D&D General A DMG for all of us

[Umbran]

Dude, chill. I’m not dictating to anyone.

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.

 

[Theory of Games]

I was thinking of how many playstyles now exist side by side in D&D. And more than one is pretty popular. Often they are not compatible. Often people in a particular area don't even realize the other styles exist.

How can the designers of a DMG go very deep when whatever the direction they take they will alienate someone. They can't. The book ends up being a bunch of tables and some very light advice.

One thing about the 1e DMG. It was dripping with opinion. Gygax presented his way and taught players how to manage games his way. He ignored all other ways. For me, that approach really resonated and I learned what he was teaching and I made it work and work well. Others though may have been driven mad by it. I do also notice that many new games present their playstyle front and center and make few bones about it. Only D&D is caught in this web of making everyone happy. I do though think though that some version of D&D could be played in many different styles.

So what if someone created a DMG (or GMG) for a given playstyle specifically. Then imagine others create the same for other playstyles. If the rules were genuinely flexible enough, they aren't now but they could be, we could all play the same rules but with different underlying assumptions. Campaigns might even be named after particular DMGs. I'm playing with the Gygaxian philosophy.

The generic stuff would then be left in the official DMG.

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 $$$.

 

[TiQuinn]

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.

Okay frankly, I’m not comfortable having this conversation with you.

 

[Remathilis]

Huh? Don't players also have an interest in having fun? Don't they have opinions about what is desirable? Don't they have any desire for agency, challenge, or creative input?

I think the problem here is that you see 'the fun' as a thing that the DM delivers to the players, like giving a sermon. I'm saying that the game is supposed to be a conversation, and that everyone has things they want to say. The rules of the game structure that conversation, and give creative inputs and constraints.

As a player, I've agreed to use the rules to have this conversation, not to have the DM get on a soapbox and start browbeating me.

Of course they do. But if you and six friends are going to have a dinner party, someone will end up in charge of hosting the venue and preparing a menu. The DM is the host and responsible for making sure everything runs smoothly and everyone has a good time. That does sometimes mean making calls that aren't unanimous, but in the interest of the majority of the group. Otherwise you end up with chaotic events that people don't know where and when to go, whether they are supposed to bring a dish, and if so what to bring. D&D assumes the other players are giving some control over to the DM in an attempt to have things run smoothly. That's not the Tyrant DM stuff I see promoted here, but it does mean there has to be someone who ends up with the buck stopping at.

I don't think that players don't have a role in this conversation. I've LONG advocated that DMs get God complexes and try too hard to limit players via banning options, house rules, and the like. But as you say, it's a conversation. The DM is responsible for making their side of the game fun, and the players are responsible for theirs. I just don't think that DMs being able to ignore a die roll in the service of making the game better is a cardinal sin.

 

[Loren the GM]

Yes, 2014 DMG, I wouldn't want the players to not think they're facing real risks when I change the dice rolls to negate the risks.

I did edit my post to add 3.5 text. But also see AD&D 2nd edition (I'm stopping here with finding rulebooks that include a version of this rule):

 

[Remathilis]

I assume he feels that the option is toxic to what he considers good and fair play, and would rather it not catch on, which is more likely when it appears in the DM book for the most popular RPG.

I keep waiting for the copy of the PHB that finally abandoned the notion of rolling for ability scores and HP, but they keep putting that option in the book. Maybe 2034...

 

[gorice]

Of course they do. But if you and six friends are going to have a dinner party, someone will end up in charge of hosting the venue and preparing a menu. The DM is the host and responsible for making sure everything runs smoothly and everyone has a good time.

I completely reject this analogy. In my experience, this attitude leads to exhaustion for the DM and boredom for everyone else. Players have, at the very least, responsibility for playing their characters. This gets back to my original complaint: either the DM runs everything, or the players have some agency. You cannot have both simultaneously.

That does sometimes mean making calls that aren't unanimous, but in the interest of the majority of the group. Otherwise you end up with chaotic events that people don't know where and when to go, whether they are supposed to bring a dish, and if so what to bring. D&D assumes the other players are giving some control over to the DM in an attempt to have things run smoothly. That's not the Tyrant DM stuff I see promoted here, but it does mean there has to be someone who ends up with the buck stopping at.

Any functional RPG gives different people different roles. That's never been in question. The problem, in this case, is the DM stealthily assuming powers that should not be theirs.

I honestly don't know why this is such a sticking point. If you and I agree to use dice to adjudicate combat, and then I secretly take control of the combat results by fudging the dice, then I have both betrayed your trust and assumed powers you did not want me to have.

