D&D 5E "Labels" and D&D Gaming

[Umbran]

A Groups Home Game.
The labels used to describe it tend to be: "Sandbox", "Open-World", "Hexcrawl" and sometimes just "Wilderness"

Now I'm probably showing my age here, but back in my day we called that "a DM's campaign". There was no need for labeling it because RPG'ing encompassed, well, "open imagination and exploration". EVERY campaign was a "sandbox/open-world/hexcrawl/whatever".

No, it wasn't. There were other styles of play, even back in the day.

For example - There's any number of groups who had no "world" per se. They played through the classic modules. There was no "exploration", no crawling hexes. Travel was boring and glossed over to get to the adventure that someone had bought.

I find it quite strange when people talk about their "campaigns" and then I find out they are going to "be finished with it in a month or so". That's not a campaign as I remember it.

And, however you played it, that's fine. But you may want to embrace the idea that your memory is not a representative sample.

And, I dunno. But.. the terms you are talking about are... like, 20 years old at this point. This isn't some new lingo the kids are using these days.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

"RAW" as a constant reference to being some authoriteh to which DM's must bow is something I object to. It suggests that some game publisher umpteen years ago knew better than you what you and your friends wanted and needed for your ongoing game right now, and that all possible circumstances were covered by rules. The DM is there for a reason and we don't all use only "professionally" designed adventure materials. Yes, the designer probably had reasons for doing things the way they wrote them - but I have my reasons as well and MINE TRUMP THEIRS - ALWAYS. And this is a phenomenon of players using "RAW" as a tool to successfully make demands of the DM. It's something that Gygax explicitly said twice in the original DM's Guide (in the preface and the afterword) as well as having clearly had it in mind at many points in between. It is also something that later game authors threw right out the window, completely forgot, or never even knew was originally a thing. The rules don't run the game. The DM runs the game.

PC "BUILDS" is something I also have objected to pretty much since the idea of it arrived with 3E because while it can be a fun exercise FOR SOME, it isn't everybody's cup of tea (and planning the detailed growth and development of a PC in complete denial of potential in-game events and circumstances that might suggest otherwise was certainly was not ORIGINALLY a meaningful aspect of RPG'S). But more to the point it leads people to believe that D&D is a game TO BE WON; that premeditated design of a PC's development over time is effectively in competition with the DM to effectively DOMINATE gameplay rather than merely participate in it; and/or that players are in competition with other players to prove that they know better than others all the rules and how to manipulate them, and by so doing earn the right to lord their gaming skill superiority over others at the table.

Just my own impressions...

 

[S'mon]

Linear Campaigns were discussed in the 1e Dungeoneer's Survival Guide, 1986 I think, contemporary with the Dragonlance campaign/adventure path. So it goes back a while.

 

[TwoSix]

OP feels less like a dislike for labels and more a dislike for the playstyles that these labels are describing.

Edit: At our table, we have rotating DMs. A "campaign" is simply a string of sessions with the same DM and the same general storyline. It's rare for a campaign to last more than 24 months and maybe 30-35 sessions.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

OP feels less like a dislike for labels and more a dislike for the playstyles that these labels are describing.

Edit: At our table, we have rotating DMs. A "campaign" is simply a string of sessions with the same DM and the same general storyline. It's rare for a campaign to last more than 24 months and maybe 30-35 sessions.

It is fine to dislike certain playstyles, I believe he as expressed similar sentiments before, if not in so clear cut a fashion.

Disliking playstyles only becomes a problem if one insists that other playstyles are somehow invalid or should not be permitted.

Where I disagree with the OP is that I think that many of these labels are useful because there is such a diversity of what constitutes default D&D in the groups that play it.

Thought I do think there is merit is separating campaign (setting + DM + adventuress) from Adventure Path.

 

[Oofta]

In general I agree with the OP, not that I think it matters all that much what labels we use.

The one thing I do get annoyed at is when people say "That's wrong, RAW SAYS...".

