D&D 5E Does RAW have a place in 5e?

[aramis erak]

That seems unnecessarily modest!

Maybe. I just find this an unhappy combination with loose presentation.

I don't know Denning's starter set, but I think it is hard to exaggerate the quality of Moldvay's.

Clear rules presentation; clear, helpful and non-dogmatic GM advice; useful worked examples; it puts the 5e Basic PDF to shame.

Denning is the Big Black Box (2.5x12x18 inches or so) that was specific for leading to Cyclopedia. Better than Mentzer, not quite as good as Moldvay, but also providing paper minis and a big map, in order to make life easier on the initial DM, by presenting it as boardgame at first play, then expanding to Theater of the Mind style in the book.

 

[pemerton]

Is something broken under one otherwise plausible reading of the rules? Does it vastly deviate from the rest of the game's framework? Then you probably need a ruling to keep things consistent.

This sounds sensible to me.

Sometimes the "ruling" is as simple as "we just won't touch that for the moment": eg Turn Undead looks wonky but no one is playing a cleric or a necromancer, so we don't need to work it out because it won't come into play.

I've had players approach me about particular build elements they're thinking of taking to get feedback on whether I think they're broken or otherwise need reworking. In my 4e game we agreed that, of two possibly over-powered control feats, the fighter PC would take one (the feat that immobilises enemies on a hit with a basic attack) but not the other (I can't remember now what the other one was).

Sometimes a ruling is obvious and implications to the contrary are obviously just a case of bad drafting (eg I was clear in my game that Weapon Focus wouldn't boost sorcerer spells cast through a dagger well before WotC came out with official errata to the same effect).

Sometimes it's a matter of negotiation. In a Rolemaster campaign I had a player whose PC was built (in part) around flight, and it was obviously a very dominant effect in the game. I came up with an alternative set of rules for flight, more balanced with other movement-enhancment effects, and canvassed them with the player. He thought about it for a minute or two but was pretty adamant that the over-powered flight was key to his character. So I left it alone even though, in my perfect game, my alternative rules would have been my preference.

I don't think there are any mechanical algorithms here.

Is the DM fudging mechanical outcomes that go against NPCs because that's not germane to the plot he or she has envisions? That's not even a rules debate. That's a Table Expectations discussion.

Definitely.

These are my touchstones, as both player and DM.

As you know, I really respect the Moldvay advice. (Which is not to say I disrespect Carr - I just don't know that advice outside your quoting of it, whereas Moldvay was where I started to learn how to GM.)

But I do think the advice itself can be different things to different people. Which isn't an objection to it - that's probably true of nearly all advice - but it does mean that two people can be running games in very different styles and yet both regard themselves as playing in the spirit of Moldvay.

 

[pemerton]

I was running a Champions game. The bad guys were very skilled and smart. I had a desolidified guy put a bomb into the jet engine of the spaceship that the PCs were going to use. He went deep into the bowels of the engine, let the bomb solidify, and then walked away.

<snip>

So one player with a good Perception (forget the name of the skill in Champions) decided to search the spaceship. No special powers and he was searching a decent sized space ship for a few minutes before takeoff. I told him that he did not find anything (because there was nothing to find with his abilities).

When the bomb went off, the player went ballistic. He had asked to search and I had not even given him a roll (the reason for that is if he would have rolled great, I would have either had to modify the scenario, or he would have been even more ticked off). Some players are immature and just do not like some things that the DM does.

Of course I can't comment on the maturity of your player - I've never met him and wasn't there.

But I think we have to be careful about generalisation. I don't think it is necessarily a sign of immaturity to think that a certain approach is a poor one. I have GMed players who weren't immature, but wouldn't have liked your scenario. And I don't think I would, either.

KarinsDad's example isn't really an adjudication issue so much as a mismatch of game expectations. The player, rightly or wrongly, feels that the DM just screwed him over by not allowing any chance of detecting the villain's plot

<snip>

But, again, this isn't really an rules adjudication issue, since, even by RAW, there was no way that the player could have detected the bomb. KarinsDad simply set up a Kobayashi Maru scenario and ran with it.

It's a rules issue in the sense that the player thought that he was entitled to a dice roll in that situation. He's not. That's a DM adjudication. "When the rule is used" is a DM ruling issue, just like "how the rule is used".

I think it both game expectations and rules. How action declaration should be handled is undoubtedly a rules issue, but it is not a rules issue very often discussed in D&D rulebooks, and expectations vary very widely across the player base.

For instance, you can see KarinsDad here arguing that the GM has the authority to "say no" to an action declaration without explaining why (in terms of backstory) or even making it clear that the PC has failed (the player in this scenario certainly didn't know that there was a bomb his PC had failed to discover). My inclinations lean strongly towards [MENTION=40166]prosfilaes[/MENTION] suggestion of say "yes" or roll the dice. I think this is consistent with Moldvay, who says "There is always a chance".

But applying this maxim doesn't settle the issue. There's still the need for a setting of DCs (I favour 4e's methodology over Moldvay's, and obviously - given they're both D&D methods - D&D has room for either approach). And, even more importantly for KarinsDad's example, there's the methodology for framing action declarations.

For instance, it seems that the player in question believed he was framing an action "I make sure the spaceship is safe", and KarinsDad believed that, relative to the threats facing the ship, the player didn't have adequate resources to frame such a declaration (eg no X-Ray vision), but instead of expressly making this metagame issue clear he finessed it via ingame fiction ("You look around and don't find anything dangerous") and then went on with his narration.

I think a really good DMG would make clear all these different options and approaches, their pros and cons, what sort of dynamic they create for play (eg metagaming vs "immersion), etc.

Was it a railroad? Yes, that tiny part was a bit of a railroad.

My preferred approach to the scenario you describe would be to use more aggressive framing: "As you take off in your spaceship, it explodes!" Make it clearer to the players where there is scope for action declaration and where there isn't.

As DM I know what things are going on behind the scenes that they don't know which can have an impact on the rules.

Another thing a really good DMG would talk about are the pros and cons of secret backstory, and what the range of options is (eg never use it; use it at will and run the sorts of risks that KarinsDad faced; use it, but always allow a chance that action declaration can reveal it, even if the players don't quite know to frame an action declaration around discovery of the secret backstory).

There are players who don't ever want their PCs to fail or anything bad to happen to them and so often their interpretation of the rules is one that gives them a huge benefit to their PC.

I think this another issue where rules methodologies and table expectations interact. For instance, the GM's approach to narrating failure - which is a rules issue - can make a big difference to players' expectations here.

 

[KarinsDad]

Of course I can't comment on the maturity of your player - I've never met him and wasn't there.

But I think we have to be careful about generalisation. I don't think it is necessarily a sign of immaturity to think that a certain approach is a poor one. I have GMed players who weren't immature, but wouldn't have liked your scenario. And I don't think I would, either.

If there is a trap mechanism at the outside of the door, but the PCs are already in the room when they start searching for traps, do you have them all exit the room, search outside, and then go back inside? No. You have them start searching inside the room without knowing that the trap mechanism is outside the room.

No difference here. They did not think to investigate before they got into the spaceship.

I think it both game expectations and rules. How action declaration should be handled is undoubtedly a rules issue, but it is not a rules issue very often discussed in D&D rulebooks, and expectations vary very widely across the player base.

For instance, you can see KarinsDad here arguing that the GM has the authority to "say no" to an action declaration without explaining why (in terms of backstory) or even making it clear that the PC has failed (the player in this scenario certainly didn't know that there was a bomb his PC had failed to discover). My inclinations lean strongly towards [MENTION=40166]prosfilaes[/MENTION] suggestion of say "yes" or roll the dice. I think this is consistent with Moldvay, who says "There is always a chance".

Actually, I did not say no to an action declaration. I allowed him to search, but I told him that he did not find anything without having him roll. There's a difference. I might have said something like "You look around quickly, but you do not find anything unusual.". There was nothing to find.

As for Moldvay's "there's always a chance", no, that's nonsense. If a PC falls into a pit trap and the player wants to "at the last second get a saving throw to grab the edge of the pit while going in", the DM might say yes, the DM might say no. Either decision is totally fine and I do not think that following one specific game designer should indicate that one way is right and the other is wrong. Both ways are right. The player might be annoyed if the DM says no, but that doesn't make it a bad DM decision. After all, DMs should not be expected to add in last second house rules due to player whim, nor should they have to save PCs or bow down to player pressure.

But applying this maxim doesn't settle the issue. There's still the need for a setting of DCs (I favour 4e's methodology over Moldvay's, and obviously - given they're both D&D methods - D&D has room for either approach). And, even more importantly for KarinsDad's example, there's the methodology for framing action declarations.

For instance, it seems that the player in question believed he was framing an action "I make sure the spaceship is safe", and KarinsDad believed that, relative to the threats facing the ship, the player didn't have adequate resources to frame such a declaration (eg no X-Ray vision), but instead of expressly making this metagame issue clear he finessed it via ingame fiction ("You look around and don't find anything dangerous") and then went on with his narration.

I think a really good DMG would make clear all these different options and approaches, their pros and cons, what sort of dynamic they create for play (eg metagaming vs "immersion), etc.

My preferred approach to the scenario you describe would be to use more aggressive framing: "As you take off in your spaceship, it explodes!" Make it clearer to the players where there is scope for action declaration and where there isn't.

I think that you are drilling down too much into this. The easy solution was to just give him a roll and regardless of roll, he found nothing. Even if he rolled a 3 or 4 on the dice, I would not tell him that there was a bomb. But I might instead (3 being the best roll) change the scenario a bit to say that a first aid kit or some other object was not in its proper place, or something to imply that someone had been on board. As a DM, I am not comfortable changing the scenario that way, but the odds of him rolling that well are small enough that I can make an exception when it does happen.

Action declaration was fine, it's just that I did not give him a roll. And to tell the truth, I still do that to this day. If a player says to me "I want to roll Persuasion to get the merchant to lower his prices a bit" I'll reply with "Ok, roleplay it". I won't say roll the dice. I have a pet peeve about people reaching for their dice (with the exception of combat rounds) instead of roleplaying.

If a player wants to follow tracks on a cobblestone road, I'll tell him right upfront that shy of something special (mud on the boots of the guy they are following, or the guy bleeding), there's no way to track on cobblestones. I get the whole "there's always a chance" idea, but I do not like the concept of creating fake changes to a scenario, just because of a dice roll. I get it that it's a game and super weird stuff can happen in a game, I just like the game to be plausible, not illogical.

Another thing a really good DMG would talk about are the pros and cons of secret backstory, and what the range of options is (eg never use it; use it at will and run the sorts of risks that KarinsDad faced; use it, but always allow a chance that action declaration can reveal it, even if the players don't quite know to frame an action declaration around discovery of the secret backstory).

I think this another issue where rules methodologies and table expectations interact. For instance, the GM's approach to narrating failure - which is a rules issue - can make a big difference to players' expectations here.

I think that the game does not even work without a secret backstory, at least for many groups. Who wants to play an FRPG where stuff does not happen in the background that the players do not know about, but might one day find out about? Whether the PCs find out about things in the backstory also determines how much they can control events.

 

[pemerton]

As for Moldvay's "there's always a chance", no, that's nonsense.

<snip>

I think that you are drilling down too much into this.

<snip>

I think that the game does not even work without a secret backstory, at least for many groups. Who wants to play an FRPG where stuff does not happen in the background that the players do not know about, but might one day find out about? Whether the PCs find out about things in the backstory also determines how much they can control events.

I think that drilling down is the way that RPG designers can write useful guidance manuals, rather than (i)make assumptions about how to play, (ii) give advice on the basis of that, and (iii) have that advice turn out to be useless for half their customers.

Maybe it wasn't clear what I meant by "secret backstory" - I don't mean that the GM has ideas about the backstory that the players don't know; but rather that the GM relies on that secret backstory to adjudicate outcomes of action resolution (as in your example of play). I think an RPG absolutely can work without the GM relying on secret backstory to adjudicate outcomes. I know that from experience.

There are a range of ways to adjudicate an RPG, which straddle rules techniques and approaches, and a good DGM will discuss them.

If there is a trap mechanism at the outside of the door, but the PCs are already in the room when they start searching for traps, do you have them all exit the room, search outside, and then go back inside? No. You have them start searching inside the room without knowing that the trap mechanism is outside the room.

<snip>

If a player wants to follow tracks on a cobblestone road, I'll tell him right upfront that shy of something special (mud on the boots of the guy they are following, or the guy bleeding), there's no way to track on cobblestones. I get the whole "there's always a chance" idea, but I do not like the concept of creating fake changes to a scenario, just because of a dice roll. I get it that it's a game and super weird stuff can happen in a game, I just like the game to be plausible, not illogical.

I don't fully get your first example - but if the PCs are already in a trapped room and have triggered the trap then I don't think I'd be mucking around with Perception checks. I'd be narrating the threat posed by the trap.

As for your second example, what's illogical or implausible about finding a blood drops, or a dropped neckerchief, or something else on a cobblestone road? There are things to be said for and against "fake changes" (although that's not a neutral description of the technique), but verisimilitude, or plausibility vs contrivance, in my view Isn't a very helpful way to talk about it, because nearly everyone treats verisimilitude as a constraint on narration. Someone who, in response to a successful track check on the cobblestones, narrates a dropped neckerchief doesn't regard that as lacking in verisimilitude - the narration of a dropped neckerchief as opposed to (say) a dropped gilt-handled dagger is precisely intended to preserve verisimilitude.

 

[Thaumaturge]

I game with my adult friends, adult family, and nonadult family. I DM and play. But then I play I do look at what my players do with their PCs. I learn their likes and dislikes. Then I make sure the game fits their style if I intend on them staying. If a player wants to run a pyromancer, I jack up the fire resistant and fire vulnerable and make sense of it all (oh noes the fire guys and ice guys teamed up!).

I know my cousin like to play sneaky PCs and PCs who dual wield. So when I play with him I read the stealth rules and TWF rules. I told him how I'd rule stealth and invented a subclass just for him just to make both of us happy.

I know how my friend's fighter works. He has the great weapon feat and has the tendency of using the weapons of his enemies because that the PC's gimmick. So I have to decide how I will rule Polearm Master if he take it and uses one of the 3 magic glaives he has.

The DM has the final say and the ultimate responsibility. If you want a particular player to stay, you have to give them a glimpse of how you work and make sure they are happy with it. If you don't care if they leave, do whatever you want. But I find that understanding and informing your players before play causes you to have a low amount of interruptions and disagreements.

Now, don't get whiplash or anything, but I agree with a lot of this.

My best guess is I view knowing what spells a PC has prepped as different from being familiar with how stealth or TWF work. In all of the tables I'm running right now, there are no Druids, so I've only vaguely familiarized myself with the class. There are a number of paladins and warlocks, so I made a greater effort to become familiar. I still have no idea what spells they have.

I agree with your larger point, too. I know what play styles my friends enjoy, and I steer things in those directions. When I can steer. Mostly, I just let them drive. They're a talky, self-motivated bunch, so it doesn't take long for them to grab some plot hook somewhere and start to run with it. Then I just hold on.

And throw dragons at them.

Thaumaturge.

 

[KarinsDad]

Maybe it wasn't clear what I meant by "secret backstory" - I don't mean that the GM has ideas about the backstory that the players don't know; but rather that the GM relies on that secret backstory to adjudicate outcomes of action resolution (as in your example of play). I think an RPG absolutely can work without the GM relying on secret backstory to adjudicate outcomes. I know that from experience.

And I get this. I just prefer having the framework in play and only changing it if the PC or NPC actions should modify it.

I do not like modifying it, just because the players ask for an unexpected dice roll.

There are a range of ways to adjudicate an RPG, which straddle rules techniques and approaches, and a good DGM will discuss them.

I don't fully get your first example - but if the PCs are already in a trapped room and have triggered the trap then I don't think I'd be mucking around with Perception checks. I'd be narrating the threat posed by the trap.

The example was meant to be a repeat of the original example.

In the spaceship incident, the PCs had already gotten on to the space ship. They had not yet set off the trap (that occurs 100 miles off of the ground due to an altitude trigger) and could not find it in the space ship without special abilities (e.g. special powers like x-ray vision), but they were no longer outside of the space ship where they could check out the security cameras. Normal searching inside the space ship would not find the bomb.

In the trapped room example, the PCs had already gone into the room. They had not yet set off the trap (that occurs when 3 of them are standing next to the altar) and could not find it in the room without special abilities (e.g. spells like Detect Magic), but they were no longer outside of the room where they could find the control mechanism to turn it off. Normal searching inside the room would not find the magical trap.

Same basic scenario, different genre.

As a DM, in both of these cases, I do not allow the perception/search to find anything. I do not allow the scenario to change, just because a player asks to search. A PC could go back outside the room (or off of the space ship) and find the key to the problem, or a PC could use special abilities (the wizard can cast Detect Magic, but the searching rogue might not have that ability, or a different superhero has super smell and can smell the C4).

As for your second example, what's illogical or implausible about finding a blood drops, or a dropped neckerchief, or something else on a cobblestone road? There are things to be said for and against "fake changes" (although that's not a neutral description of the technique), but verisimilitude, or plausibility vs contrivance, in my view Isn't a very helpful way to talk about it, because nearly everyone treats verisimilitude as a constraint on narration. Someone who, in response to a successful track check on the cobblestones, narrates a dropped neckerchief doesn't regard that as lacking in verisimilitude - the narration of a dropped neckerchief as opposed to (say) a dropped gilt-handled dagger is precisely intended to preserve verisimilitude.

There's nothing implausible about finding blood drops, or a dropped neckerchief, or something else on a cobblestone road.

What's implausible for my gaming style is that because a player wants to roll a tracking roll, reality suddenly shifts and because the player rolled high on a dice roll, that neckerchief suddenly mystically appears on the road.

As a DM, if a player asks for the tracking roll, I like to decide right there and then if there is anything to find, before he rolls. If there is a decent reason for something to be there, sure roll. But if there is not a decent reason for something to be there, I don't like having to shuffle my vision of the world to suddenly include something there that logically should not be there. I also do not like giving a roll, the player rolls a 20, and then I have nothing to give him. I'd prefer to tell him that there is nothing there and have no roll than for him to roll high and then either I tell him he does not find anything, or I make up some last second BS on the fly just because he rolled high.


It's a style difference. Some DMs say "yes" to anything.

Player: "I'd like to see if I can track the blacksmith"
DM: "It's a cobblestone road so the DC will be high."
Player: "I rolled a 20, so 27."
DM: "Ok, you see a tool lying on the ground over by the alleyway. You are not sure of the type of tool, but it is long and awl-like with scorch marks on the end."

I do not prefer this DMing style.


In other words, I like to decide when to "just say yes" and when to not do so. Depending on the scenario, I will be either more or less generous in handing out information. I am not always generous, especially if the scenario is one where information is unlikely to be found. I do not like being forced to hand out information in an unlikely to be found scenario, just because a player asks for information.

A more "just say yes if it makes sense to do so" approach than a "just say yes all of the time" approach.


Alternatively, I like to set up adventures with flowcharts (maybe not actual flowcharts, maybe just some notes written down). Multiple different ways to get to an event (location, encounter, etc.). Multiple different directions to leave from an event. Multiple different clues possible to be found at each event (some easier to find, some harder). Sometimes, the clue is harder to find because the DC is harder. Sometimes, the clue is harder to find because the DC is lower, but the players have to go out of their way to go find the clue. The security camera situation is one of this type. But no clue is essential to the adventure. Some are found and followed, some are found and not followed, some are found and misinterpreted, and some are never found. No event is essential to the adventure either.

As time goes on, more and more flowchart events are added to the campaign (or entire mini-adventures are added) as the framework of the campaign is fleshed out. Some of that fleshing out of new events comes directly from the ideas / goals of the players. Some is not driven by player/PC motivations or goals, it's just new parts of the world that the DM just came up with.


