D&D 5E On rulings, rules, and Twitter, or: How Sage Advice Changed

[Xetheral]

Sorry, but this isn't actually having that character DO anything, it's just play-acting. Which is one of my complaints about these systems -- they don't encourage actual changes in play, they encourage superficial changes at the play-acting level.

This is a great example of just how much goals of play can differ from table to table in 5e. What you dismiss as the superficial play-acting level is something I actively prioritize as both a player and a DM.

Sigh, 5e isn't that flexible (nor is D&D in general). Everyone here is playing pretty much the same way, with small differences that are imagined to be large so that 5e is flexible enough to accommodate them. But, everyone is expecting the GM to drive the game, everyone is expecting the GM to be in charge and have the say, and everyone is fine with play constraints that are very tight on players and very loose on the GM. This latter is usually what's confused for flexibility -- the game's core mechanic is "GM decides" and so different decisions is viewed as those big difference and flexibility -- but the choices are still in a pretty small bubble of play for RPGs as a whole.

Sure, D&D games play similarly to each other in comparison to the whole universe of RPGs as a whole. But is that really the most useful yardstick to use when evaluating the claim that 5e is flexible enough accomodate divergent styles of play?

From my standpoint that claim is justified so long as there are 5e tables with styles different enough from each other that each group would not enjoy the other table's style--the styles are divergent enough to be incompatible. I don't think it matters to the validity of the claim that there are other games with styles that are conceptually divergent, rather than merely incompatible.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Just don't tell me that rules that provide a carrot and stick to enforce what my PC thinks and does is universally "better".

Having played games that do that, I can also say that some of us dislike that approach from direct experience.

 

[Lanefan]

This is a great example of just how much goals of play can differ from table to table in 5e. What you dismiss as the superficial play-acting level is something I actively prioritize as both a player and a DM.

I'm with you here, but I think what's being got at in the post you quoted is that - in the fiction as in life - actions speak louder than words.

So sure, you can have a "tough guy" who threatens to break necks all the time, but until he actually breaks a few and shows willingness to back up those threats with real action it's all blow and no go.

And once he does break said necks his alignment-ethics-whatever will be judged and determined by those actions among others, rather than by whatever words he might have spoken in the meantime.

 

[Xetheral]

I'm with you here, but I think what's being got at in the post you quoted is that - in the fiction as in life - actions speak louder than words.

So sure, you can have a "tough guy" who threatens to break necks all the time, but until he actually breaks a few and shows willingness to back up those threats with real action it's all blow and no go.

And once he does break said necks his alignment-ethics-whatever will be judged and determined by those actions among others, rather than by whatever words he might have spoken in the meantime.

As applied to your example, my point is only that the "play-acting" of threatening to break necks is itself a goal of play at some tables, rather than merely superficial.

 

[Ovinomancer]

This is a great example of just how much goals of play can differ from table to table in 5e. What you dismiss as the superficial play-acting level is something I actively prioritize as both a player and a DM.

You've misunderstood. I'm calling it play-acting because that's what it is. I do it, and enjoy it. I'm putting a clear label on the activity, not demeaning it.

Sure, D&D games play similarly to each other in comparison to the whole universe of RPGs as a whole. But is that really the most useful yardstick to use when evaluating the claim that 5e is flexible enough accomodate divergent styles of play?

Yes, actually, because there's not much that's actually divergent in 5e play, but people make the claim that 5e is flexible enough to do just about anything. The issue there is that their "anything" always looks like D&D and not actually something different.

The divergence available in 5e is still a fairly narrow channel. There are differences, and they're very much worth discussing, but it's like Baskin Robbins -- they have 31 flavors, but it's all still ice cream. You won't find steak there.

From my standpoint that claim is justified so long as there are 5e tables with styles different enough from each other that each group would not enjoy the other table's style--the styles are divergent enough to be incompatible. I don't think it matters to the validity of the claim that there are other games with styles that are conceptually divergent, rather than merely incompatible.

If that's the case, then almost everything is very flexible, and I'd like a different term for discussing actual difference in play approaches because "flexible" is extremely devalued. Because, with this, saying 5e is flexible is not saying much at all -- all RPGs are flexible the same way. I dislike claims that are so broad as to be largely meaningless.

 

[Ovinomancer]

As applied to your example, my point is only that the "play-acting" of threatening to break necks is itself a goal of play at some tables, rather than merely superficial.

I got turned around a bit there, and misunderstood your point. You're saying that you prefer the characters to play act, not just the players? That a goal of play is for the player to play-act their character play-acting at theats? I don't think I follow this line. My fault, because I did use play-act there, and meant it in the same sense we play-act at the table -- we're pretending. If the character has a flaw, but just pretends to it, is that actually a flaw?

