D&D General Can we talk about best practices?

[pemerton]

I think that arguing that it needs a DM to work is a fairly weak criticism.

I never made any claim that 5e is the ideal game for running a narratively focused game. I said that it was capable of running either a narratively focused game or an old school dungeon crawl.

I've read your discussion with @Ovinomancer about Inspiration and on that I agree with Ovinomancer. The most I can see in that subsystem is that players have a modest incentive, mediated via the GM, to flavour their action declarations by reference to their PC descriptors. That might reduce the amount of (what The Forge has called) "pawn stance" play - ie action declarations that are nakedly motivated by the player's evaluation of the situation, without any attempt to establish an in-character rationale - but I don't see it going much further than that.

As for the rest of the system for non-combat resolution, it seems to me to be relatively weak as far as player control over the shared fiction is concerned. There are spells, as has been discussed, but not much else. A player can say what his/her PC tries to do, and that's about it: there is no framework for establishing binding stakes and consequences, for instance.

I haven't watched the show in over a year, but I can recall quite a number of times when one of the players suggested doing something extremely non-standard and Mercer rolling with it. Like a spell that wasn't in any way meant to do X, but flavorwise could hypothetically do X, doing X. Sometimes I think there might have been a check involved, but I don't recall with certainty.

Moreover, the game has a strong narrative focus. There's a story there. While some of it is emergent, a lot of it is clearly planned, and planned with the intent of telling an entertaining narrative.

The idea of RPGing-as-storytelling-by-the-GM has a long history, going back at least to the early 1980s (the DL modules are an early published example in D&D; CoC exists around the same time and is perhaps an even clearer example of the same sort of approach). 5e's non-combat mechanics are quite well-suited to that, because (as I said just above) they don't generate significant constraints on the shared fiction.

And the players have no other way to introduce significant constraints on the shared fiction.

Which means that the GM is largely free to introduce whatever s/he wants to into the shared fiction, ie is largely free to tell a pre-planned story.

So best practice advice for playing 5e would probably begin from a recognition of these points, and then advising GMs where to go from there.

I saw this evidenced recently, when my daughter played her first D&D game with friends over the school holidays. The GM clearly didn't have a pre-planned story ready to go, and the result was aimless, structureless and ultimately (for my daughter, at least) disappointing play. And her experience drove home (to me, if not to her - she doesn't think as much as I do about RPG design) the lack of levers that 5e D&D players have to drive things forward or actually make the fiction develop. All they can do is wait for the GM to tell them things.

 

[Mort]

I've read your discussion with @Ovinomancer about Inspiration and on that I agree with Ovinomancer. The most I can see in that subsystem is that players have a modest incentive, mediated via the GM, to flavour their action declarations by reference to their PC descriptors. That might reduce the amount of (what The Forge has called) "pawn stance" play - ie action declarations that are nakedly motivated by the player's evaluation of the situation, without any attempt to establish an in-character rationale - but I don't see it going much further than that.

As for the rest of the system for non-combat resolution, it seems to me to be relatively weak as far as player control over the shared fiction is concerned. There are spells, as has been discussed, but not much else. A player can say what his/her PC tries to do, and that's about it: there is no framework for establishing binding stakes and consequences, for instance.


The idea of RPGing-as-storytelling-by-the-GM has a long history, going back at least to the early 1980s (the DL modules are an early published example in D&D; CoC exists around the same time and is perhaps an even clearer example of the same sort of approach). 5e's non-combat mechanics are quite well-suited to that, because (as I said just above) they don't generate significant constraints on the shared fiction.

And the players have no other way to introduce significant constraints on the shared fiction.

Which means that the GM is largely free to introduce whatever s/he wants to into the shared fiction, ie is largely free to tell a pre-planned story.

So best practice advice for playing 5e would probably begin from a recognition of these points, and then advising GMs where to go from there.

I saw this evidenced recently, when my daughter played her first D&D game with friends over the school holidays. The GM clearly didn't have a pre-planned story ready to go, and the result was aimless, structureless and ultimately (for my daughter, at least) disappointing play. And her experience drove home (to me, if not to her - she doesn't think as much as I do about RPG design) the lack of levers that 5e D&D players have to drive things forward or actually make the fiction develop. All they can do is wait for the GM to tell them things.

D&D 5e is a very "mother may I" system - plenty of mechanisms for the player to ask the DM to do something and get a hopeful outcome but pretty much no mechanisms for the player to tell the DM that they do something and the outcome that results.

 

[pemerton]

D&D 5e is a very "mother may I" system - plenty of mechanisms for the player to ask the DM to do something and get a hopeful outcome but pretty much no mechanisms for the player to tell the DM that they do something and the outcome that results.

To me, that drives home that there will be best practices.

Eg for GMs, have a story that you want to tell.

For players, have a character who you can colourfully embellish for the entertainment of fellow participants, but not in the sort of way that will get in the way of the GM's story.

