a significant deviation from classic D&D. But more on that tomorrow and then we'll move through the possible initial framing and action declarations (tired, going to bed).
Alright, continuing on.
I'm going to extend this little bit of a digression to talk about Trad D&D (for this, I'm using Basic and 1e) vs 4e, 5e, and Torchbearer.
One of the primary pieces of machinery in Trad D&D is Monster Reaction Rolls/Table. When the PCs encounter a Wandering Monster or a Random Encounter, the disposition of a creature is often unfixed (except for things like Oozes, Zombies, Golems et al). 1e and Basic handle this slightly differently, but philosophically, its the same. If the PCs want to talk (and can) and the creature is capable of functional parley, roll Monster Reaction and we find out where that takes us (with the result + context of the dungeon setting guiding the GM in their further handling of the encounter).
What did 4e, 5e, and Torchbearer do? No more Monster Reaction Rolls.
Torchbearer and 5e have some similarities in NPC machinery. Torchbearer Monsters have an Instinct and Descriptors that the GM will use to frame conflict/parley with NPCs. 5e has Ideals, Bonds, and Flaws that will be doing much the same work.
4e doesn't have that kind of machinery, but the GM is advised to play NPCs as obstacles that engage with (perhaps interpose themselves between) PC thematic goals (Quests, Themes, Paragon Paths, Epic Destinies).
So the latter 3 systems have GMs directly framing NPCs (with cues) without the emergent system input of Monster Reaction Rolls.
What is the difference in play?
The nature of refereeing changes in this component. The former has an "objective refereeing" paradigm where action declaration (PCs talk to a Wandering Monster) meets chance determines disposition (rolling on a table) to find out what happens. Its essential for a pure "dungeon simulator" type of feel, where the exclusive goal is to defeat an environment of obstacles (defeat in this case meaning "get as much treasure out without needless setbacks and risks that may confound the whole operation"), that the GM is playing "neutrally."
The latter 3 games aren't refereed "objectively" or "neutrally" in the same sense as those former 2 games. That isn't to say that those games prescribe adversarial GMing. It is to say that the GM has different play priorities (and the GM in each system has slightly different play priorities, but there is some overlap in a Venn Diagram that features the 3 systems...they also each have different machinery that hooks into their play priorities). This is also because the goals of play for each of these 3 systems are different than those former 2 systems (though 5e and Torchbearer certainly have some instances of overlap with 1e and Basic, with Torchbearer having much, much more).
Challenge their thematic portfolio, goals, and skill at overcoming obstacles as you move through the hierarchy of D&D tropes.
Be master of rules, master of adventure, and lead storyteller in a tale that hooks into PC background, ideals, bonds, flaws.
Test their nature and belief in unforgiving, desperate circumstances where the light is always dying.
Those latter three don't entail "objective" or "neutral" refereeing. The point of refereeing is that you're supposed to be doing stuff that isn't neutral!
Last edited: