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

[Ovinomancer]

Can you explain "the D&D genre" using that definition so I can understand what you mean?

This is where I'm coming from...

• category of artistic composition: game
• genre/form: tabletop, pen and paper
• genre/style: roleplaying
• genre/subject matter: fantasy, science fiction

Where does "the D&D genre" fit? Under form, style, or subject matter?

That's not... look, genre is characterized by recurring themes, styles, forms, or subject matters. It isn't "pick one of each and write them down and you have a genre!" We could do Dune this way, and end up with book, physical tome (paperback), prose, and desert planets. This is a useless approach!

Instead, you look for the recurring things, the things that group together that are distinct from other such things. In D&D, that's going to be the zero-to-hero, or the massive and fast power-fantasy curve that D&D provides. It's going to be the group-first play where everything is about the group and not the individual characters. Here, players are expected to subsume any character wants for the group, doing otherwise is considered bad play. And it's also about how combat is the primary way to deal with things -- games of D&D that don't heavily feature combat are notable as exceptions.

If you're inside the D&D bubble, it's really hard to see this stuff, because it's just normal and everyday for you.

Can you explain "the tropes of D&D" using that definition so I can understand what you mean?

It has been my stance that the rules for personality and background are a device that establishes a predictable or stereotypical representation of a character in the game of Dungeons & Dragons.

I have been. Zero to hero; combat as primary resolution method, even the specific kind of detailed in some ways but very abstract in others combat engine; group focused play; I'll even add murderhoboism, because this is a nearly natural state of play that GMs have to do extra things to counter. Dungeons or adventure sites as a unit of play, even!

I mean, for instance, if I were to guess about your game, I would guess that it features a party of characters who, for reasons that are largely superficial, have banded together and go on dangerous adventures with each other. That these characters don't do much at all on their own, or for their own agendas, unless the party agrees to do so. That most problems the party encounters are solved through combat, or are things that need to be overcome to get to a combat. And that the party started as zeros -- easily dispatches and dealing with low level threats -- and have rapidly increased in ability and power -- usually moving from this state to one of distinctly more power within a matter of a few weeks of in-fiction time. And that, with this increase in power there is no commiserate increase in responsibility or connection to the fictional world.

But, one of the huge ones, is that D&D is a game where play is mostly to find out what the GM thinks the fiction is. Note I didn't say story, although that can fit in there, but even in the sandboxiest D&D games you're still usually playing to find out what the GM's fiction is.

ETA: and to forestall any complaints I'm being mean, the above describes my D&D games. I even make effort to more closely tie the PC in my games to the world, lean on BIFTs with houserules to beef them up, and even try to encourage individual goals by making action adjudication less sensitive to "there's talking get the bard" style play of needing the best bonus. And, yet, compared to other games, all of the above is still true in D&D. Yet, I still play it and enjoy it, I just do so for what it is. Because despite this, there's still a good game there.

 

[mrpopstar]

That's not... look, genre is characterized by recurring themes, styles, forms, or subject matters. It isn't "pick one of each and write them down and you have a genre!" We could do Dune this way, and end up with book, physical tome (paperback), prose, and desert planets. This is a useless approach!

We would describe a novel slightly differently because it's a different kind of work.

Instead, you look for the recurring things, the things that group together that are distinct from other such things. In D&D, that's going to be the zero-to-hero, or the massive and fast power-fantasy curve that D&D provides. It's going to be the group-first play where everything is about the group and not the individual characters. Here, players are expected to subsume any character wants for the group, doing otherwise is considered bad play. And it's also about how combat is the primary way to deal with things -- games of D&D that don't heavily feature combat are notable as exceptions.

Dungeons & Dragons belongs to the genre of tabletop games.
Dungeons & Dragons belongs to the genre of roleplaying games.
Dungeons & Dragons belongs to the genre of fantasy games.

Dungeons & Dragons belongs to the genre of "zero-to-hero" games?
Dungeons & Dragons belongs to the genre of "massive and fast power-fantasy curve" games?
Dungeons & Dragons belongs to the genre of "group-first play" games?

I'm honestly interested in understanding this because I see the terms genre and trope used often on these boards in ways that are bewildering to me. Sometimes I think they're just being used recklessly, or they're simply misunderstood, but other times I think they've been wholly appropriated and are being used as jargon I'm not privy to.

So, help me!

If you're inside the D&D bubble, it's really hard to see this stuff, because it's just normal and everyday for you.

No one's inside of a bubble.

