D&D 5E 5e* - D&D-now

[pemerton]

Have you read the DW Guide? one interesting piece of guidance in the text is (here quoting)
"1. The GM gives the setup of a threat, but not the conclusion.
2. The player responds and probably rolls some dice.
3. The GM narrates the results, based on the player's roll."

The following passage is from the Torchbearer Scholar's Guide, p 213:

The game master is the arbiter of when the rules are invoked in Torchbearer. Play proceeds as the game master describes the scene and the action occurring in it, to which the players respond by describing their characters’ actions as they interact with the scene. The game master then replies with how the environment and the supporting cast react to the characters’ actions. Play goes back and forth like this until the game master decides a player’s description requires a test of a skill or ability.

When a player asks you, “Can I test this?” as the game master, your response should be, “What is your character doing? Tell me where you put your feet or how far you go or where you look.”​

I feel that by the logic of your argument, I should conclude that 5e D&D (or 5e*), Dungeon World and Torchbearer are all fundamentally the same game. (The GM replies with how the environment and supporting cast react to the character's actions is just a wordier form of the GM narrates the results.)

I just pulled my GW-imprint version of RQ3 off the shelf. The following is from page 5:

As a RuneQuest player, you take on the mental guise (role) of one or more adventurers who live in the game world . . . The gamemaster operates the game world. You (in the guise of your adventurer) encounter what he or she creates. The gamemaster also roleplays the incidental characters, creatures, and evildoers which your adventurers confront. . . .

Suppose that you say that your adventurer wishes to open a door and enter a room, and that the gamemaster replies that the door is locked. But you want your adventurer to open it anyway. . . The rules [I think it is clear that the text is referring here to the action resolution rules] tell everyone how to resolve such game situations. . .

In summary, RuneQuest is a series of interactions between players (who pilot characters through adventures) and a gamemaster (who runes the world in which the adventures occur). Most play is verbal exchange: the players tell the gamemaster what their adventurers intend to do, and the gamemaster then tells them if they can or may do it - or, if not, what happens instead.​

Does this mean that RQ is fundamentally the same game too?

There is nothing magical about the word narrate as opposed to describe, tell, reply so as to convey some information, etc. What we see in all these similar passages is a description of the basic process of mainstream RPGing: the GM frames a scene/presents a situation; the players declare actions for their PCs; the GM says what happens next.

All the difference between these RPGs - and the gap between (say) RQ and Torchbearer is probably about as big as it gets - is in the detail of what constrains the GM's framing and what constrains the GM's description of what happens next. RQ, DW and Torchbearer all address these things differently. All are pretty clear. I tend to find D&D 5e rather unclear in its rules text, but what is there seems to me ultimately to be more like RQ than DW or Torchbearer.

 

[clearstream]

The following passage is from the Torchbearer Scholar's Guide, p 213:

The game master is the arbiter of when the rules are invoked in Torchbearer. Play proceeds as the game master describes the scene and the action occurring in it, to which the players respond by describing their characters’ actions as they interact with the scene. The game master then replies with how the environment and the supporting cast react to the characters’ actions. Play goes back and forth like this until the game master decides a player’s description requires a test of a skill or ability.​

​

When a player asks you, “Can I test this?” as the game master, your response should be, “What is your character doing? Tell me where you put your feet or how far you go or where you look.”​

I feel that by the logic of your argument, I should conclude that 5e D&D (or 5e*), Dungeon World and Torchbearer are all fundamentally the same game. (The GM replies with how the environment and supporting cast react to the character's actions is just a wordier form of the GM narrates the results.)

I don't want to force a conclusion on anyone. I find the parallel wording inspiring, due to both subtle differences and overt similarities.

5th edition PHB 181 (2014)
"1. The DM describes the environment
2. The players describe what they want to do.
3. The DM narrates the results of their actions."