PS. As a player, I dislike it if the DM corrects the players on the misinterpretation of a clue as well. If no given clue is essential, then interpreting it correctly is not essential either. There are some players who absolutely want their interpretations of the information that the DM supplies be 100% correct. I don't need that or want it unless it's the DM misstating what we see (i.e. he is the window to his world, so it should be a clear view). But if the DM states it correctly and we just misinterpret its value or meaning or come up with the wrong conclusion about it, then the PCs should be allowed to go down the wrong path.

The concept of "just say yes" seems to go hand in hand with "make sure your players are 100% clear on everything" type of approach. No. Mystery is fine and welcome, especially if it is mystery caused by player interaction/faulty conclusions and not just the DM foobaring. Some players hate this. but I sometimes like it when we screw up because it often leads to unexpected and off the beaten path situations.

 

[Minigiant]

Now, don't get whiplash or anything, but I agree with a lot of this.

My best guess is I view knowing what spells a PC has prepped as different from being familiar with how stealth or TWF work. In all of the tables I'm running right now, there are no Druids, so I've only vaguely familiarized myself with the class. There are a number of paladins and warlocks, so I made a greater effort to become familiar. I still have no idea what spells they have.

I agree with your larger, point, too. I know what play styles my friends enjoy, and I steer things in those directions. When I can steer. Mostly, I just let them drive. They're a talky, self-motivated bunch, so it doesn't take long for them to grab some plot hook somewhere and start to run with it. Then I just hold on.

And throw dragons at them.

Thaumaturge.

Well I tend to at least be familiar with the spells and feats a character can actually know. Like my table's sorcerer can only cast up to 3rd level spells, I am only knowledgeable of spells of to tharlt level. BUT Just in case some designer creates a "Dragon death" spell that autokills dragons a failed save, I will pour into the book the second he gets 4th level spells and say "Nah bro. That spell is altered at my time. No easy kills on Emrose the Green and Red".

But I am a firm believer of knowing the players of yours who you want to keep. RAW or RAI don't matter in those casese.

 

[Thaumaturge]

Well I tend to at least be familiar with the spells and feats a character can actually know.

And my, ultimately minor, tweak would be "I tend to at least be familiar with the spells and feats a character actually uses". See my previous comments about my tiredness and poor D&D play.

And, fair or not, Dragon death would probably get used at my table first. Then I'd take a look at it and say, "no". But, thinking about it, most of my players would come and ask me about it ahead of time. None of them is trying to break the game. Or, if they are, they're either really good or really bad at it.

Thaumaturge.

 

[prosfilaes]

There's nothing implausible about finding blood drops, or a dropped neckerchief, or something else on a cobblestone road.

What's implausible for my gaming style is that because a player wants to roll a tracking roll, reality suddenly shifts and because the player rolled high on a dice roll, that neckerchief suddenly mystically appears on the road.

So you've defined the world to begin with in such a way that the only way of success is the one way you want the problem solved? By RAW, for Pathfinder and D20, tracking a human down a cobblestone road is a DC 20 check, which a 10th level Ranger can plausibly not fail on a 1. No, it's not a dropped neckerchief; it's the horse excrement stuck to his shoe that's distinct because the horse fed on apples. To nerf a can't-fail ability to a can't-succeed ability is rather extreme.

Player: "I'd like to see if I can track the blacksmith"
DM: "It's a cobblestone road so the DC will be high."
Player: "I rolled a 20, so 27."
DM: "Ok, you see a tool lying on the ground over by the alleyway. You are not sure of the type of tool, but it is long and awl-like with scorch marks on the end."

It's a DC 20 check, so he made it by 7. By denying the check, you have effectively changed the rules of the game, and made Tracking and Survival much less valuable. This is not even a "Mr. Awesome can't be tracked"; this is a full-on nerf of the tracking rules.

The concept of "just say yes" seems to go hand in hand with "make sure your players are 100% clear on everything" type of approach.

No, the concept of "just say yes" goes hand in hand with "listen to your players' speculations and steal the coolest ones for what's really going on". It's about agency, it's about making what players do matter in a game instead of what works is exactly what the programmers thought of before hand.