I have been. Zero to hero; combat as primary resolution method, even the specific kind of detailed in some ways but very abstract in others combat engine; group focused play; I'll even add murderhoboism, because this is a nearly natural state of play that GMs have to do extra things to counter. Dungeons or adventure sites as a unit of play, even!

I mean, for instance, if I were to guess about your game, I would guess that it features a party of characters who, for reasons that are largely superficial, have banded together and go on dangerous adventures with each other. That these characters don't do much at all on their own, or for their own agendas, unless the party agrees to do so. That most problems the party encounters are solved through combat, or are things that need to be overcome to get to a combat. And that the party started as zeros -- easily dispatches and dealing with low level threats -- and have rapidly increased in ability and power -- usually moving from this state to one of distinctly more power within a matter of a few weeks of in-fiction time. And that, with this increase in power there is no commiserate increase in responsibility or connection to the fictional world.

None of these things are true.

• The party grew up together in the same town (two are brothers, two are lovers, one is a fifth wheel).
• They seize downtime activities to pursue side interests (a favorite being the performance of sacred rights).
• The pillars are very evenly balanced (exploration is my favorite, social interaction is theirs).
• They've seen a number of years inside the game (three to be exact).
• They're very much connected to the world (building strongholds, running businesses, getting married to NPCs) .

But, one of the huge ones, is that D&D is a game where play is mostly to find out what the GM thinks the fiction is. Note I didn't say story, although that can fit in there, but even in the sandboxiest D&D games you're still usually playing to find out what the GM's fiction is.

I don't understand what's being said here, exactly.

ETA: and to forestall any complaints I'm being mean, the above describes my D&D games. I even make effort to more closely tie the PC in my games to the world, lean on BIFTs with houserules to beef them up, and even try to encourage individual goals by making action adjudication less sensitive to "there's talking get the bard" style play of needing the best bonus. And, yet, compared to other games, all of the above is still true in D&D. Yet, I still play it and enjoy it, I just do so for what it is. Because despite this, there's still a good game there.

I don't think that you're mean, per se, but I've often felt like you think I'm an idiot (which is difficult to navigate).

 

[Helpful NPC Thom]

You’ve never seen changes to those things that actually change them rather than rename them?

Certainly have. Star Wars: Saga Edition is still Star Wars D&D despite the systemic changes. It moved away from D&D, but the basic gameplay was the same.

I don't understand what's being said here, exactly.

To translate: he's saying the GM controls the RPG world, the players interact with it, and the GM adjudicates these interactions based on what he feels is reasonable within his conception of the game world.

 

[mrpopstar]

To translate: he's saying the GM controls the RPG world, the players interact with it, and the GM adjudicates these interactions based on what he feels is reasonable within his conception of the game world.

Got it! Thank you.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Certainly have. Star Wars: Saga Edition is still Star Wars D&D despite the systemic changes. It moved away from D&D, but the basic gameplay was the same.

I’m not sure you read what you replied to, because this response doesn’t really make sense as a direct reply to what I wrote.

 

[Ovinomancer]

We would describe a novel slightly differently because it's a different kind of work.


Dungeons & Dragons belongs to the genre of tabletop games.

Not a genre.

Dungeons & Dragons belongs to the genre of roleplaying games.

Not a genre.

Dungeons & Dragons belongs to the genre of fantasy games.

Fantasy is a high-level genre. Fantasy games are not a genre. Fantasy games are games that are leveraging the fantasy genre, they do not create a genre themselves. More on this in a minute, because I'm assuming you're saying "but what are you saying about D&D then?!"

Dungeons & Dragons belongs to the genre of "zero-to-hero" games?

No. Zero to hero is a trope, and one of the tropes that defines the D&D genre.

Dungeons & Dragons belongs to the genre of "massive and fast power-fantasy curve" games?

No. Power-fantasy and fast power curves are tropes that define the D&D genre.

Dungeons & Dragons belongs to the genre of "group-first play" games?

No, Group-first play is a trope that defines the D&D genre.

I'm honestly interested in understanding this because I see the terms genre and trope used often on these boards in ways that are bewildering to me. Sometimes I think they're just being used recklessly, or they're simply misunderstood, but other times I think they've been wholly appropriated and are being used as jargon I'm not privy to.

So, help me!