DW guide pdf version 1.2 (2012 so far as I can find)
"1. The GM gives the setup of a threat, but not the conclusion.
2. The player responds and probably rolls some dice.
3. The GM narrates the results, based on the player's roll."

I just pulled my GW-imprint version of RQ3 off the shelf. The following is from page 5:

As a RuneQuest player, you take on the mental guise (role) of one or more adventurers who live in the game world . . . The gamemaster operates the game world. You (in the guise of your adventurer) encounter what he or she creates. The gamemaster also roleplays the incidental characters, creatures, and evildoers which your adventurers confront. . . .​

​

Suppose that you say that your adventurer wishes to open a door and enter a room, and that the gamemaster replies that the door is locked. But you want your adventurer to open it anyway. . . The rules [I think it is clear that the text is referring here to the action resolution rules] tell everyone how to resolve such game situations. . .​

​

In summary, RuneQuest is a series of interactions between players (who pilot characters through adventures) and a gamemaster (who runes the world in which the adventures occur). Most play is verbal exchange: the players tell the gamemaster what their adventurers intend to do, and the gamemaster then tells them if they can or may do it - or, if not, what happens instead.​

Does this mean that RQ is fundamentally the same game too?

I'm writing a separate piece - a taxonomy of parts of an RPG text, with a discussion of where and how they are used. In it, I argue that rules of the sort we see here are regulatory (permissive, generally, but sometimes restrictive). To say that they are regulatory is to say that there is an antecedent activity that can happen even in the absence of the rule.

The antecedent activity is roleplay. Some might say that what finally settles how a group roleplay is a text that has an objectively true meaning. I do not believe that. "Any given rule is constructed between the text of the rules and the players and the text of their game." The final and authoritative act of design is at the table.

There is nothing magical about the word narrate as opposed to describe, tell, reply so as to convey some information, etc. What we see in all these similar passages is a description of the basic process of mainstream RPGing: the GM frames a scene/presents a situation; the players declare actions for their PCs; the GM says what happens next.

5e* makes that word "narrates" magical. It encourages DM to say something meaningful. It grasps the rule as regulatory, signaling a shift or arrow from system to fiction. One subtext is that a fiction-first version of D&D is alive in the 5e text. Particularly inhabiting rules such as DMG 237.

Once I understand these rules as regulatory, and take a non-formalist view of rule-following, then I can set aside assumptions about what each game must be, and look at what is constructed at the table through interpreting the text in the light of broader standards. It's consistent with that to accept that for another interpreter, it might be genuinely impossible to see the text in the same way.

All the difference between these RPGs - and the gap between (say) RQ and Torchbearer is probably about as big as it gets - is in the detail of what constrains the GM's framing and what constrains the GM's description of what happens next. RQ, DW and Torchbearer all address these things differently. All are pretty clear. I tend to find D&D 5e rather unclear in its rules text, but what is there seems to me ultimately to be more like RQ than DW or Torchbearer.

5e is rather unclear. That's a flaw and a virtue. In its ambiguities there is plenty of scope to assume a traditional style of play. For those that do, then their game is dissimilar from DW as you say.


[PLEASE NOTE EDITS]

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

The exact proportion isn't at issue: there are some, yes.


What I am saying - my subtext - is that it is as (in)correct as to say the same thing of 5e*.

[Have you read the DW Guide? one interesting piece of guidance in the text is (here quoting)
"1. The GM gives the setup of a threat, but not the conclusion.
2. The player responds and probably rolls some dice.
3. The GM narrates the results, based on the player's roll."]


[Last night, characters are taking on the Atropal in ToA. At last! (This dungeon is not at all to my liking.) The Atropal is spending Legendary actions to wail. It's imposing exhaustion. Worsening their movespace.]


I agree, but when it comes to text saying exactly what to narrate next, there are almost no cases of that.


