D&D General Alternate thought - rule of cool is bad for gaming

[FrogReaver]

Well, I think the claim that the rule for resolution in 5e D&D is the GM ultimately decides what happens would be a controversial one. In other threads, I've seen that description of 5e D&D criticised as denigrating caricature.

I think just some descriptions of that are criticized as denigrating caricature. The common view of d&d players is that ‘dm decides’ enhances the game if the DM can appropriately do that at the right moments for their table.

 

[Andrew Gronosky]

I just want to say thanks to @deadman1204 for the original post. It's a great point. Thanks for your well thought out perspective.

 

[Oofta]

I think just some descriptions of that are criticized as denigrating caricature. The common view of d&d players is that ‘dm decides’ enhances the game if the DM can appropriately do that at the right moments for their table.

There will always be bad DMs. I just can't imagine any game system, any set of rules, making a bad DM into a good GM. There will always be preferences on shared authority and different ideas on narrative control but that's a separate topic. Personally when I'm at at the table playing I don't want to have to worry about anything other than my PC and I want the DM to make all the declarations of the world my, and my fellow PCs are interacting with.

Outside of at the time we're playing the game at the table, I may have input into the game. Whether that's info on my PC, their background and their goals or how much we should lean into the rule of cool. But when we're in the thick of it? The DM sets the stage and my PC is just an actor.

 

[DinoInDisguise]

There will always be bad DMs. I just can't imagine any game system, any set of rules, making a bad DM into a good GM.

Rules are never the answer to bad DMing. But, and I've voiced displeasure on this prior, people seem to want to codify things for just that purpose. This even extends to player behavior too.

For example, in a thread in May about adopting the 2024 revisions, someone commented about balancing backgrounds because why would someone use a background that a DM could "steamroll," over one that was a numbered bonus. This is, to put it plainly, codifying a fix for bad DMing. And it's a fix that wont actually fix anything, but instead just bloat the system while bad DMs ignore it. Nevermind, that the likely response is disgruntled players badgering DMs with the lovely phrase, "but the rules!" And there are dozens more examples just in the 6 weeks I've been on this board.

There is a point where a system is so codified, and so full of rules, that the DM becomes extraneous and is, in essence, replaced by a robot who masquerades as a human while reciting rules on prompt.

It will be like a fantasy version of guess who, but where you prompt with a situation and the "DM" recites a rule. Maybe, we could assign points to players based on if their prompt gets a desired answer. And at that point the system becomes nothing more than a video game with bad graphics, where an AI can interpret player input and recite the result based on a simple algorithm.

But, at least, we wont have bad DMs. So that's a win.

 

[overgeeked]

Rules are never the answer to bad DMing. But, and I've voiced displeasure on this prior, people seem to want to codify things for just that purpose. This even extends to player behavior too.

For example, in a thread in May about adopting the 2024 revisions, someone commented about balancing backgrounds because why would someone use a background that a DM could "steamroll," over one that was a numbered bonus. This is, to put it plainly, codifying a fix for bad DMing. And it's a fix that wont actually fix anything, but instead just bloat the system while bad DMs ignore it. Nevermind, that the likely response is disgruntled players badgering DMs with the lovely phrase, "but the rules!" And there are dozens more examples just in the 6 weeks I've been on this board.

There is a point where a system is so codified, and so full of rules, that the DM becomes extraneous and is, in essence, replaced by a robot who masquerades as a human while reciting rules on prompt.

It will be like a fantasy version of guess who, but where you prompt with a situation and the "DM" recites a rule. Maybe, we could assign points to players based on if their prompt gets a desired answer. And at that point the system becomes nothing more than a video game with bad graphics, where an AI can interpret player input and recite the result based on a simple algorithm.

But, at least, we wont have bad DMs. So that's a win.

No more “bad referees” in the sense that they would blindly follow the rules and cannot think outside of them or the pure text of the module, yes. But to me, that is the definition of a bad referee. If all you do is blindly follow the books (rules and railroady AP), then you are a bad referee. The good referees are the ones who are flexible enough to follow the players instead of lead them by the nose. Come up with things outside the boxed text, etc. Without that you’re just playing a video game. And, at least in regards to pure possibilities and player agency, a clearly lesser mode of play.