 

[Xetheral]

You've misunderstood. I'm calling it play-acting because that's what it is. I do it, and enjoy it. I'm putting a clear label on the activity, not demeaning it.

Thanks for clarifying your intent! (For reference, to me the term "play-acting" comes across with an inherently demeaning context, especially when things that affect the "play-acting" level of the game are also described as "superficial".) To further clarify, do you think the "play-acting" level of the game is important and something to be encouraged at your table? If so, that didn't come through--it sounded like you don't prioritize that part of the game, or value the characterization that takes place there, even though you take part in it.

Yes, actually, because there's not much that's actually divergent in 5e play, but people make the claim that 5e is flexible enough to do just about anything. The issue there is that their "anything" always looks like D&D and not actually something different.

The divergence available in 5e is still a fairly narrow channel. There are differences, and they're very much worth discussing, but it's like Baskin Robbins -- they have 31 flavors, but it's all still ice cream. You won't find steak there.

If that's the case, then almost everything is very flexible, and I'd like a different term for discussing actual difference in play approaches because "flexible" is extremely devalued. Because, with this, saying 5e is flexible is not saying much at all -- all RPGs are flexible the same way. I dislike claims that are so broad as to be largely meaningless.

I think 5e is often labeled as flexible in comparison to other editions of D&D that (arguably) catered to a more specific playstyle. I think that's a worthwhile comparison to make, even if it is limited in scope.

I can see how you feel that calling something flexible within such a narrow scope lacks broader relevance. However, I would point out that only using a universal scale to measure flexibility has the drawback of restricting one to high-level comparisons. That's great for high-level game design theory, but that's usually not the level I think most people are operating on when they say they like (or appreciate) 5e for its flexibility.

Maybe we just encounter people making the claim that 5e is flexible in different contexts?

I got turned around a bit there, and misunderstood your point. You're saying that you prefer the characters to play act, not just the players? That a goal of play is for the player to play-act their character play-acting at theats? I don't think I follow this line. My fault, because I did use play-act there, and meant it in the same sense we play-act at the table -- we're pretending. If the character has a flaw, but just pretends to it, is that actually a flaw?

To clarify, I prefer to emphasize (what you are calling) play-acting for the players as a goal of play at my table. I did not intend to imply that I also emphasize designing characters who play-act IC.

At the same time, I expect that many character traits will often be expressed primarily in the "play-acting" level of the game. That doesn't make those traits superficial, from my perspective, or imply that the play-acted characters are themselves merely play-acting.

 

[Oofta]

You've misunderstood. I'm calling it play-acting because that's what it is. I do it, and enjoy it. I'm putting a clear label on the activity, not demeaning it.

Yes, actually, because there's not much that's actually divergent in 5e play, but people make the claim that 5e is flexible enough to do just about anything. The issue there is that their "anything" always looks like D&D and not actually something different.

I don't know why you say that. 5E is flexible and can handle many different genres, styles and types of campaign. On the other hand, it's not Risk or Call of Cthulhu or any number of other RPGs. I mean, you can run a war game, you can do a bit of eldritch horror but it's not the focus of the game; on the other hand there are 3rd party supplements that add some of it in.

The divergence available in 5e is still a fairly narrow channel. There are differences, and they're very much worth discussing, but it's like Baskin Robbins -- they have 31 flavors, but it's all still ice cream. You won't find steak there.

If that's the case, then almost everything is very flexible, and I'd like a different term for discussing actual difference in play approaches because "flexible" is extremely devalued. Because, with this, saying 5e is flexible is not saying much at all -- all RPGs are flexible the same way. I dislike claims that are so broad as to be largely meaningless.

I simply disagree. A lot of RPGs put you in specific roles, establish specific organizations, specific styles of play even broad overall goals.

The last couple of editions of D&D were less flexible IMHO for style of play. For that matter, flexibility isn't an inherent good, some games seem to be too flexible for their own good. I guess I view D&D 5E as more of a [insert family-style restaurant of your choice i.e. Denny's or Perkins]. You can get steak, but it's not going to be the best steak you've ever had. Sometimes good enough is, well, good enough.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I don't know why you say that. 5E is flexible and can handle many different genres, styles and types of campaign. On the other hand, it's not Risk or Call of Cthulhu or any number of other RPGs. I mean, you can run a war game, you can do a bit of eldritch horror but it's not the focus of the game; on the other hand there are 3rd party supplements that add some of it in.