And likewise, in 5e, DMing is profoundly far from unconstrained anarchy. 5e leaves more of principles and agenda to DM to bring to the table. One might say - "It is preferable for an RPG text to articulate principles" - but one can't say - "DM is not be influenced by principles if they are not in the text." One cannot say that DM will not have principles in mind when narrating. DM has to have them in mind: that's the only way they can narrate in the first place!

A well-known example is the principle of prompt response. Suppose lacking this principle I DM. At what time following result should I narrate? Ten minutes? A day? A year?! [What constitutes a dramatic pause versus broken conversation? And consider how the principle changes at end of session, where a week might become acceptable.]

My feeling is that the fundamental difference, the key differentiator, is REALLY all those statements which FILL the DW book (and I presume other PbtA systems are pretty similar in a general sense, though I have little experience with any of them).

So when you read DW MOST of what the rules text talks about are the things @Manbearcat is saying. They are the central theme and subject of that text. There's a bunch more that explains moves, the general structure of a game, some specific tools, etc. but in every case there is a laser focus on this structure of play.

How you operate on the GM side, what you do, why you do it, and when and where to apply different elements of the game, techniques, and considerations IS the rules by and large. The actual mechanical "here's how you roll the dice" sort of stuff could be summarized in 3 pages, at most! Playbooks and Monsters take up a decent amount of space as well, but this is vastly different from 5e.

5e, typical of D&D, is MOSTLY mechanics, or else focused on how the mechanics are intended to map to the fiction (IE an explanation of what a Fighter is and various color related to that). VERY LITTLE is actually expended, proportionately, on the things which DW focuses on most heavily. When there ARE statements of intent or structure, like PHB p6, or the several paragraphs in the DMG which talk about narration and when to ask for checks, they're like 'raisins' in the bread. Most of the bulk of the game is discussing various mechanical considerations and subsystems.

Now, I'm not saying 5e lacks color or anything like that. There's a good bit of both basic color (descriptive text) as well as text which is meant to be expositive of character motivations, background, capabilities as related to the fiction, etc. But there's really essentially nothing about the primary driving loop of the game and how it relates to what the players want, etc.

You can call it 'flexibility' if you want. Frankly I just call it sloppy. I mean, I don't argue that it isn't deliberate. Its just easy mode design though, and it happens to also work well for a game which basically rests on name vs quality of underlying conceptual design, TBH. I think it has the virtue of being the accepted and sub-culturally approved style, everyone understands it, has played it, was probably introduced to gaming on this style of game, etc. And sure, you can interpret it in your own particular style (5e*) and imagine that its this or that game. Given an experienced GM with a wide knowledge of GMing techniques, no biggie. I just found it a TON easier to GM 4e, and WAY WAY easier to GM DW, or my own game (there I cannot say actually what other people would get out of it, maybe my style of play isn't really inherent in the text, lol).

So, whole cloth game design IS hard. That's mostly because you can't really know what it is you're doing simply 'by feel'. Other people will come and see something totally different, and not approach it with your assumptions. So a good game, IMHO, has to rely heavily on conceptual structure to guide the game designer. 5e IMHO lacks that, though it does have "be like other D&Ds" which itself is a pretty strong constraint.

But this is why I don't even really find it super useful to talk about principles of design or how to interpret and apply a game like 5e, there's simply no THERE there. It is like looking at a pile of rocks and discussing the virtues of living in the castle, first you gotta build it, and to do that you need architecture!

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

5e* makes that word "narrates" magical. It encourages DM to say something meaningful. It grasps the rule as regulatory, signaling a shift or arrow from system to fiction. One subtext is that a fiction-first version of D&D is alive in the 5e text. Particularly inhabiting rules such as DMG 237.

OK, but my contention is that there is then nothing that really tells you WHAT to narrate, or WHY, or even HOW. That is the PRIMARY FOCUS of a game like DW. I would go measure word count on these different topics in each rules system and you may start to see what each one thinks it cares about.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Once I understand these rules as regulatory, and take a non-formalist view of rule-following, then I can set aside assumptions about what each game must be, and look at what is constructed at the table through interpreting the text in the light of broader standards. It's consistent with that to accept that for another interpreter, it might be genuinely impossible to see the text in the same way.

