D&D General A DMG for all of us

[Bayushi_seikuro]

It's a fair call. Personally, I don't care whether D&D caters to my preferences. I don't like the kind of influence stuff like the (frankly, toxic) advice in the new DMG will have on RPG culture in general, though. It's also sad to see people who keep going back to WotC even though D&D clearly doesn't give them what they want.

I think the things you assign a negative value to coming from the DMG - for example, story arcs etc - have been pretty common I feel in game design in the last twenty years.

I dare say any system that gives out XP starting with "One XP for attending the game session" lays the groundwork for that, and that starts back at least in my experience to Legend of the Five Rings 1e, which I believe is 1998(?). Maybe even older, with the old FASERIP Marvel system which rewarded Karma (which you used to learn new powers) in the 1980s.

 

[Clint_L]

I think the DM should definitely be up front about their approach. That is why the DMG is specifically suggesting this as part of the Session 0 conversation. As mentioned, this option of play (fudging is specifically listed as one option, with another option to roll in the open as another option for play) specifically in the section on Game Expectations and Ensuring Fun for All. Literally the Session 0 conversation portion of the book.

However, in my experience, you should never tell when you DO fudge a roll (which is what the DMG also suggests). The groups that want to play with fudging definitely don't want to know when you have swung things in their direction. It will suck all the joy of the hard won victory or near death experience. That is part of the agreement you have to make at Session 0, that they will never know when or if it happens.

In my experience, players can usually tell, or at least suspect when you are fudging. Rolling openly raises the stakes and empowers the players, because they know that their choices and their rolls matter, and I'm not going to just set aside the result I don't want to get the result that I do.

However, I do reserve the option to overrule a dice role in VERY rare circumstances, and I tell players why (they can see the roll, anyway). The last time I did it was just over a year ago, and a brand new player got hit by a horrendously unlucky critical in his first combat of his first game. It would have insta-killed the character he had spent significant time building, with my assistance, and it was pretty obvious that this was a make or break moment. So I explained to the party that his character should be dead because of the rule, but in this very unusual case we were allowing for divine intervention that saved his paladin at death's door. And then we got into how death saves work.

So this wasn't fudging - there was no deception - but it had a similar effect and although I still think I made the right call, I am conflicted about it to this day. To what extent did I limit the impact of future desperate situations on that group of players?

This is very much a personal choice, so I'm not saying that fudging dice rolls is wrong. But I am saying that there's a cost to it.

 

[payn]

In my experience, players can usually tell, or at least suspect when you are fudging. Rolling openly raises the stakes and empowers the players, because they know that their choices and their rolls matter, and I'm not going to just set aside the result I don't want to get the result that I do.

However, I do reserve the option to overrule a dice role in VERY rare circumstances, and I tell players why (they can see the roll, anyway). The last time I did it was just over a year ago, and a brand new player got hit by a horrendously unlucky critical in his first combat of his first game. It would have insta-killed the character he had spent significant time building, with my assistance, and it was pretty obvious that this was a make or break moment. So I explained to the party that his character should be dead because of the rule, but in this very unusual case we were allowing for divine intervention that saved his paladin at death's door. And then we got into how death saves work.

So this wasn't fudging - there was no deception - but it had a similar effect and although I still think I made the right call, I am conflicted about it to this day. To what extent did I limit the impact of future desperate situations on that group of players?

This is very much a personal choice, so I'm not saying that fudging dice rolls is wrong. But I am saying that there's a cost to it.

I think if there is ever a good reason to do it, you found it. My take has always been that fudging should be in the GM tool kit, but its frequency of use should be as close to zero as possible.

 

[MichaelSomething]

But your position is still equivalent to, "People not at my table should not be exposed to this idea." You are incapable of making it a reality, but that doesn't mean your position should not receive pushback.

Want to make that a reality?? Apply to join my Legion of DooDs (Designated Overlords of Dungeons and Dragons) today!

My goal is to liberate D&D from Hasbro and become the proper stewards of D&D!

 

[Emerikol]

The 4e DMG (and all of 4e) pretty explicitly leaned into its chosen playstyle. I've come to really expect it for that. And to be fair, the 5.5 DMG is also being more explicit in the playstyle it supports, so I suppose I should respect that too (although like 4e, the playstyle it supports is not one I like all that much).

That being said, I do like the idea of different DMGs catering to different playstyles, or a single book explicitly providing options for multiple. It just seems like you're going to have to look outside WotC for it.

