D&D General Can we talk about best practices?

[hawkeyefan]

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.

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.

Sure, this one is an area I figured might see some disagreement. There are plenty of folks who would say no this idea and would maintain that the DM must be a neutral arbiter and should remain impartial at all times.

I disagree with that. I think the game must be about the PCs; without them there is no game, so they are the protagonists and that should be acknowledged. They are more important than the NPCs or lore that I craft as a DM.

I don't think that idea needs to conflict with your idea of the players being a fan of the DM, although that's hard to have in place at the start of a new game with new people. A player can keep that in mind....and I think that's what I was kind of getting at with players being willing to engage with the GM's ideas.....but being a fan of the GM or trusting the GM is something that may need some time to develop. I think it may be a best practice to suggest to players "Trust that your GM will try and enable fun and engaging play, and accept their rulings with that in mind"; that's likely a good default position for a player to take until they see evidence that they should not do so.

I think that's a bit different than the GM being a fan of the PCs.....those are the characters in the game. All the participants getting along is more of a social matter. A GM being a fan of the characters is about the fiction of the game, not the social dynamic of the table.

Whether one agrees with that, however, is not what I most want to call attention to. The practice proposed is likely more relevant to efforts at elevated RPG, rather than casual gaming. It makes an assumption that a group will not be content with less than the most unique and interesting play that they can engage in. If that is right, then on top of other considerations already laid out in this thread for what will identify best practices, there is the consideration of the seriousness or quality of RPG a group intends to be involved in. In another thread we talked about Bushido, which to my mind is most successful with this sort of elevated intent.

Coming back to a point I made earlier, it seems

1. There are ways to play (modes, and hybrids of modes)
2. There are qualities of play (what we decide to count as good)
3. There are game rulesets (e.g. the designed artifacts of D&D) under cultures of interpretation (e.g. rulings not rules versus COWTRA)
4. At each step down this hierarchy (i.e. 1-3), for each combination up to that step, there can be a set of best practices

If that is so, then identifying a set of practices as '5e D&D' cannot be enough because that is too far down the hierarchy. It cannot be right to say that


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.

I think you're breaking it out in a way that does make sense, but I don't think that we need to hold back at any stage. We can offer best practices.....or rather our take on best practices...at any level of your hierarchy. I would agree that the further you move along what you've laid out, the more specific things will get. And sure, at the top level, something like "Decide what style you want to play" is probably a good suggestion for a best practice.

However, my concern would be in establishing all those different tiers and styles and so forth. I mean, as a group we can't agree on any terms, and even just the idea of best practices has been met with resistance. The level and scope of definition that you're describing would take a miracle.

 

[TheAlkaizer]

This is interesting because there is so much gm advice out there. Youtube is full of do this, don't do this, top 10 things you should do, etc. Similarly, what makes a good "gm advice" section in a game? Does the dmg, for example, suggest that a particular style of play is best (and if not, does it make the dmg more generic and less useful?)?

I don't consider myself the best GM, but I honestly rolled my eyes are almost nearly every video or advice for DMs that I've been on YouTube. I've even watched some YouTube creators recorded campaigns and found them, in my perspective, to be really mediocre GM that wouldn't follow their own advice.

One exception to this has been Matt Colville. His videos are fantastic. They don't always try and give you a clear advice on how to run things, but will make you ponder on a subject until you come to your own conclusion.

 

[Jaeger]

5e is in a weird place, because the official materials arguably don't do a great job at teaching new players/dms how to play the game, but because of its popularity, there is no shortage of unofficial advice and examples of play.

5e is relying entirely on its network effect to fill in the gaps of how-to knowledge for new players.

As the market leader it can get away with such things...

My daughter and I had a spare 40 or so minutes last Friday and I pulled out Moldvay Basic. She rolled up 2 PCs. I helped her choose classes (a Halfling and a Fighter) and equipment. Then we did about three rooms of The Haunted Keep (the example dungeon at the back of the book): she drew a map, made checks to open doors, put out her lantern to save oil while resting; I rolled wandering monster checks and got some fire beetles but the reaction roll showed they were friendly (which I took to mean inquisitive and harmless).
...