Obviously what we actually DO with a game's text imbues it with whatever meaning it has; as a game at least. I think everyone accepts that basic fact. What I contend is the proper realm of analysis of these texts is to understand what characteristics are salient, and how they relate to the play of the game. It always strikes me as odd when people compare 2 games, one which is very explicit, and one that is very vague, and then contend that the vague one "does the same thing" essentially as the explicit one.

Sure, its POSSIBLE that SOME PEOPLE will, when they play each game, have a very similar experience. Possible, but since any constraint on that is not contained within the more vague system's text, it is hard to describe that as an attribute of said game, isn't it? I'd say that, in as much as all RPGs tend to get played in similar ways, this is a CULTURAL result! We have been lead to expect, and have had, a certain type of experience in play, and thus we attempt to reproduce something largely similar, at least absent any explicit textual indicators to the contrary.

 

[clearstream]

My feeling is that the fundamental difference, the key differentiator, is REALLY all those statements which FILL the DW book (and I presume other PbtA systems are pretty similar in a general sense, though I have little experience with any of them).

So when you read DW MOST of what the rules text talks about are the things @Manbearcat is saying. They are the central theme and subject of that text. There's a bunch more that explains moves, the general structure of a game, some specific tools, etc. but in every case there is a laser focus on this structure of play.

To what extent do you feel those explanations clarify, organise and overall articulate principles and agendas that DMs have had in mind from the outset? The author of Monster of the Week commented on this question, that - "That sort of play goes back decades, including when D&D was first getting started in the 1970s."

How you operate on the GM side, what you do, why you do it, and when and where to apply different elements of the game, techniques, and considerations IS the rules by and large. The actual mechanical "here's how you roll the dice" sort of stuff could be summarized in 3 pages, at most! Playbooks and Monsters take up a decent amount of space as well, but this is vastly different from 5e.

5e, typical of D&D, is MOSTLY mechanics, or else focused on how the mechanics are intended to map to the fiction (IE an explanation of what a Fighter is and various color related to that). VERY LITTLE is actually expended, proportionately, on the things which DW focuses on most heavily. When there ARE statements of intent or structure, like PHB p6, or the several paragraphs in the DMG which talk about narration and when to ask for checks, they're like 'raisins' in the bread. Most of the bulk of the game is discussing various mechanical considerations and subsystems.

Now, I'm not saying 5e lacks color or anything like that. There's a good bit of both basic color (descriptive text) as well as text which is meant to be expositive of character motivations, background, capabilities as related to the fiction, etc. But there's really essentially nothing about the primary driving loop of the game and how it relates to what the players want, etc.

There's page 6 in the DMG I suppose, that ties it to what different kinds of players want, and page 9, which lays out some core ideas to have in mind. Two significant differences in perspective that I notice are

• 5e encourages toward grasping the world as externally real: somewhere the characters live, but not necessarily built around them
• 5e leaves it to DM to know how they will DM: the RAW is insouciant or coy

I feel like the text you allude to is very well justified. I see that as a separate question from whether the play it guides to cannot be reached otherwise.

You can call it 'flexibility' if you want. Frankly I just call it sloppy. I mean, I don't argue that it isn't deliberate. Its just easy mode design though, and it happens to also work well for a game which basically rests on name vs quality of underlying conceptual design, TBH. I think it has the virtue of being the accepted and sub-culturally approved style, everyone understands it, has played it, was probably introduced to gaming on this style of game, etc. And sure, you can interpret it in your own particular style (5e*) and imagine that its this or that game. Given an experienced GM with a wide knowledge of GMing techniques, no biggie. I just found it a TON easier to GM 4e, and WAY WAY easier to GM DW, or my own game (there I cannot say actually what other people would get out of it, maybe my style of play isn't really inherent in the text, lol).

