Thomas Shey
Legend
But that fact doesn't preclude talking about what the best practices of any one of them are.
As long as you make it clear which one you're talking about.
But that fact doesn't preclude talking about what the best practices of any one of them are.
Agreed. I assumed this is what they would be playing, but as far as I can tell it's not. Does Phandelver have gricks? I think in one of her latest sessions something happened with gricks.
Or from the rules text!
When friends and I started playing Moldvay Basic our dungeons were pretty bad, and our play pretty unskilled, but we were at least doing what we were meant to be doing! Because Moldvay sets it out, in simple steps.
I can't remember how long ago I last posted this - maybe as much as a decade ago - but I still find it bizarre that D&D rulebook writing peaked about 40 years ago!
What a wonderful description of teen/pre-teen dnd play!The game has all the typical pathologies of schoolkid play - a goblin fighter who gets drunk; silly PvP about nothing that matters; a tendency to think that a 1 on a check must mean some sort of comical disaster; and a general inability to actually get on with things.
Yes, given the goal of play as you identify it. But it's incomplete. It doesn't actually describe processes of play. The first list is some tips to help decide what to say as GM, but doesn't say anything about when to say stuff, or how this relates to the shared fiction or what anyone else has said. The second bundle of lists are checklists for prep. Apocalypse World has those, but it also talks about how to actually play the game when sitting around the table with your friends.
I'm not arguing that 5e D&D should be a dungeon crawl game. I'm arguing that, however exactly it is meant to be played, it should be possible to state processes and principles that - if followed - will bring it about that the participants will have that sort of experience.
Or, you could just get the players onboard to start with and have character creation such that characters are motivated by the primary plot idea. That seems less manipulative and Illusionary.What a wonderful description of teen/pre-teen dnd play!
I wonder what that would look like for a neo-trad/OC style of play. I'm imagining that it would look something like the CoC starter set. It works in CoC because the game is so tightly themed, whereas dnd is such a self-referential cultural mashup at this point. But I imagine the best practices for that kind of game would actually include principles that are distasteful to classic/osr players. For example, if the goal is to create a semi-scripted heroic fantasy story with lots of tactical combat, the dm will need torailroaddirect players to the prepared plot while convincing them it was their idea. The dm in that style of game sort of is an entertainer and all-knowing world builder. The dungeon is a mechanism for pacing encounters (usually combat) rather than a virtual space to be explored. The advice I've seen for running the campaign-length modules suggest all of this, in essence, but for a dmg-style book to come out and say it would be controversial because of the investments some have in other styles of play that, honestly, 5e does not do a good job of supporting.
I've never read or played it but have seen it discussed online, and I had the same vague recollection.I don't have my copy handy, but I feel like maybe there are some gricks? I don't recall entirely, but I think in one of the earlier adventure areas there may indeed be some gricks.
There's little doubt about that!You're a madman.
Yep.My early play was likely similar in that we had the whole map and key and associated processes as the default mode of play, even if we were not applying it all correctly or consistently.
I'm using citing the one Moldvay book. If you're thinking of plural Basic D&D Books that might be post-Moldvay Mentzer - I've seen it back in the day but never played it. To the extent that it and Moldvay differ, I incline towards Moldvay, but that's a different story!5E lacks that central play mode that is the expected approach. And while many will often cite that as a strength....and it may be in one way although I think it gets wildly overstated....it's not exactly a great approach from a design standpoint. There is no central process on which to focus, and the books make that pretty clear.
So many folks have enough experience playing different editions or other games that they kind of gloss over this flaw and fill in the blanks themselves, and so the game works. But get a bunch of kids who lack that experience and you get the kind of game your daughter had with her friends.
<snip
I think the Moldvay books (I assume these are the ones you're citing) benefited from having a tighter focus both in content and in expectations of the players.
I imagine the best practices for that kind of game would actually include principles that are distasteful to classic/osr players. For example, if the goal is to create a semi-scripted heroic fantasy story with lots of tactical combat, the dm will need torailroaddirect players to the prepared plot while convincing them it was their idea. The dm in that style of game sort of is an entertainer and all-knowing world builder. The dungeon is a mechanism for pacing encounters (usually combat) rather than a virtual space to be explored. The advice I've seen for running the campaign-length modules suggest all of this, in essence, but for a dmg-style book to come out and say it would be controversial because of the investments some have in other styles of play that, honestly, 5e does not do a good job of supporting.
I read Ovinomancer here as responding to what I've bolded in Malmuria's post. I tend to agree with Ovinomancer, in that I frankly don't think it's necessary to convince the players that it was there idea. If you tell them Today we're playing Lost Mines of Phandelver and what you're trying to do is XYZ . . . then I think there's no reason to think the players won't go along with it.Or, you could just get the players onboard to start with and have character creation such that characters are motivated by the primary plot idea. That seems less manipulative and Illusionary.
Yes, but more broadly to run this kind of game the dm probably needs to participate in some illusionism. Not necessarily for the premise of the campaign, but there will be small and big moments in this style of play when the dm wants x, y, and z thing to happen but doesn't want the players to feel forced. And players will suspend disbelief and sort of go along to the 'content' the dm has prepared. It's just that this type of practice would be made explicit, and everyone could give up the ghost of sandboxes when what they want is something else.Or, you could just get the players onboard to start with and have character creation such that characters are motivated by the primary plot idea. That seems less manipulative and Illusionary.