Half the time it's because they're trying to come up with some loophole based on a specific interpretation of the rules. This was more prevalent with 3.5 (and to a certain degree 4), but I still see it now and then. See the old "do I need a free hand to load a crossbow" arguments before the errata was released as an example.

For the most part it's now shifted over to "Well Jeremy Crawford tweeted..." which is almost as bad.

It's one thing if I've just missed a rule or option, it happens to all of us. But it's up to the DM at the table to make a ruling, the term "RAW" doesn't really mean anything to me much of the time.

 

[prabe]

In general I agree with the OP, not that I think it matters all that much what labels we use.

The one thing I do get annoyed at is when people say "That's wrong, RAW SAYS...".

Half the time it's because they're trying to come up with some loophole based on a specific interpretation of the rules. This was more prevalent with 3.5 (and to a certain degree 4), but I still see it now and then. See the old "do I need a free hand to load a crossbow" arguments before the errata was released as an example.

For the most part it's now shifted over to "Well Jeremy Crawford tweeted..." which is almost as bad.

It's one thing if I've just missed a rule or option, it happens to all of us. But it's up to the DM at the table to make a ruling, the term "RAW" doesn't really mean anything to me much of the time.

I think it's useful to know RAW (and where applicable RAI), if only so that if you go with something else, it's an intentional thing. I'm willing to disregard RAW (and even RAI) if I think it'll make for a better game, but if nothing else those can serve as a starting point.

 

[jmartkdr2]

In general I agree with the OP, not that I think it matters all that much what labels we use.

The one thing I do get annoyed at is when people say "That's wrong, RAW SAYS...".

Half the time it's because they're trying to come up with some loophole based on a specific interpretation of the rules. This was more prevalent with 3.5 (and to a certain degree 4), but I still see it now and then. See the old "do I need a free hand to load a crossbow" arguments before the errata was released as an example.

For the most part it's now shifted over to "Well Jeremy Crawford tweeted..." which is almost as bad.

It's one thing if I've just missed a rule or option, it happens to all of us. But it's up to the DM at the table to make a ruling, the term "RAW" doesn't really mean anything to me much of the time.

The flip of this is: when a dm I'm playing with does something that changes how the game would work, I generally remind them of the book rule. I usually go with "just so you know, RAW would be..." If the dm decides to go with the change - fine, that's the new rule. Or the way we're doing it just this once. I can live with houserules and even rule of cool (if not overdone).

I can't play with unknown rules, though. If I don't know how my character works it all becomes random guessing rather than playing a game. So I like my deviations from the rules as I understand them to at least be deliberate.

On the other hand - JC's tweets mean exactly dick if I have a voice in how important they are.

 

[Oofta]

So half the time, pointing out a rule is fine. I get it, no DM is perfect and we all miss things now and then. Personally unless I've made an egregious mistake I'd rather keep the game going and discuss it outside of limited game time.

What I'm talking about is that other half of the time when people disagree with my interpretation of a rule and think they can simply say RAW SAYS as if that in and of itself answers anything.

I do also try to make it clear up front what my house rules are (there aren't a lot) to avoid discussions later.

The best example I can think of was the long-ago hand crossbow arguments where (pre-errata) some people were adamant that because the rules did not specifically state that you needed a free hand you could just dual-wield hand crossbows all day long. Which is cool ... if your DM agrees. Personally I always ruled that it was only common sense that you need to draw the next bolt somehow.

There are other cases even with the current rules that I'd point out ... but I'm not sure I want to tempt the fates on derailing the thread completely.

With 5E we don't have a system written in technical legal language, there are going to be areas where rulings matter. That's all.

 

[jmartkdr2]

One thing I have to get out the habit of doing is: I shouldn't assume a game is "RAW unless otherwise specified." That's just A way to play, after all.

Of course RAW can't cover everything, which is why we have dm's in the first place, even when we intend to use RAW as much as possible.

If a game is playing under that assumption, then RAW matters until... otherwise specified. But if that isn't the working assumption, RAW doesn't matter at all.