D&D 5E Describe your mode of D&D

[clearstream]

Following a couple of interesting threads on modes of play, I wondered what mode I might run my next campaign in, and what modes other DMs run theirs in. Thinking specifically in terms of 5th edition D&D (I know that other systems support divers modes, I'm interested in 5e here). If you have time, could you concisely state the terms of your mode of play? For example, for my next campaign I am thinking about -

1. DM crafts the situation​

Rather than having a story in mind, the DM crafts the situation—made up of elements with reason for being and dynamics that govern them.
We do this so the established facts can unfold flexibly, in any direction.

2. Play to find out​

There is no pre-scripted story. The story emerges from -

• player choices in the situation +
• creature means and motives +
• world dynamics and affairs +
• game mechanics that afford, constrain and resolve those things

We do this so surprising and satisfying tales are discovered.

3. Let the rules stand​

RAW is adhered to in the way that it is explained, given campaign-specific, written, exceptions. Players can rely on their characters’ abilities. If an ability lets them achieve an outcome without explaining the steps, they can do that.
We do this so that character ability is undiluted by player ability.

4. Players decide, DM arbitrates​

Unless under magical mind control, players choose what their characters do. The DM arbitrates -

• what creatures do, based on their means and motives
• how the world behaves, based on dynamics and affairs
• how game mechanics are applied, based on RAW and RAI

We do this so player success is validated by impartial arbitration.

[EDITED to add the purpose behind each choice.]

 

[Mind of tempest]

the ones I end up in are all fly by the seat of your underwear and change how they work regularly.

 

[clearstream]

the ones I end up in are all fly by the seat of your underwear and change how they work regularly.

I believe when one reflects one finds that there are commonalities. Subliminal things that it turns out matter to you.

 

[prabe]

This seems very much like my approach, in the campaigns I'm running. I'd add that I'm tending to craft the situations to play to the players'/PCs' abilities, interests, and needs, and I am--especially at higher levels--giving them opportunities to change the world. Those aren't excluded in your post, but it seemed relevant to explicitly add them.

 

[jmartkdr2]

I'm pretty close to what you stated above:

1. Basically this, except I also have a few npc's with plans of their own they are working on. If these clash with the pc's, we play it out.

2. Which I guess is where this changes: if the pc's do nothing, stuff happens. The players can all sit around and watch, in theory, though I've never seen that in the wild.

3. Precisely. Rule of Cool is for exceptions, rulings are for undefined areas.

4. I add a point: The player controlling the character decides the DC to persuade (etc) them. So you can only convince my paladin to do something if I, as the paladin's player, thinks they can be convinced. If you'd rather roll, I set the DC (not the dm.) I don't like it when the dm sets a dc to convince my character of anything, since it can make them behave wildly out-of-character in my mind.

 

[Sacrosanct]

4. Players decide, DM arbitrates​

Unless under magical mind control, players choose what their characters do.

Is there a game where players don't decide what their characters do? I've never heard of that before. Players always decide based on information available to them. What happens can depend on a lot of things, but the DM never makes the choice for them to the best of my knowledge. I probably wouldn't play with a DM who did.

In my games, the DM is a referee--fair and impartial as much as possible. The world is a living world, and the DM plays all the personalities in the world and have the react as they normally would based on their intelligence, biases, personalities, etc.

 

[Charlaquin]

Is there a game where players don't decide what their characters do? I've never heard of that before.

I have a feeling any answers to this thread are going to be like Jazz - it’s more about the notes you don’t play. In this case “players decide what their characters do” is implying that the DM doesn’t describe character’s actions.

Players always decide based on information available to them. What happens can depend on a lot of things, but the DM never makes the choice for them to the best of my knowledge. I probably wouldn't play with a DM who did.

I started playing with 3e, and at the time it was extremely common for players to declare that they were using a skill (or ask to use a skill) with no real description of what their characters were doing, then after the check was rolled, the DM would describe what the character did to achieve that result. And in my experience, that style of play remains quite common to this day.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I have a feeling any answers to this thread are going to be like Jazz - it’s more about the notes you don’t play. In this case “players decide what their characters do” is implying that the DM doesn’t describe character’s actions.

I started playing with 3e, and at the time it was extremely common for players to declare that they were using a skill (or ask to use a skill) with no real description of what their characters were doing, then after the check was rolled, the DM would describe what the character did to achieve that result. And in my experience, that style of play remains quite common to this day.

Matt Mercer seems to do that, unless it's a critical killing blow. And knowing the influence of CR....yeah, I suppose you're right

 

[el-remmen]

I started playing with 3e, and at the time it was extremely common for players to declare that they were using a skill (or ask to use a skill) with no real description of what their characters were doing, then after the check was rolled, the DM would describe what the character did to achieve that result. And in my experience, that style of play remains quite common to this day.

Sure. If the player chooses to not describe their declared action, the DM does. Then again, I usually ask the players to describe their action to some degree to give me as DM a framework for the scope of success - esp. for broad nebulous actions (like "I search the room").

So like:

Player: I search the room.
DM: How?
Player: I start in the right corner of the room where the small desk is and [says what she's doing]
DM: Are you using a skill?
Player: Can I apply Investigation or Perception skill?
DM: Whichever you prefer.

OR

Player: I search the room.
DM: How?
Player: I don't know. I just search.
DM: Okay, you start in the right corner of the room where the small desk is (give me a perception check)

Mostly I like it because it establishes where PCs are and the order they're doing things, for if and when things go sideways AND makes the players think about which skills to make use of and how.

But I know I have an old school approach to this kind of stuff and many people just roll and either succeed or fail based on the roll alone.

 

[el-remmen]

Anyway, this seems very much aligned with my approach, except while I don't have a story in mind, the players do expect me to direct them somewhat in terms of choices between prepared adventures to create something of a framework, even if in actual play they end up making choices that directs them somewhere completely different (in which case, I also try to be prepared - but am willing to improvise until the end of the session - and then do my prep based on that for the sessions that follow).

The only other difference, I think, is that I am highly skeptical of the notion of RAW, though I think in practice it plays out as you describe.