D&D General Can we talk about best practices?

[clearstream]

What is distinctive about it, compared to norms of D&D play, is that the question of whether or not there is a secret door in the wall is answered not by reference to the GM's prep, or the GM's on-the-spur-of-the-moment-decision if s/he has no relevant prep, but rather is bound up in the resolution of the players' declared action.

It's a way of distributing authority over the authoring of backstory, and of having that authority be something other than fiat authority (which is a contrast with, say, OGL Conan "fate points" or 5e DMG optional "plot points"). The significance of non-fiat authority is that authorship can take place without anyone just deciding what happens next. This is helpful for "story now" or "playing to find out" approaches to RPGing.

Got it. Focusing on the 'control' aspect of narrative control, it is concern with who exercises it. So then one might have

1. Intents that inform which scenes our narrative will contain.
2. Actions, often stochastic, which narrate how the scene plays out.
3. World, that delimits what may be included in the narrative, including architecture and inhabitants.
4. Characters, that add specific actors to the world.

And there is always the question, who controls which. In D&D, typically DM controls world and intents and actions of inhabitants that are not characters. Players control intents and actions of characters. Other games define ways that players can control world. As mentioned up thread, DMG Plot Points suggest a way to do that for D&D. For me the effectiveness of plot points, and the possibility that D&D can accomodate other arrangements of who controls what, are distinct questions.

Playing to find out for me has never been a matter of who controls what, but how they exercise that control. Perforce, someone always just decides what happens next. What is interesting is how written rules interact with 'just decides'. So that another question aside from who controls what, is the usually multiple ways that they are guided or instructed to exercise that control.

Thus one might envision three dimensions

• narrative element (intents, actions, world, characters)
• controller of each element (DM, players, both)
• principles (or guidance) and instructions (rules) as to how control may be exercised (assuming, and in the way that, participants grasp and uphold them)

 

[Fanaelialae]

What, at the table, is involved in having my PC go look for his/her brother?

How does that play out and get resolved? What is the chance, when my PC turns a corner, that s/he happens to bump into his/her brother? I can - and have - answered those questions for Burning Wheel. I've given my answer for 5e D&D as I understand it - the GM decides. What is your answer, for 5e D&D?

A best-practice guide has to talk about what we do at the table, not what we might imagine happening in the fiction.

Again, 5e isn't BW, just like Paranoia isn't Fate.

The chances and how it gets resolved are going to vary significantly based on what was established in session zero.

If we're using Plot Points, for example, I believe that you can just spend your Plot Point and declare that when you turn the corner you bump into your brother (so 100% chance, exactly when you want it to happen).

On the other hand, if we're running a typical old school dungeon crawl, it probably really is 100% up to the DM whether or not you ever encounter your brother at all (because working in background material isn't assumed).

5e is a big tent game. Before you object to this statement, I'm NOT claiming that D&D can literally do anything and everything under the sun. It's true that D&D is suited to run D&D. It's simply that D&D encompasses a fairly diverse swath of different play styles, ranging from those that focus on narrative (NOT "narrative games") to old school dungeon crawls, as well as many other styles. You might love playing OS dungeon crawls in D&D while strongly disliking D&D games with a narrative focus, for example.

BW is a more tightly curated experience. It plays the way it's designed to play, which is more focused but also more limiting of play style than D&D. If you like how BW plays then great, but if you don't, then running an "OS dungeon crawl" using BW is probably not going to address your issues with the system. Both for better and worse, the play assumptions in BW are rooted much deeper in the system than they are in D&D, and are therefore more challenging to adjust. Pick any two games of BW and, unlike D&D, you're likely to find a very similar play style (because it is informed by the system, which intends for you to play a certain way). Whether that's better or worse for you is obviously just a matter of preference.

However, it also means that while we can answer the question of "action" resolution for BW quite directly, there is no one true way in D&D. Before we can answer the question for D&D, we first need to establish a number of qualifiers. Whether you like this better or not is, again, merely a matter of preference.

 

[pemerton]

Again, 5e isn't BW, just like Paranoia isn't Fate.

The chances and how it gets resolved are going to vary significantly based on what was established in session zero.

If we're using Plot Points, for example, I believe that you can just spend your Plot Point and declare that when you turn the corner you bump into your brother (so 100% chance, exactly when you want it to happen).

On the other hand, if we're running a typical old school dungeon crawl, it probably really is 100% up to the DM whether or not you ever encounter your brother at all (because working in background material isn't assumed).