But my other take away was that my daughter noticed the effects of structure, in the sense that she knew what to do (make her way through the dungeon, looking for treasure), things were happening (opening doors, finding pits and pools of water, encountering fire beetles on the other side of a door) and she had tangible indicators of progress (checking out rooms, making her map, having the inquisitive fire beetles leave her PCs alone as they walked among them). It wasn't exactly exciting but it wasn't directionless and silly either.

Because Moldvay placed the correct emphasis for the way the game is meant to be played when he wrote the rules.

The Game as a whole First.
The Campaign Second
Players Third

Structure is important. As you and your daughter re-discovered.

'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.

And Earlier editions of the game did this. And they were not all about the dungeon crawl either.

Keep on the borderlands - In Search of the unknown - The village of Hommlet. Those are all still considered foundational because of the variety of play offered at an introductory level. Yes plenty of exploring dungeons, but also interacting with residents of the Keep, town, and roaming around the wilderness in search of gold and glory.

That is why the mines of phandelver is regarded so well, it echoes what worked that came before it.

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!

It is because they didn't shy away from the fact that RPG's are Wargame derivatives.

And while they weren't perfect people; When it came to running the Game, Gygax and co actually knew what they were doing.

I have the Modvay basic and expert rules right next to me. That is a functional game. It is not broken. The rules work. And as you have found out they work better for a raw beginner than if they were to dive straight into 5e.

And in my opinion with a few house rules they will align fine with current player mindsets that prefers a little more starting competence and survivability.

For attributes: roll 4d6, drop lowest, arrange to suit.
For HP: Max HP + Con bonus at level 1, then average after that. (If you really want to pad the numbers add half Con at level 1)
Want to play with ascending AC? Done for you already:

Ascending AC for Basic D&D

Basic D&D is an old beast that uses descending AC and THAC0. When I was starting this campaign and going through the rulebook I quickly came to the conclusion that I don’t want to do tabl…

addermanor.wordpress.com

In fact you could do a whole lot worse than to buy or give your daughter Keep on the borderlands, In Search of the unknown, and The village of Hommlet as a package for her starting campaign, with a little guidance from you to tie things together.

She just needs the players to create PC's with he idea that they have come together as a group of adventurers to seek their fortunes.

You don't need some involved set-up, or anything more than 1-2 sentences for PC backstories. So long as all the players approach things with a team mindset, all their individual characters personalities will emerge during play.

The OSR is largely based around B/X rules for a reason. The rules and concepts behind them just plain worked.

 

[pemerton]

Moldvay placed the correct emphasis for the way the game is meant to be played when he wrote the rules.

The Game as a whole First.
The Campaign Second
Players Third

I think that's Gygax, not Moldvay.

 

[Jaeger]

I think that's Gygax, not Moldvay.

It doesn't matter.

Moldvay didn't write B/X in isolation. I would find it utterly incredulous that Moldvay wasn't fully aware of how the game should be played when he wrote it.

 

[pemerton]

It doesn't matter.

Moldvay didn't write B/X in isolation. I would find it utterly incredulous that Moldvay wasn't fully aware of how the game should be played when he wrote it.

I think he knew how the game should be played! I was just pointing out that he doesn't actually state that ranking, and I don't think he endorses it either. I think he puts the players front-and-centre. He puts them front-and-centre in a clear statement of the processes of play. At this abstract level of description, his rulebook can be compared to John Harper's Agon 2nd ed. (Of course the games are different, with different processes, once we drill down to any greater level of detail.)

 

[Jaeger]

I think he knew how the game should be played! I was just pointing out that he doesn't actually state that ranking, and I don't think he endorses it either. I think he puts the players front-and-centre. He puts them front-and-centre in a clear statement of the processes of play. At this abstract level of description, his rulebook can be compared to John Harper's Agon 2nd ed. (Of course the games are different, with different processes, once we drill down to any greater level of detail.)

I completely disagree. Impossible for an employee at 1980 TSR.

All the processes of play he lays out in B/X endorse it. Yes it is more abstract than AD&D, but B/X is absolutely done from the same principles because it is based on rules Gygax wrote in the first place.

