Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 8341652" data-attributes="member: 71699">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.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<ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">There are ways to play (modes, and hybrids of modes)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">There are qualities of play (what we decide to count as good)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">There are game rulesets (e.g. the designed artifacts of D&D) under cultures of interpretation (e.g. rulings not rules versus COWTRA)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">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</li> </ol>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 thatBecause 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.</blockquote>

Verification