OK. What about the vast majority of 5e D&D games that are neither of these? Like most of the ones that get posted about on ENworld.

Or even - how would you do it?

 

[Fanaelialae]

OK. What about the vast majority of 5e D&D games that are neither of these? Like most of the ones that get posted about on ENworld.

Or even - how would you do it?

How I would do it would depend significantly on context. My various campaigns have diverged pretty significantly in terms of play style over the years (from very plot heavy games to sandboxes).

The most general, broadly applicable, answer I can give would be my one from earlier (proactively or passively). However, it would largely depend on what was established in session zero.

I suspect you have a point you're trying to lead me to and I've humored this line of questioning for several posts now. Could we please dispense with the Socratic method and get to your point?

 

[pemerton]

How I would do it would depend significantly on context. My various campaigns have diverged pretty significantly in terms of play style over the years (from very plot heavy games to sandboxes).

The most general, broadly applicable, answer I can give would be my one from earlier (proactively or passively). However, it would largely depend on what was established in session zero.

I suspect you have a point you're trying to lead me to and I've humored this line of questioning for several posts now. Could we please dispense with the Socratic method and get to your point?

I don't have a particular point to make. I'm asking a genuine question.

I'veposted how it was resolved in Burning Wheel play: it being established that the PC had returned to his ancestral estate the action declaration I hope to meet my brother was made. And it was resolved by way of a Circles check - which, as it happens, was successful and hence the PC did meet his brother. (A full session report is here.)

I've also said that the only way I can see to resolve the parallel action declaration in 5e D&D is for the GM to decide - basically the GM would have to decide if/where the brother might be found, and then the player would learn that by declaring actions that prompt the GM to reveal the backstory s/he has decided on.

I thought you disagreed with me about that. Hence I'm asking what alternative process of play you had in mind.

In the context of the thread topic, given what I think the approach of 5e D&D is to this sort of action declaration (and it could generalise beyond hoping to find one's brother, to hoping to find a secret society, or hoping to find an ancient temple, or . . .), I believe a "best practice" guide could be pretty helpful: it could advise the GM about various approaches to establishing relevant backstory, to revealing it either via calling for checks or simply "saying 'yes'", to pacing the investigation, etc.

But if there's some different way of doing it that might be possible within 5e then a "best practice" guide might want to canvass that instead.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I don't have a particular point to make. I'm asking a genuine question.

I'veposted how it was resolved in Burning Wheel play: it being established that the PC had returned to his ancestral estate the action declaration I hope to meet my brother was made. And it was resolved by way of a Circles check - which, as it happens, was successful and hence the PC did meet his brother. (A full session report is here.)

I've also said that the only way I can see to resolve the parallel action declaration in 5e D&D is for the GM to decide - basically the GM would have to decide if/where the brother might be found, and then the player would learn that by declaring actions that prompt the GM to reveal the backstory s/he has decided on.

I thought you disagreed with me about that. Hence I'm asking what alternative process of play you had in mind.

In the context of the thread topic, given what I think the approach of 5e D&D is to this sort of action declaration (and it could generalise beyond hoping to find one's brother, to hoping to find a secret society, or hoping to find an ancient temple, or . . .), I believe a "best practice" guide could be pretty helpful: it could advise the GM about various approaches to establishing relevant backstory, to revealing it either via calling for checks or simply "saying 'yes'", to pacing the investigation, etc.

But if there's some different way of doing it that might be possible within 5e then a "best practice" guide might want to canvass that instead.

That's the thing I was talking about though. There are lots of ways in D&D, depending on context.

Maybe the player spends a Plot Point and says "I turn the corner and run into my brother."

Maybe the DM responds to the request by saying the player should roll an Investigation (or other) check. If they succeed they run into their brother. If not they don't. (Alternately, it might be a skill challenge as opposed to a single check, or even an entire adventure.)

Maybe the DM says, "This game is about kicking in doors and taking pies from orcs." There's a fairly reasonable chance that, short of your brother having been taken captive by an orc with a pie, you won't see your brother in this campaign.

And there may even be other bespoke approaches. I had a campaign before the pandemic where I added Luck as a seventh ability score. So it would have probably been a Luck check in that campaign, as I think I had the players make a number of those throughout the campaign. I think I also worked on a way where you could reduce your Luck to cause "lucky" things to happen (and could accept "unlucky" things to regain your Luck) but I don't recall whether that actually made it into play or not. If those options did see play, they would certainly also be a good option for a proactive player.