I think you're misunderstanding what genre and trope mean. You're using genre as a catchall term for category, but it's not that, it's a more specific term that categorized things based on shared groups of tropes. Not all tropes are genre-defining, and not all genre tropes need to be present to be in genre. Take fantasy as a genre, for instance. This is defined by broad recurring themes in the stories, usually presence of magic, monsters, and heroes. However, you don't need all of these things for fantasy to take place because it's a very broad genre than encompasses quite a lot of things. It has tons of sub-genres. Like Urban Fantasy, which has a tighter set of defining tropes. Dresden books are Urban Fantasy because they mix the general fantasy tropes with some specific requirements, namely set in near-modern times, set in a real city, and deals with some of the normal issues of life while balancing hiding the fantasy from the normal. These are more specific tropes that apply to Urban Fantasy and define that sub-genre under Fantasy (because you still have magic and monsters), and you cannot have Urban Fantasy without these.

Now, to D&D as a genre. The game itself isn't a genre, because games don't really fit that classification. Instead it's the fiction, the story, that this game creates that's definable. Clearly it's a fantasy game, and belongs in the fantasy genre. However, D&D has created some very specific to D&D tropes that are nearly impossible to escape -- namely the one's I've listed repeatedly. These tropes are part of a D&D game, even if you try to move the game into playing in some other genre category, like Gothic Horror (Ravenloft) or Steampunk (Eberron). You can do this, and take some of those tropes and add them to the game, but you can't really remove the D&D tropes, so you're still stuck with playing Gothic Horror D&D or Steampunk D&D. This is why I say D&D has a specific genre that you add flavors to, and that you don't actually move genres when using D&D.

No one's inside of a bubble.

I very much beg to differ. I was in the D&D bubble for, well, about 2 decades. This isn't a slam or a dig or a thing that is a failing. It's rather natural, really. D&D is THE GAME. It's huge in the RPG market. You can play it pretty much anywhere you can find an RPG game at all. It dwarves the competition in market share. There's a number of people that refer to all RPGs as D&D, much like some areas of the US refer to all soda as Coke.

It's hard to see out of this when you haven't done much else. And you've said that you only play D&D and are uninterested in other games or even other ways to approach D&D because it's working for you. That's great! But it also is a strong indication that you are in the D&D bubble. Again, I was there for ages. I really wanted to play Burning Wheel when it came out because I heard great things about it, and I completely bounced off of it, hard. Couldn't grasp it a bit. Now, though, that I've send that D&D filter, it makes total sense. I just had to stop thinking of it as a flavor of the RPG I knew. It's a different dish altogether.

None of these things are true.

That reads to me like the zero-to-hero is definitely in place (3 years probably passed mostly as elided downtime). Play seems to be very party focused, with personal activities both party-friendly and relegated to downtime (ie, the bits of play where things are largely elided). You do seem to have more connection to the world, but I'm betting you have some houserules for doing this, because D&D has nothing for building strongholds and only some DTAs for running a business.

As for the pillars, that wasn't the statement. The statement was that combat is the primary problem resolution method, and that most other obstacles are on the way to combat. It's possible you have very little combat, but I certainly wouldn't guess that when you said you play D&D, and I would anticipate you have a very unusual game if you insisted. I'd be curious how you award XP in that game, as D&D assumes most XP comes from defeating monsters (in fact, the advice for non-combat XP awards is decidedly on the frugal side). I'd still bet that the big problems in the game are things to be smashed in the face.

I don't understand what's being said here, exactly.

Thom covered this well.

I don't think that you're mean, per se, but I've often felt like you think I'm an idiot (which is difficult to navigate).

I do not think you're an idiot. You're not saying anything I wasn't saying about 7 years ago. I think you're a bit mixed up on genres and tropes, but that doesn't get close to thinking you're an idiot. You seem a pretty decent guy.

 

[Helpful NPC Thom]

With regard to combat in D&D and murderhoboism:

Combat is rules-intensive with the most defined input/output and a definite win/lose state.

Input: To-hit roll vs. AC.
Output: Deplete opponent's hit points.
Win/Lose: Determined by whomever reaches 0 HP first.

Everything else is dependent on the GM. Almost every skill check in a game is determined by the GM's perception of what is probable/improbable in terms of success, failure, and complications. The timing of skill checks and DCs are determined largely by GM fiat. Even predetermined skill checks in adventure modules are based on the authors' view of what is probable. Combat, in a sharp contrast, is not. There are rules for hit points, saving throws, Armor Classes, and more clearly laid out in the Monster Manual.