B/X is a simpler rules set than AD&D, it is not a paradigm shift of play.

Pg. B3 in his How To Use This Book section, he explains the importance of following the game structure when running and playing the game. And even writes about how if you change rules you should first think about how the changes will affect the game.

The Game as a whole must come first because it structures how the players will interact with the campaign world.

The Campaign is second because it defines the virtual world that the Player Characters are in.

The Players come third because they cannot create characters that fit into the game world in a meaningful fashion until the rules and campaign are firmly established.

All three of these interact at once during gameplay to form a tripod of support for the gaming session.

The overwhelming majority of my RPG experience has been playing everything except D&D.

But D&D is foundational, and Gygax's 'Ordering things as they should be' is RPG 101.

If anything, John Harper's Agon 2nd ed has an even more a more structured set of procedures than 5e D&D to facilitate its gameplay.

 

[Thomas Shey]

The Game as a whole must come first because it structures how the players will interact with the campaign world.

The Campaign is second because it defines the virtual world that the Player Characters are in.

The Players come third because they cannot create characters that fit into the game world in a meaningful fashion until the rules and campaign are firmly established.

I have to note that OD&D was often run in such a fashion that there was little point in waiting to find out the campaign specifics to make characters. There weren't any meaningful decisions in character gen that were going to be impacted by the campaign setting, unless you were outright excluding races or classes (and I'm not sure in many cases what that would even mean with the common transition of characters from game to game).

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Yeah, sure, 5e could certainly benefit from a more in depth explanation of the design and implications thereof. Although I'm not sure how much it would help. I suspect the people who complain without first taking the time to understand the design, would be the same people who complain without first taking the time to read the explanation of the design. I guess everyone who had read it could quote chapter and verse in response to those complaints.

IMHO the key issue with 5e is simply a lack of transparency. As @Ovinomancer said, there's a specific set of design elements that go together with 5e in terms of encounter budget, adventure day length, rests, etc. but the design of 5e is pretty deliberately obfuscatory. OF COURSE people don't understand it, because it isn't spelled out, and there are specific choices of how things are allocated to mechanics, that make it less visible. Then you add on top of that the admonitions about GM's being 'in charge of the rules', what did the designers expect would happen? Not only do the writers of adventures not understand this stuff, most tables are completely at sea on it.

What I'm saying is, it isn't simply a matter of there being some area where explanation was a bit thin, the game was deliberately designed NOT to be self-explanatory. Compare it with 4e, you can see instantly what I mean. Nobody had these problems in 4e. If they did, they knew right off the top of their head WHY, because they were going against what was spelled out in the DMG. In fact IMHO 4e was MORE flexible this way exactly because of this, you clearly could see what had to change if you modified your assumptions, and there wasn't a 'balance point' that you had to hit, there was just a sliding scale.

 

[Fanaelialae]

IMHO the key issue with 5e is simply a lack of transparency. As @Ovinomancer said, there's a specific set of design elements that go together with 5e in terms of encounter budget, adventure day length, rests, etc. but the design of 5e is pretty deliberately obfuscatory. OF COURSE people don't understand it, because it isn't spelled out, and there are specific choices of how things are allocated to mechanics, that make it less visible. Then you add on top of that the admonitions about GM's being 'in charge of the rules', what did the designers expect would happen? Not only do the writers of adventures not understand this stuff, most tables are completely at sea on it.

What I'm saying is, it isn't simply a matter of there being some area where explanation was a bit thin, the game was deliberately designed NOT to be self-explanatory. Compare it with 4e, you can see instantly what I mean. Nobody had these problems in 4e. If they did, they knew right off the top of their head WHY, because they were going against what was spelled out in the DMG. In fact IMHO 4e was MORE flexible this way exactly because of this, you clearly could see what had to change if you modified your assumptions, and there wasn't a 'balance point' that you had to hit, there was just a sliding scale.

Actually, that's a great example of what I was saying. As I recall, there were plenty of people who made various complaints about 4e because they didn't read the DMG. Others (myself included) would quote chapter and verse from the DMG and they'd still rarely accept it. It happened on these boards quite regularly back then, IIRC.