I don't think it's necessarily creating the illusion that choices mattered when they didn't. I think it's more about concealing the precise movement at which the GM tilts the table. It's a bit like a card trick - the audience knows there's a point at which the legerdemain was performed, they don't really think it was magic, but they don't know quite when it happened.Yes, but more broadly to run this kind of game the dm probably needs to participate in some illusionism. Not necessarily for the premise of the campaign, but there will be small and big moments in this style of play when the dm wants x, y, and z thing to happen but doesn't want the players to feel forced. And players will suspend disbelief and sort of go along to the 'content' the dm has prepared. It's just that this type of practice would be made explicit, and everyone could give up the ghost of sandboxes when what they want is something else.
You've put forward quite a good list and I had one or two thoughts about it on the GM side. The fourth point is what I am interested in.Here are my suggested best practices for 5E D&D. These are all just based on the general game itself, and not toward trying to run it a specific way, or trying to give it a specific vibe. These are just my opinion, of course.
Players:
- Remember that this is a group activity, and that the thrust of play will be about the group
- Don't try and make a character that will "win"- make a character that will be interesting, make a character you'd like to learn more about
- Be willing to engage with ideas offered by others, particularly the GM- the GM will establish a lot of the fiction in the game and will present most of the conflicts- be willing to engage with these ideas
- Hold on loosely to your preconceived ideas about your character- don't over commit to every detail before play even begins- allow space for discovery through play and adapting to what gets established
- Expect that sometimes the GM may make a ruling that may override the rules
GMs:
- Remember that this is a group activity and allow players to have as much input on how the game goes as possible
- Don't try to tell a specific story- create scenarios that you feel would be interesting, and then watch what the players have the characters do, and then build on that
- Be willing to engage with ideas offered by the players- try to never override or render meaningless any decision made by the players
- Be a fan of the PCs- the game is about them, not about your setting- keep that in mind and hold on lightly to your setting and NPCs as they exist only to see how they interact with the PCs
- Be cautious with making rulings that override the rules; when it does happen, be clear about your reasoning for doing so
I've come up with this list quickly and off the top of my head, thinking about my recent games of 5E as both player and GM. I'm sure I can could come up with more, or that I could expand and/or clarify these. And although I don't think everyone would agree with them all, I don't think any of them is all that controversial. But even so, I imagine there are plenty of other ideas out there that folks could offer along these lines.
While I don't see this as exactly wrong, I feel it also might not be the best practice for 5e D&D. Rather I believe the DM must understand themselves. They must make the game about that which can come from within them, which they can weave fluidly and naturally. To any question, any line of exploration, they will know what must lie there. The players should be a fan of the DM: that is why they will join that DM's games. In my experience and observation, the greatest D&D RPG experiences required a DM who understood what they wanted to and could do, and thus were able to fulfil their role confidently and naturally.
- Be a fan of the PCs- the game is about them, not about your setting- keep that in mind and hold on lightly to your setting and NPCs as they exist only to see how they interact with the PCs
Because the practices put forward are based on trying to run D&D in a specific way. That's not a criticism of your practices! More an attempt to understand what is going on when we put forward any view of practices. What I'm suggesting is that the hierarchy must be respected: to say "5e D&D" will require commitments on modes, qualities and cultures.These are all just based on the general game itself, and not toward trying to run it a specific way, or trying to give it a specific vibe. These are just my opinion, of course.
I've never read or played it but have seen it discussed online, and I had the same vague recollection.
I'm using citing the one Moldvay book. If you're thinking of plural Basic D&D Books that might be post-Moldvay Mentzer - I've seen it back in the day but never played it. To the extent that it and Moldvay differ, I incline towards Moldvay, but that's a different story!
Anyway, I think you're right in what you say here. I think writing 5e as a "compromise" (those scare quotes are doing a lot of work there) and "recovery" edition had something to do with it - there was a lot of hostility from existing D&D players towards the instructional-type text in 4e. And avoiding that hostility was seen - rightly, I would say - as a necessary condition of getting any broader traction including among new players.
I don't think that's the only explanation. AD&D 2nd ed wasn't produced under quite the same sorts of pressures, but it also is weak in instructional text compared to Gygax's version, I think - and Gygax's AD&D is itself weak compared to Moldvay. So I think Moldvay benefited both from there being no wider context of aversion to advice plus someone who knew how to write game instructions well.
Anyway, you probably know as well as anyone else who posts on these boards that I've got fairly strong preferences in RPGing and being railroaded through Phandelver isn't central to them - but I'd still prefer the books come out and at least set out a "typical" approach to play which is not just the GM describes the environment - what do you do? but that the GM will tell you where you are, what you're there for and what makes sense as your next step so that beginners have somewhere to start. Given that I still think there's a bit of "hunting for the plot" in non-beginner play as well (I certainly saw plenty of it back when I was a club player, and I don't get the feeling the world has changed that much) that sort of advice might be helpful for non-beginners also.