I don't think that players don't have a role in this conversation. I've LONG advocated that DMs get God complexes and try too hard to limit players via banning options, house rules, and the like. But as you say, it's a conversation. The DM is responsible for making their side of the game fun, and the players are responsible for theirs. I just don't think that DMs being able to ignore a die roll in the service of making the game better is a cardinal sin.

Is it a cardinal sin to ignore one roll, because the game is a bit broken and it would lead to an outcome everyone would find unacceptable? No. I'm not claiming that you, personally, are a bad person because you fudged the dice one time. (I do think that being open about the outcome with your players and working out a houserule would be a better option.)

However, fudging like that is a slippery slope. Are sure everyone would find the outcome unacceptable? What if you're tempted to fudge in other situations? Then you have the whole issue of WotC actively telling DMs to take charge of the game (as 'director' and 'storyteller', etc.), and offering them fudging as one way of doing that. It's extremely bad advice.

 

[Loren the GM]

I completely reject this analogy. In my experience, this attitude leads to exhaustion for the DM and boredom for everyone else. Players have, at the very least, responsibility for playing their characters. This gets back to my original complaint: either the DM runs everything, or the players have some agency. You cannot have both simultaneously.


Any functional RPG gives different people different roles. That's never been in question. The problem, in this case, is the DM stealthily assuming powers that should not be theirs.

I honestly don't know why this is such a sticking point. If you and I agree to use dice to adjudicate combat, and then I secretly take control of the combat results by fudging the dice, then I have both betrayed your trust and assumed powers you did not want me to have.


Is it a cardinal sin to ignore one roll, because the game is a bit broken and it would lead to an outcome everyone would find unacceptable? No. I'm not claiming that you, personally, are a bad person because you fudged the dice one time. (I do think that being open about the outcome with your players and working out a houserule would be a better option.)

However, fudging like that is a slippery slope. Are sure everyone would find the outcome unacceptable? What if you're tempted to fudge in other situations? Then you have the whole issue of WotC actively telling DMs to take charge of the game (as 'director' and 'storyteller', etc.), and offering them fudging as one way of doing that. It's extremely bad advice.

It is not bad advice, it is just how you are choosing to play. It would be bad for your table to use this optional way of playing, as it would obviously not be fun for you.

While I am a "roll in the open" sort of DM, I make this very clear during my session 0 (I'm not pulling punches, and stuff is going to happen how it happens). If I were going to be a "roll behind the screen and keep my rolls secret" sort of DM, I would also make this clear during my session 0, and explain what that could mean (such as my ability to fudge rolls). Either way it would be a discussion, and the opinions of the other players would be part of the equation going forward.

Some groups like having a DM who is guiding the story more through rolls, some like it less, and some do not care and are just happy to be playing. I've played with all of those groups, and have adjusted my style to fit them. All are fair ways of playing, because everyone has agreed to it.

Which is also how the 2024 DMG is laid out - providing options (including discussing game rules, etc.) during a Session 0, and having a conversation for the fun of the group.

None of this equals bad advice or the wrong way to play. And saying it shouldn't be in the DMG is kind of the equivalent of policing how someone else has fun with the game, and that there is only one right way to play. There isn't just one way to play or have fun, and the DMG is very clear that there are lots of approaches, as long as everyone at the table is bought into how the game is played.

 

[pemerton]

It is not bad advice, it is just how you are choosing to play. It would be bad for your table to use this optional way of playing, as it would obviously not be fun for you.

<snip>

Some groups like having a DM who is guiding the story more through rolls, some like it less, and some do not care and are just happy to be playing.

But then the GM could be open about what they're doing, couldn't they? If they're exercising a "guiding" function, why pretend that they're letting the dice matter?

I get that the GM might want to be coy about it on any given occasion - maybe the players don't want to be certain which bits of play are the guided ones and which are not - but the GM could be upfront about their overall approach, I think.

I completely reject this analogy. In my experience, this attitude leads to exhaustion for the DM and boredom for everyone else.

I don't know if you've looked at the recent "GMs bored when playing" thread, but it's quite interesting in this respect: GMs - Do you get bored when you're a player?

 

[Loren the GM]

But then the GM could be open about what they're doing, couldn't they? If they're exercising a "guiding" function, why pretend that they're letting the dice matter?

I get that the GM might want to be coy about it on any given occasion - maybe the players don't want to be certain which bits of play are the guided ones and which are not - but the GM could be upfront about their overall approach, I think.

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.