D&D General DM Authority

[Charlaquin]

Acknowledging that other people may judge it different does count. With that acknowledgement, you are quite simply not declaring one way to be true and all others to be false. It doesn't matter if "of course other people would judge it differently."

The issue is in the judgment, not in claiming it to be universal.

Take the Earth. It's round. This is a fact. And "of course other people will judge it differently." We call those people Flat Earthers. Even with facts you will have "of course other people will judge it differently."

The shape of the earth isn’t a judgment, it’s a measurable fact of reality. People who believe it to be flat are simply factually wrong. It’s a poor analogy here.

Those are too easy. What about Tunnels and Trolls or Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay? Are those D&D? Because if they aren't, then there comes a point where if enough rules change, D&D ceases to be D&D and becomes a different game.

The reason those aren’t D&D isn’t their rule sets, it’s their names and brands. Unless you use a very broad definition of D&D that refers to fantasy roleplaying in general, but that’s a whole other discussion. When two people play the game Dungeons and Dragons in different ways, and one of them says “in my opinion, the way you’re playing isn’t D&D,” they’re marginalizing that way of playing. Even if they acknowledge that the person playing it might think of it as D&D, they’re still judging it to not be so. The “in my opinion” only serves as a weak attempt to defend themselves from accusations of passing judgement. It’s like how “everything you say before ‘but’ doesn’t count.” Even if you claim it’s “just an opinion,” the opinion is still judgemental of other people’s play preferences.

 

[Charlaquin]

I have the Castle Ravenloft board game. It's basically a slightly simplified version of (4E) D&D. All the powers are basically there, it just gives you what you can do on cards, simplifies initiative. The rules it uses could easily have been part of a "beginners" set of rules for kids.

Like the DM-less version of D&D it's semi-random dungeons using tiles. You use minis, attack, take damage, cast spells, level up, get items and so on. Options are a bit limited, but most of what happens could be implemented as house rules in a normal game if you wanted such as the initiative order where all the players go and then all the monsters/traps go.

There are other D&D board games as well - Murder in Baldur's Gate for example, which is really Betrayal at House on the Hill with D&D characters. But the use of D&D rules is minimal, it's more set dressing.

In the same way that I wouldn't consider a D&D based video game D&D, I don't consider the board game D&D. That doesn't make it any less fun. Which is, last time I checked, the point of playing a game.

So here's the question. Do you consider the Castle Ravenloft D&D? If not, how is it different than what's been described as a DM-less game? If it is, would you consider Murder in Baldur's Gate D&D? Where do you draw the line and why?

Castle Ravenloft isn’t D&D because it’s Castle Ravenloft. They’re different games with different titles that are played with different rules. D&D with a DM and D&D without a DM are both the same game, with the same title. They are being played in different ways, but both are ways of playing D&D.

Now, an argument could be made that Castle Ravenloft is D&D, if you’re using the title D&D to refer to the hobby broadly rather than the specific game and product. But that’s a separate discussion.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I think the formulations people are looking for, that are clearly opinion, and (IMO) express minimal-to-no judgment are on the lines of "I haven't played that style, but it doesn't seem to me as though it would feel like D&D," and "I've played that style, and it didn't feel to me like D&D."

I've never played a TRPG without a GM, but I can't see how it would feel to me like D&D, even if we were using published rules with the words "Dungeons & Dragons" on the cover.

Again, repeating myself, I had already established that the game could be run without the DM.

I was then told "that isn't the style of DnD" so I put forth the style. I was very specific. Hack and Slash, Megadungeon, few to no NPCs, kick down the door, kill the monsters, take their stuff, repeat. I was very clear.

Oofta said that style was not DnD. Not that playing it without a DM was not DnD. That the style of Hack and slash megadungeons, where all you did is kick in the door, kill the monsters, and take their stuff, is not DnD. And I clarified that in my response to Scott, which Oofta responded to, and I would hope had read, to see that that was what they were talking about.

 

[prabe]

Again, repeating myself, I had already established that the game could be run without the DM.

I was then told "that isn't the style of DnD" so I put forth the style. I was very specific. Hack and Slash, Megadungeon, few to no NPCs, kick down the door, kill the monsters, take their stuff, repeat. I was very clear.

Oofta said that style was not DnD. Not that playing it without a DM was not DnD. That the style of Hack and slash megadungeons, where all you did is kick in the door, kill the monsters, and take their stuff, is not DnD. And I clarified that in my response to Scott, which Oofta responded to, and I would hope had read, to see that that was what they were talking about.

I didn't say it wasn't D&D, and I didn't say it couldn't feel like D&D to anyone else. I was saying (indirectly, I'll acknowledge) that a large part of what makes D&D feel like D&D to me is the presence of the DM. I was trying to be as clear as possible that I was stating my own opinion--technically, my own sense of how I'd experience the game--and absolutely not judging the people who play that game that way.

It's clear that some people have phrased similar feelings more ... stridently than I think I did.

Could you play a dungeoncrawl-ish game of D&D, to some degree of approximation, without a DM, using random tables? Absolutely. Would that feel like D&D to me? I don't see how it would (see my first paragraph, here) but it's possible that I'm wrong about that.