The only genre 5e does well is D&D. You can do D&D in space, you can do post-apocalypse D&D, and you can do D&D noir (which is very weird). But it's nearly impossible for 5e to not be D&D. The different flavors of D&D you can do aren't full genres, but rather some genre flavor sprinkled on top of D&D.

And we're not talking heavy houserules, here, because that's where we get into playing Risk with Monopoly -- this isn't a feature of 5e, it's a feature of people. As a system, even with modest tweaking, 5e is very hard to move away from the D&D genre. It's baked in, with the classes, the spell lists, the tight focus on combat, the blurry focus on everything else -- anything you try to do with 5e with just a setting swap is still playing D&D.

I simply disagree. A lot of RPGs put you in specific roles, establish specific organizations, specific styles of play even broad overall goals.

The last couple of editions of D&D were less flexible IMHO for style of play. For that matter, flexibility isn't an inherent good, some games seem to be too flexible for their own good. I guess I view D&D 5E as more of a [insert family-style restaurant of your choice i.e. Denny's or Perkins]. You can get steak, but it's not going to be the best steak you've ever had. Sometimes good enough is, well, good enough.

The shift in D&D over the past few editions is noticeable, but it's really only about if the players have the expectations that the rules are to be consulted first or the GM. 3.x was rules first, and had to many rules. 4e hit a nice balance with many fewer and more adaptable rules (ie, broader and less specific) while reinforcing rules first. 5e went back to 2e where it's just the GM decides. This isn't really a big shift, because in all of them, the GM is still the center of everything setting and all fiction outside of character action attempts (4e has a break here, because you can play it in a wildly different style, that of a narrativist or Story Now game, this is the only real difference in style in the last few editions).

Look, I get it. You have a different approach to 5e than I do. But, if we get down to brass tacks, that difference is that you prefer full on play-acting out social scenes and deciding what happens as the GM, using mechanics when you feel like it, while I prefer the play-acting, but use the mechanics almost always. That's... not a big difference. Oh, and I like my players to be present actions in clearer terms while you're more comfortable with assumptions for them. Again, not a big difference. It seems big here, because this is a corner of the internet where we discuss such minor differences and unpack them more than your usual gamer does. But it's not evidence of a broad difference in play. When we play 5e, the GM is still the one with all the authority over the fiction, and we use the same mechanical structures to run play, with a few difference in how and where. Every one of the players at your table could sit down at mine and feel like they're playing D&D. That indicates a pretty small range of difference.

 

[Oofta]

The only genre 5e does well is D&D. You can do D&D in space, you can do post-apocalypse D&D, and you can do D&D noir (which is very weird). But it's nearly impossible for 5e to not be D&D. The different flavors of D&D you can do aren't full genres, but rather some genre flavor sprinkled on top of D&D.

And we're not talking heavy houserules, here, because that's where we get into playing Risk with Monopoly -- this isn't a feature of 5e, it's a feature of people. As a system, even with modest tweaking, 5e is very hard to move away from the D&D genre. It's baked in, with the classes, the spell lists, the tight focus on combat, the blurry focus on everything else -- anything you try to do with 5e with just a setting swap is still playing D&D.

The shift in D&D over the past few editions is noticeable, but it's really only about if the players have the expectations that the rules are to be consulted first or the GM. 3.x was rules first, and had to many rules. 4e hit a nice balance with many fewer and more adaptable rules (ie, broader and less specific) while reinforcing rules first. 5e went back to 2e where it's just the GM decides. This isn't really a big shift, because in all of them, the GM is still the center of everything setting and all fiction outside of character action attempts (4e has a break here, because you can play it in a wildly different style, that of a narrativist or Story Now game, this is the only real difference in style in the last few editions).

Look, I get it. You have a different approach to 5e than I do. But, if we get down to brass tacks, that difference is that you prefer full on play-acting out social scenes and deciding what happens as the GM, using mechanics when you feel like it, while I prefer the play-acting, but use the mechanics almost always. That's... not a big difference. Oh, and I like my players to be present actions in clearer terms while you're more comfortable with assumptions for them. Again, not a big difference. It seems big here, because this is a corner of the internet where we discuss such minor differences and unpack them more than your usual gamer does. But it's not evidence of a broad difference in play. When we play 5e, the GM is still the one with all the authority over the fiction, and we use the same mechanical structures to run play, with a few difference in how and where. Every one of the players at your table could sit down at mine and feel like they're playing D&D. That indicates a pretty small range of difference.

You obviously have different definitions than I do.

I don't see any reason to continue this tangent.