Sure. It is an outside WOTC. I was making the point that a flexible enough game system in theory could support many playstyles and people could write books (people, companies, whatever) that nailed down how to use those rules for their style.

As DM, I do exactly that with my session 0 packet. All the houserules, setting limitations, etc... are in that packet.

 

[Emerikol]

How is D&D alienating certain playstyles? For 50 years, players with different playstyles have been playing and enjoying D&D. I'm on this "playstyles" topic A LOT because most of our differences in the ttrpg community are play-based. Which is how we get Storygamers hating D&D combat and Murderhobos hating talking to NPCs. GMs can shape their campaigns to better accommodate various playstyles (many GMs here do, based on their posts) and as always, players can try exploring playstyles that exist outside their bubble.

But we can have games that do just ONE THING: I only read some of it but, Alice is Missing doesn't seem to have much combat for us. Something like Strike! probably isn't offering the deepest aspects of social interaction. This does not mean you can't have a fistfight while looking for Alice or rolling out some political intrigue in-between Striking! We can do whatever we want with these games, right?

Finally, I give WotC credit for keeping "something for everybody" in D&D. That translates into $$$.

Well I think the playstyle that likes rules as physics and dislikes metagame mechanics has been abandoned. It used to be the mainstream of D&D.

I do think WOTC knows how to make money for sure. That is why I don't think they will abandon their approach. Having the name though really helps. Allow C&C to market as D&D and force D&D to market as C&C, and the numbers of players would change dramatically. Would it flip exactly? maybe not but it would mostly flip. Because there is a large middle of the road player who will play anything with D&D on it and doesn't care a lot about the game design. Maybe 4e was an exception but it ran pretty counter to it's predecessors whether you liked it or not.

 

[Remathilis]

Well I think the playstyle that likes rules as physics and dislikes metagame mechanics has been abandoned. It used to be the mainstream of D&D.

Hence why there can be no "One system to rule them all". You can't give advice and house rule your way into making 5e play to like 1e, despite what Mearls had hoped. You need said assumptions baked into the rules or it's only ever going to be lip service.

 

[Emerikol]

Hence why there can be no "One system to rule them all". You can't give advice and house rule your way into making 5e play to like 1e, despite what Mearls had hoped. You need said assumptions baked into the rules or it's only ever going to be lip service.

Well in a modular system that was truly designed to fit all styles, you have to make the stuff people debate a module that you can use or not use. I was hopeful that the champion would suffice but they baked a bunch of stuff into the core fighter and thus you have to house rule left and right. At that point, why bother. Just play an alternative which is what I actually did.

 

[Remathilis]

Well in a modular system that was truly designed to fit all styles, you have to make the stuff people debate a module that you can use or not use. I was hopeful that the champion would suffice but they baked a bunch of stuff into the core fighter and thus you have to house rule left and right. At that point, why bother. Just play an alternative which is what I actually did.

I have always said that modularity (and backwards compatibility) were two ideas that WotC thought they were promoting X and the community thought was X, Y and Z. I don't think you could make a D&D modular enough that one fighter could represent the simplicity of AD&D, the complex build nature of 3e and the tactical powers of 4e without some crossover that bleeds into each other. I don't think you could make a D&D that would satisfy everyone. I actually think it's healthy that other games step in and fill that void, but it seems like even with that, everyone still looks to D&D to fill that role as well, to validate their style of play even if they aren't playing that system anymore.

 

[payn]

I have always said that modularity (and backwards compatibility) were two ideas that WotC thought they were promoting X and the community thought was X, Y and Z. I don't think you could make a D&D modular enough that one fighter could represent the simplicity of AD&D, the complex build nature of 3e and the tactical powers of 4e without some crossover that bleeds into each other. I don't think you could make a D&D that would satisfy everyone.

The most eye popping idea was that all that you stated could be done at the same time. I always assumed it would work more like on off switch then dials for certain aspects. Like the tactical 4E approach is pretty much on or off. Sure, you could probably dial it up too, but I cant see a 4E character next to a 1E character that doesnt engage the tactical aspect at all working.

I actually think it's healthy that other games step in and fill that void, but it seems like even with that, everyone still looks to D&D to fill that role as well, to validate their style of play even if they aren't playing that system anymore.

Dems da breaks in a hobby that has D&D ----> PF2 ----------------> everything else.