Personally, I think if you want to create a comprehensive best practices guide for D&D (beyond standard best practices, like don't be a jerk, or establish expectations in a session zero), you first need to identify and define as many distinct D&D play styles as possible. Then you can analyze what works best for each particular play style.

 

[Ovinomancer]

That's the thing I was talking about though. There are lots of ways in D&D, depending on context.

Maybe the player spends a Plot Point and says "I turn the corner and run into my brother."

Maybe the DM responds to the request by saying the player should roll an Investigation (or other) check. If they succeed they run into their brother. If not they don't. (Alternately, it might be a skill challenge as opposed to a single check, or even an entire adventure.)

Maybe the DM says, "This game is about kicking in doors and taking pies from orcs." There's a fairly reasonable chance that, short of your brother having been taken captive by an orc with a pie, you won't see your brother in this campaign.

And there may even be other bespoke approaches. I had a campaign before the pandemic where I added Luck as a seventh ability score. So it would have probably been a Luck check in that campaign, as I think I had the players make a number of those throughout the campaign. I think I also worked on a way where you could reduce your Luck to cause "lucky" things to happen (and could accept "unlucky" things to regain your Luck) but I don't recall whether that actually made it into play or not. If those options did see play, they would certainly also be a good option for a proactive player.

Personally, I think if you want to create a comprehensive best practices guide for D&D (beyond standard best practices, like don't be a jerk, or establish expectations in a session zero), you first need to identify and define as many distinct D&D play styles as possible. Then you can analyze what works best for each particular play style.

Nah, these are all the same, really, because they're all "ask the GM, they'll decide what happens." Even the plot point one, because the GM can immediately reframe the game and wrest control back. You spend a plot point to meet your brother? Great, he's killed in front of you by a freak accident.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Nah, these are all the same, really, because they're all "ask the GM, they'll decide what happens." Even the plot point one, because the GM can immediately reframe the game and wrest control back. You spend a plot point to meet your brother? Great, he's killed in front of you by a freak accident.

Okay, but I'm pretty sure you can do that in Fate or the BW example as well (you hope to meet your brother and you do, but he immediately dies). That's just bad practice on the DM's part (as opposed rolling with the scene and continue to build on what has already been established).

Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.

 

[pemerton]

I don't get why we can't talk about processes of play for 5e D&D. I mean, lots of other RPGs are able to do this. Moldvay Basic is able to do this. Gygax kinda does this for AD&D. The 4e D&D rulebooks kinda do it too.

Thinking about 5e D&D, how does a Critical Role-type game work? I'm no expert, but presumably the GM establishes a basic trajectory for the fiction, comes up with ideas about key exciting events, and decides how s/he is going to commence the PCs down this path. The GM might also think up various opportunities for "colour" encounters/events which don't really move things along the trajectory, but will give the players the chance to display their characterisation.

It doesn't seem like it should be that hard to write this stuff down, to suggest a useful set of checklists, to give some pro-tips, etc.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I don't get why we can't talk about processes of play for 5e D&D. I mean, lots of other RPGs are able to do this. Moldvay Basic is able to do this. Gygax kinda does this for AD&D. The 4e D&D rulebooks kinda do it too.

Thinking about 5e D&D, how does a Critical Role-type game work? I'm no expert, but presumably the GM establishes a basic trajectory for the fiction, comes up with ideas about key exciting events, and decides how s/he is going to commence the PCs down this path. The GM might also think up various opportunities for "colour" encounters/events which don't really move things along the trajectory, but will give the players the chance to display their characterisation.

It doesn't seem like it should be that hard to write this stuff down, to suggest a useful set of checklists, to give some pro-tips, etc.

The early editions of D&D did have something resembling an assumed play style (although not everyone played this way). 4e also had a much more deeply rooted play style inherent to it.

I think that 5e was designed to be a roof under which all the various styles can fit. Now, how well they succeeded is open to debate. Some will point to the lack of explicit support for OS dungeon crawls and claim 5e doesn't support that play style. I would point to the bevy of 3P products that support this style of play as evidence that it does.

Crit Role does follow a playstyle, so you can absolutely write best practices if that's the particular playstyle you're interested in addressing. It's simply relevant to note that these practices won't be universally applicable to all D&D games (such as the aforementioned OS dungeon crawl).