D&D (2024) Free Rules Updated with DMG content.

[gorice]

I dont see much surprising here.

Plot out a story.
Embrace the 'shared' story. AKA: Work with the players to drive through the plot.
Fudge things, so the story continues instead of letting a PC die.

None of this is conflicting, but if its good or not is up for debate.

I suppose that the group could collaborate on reaching scripted plot points if everyone knows what's happening. This kind of play doesn't have to be forced. But, I don't see much evidence of this alternative in the text.

Again, if it feels bad to you, but not to others, maybe take a minute to explore why that is, instead of doing the "the other guy is a jerk/stupid/clueless" thing. It's unpleasant to read through posts like this. It feels like the point isn't to promote discussion, but to bludgeon others with a personal opinion.

Lying and cheating in order to get your way in a collaborative activity, played with friends, with no win condition, is foolish at best, harmful and disrespectful at worst. That is absolutely my opinion, bludgeon, and hill to die on. Are you seriously arguing the opposite?

Likewise, giving DMs contradictory advice that will lead to problems in play is bad writing and bad for the hobby.

Plot points aren't a railroad.

They don't have an order to happen in. They don't even need to happen at all.

Plot points are a railroad. A script is a script. That isn't the same thing as having prepped ideas/encounters/events -- not all prep is railroading -- but if you're writing down a linear timeline with a set of events, the intent is for those things to happen. The most benign interpretation is that it's useless.

 

[abirdcall]

Plot points are a railroad. A script is a script. That isn't the same thing as having prepped ideas/encounters/events -- not all prep is railroading -- but if you're writing down a linear timeline with a set of events, the intent is for those things to happen. The most benign interpretation is that it's useless.

I don't think so, or maybe we are interpreting it in different ways.

Spoiler for Rime of the Frostmaiden:

There is an overall plot - Auril is cursing the land into neverending Winter.

In the first act there are 8 or so plot points the characters can engage in and once they do 4 of them the game moves to the second act. Whatever they didn't do in the first act has consequences later.

In the second act the characters can find plot hooks by talking to villagers. Most of them don't have anything directly to do with the main threat of Auril, but of course going around and solving things and finding information and treasure will help the characters achieve their goals. One of them is major in that if they don't do anything about it then the villages get decimated by a dragon construct, but again, up to the players.

After a certain point the characters gain enough levels and such that they can go face Auril. They can defeat her or not, up to them. If they can get the Codicil of White then they can access the glacier to uncover a lost city which has nothing to do with the Auril plot but is just something awesome and amazing that adventurers probably want to explore.

Is that a railroad? Not to my definition. Does it have plot points? So many.

 

[bedir than]

I suppose that the group could collaborate on reaching scripted plot points if everyone knows what's happening. This kind of play doesn't have to be forced. But, I don't see much evidence of this alternative in the text.



Lying and cheating in order to get your way in a collaborative activity, played with friends, with no win condition, is foolish at best, harmful and disrespectful at worst. That is absolutely my opinion, bludgeon, and hill to die on. Are you seriously arguing the opposite?

Likewise, giving DMs contradictory advice that will lead to problems in play is bad writing and bad for the hobby.


Plot points are a railroad. A script is a script. That isn't the same thing as having prepped ideas/encounters/events -- not all prep is railroading -- but if you're writing down a linear timeline with a set of events, the intent is for those things to happen. The most benign interpretation is that it's useless.

Plot points aren't a script.
Scripts and outlines happen in an order.

Claiming plot points are a railroad redefines railroading to include things like driving a car to seven different places that aren't linear.

 

[Scribe]

I suppose that the group could collaborate on reaching scripted plot points if everyone knows what's happening. This kind of play doesn't have to be forced. But, I don't see much evidence of this alternative in the text.

The players dont have to know the details, the point I would think that Wizards is after, is a collaborative, emergent story, and the DM helping the players get through it.

Its not THE singular approach to RPGs, but its one of them which it seems 5.5 is leaning into.

 

[gorice]

OK, look. Here is a quote from this:

Step 1. Focus on the story of the adventure. Read or reread the adventure’s introduction and background information. Create a bulleted list of key plot points to make sure a coherent story unfolds.

If the DM (or the adventure writer) is the one who creates key plot points, and the DM's job is to make sure a coherent story unfolds, then the story creation is not really collaborative.

The DMG reinforces this by asserting (under the heading 'What Does the DM Do?') that among the DM's roles are director and storyteller.

What happens if a player does something I (the DM) decide is not part of my coherent story? Do I relinquish my role as director and storyteller, or do I perhaps ignore it or fudge the dice?

On the other hand, the DMG tells me to Embrace the Shared Story. How?

Yes, there are written adventures that serve more as general material for players to interact with. But that's not what the DMG seems to be advocating.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

But why subject yourself to what you just described as tedious, repetitive unpleasantness...?

I guess to me it's more important to acknowledge and understand the opinions of others, even if I don't agree with them or find those opinions presented in a fashion that annoys me.

 

[gorice]

I guess to me it's more important to acknowledge and understand the opinions of others, even if I don't agree with them or find those opinions presented in a fashion that annoys me.

The frustration I'm encountering with your posts is that you take issue with my tone, without making specific arguments.

If you think I'm wrong about the DMG... By all means, disagree, but please explain why, and preferably with reference to the book.

If you think I'm wrong about fudging etc. being bad -- well, again, I can't understand why without reasoning.

My concern is that a lot of people are so defensive of tradition, or so deferential to WotC's products, that they have become very resistant to asking or answering serious questions about how people do, or should, actually play.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

The frustration I'm encountering with your posts is that you take issue with my tone, without making specific arguments.

If you think I'm wrong about the DMG... By all means, disagree, but please explain why, and preferably with reference to the book.

If you think I'm wrong about fudging etc. being bad -- well, again, I can't understand why without reasoning.

My concern is that a lot of people are so defensive of tradition, or so deferential to WotC's products, that they have become very resistant to asking or answering serious questions about how people do, or should, actually play.

The tone is what puts up a barrier to discussion. That is almost certainly not your intent, but for a reader of a post like that... it's work. And, more, it feels like futile work, because that tone tells others that a line in the sand has been drawn. In concrete.

I like this post though! Sorry for griefing on you. Let me go back and read your previous posts and respond properly.

 

[Parmandur]

I guess to me it's more important to acknowledge and understand the opinions of others, even if I don't agree with them or find those opinions presented in a fashion that annoys me.

Not like anybody is paying you for the effort.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

Anyway, let me reiterate my previous concern: the official advice for DMs in the book for DMs for the new edition of Dungeons & Dragons The World's Greatest Roleplaying Game is that DM's should railroad their players, while still pretending that this is somehow compatible with player agency*. It then advises DMs that outright lying to their players is one way of achieving this.

Initially, I found this bit over the top. The association of the advice from the DMG with lying/railroading and other terms with negative connotations.

In a random home game, is it not possible that occasionally fudging dice leads to a better outcome for both players and DM? It's not something I'm a fan of... although I have done it. I don't think most DMs would embrace this willy nilly. It takes away the magic of those longshot die rolls... win initiative, nat 20, failed save, BOOM. But I'd be willing to bet that most DMs would and/or have done this occasionally.

Is your argument that this is the only advice presented?

I'm sure your viewpoint is not as extreme as that. Just presenting the other side of the argument.