I'm not so sure they had a choice. They couldn't come down on one side or another in the commercially-motivated game design for the widest possible audience. That's one reason I find echoes in the text inspiring. Professional designers almost always know their context thoroughly. They're aware of the discourse and any landmark works. I am reading through yours and will give you at least one more perspective. It'll be interesting to understand if I can interpret your style of play from it!

So, whole cloth game design IS hard. That's mostly because you can't really know what it is you're doing simply 'by feel'. Other people will come and see something totally different, and not approach it with your assumptions. So a good game, IMHO, has to rely heavily on conceptual structure to guide the game designer. 5e IMHO lacks that, though it does have "be like other D&Ds" which itself is a pretty strong constraint.

To be honest, I agree. It's an area I wonder if we will see developed in 6e? It seems likely to me that WotC designers are aware of what they have left unsaid. Design is a highly intentional activity.

But this is why I don't even really find it super useful to talk about principles of design or how to interpret and apply a game like 5e, there's simply no THERE there. It is like looking at a pile of rocks and discussing the virtues of living in the castle, first you gotta build it, and to do that you need architecture!

That what is I find magical about that word "narrates". Taking the text holistically, and interpreting that word as 5e* suggests (both as to saying something meaningful, and as to its regulatory significance), leads me directly to a consistent interpretation. Admittedly, it didn't need to do any heavy lifting, as it was speaking to my natural style of DMing.

 

[clearstream]

OK, but my contention is that there is then nothing that really tells you WHAT to narrate, or WHY, or even HOW. That is the PRIMARY FOCUS of a game like DW. I would go measure word count on these different topics in each rules system and you may start to see what each one thinks it cares about.

I do not find this with 5e. It's a genuine puzzler for me: the implication that some DMs hit points where what follows isn't clear to them. Other posters described that "the actual cognitive workspace a GM is inhabiting during play and the conversation is pushing toward yields consequences that are profoundly far away from unconstrained or anarchy" and for me that is true in 5e.

The closest I've come to not knowing was two sessions ago, where the player-characters were all down (due to a cursed necklace of fireballs) and two non-player character allies were standing. Due to complexities in the situation, it took me a couple of minutes to parse what to say next. Afterwards, one player felt that one of their foes, who was also standing, should have made a more vicious move. In the moment, I felt that relied on information that foe wouldn't have. Everyone else agreed with what I narrated.

I feel sure you are right about word count. As I hoped to explain above, I very much feel it is right to say - "It is preferable for an RPG text to articulate principles." At the same time, I know that I cannot say - "DMs is not influenced by principles, unless they are articulated in an RPG text." I'm not meaning to embrace the Oberoni Fallacy. Rather I see external influences as unavoidable, and in fact virtuous in play. Essential for play to occur. There must be something left unsaid between text, system, and fiction.


[It strikes me that a game that clearly and extensively articulates its principles works to exclude other interpretations. On first reading, Stonetop looks like a good example of that.]

 

[Faolyn]

These two statements seem to me to be at odds with one another. By my reading of 5e, one would have to go outside the RAW to rule that the player decides whether or not the guard spots them, so I don’t see how both of these things can be true of 5e*

I don't think those are contradictory. In the example, it can be assumed that the characters are being somewhat stealthy--either with die rolls or simply by saying that they're trying to blend into the crowd and not doing anything to draw attention to themselves. Then they see the guard they know, and can choose to go "Hey, guard, over here!" if they want to.

 

[Faolyn]

But it would be a rule in this hypothetical alternate rule set, that’s the point.

But what, actually, is the rule? How do you enforce "no meaningless narration"? In fact, how do you define "meaningless narration"?

 

[Faolyn]

Il even cast a wider net: can anyone participating in this thread provide an example of meaningless narration by the GM in a situation that would actually occur in play?

Maybe going into details about someone's clothing when that clothing has nothing to do with the individual's life or the plot and doesn't create atmosphere?