 

[tetrasodium]

Rules are never the answer to bad DMing. But, and I've voiced displeasure on this prior, people seem to want to codify things for just that purpose. This even extends to player behavior too.

For example, in a thread in May about adopting the 2024 revisions, someone commented about balancing backgrounds because why would someone use a background that a DM could "steamroll," over one that was a numbered bonus. This is, to put it plainly, codifying a fix for bad DMing. And it's a fix that wont actually fix anything, but instead just bloat the system while bad DMs ignore it. Nevermind, that the likely response is disgruntled players badgering DMs with the lovely phrase, "but the rules!" And there are dozens more examples just in the 6 weeks I've been on this board.

There is a point where a system is so codified, and so full of rules, that the DM becomes extraneous and is, in essence, replaced by a robot who masquerades as a human while reciting rules on prompt.

It will be like a fantasy version of guess who, but where you prompt with a situation and the "DM" recites a rule. Maybe, we could assign points to players based on if their prompt gets a desired answer. And at that point the system becomes nothing more than a video game with bad graphics, where an AI can interpret player input and recite the result based on a simple algorithm.

But, at least, we wont have bad DMs. So that's a win.

It's not a GM thing, rules can encourage or shield good or bad behavior as expected or presumptuously reasonable from both player & GM depending on who a given rule encourages or shields... No matter what side of the DM screen you focus on, poorly worded rules can encourage & shield unreasonable play from anyone at the table being encouraged or shielded by those poorly worded rules.

Unfortunately many of the rules in 2014 tar & feather the GM with an assumption of bad DM'ing as the expected norm those rules must shield players against. That leads to a situation where it becomes very difficult for the GM to rightly declare that the shielded bad behavior is simply that when players choose to act on that expectation to behave badly in their play expectations. Unfortunately terms like railroading killer gm & so on easily stick to the assumed tar & feathers of those bad rules & the GM starts out on questionable ground.


With more neutral & detailed rules or neutral rules frameworks it becomes easier for the GM to do things like make "rule of cool" exceptions when justified & reasonable or simply say "nope, that is an bad/unreasonable request. The rule has a reasonable/high bar for your PC to meet, you are nowhere near capable of doing so."

 

[DinoInDisguise]

No more “bad referees” in the sense that they would blindly follow the rules and cannot think outside of them or the pure text of the module, yes. But to me, that is the definition of a bad referee. If all you do is blindly follow the books (rules and railroady AP), then you are a bad referee. The good referees are the ones who are flexible enough to follow the players instead of lead them by the nose. Come up with things outside the boxed text, etc. Without that you’re just playing a video game. And, at least in regards to pure possibilities and player agency, a clearly lesser mode of play.

My sarcasm on the "we won't have bad DMs" comment may have been lost. I agree, you can have bad DMs in all kinds of rules environments. And that the best DMs know what rules to ignore. That doesn't remove the cost of trying to codify away behavior.

In my opinion, one of the greatest aspects of this game, and the hobby as a whole, is how unique and varied the games are from one table to another. I think the hobby would suffer greatly if we codified away this individuality in a futile effort to fix "bad play."

 

[Thomas Shey]

There will always be bad DMs. I just can't imagine any game system, any set of rules, making a bad DM into a good GM.

While true, I've seen rules sets that appeared to take mediocre or inexperienced GMs and made them into bad ones.

 

[Lanefan]

There is a point where a system is so codified, and so full of rules, that the DM becomes extraneous and is, in essence, replaced by a robot who masquerades as a human while reciting rules on prompt.

There's a not-zero number of people in this forum for whom turning DMs into processors is - or often very much appears to be - the ultimate end goal; either by your method here or by limiting the DM to a prescribed list of possible responses.

I am not one of those people.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

So? If it's a problem for you then perhaps a different game is the one you should be playing. Perhaps should also be the forum you go to for gaming discussions as well.

Mod Note:

Suggesting a particular game might not be a good fit for a player can come across as confrontational, but is also potentially quite accurate.

Suggesting a player find a different discussion forum to participate in is over the line. Don’t repeat that error.