Translating this into the game-at-the-table: if the GM says "no" to persuading an NPC to do what the players want, or if he deems it improbable (calling for a skill check that might fail), there's always combat as a fallback. It's something the players have in their metaphorical adventuring backpacks. The GM can say "no" to a Bluff or Intimidate roll (or simply deem it so improbable it will like as not fail), but he can't say no to a d20 vs. AC roll.

I mean he could, but that would be breaking the rules. After all, the rules say exactly what the merchant's Armor Class and hit points are, and the rules say that the players can make an attack roll vs. AC to deplete hit points. There's no "roll Persuasion vs. Greed Class" to convince the merchant to give you a bulk discount on potions, but there is a "hit the merchant hard enough and he'll have to choose between giving you a discount on potions or dying"-Class. Most GMs and players alike would view denying the ability to engage in a physical altercation as a gross breach of etiquette. Funny how that works: saying that a Persuasion check is off the table is acceptable, but saying an attack throw cannot succeed is some monstrous form of railroading.

Broadly speaking, this is what @Ovinomancer is getting at when he talks about the D&D bubble and unstated assumptions about the game.

 

[Ovinomancer]

With regard to combat in D&D and murderhoboism:

Combat is rules-intensive with the most defined input/output and a definite win/lose state.

Input: To-hit roll vs. AC.
Output: Deplete opponent's hit points.
Win/Lose: Determined by whomever reaches 0 HP first.

Everything else is dependent on the GM. Almost every skill check in a game is determined by the GM's perception of what is probable/improbable in terms of success, failure, and complications. The timing of skill checks and DCs are determined largely by GM fiat. Even predetermined skill checks in adventure modules are based on the authors' view of what is probable. Combat, in a sharp contrast, is not. There are rules for hit points, saving throws, Armor Classes, and more clearly laid out in the Monster Manual.

Translating this into the game-at-the-table: if the GM says "no" to persuading an NPC to do what the players want, or if he deems it improbable (calling for a skill check that might fail), there's always combat as a fallback. It's something the players have in their metaphorical adventuring backpacks. The GM can say "no" to a Bluff or Intimidate roll (or simply deem it so improbable it will like as not fail), but he can't say no to a d20 vs. AC roll.

I mean he could, but that would be breaking the rules. After all, the rules say exactly what the merchant's Armor Class and hit points are, and the rules say that the players can make an attack roll vs. AC to deplete hit points. Most GMs and players alike would view denying the ability to engage in a physical altercation as a gross breach of etiquette. Funny how that works: saying that a Persuasion check is off the table is acceptable, but saying an attack throw cannot succeed is some monstrous form of railroading.

Broadly speaking, this is what @Ovinomancer is getting at when he talks about the D&D bubble and unstated assumptions about the game.

Those are some of them, yes indeed.

 

[mrpopstar]

Not a genre.

Not a genre.

Fantasy is a high-level genre. Fantasy games are not a genre. Fantasy games are games that are leveraging the fantasy genre, they do not create a genre themselves. More on this in a minute, because I'm assuming you're saying "but what are you saying about D&D then?!"

No. Zero to hero is a trope, and one of the tropes that defines the D&D genre.

No. Power-fantasy and fast power curves are tropes that define the D&D genre.

No, Group-first play is a trope that defines the D&D genre.

I think you're misunderstanding what genre and trope mean. You're using genre as a catchall term for category, but it's not that, it's a more specific term that categorized things based on shared groups of tropes. Not all tropes are genre-defining, and not all genre tropes need to be present to be in genre. Take fantasy as a genre, for instance. This is defined by broad recurring themes in the stories, usually presence of magic, monsters, and heroes. However, you don't need all of these things for fantasy to take place because it's a very broad genre than encompasses quite a lot of things. It has tons of sub-genres. Like Urban Fantasy, which has a tighter set of defining tropes. Dresden books are Urban Fantasy because they mix the general fantasy tropes with some specific requirements, namely set in near-modern times, set in a real city, and deals with some of the normal issues of life while balancing hiding the fantasy from the normal. These are more specific tropes that apply to Urban Fantasy and define that sub-genre under Fantasy (because you still have magic and monsters), and you cannot have Urban Fantasy without these.

I think it's just that some arguments appear to have been hashed out long ago and for some reason it's very frustrating for people to create enough space for others to catch up so that discussion can be fruitful.

Thank you for providing an example by positioning "the D&D genre" so I could better understand what you're trying to say.