 

[Charlaquin]

I think the formulations people are looking for, that are clearly opinion, and (IMO) express minimal-to-no judgment are on the lines of "I haven't played that style, but it doesn't seem to me as though it would feel like D&D," and "I've played that style, and it didn't feel to me like D&D."

That’s an improvement. “Wouldn’t feel like D&D to me” expresses the sentiment in terms of personal experience instead of objective D&D status, which makes it feel less judgmental. Better still would be “doesn’t feel like what I want out of D&D, which expresses it in terms of a preference for a particular way of playing D&D, without implicitly revoking D&D status.

I've never played a TRPG without a GM, but I can't see how it would feel to me like D&D, even if we were using published rules with the words "Dungeons & Dragons" on the cover.

I’ve tried it, it wasn’t really what I want out of D&D. It felt more like... I don’t know, Diablo or something? Randomly generating challenges and rewards out of nothing, rather that exploring a defined world of the DM’s creation. Still fun, still D&D, but not what I play D&D to experience.

 

[prabe]

That’s an improvement. “Wouldn’t feel like D&D to me” expresses the sentiment in terms of personal experience instead of objective D&D status, which makes it feel less judgmental. Better still would be “doesn’t feel like what I want out of D&D,”
which expresses it in terms of a preference for a particular way of playing D&D, without implicitly revoking D&D status.

I’ve tried it, it wasn’t really what I want out of D&D. It felt more like... I don’t know, Diablo or something? Randomly generating challenges and rewards out of nothing, rather that exploring a defined world of the DM’s creation. Still fun, still D&D, but not what I play D&D to experience.

That's probably closer. I think it's possible that, for some people, there's not a lot of difference between "doesn't feel like D&D to me" and "doesn't feel like what I want out of D&D."

 

[Charlaquin]

That's probably closer. I think it's possible that, for some people, there's not a lot of difference between "doesn't feel like D&D to me" and "doesn't feel like what I want out of D&D."

I think you’re right that to a lot of people the distinction seems purely semantic. The problem is that this stance ignores the two-way nature of communication. The two may seem like different ways of phrasing the same thing to the speaker, but to the listener they communicate different meanings. It’s very different being told “The thing you like doesn’t give me the experience I want” vs. “I don’t think the thing you like is the thing you say it is.” The “I don’t think” in that sentence does nothing for the listener.

 

[Oofta]

As I stated, repeatedly, I was talking about the style of gameplay being DnD. I made that very clear in the post. I made it even more clear when I stated it outright in my response to Scott who brought this discussion back up again.

But, again, let us go through this.

What is truly different about what you are describing?

PLaying with Dungeon Tiles. I've done that in a DnD game.

All the rules for health, damage, AC, abilities, monsters, ect seem to be the same. In fact, group initiative (all the monsters then all the players) is something I've done in a DnD game before (we had armies, it made it a lot easier to handle)

But, from what you described (as I don't own it and have never played it) I don't see any reason to say that Castle Ravenloft is different that DnD. Seems like it is just a pre-made module with pre-gen characters. No different than taking Exedition to the Barrier Peaks and playing it with a pre-generated cast at a con game.

Then we simply disagree. Castle Ravenloft is a board game to me. Some people may consider video games such as the Baldur's Gate series to be D&D as well and I don't.

 

[Oofta]

Castle Ravenloft isn’t D&D because it’s Castle Ravenloft. They’re different games with different titles that are played with different rules. D&D with a DM and D&D without a DM are both the same game, with the same title. They are being played in different ways, but both are ways of playing D&D.

Now, an argument could be made that Castle Ravenloft is D&D, if you’re using the title D&D to refer to the hobby broadly rather than the specific game and product. But that’s a separate discussion.

From the rulebook "The Dungeons & Dragons: Castle Ravenloft ™ Board Game is a cooperative adventure game. You and your fellow Heroes must work as a team to succeed in the adventures that unfold within the castle. You either win together or lose together".

Beyond that I'm not going to play the game of "you must phrase you opinion correctly". Castle Ravenloft in implementation is basically a way to play D&D without a DM and without using charts from the DMG or other homebrew. To me it doesn't feel like D&D. There's just something missing.

This whole conversation came about because chaos was saying that a DM doesn't need authority and that you can play without a DM. I basically stated that, to me, I don't see how that would work and that it wouldn't feel like D&D to me. So here we are. It still doesn't feel like D&D to me, no matter what label others put on it. That doesn't make them wrong.

 

[Maxperson]

If you say "all pies are created equally" then also say "In my opinion, Pumpkin Pie is not pie" then you don't believe one of those two things.

Wrong analogy.

If I say that there are lots of kinds of pies, but I don't think Cow Pie, then I'm not at all espousing a One True Way, while also giving an opinion that others may dispute.

You can't go around preaching about how everyone's opinions are valid, that everyone's preferences are fine, then single out something you don't like and say "but not this, this isn't fine."

@Oofta never said that it wasn't fine to play that way. He said that he just didn't think that it was D&D.