What's a classic example of a colourful character that does get in the way of the GM's story? The traditional chivalric (or, to use the pejorative label, "lawful stupid") paladin. There are RPGs where that sort of character is a terrific fit, but GM-driven D&D is not one of them.

 

[billd91]

You hit a true pet peeve I have with Mercer's game. He APPEARS to give the player some control but it is an illusion (and a bad one).

Instead of saying no he says "you can certainly try..." and if the tone doesn't dissuade the player he has them roll. He never reveals the DC, but it MUST be absurdly high (or even unmake able) because the players always seem to fail these "you can certainly try..." moments.

The game is absurdly chronicled, I'll have to see if someone actually compiled the number of times one of these rolls succeeded (if ever).

Anyway - this isn't narrative control - it's barely even the appearance of it!

Now, that's not saying Mercer isn't doing an awesome job as DM and that the players aren't 1) great 2) clearly enjoying themselves too. But on this one aspect - it truly irritates me.

So which is it? Are you saying he is or isn't doing an awesome job because your terms are pretty damning if you are not saying he isn't doing an awesome job. And I don't think it's warranted.

It's not a narrative game in the sense that the players determine outcomes. That said, it's pretty clear that Mercer doesn't merely involve the PCs' backstories, they provide the building material for much of the game - which means that the players have had their hands in campaign building, populating it with NPCs and proto-plot hooks if not actual hooks, before it hits runtime. And it's also pretty clear that he responds to their choices with the campaign turning in directions he didn't predict. So I'm not at all seeing why you'd say that it's a bad illusion.

 

[teitan]

The problem with this is that it still requires one assume D&D is a good general-purpose tool. I have to note I don't actually see that is true. D&D seems to be good at running D&D style settings a few closely related offshoots, but the farther away you get from heroic fantasy the less adequate it looks, to me.

I have become an evangelist for it but Dungeon Crawl Classics is a much system for generic fantasy and it is flavored out the buttooski.

 

[pemerton]

The problem with this is that it still requires one assume D&D is a good general-purpose tool. I have to note I don't actually see that is true. D&D seems to be good at running D&D style settings a few closely related offshoots, but the farther away you get from heroic fantasy the less adequate it looks, to me.

The idea of D&D as "general purpose" has come up a bit recently.

If I've read your post correctly, you are doubting its general purposeness from a thematic/trope-ish perspective.

I think it's also possible to doubt its general purposeness from a methods-of-play perspective.

Even for those who think these doubts are over-stated, I think a discussion of "best practices" will probably be more productive if it starts at the core of what D&D does: in the case of 5e, that's colourful characters who are largely guaranteed to progress in personal power; but whose relationship to the gameworld is by default a little uncertain (backgrounds are not all that potent in 5e D&D, and don't seem to figure prominently in most accounts of play I encounter) and heavily mediated by the GM; and in which combat is the most straightforward way - given the system's mechanics and default processes of play - whereby players can initiate a resolution process that will generate some sort of finality.

Given that, I think it's fairly clear that there are some things that will make for GM "best practice" - in particular, have a fiction that you want to present to your players and be ready both (i) to drive things if combat is not involved, and (ii) to have combat emerge as a somewhat generic response the players might have to uncertain or threatening situations confronting their PCs.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I have become an evangelist for it but Dungeon Crawl Classics is a much system for generic fantasy and it is flavored out the buttooski.

Without wanting a side trip, I've played in DCC games and I was--not impressed. From my point of view, if I wanted a D&D style game, its exactly in the wrong direction in so many ways.

 

[Thomas Shey]

The idea of D&D as "general purpose" has come up a bit recently.

If I've read your post correctly, you are doubting its general purposeness from a thematic/trope-ish perspective.

I think it's also possible to doubt its general purposeness from a methods-of-play perspective.

Not entirely. I think there are problems there, too, but there are numerous mechanical assumptions that kind-of, sort-of work for heroic fantasy but I don't think to a good job almost anywhere else. Practically ever core mechanical choice lands in this to me.

 

[theCourier]

I have become an evangelist for it but Dungeon Crawl Classics is a much system for generic fantasy and it is flavored out the buttooski.

I think DCC is a great game, but I definitely don't think it's good for generic fantasy. Appendix N inspired adventures? Sure! Dungeon crawls with gonzo stylings? Absolutely! It does go into a few other genres with stuff like Xcrawl and Mutant Crawl Classics but all of that is intended for the same sort of tone and style of over the top, lethal gameplay.

Not much heroic fantasy or other sorts of fantasy play available, in my opinion. Like, you wouldn't be able to use it for a "magical school" type game, specifically for the flavor it brings to the table (that of wizards hoarding knowledge and magic being more dangerous to use than a backwards-facing gun!).

 

[Mort]

So which is it? Are you saying he is or isn't doing an awesome job because your terms are pretty damning if you are not saying he isn't doing an awesome job. And I don't think it's warranted.

He's doing an awesome job DMing. But I dislike how he handles what he clearly thinks are impossible tasks. One can be an amazing DM without being perfect.