Now, to D&D as a genre. The game itself isn't a genre, because games don't really fit that classification. Instead it's the fiction, the story, that this game creates that's definable. Clearly it's a fantasy game, and belongs in the fantasy genre. However, D&D has created some very specific to D&D tropes that are nearly impossible to escape -- namely the one's I've listed repeatedly. These tropes are part of a D&D game, even if you try to move the game into playing in some other genre category, like Gothic Horror (Ravenloft) or Steampunk (Eberron). You can do this, and take some of those tropes and add them to the game, but you can't really remove the D&D tropes, so you're still stuck with playing Gothic Horror D&D or Steampunk D&D. This is why I say D&D has a specific genre that you add flavors to, and that you don't actually move genres when using D&D.

Are you open to considering that "lawful good paladin" is an example of genre trope, and "zero-to-hero" an example of genre convention?

I very much beg to differ. I was in the D&D bubble for, well, about 2 decades. This isn't a slam or a dig or a thing that is a failing. It's rather natural, really. D&D is THE GAME. It's huge in the RPG market. You can play it pretty much anywhere you can find an RPG game at all. It dwarves the competition in market share. There's a number of people that refer to all RPGs as D&D, much like some areas of the US refer to all soda as Coke.

It's hard to see out of this when you haven't done much else. And you've said that you only play D&D and are uninterested in other games or even other ways to approach D&D because it's working for you. That's great! But it also is a strong indication that you are in the D&D bubble. Again, I was there for ages. I really wanted to play Burning Wheel when it came out because I heard great things about it, and I completely bounced off of it, hard. Couldn't grasp it a bit. Now, though, that I've send that D&D filter, it makes total sense. I just had to stop thinking of it as a flavor of the RPG I knew. It's a different dish altogether.

I'm not wholly unfamiliar with other games, nor do I hold them in contempt. I've heard about them, read about them, read through them, observed them in play, and even playtested them.

That reads to me like the zero-to-hero is definitely in place (3 years probably passed mostly as elided downtime). Play seems to be very party focused, with personal activities both party-friendly and relegated to downtime (ie, the bits of play where things are largely elided). You do seem to have more connection to the world, but I'm betting you have some houserules for doing this, because D&D has nothing for building strongholds and only some DTAs for running a business.

There are rules for building a stronghold in the Dungeon Master's Guide (see page 128).

As for the pillars, that wasn't the statement. The statement was that combat is the primary problem resolution method, and that most other obstacles are on the way to combat. It's possible you have very little combat, but I certainly wouldn't guess that when you said you play D&D, and I would anticipate you have a very unusual game if you insisted. I'd be curious how you award XP in that game, as D&D assumes most XP comes from defeating monsters (in fact, the advice for non-combat XP awards is decidedly on the frugal side). I'd still bet that the big problems in the game are things to be smashed in the face.

Yes, face-smashing is the ultimate solution to saving the kingdom.

Thom covered this well.

I do not think you're an idiot. You're not saying anything I wasn't saying about 7 years ago. I think you're a bit mixed up on genres and tropes, but that doesn't get close to thinking you're an idiot. You seem a pretty decent guy.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I think it's just that some arguments appear to have been hashed out long ago and for some reason it's very frustrating for people to create enough space for others to catch up so that discussion can be fruitful.

Thank you for providing an example by positioning "the D&D genre" so I could better understand what you're trying to say.


Are you open to considering that "lawful good paladin" is an example of genre trope, and "zero-to-hero" an example of genre convention?

lawful good paladin is a trope, sure, but it's not one that's defining for any particular genre -- unless we're really getting somewhere niche. D&D as a game doesn't change if you excise lawful good paladins, although your particular enjoyment might. It's still very recognizably D&D without LGPs.

I'm not wholly unfamiliar with other games, nor do I hold them in contempt. I've heard about them, read about them, read through them, observed them in play, and even playtested them.

I'd be rather comfortable in saying that they're not very far from D&D in core play loops and concepts. Did all of the games you've encounter feature the GM as the primary arbiter of the rules, to the point that it's the GM that invokes them, selects the particulars of any mechanics, and gets to say what the outcomes are?

There are rules for building a stronghold in the Dungeon Master's Guide (see page 128).

Well, look at that. I had forgotten those. Upon rereading, I see why -- it's just a list of prices and duration of construction. What's the difference between an abbey and a small keep? How much they cost and how long they take to build. Could be the exact same building. Dunno. This is an example of a "rule" that 5e presents that is really just another prompt to ask the GM what they think. It's why I say 5e's core mechanic is "the GM decides."

Yes, face-smashing is the ultimate solution to saving the kingdom.

Usually is.