D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

[robertsconley]

While I never do true dungeon crawls any more, it is a very simple template to start from. I also think some of the mods, especially the intro mods Lost Mines of Phandalver are good for a new GM as well.

I think the Lost Mines of Phandelver was outstanding and it slotted nicely into my Majestic Wilderlands when the group wanted to try 5e in 2015.

Made zombies terrifying again.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I don't know this thread has moved very fast, as have most other threads on these topics, so I think if I am saying things like that, it is in expediency responding to posts. I have observed you mention you play trad. But the points were are arguing about are what is going on in trad play and what principles of play can produce agency. Those are the things being disputed

"If"? You've stated my preferences more often than I have in this thread.

You've also dodged a lot of what I've had to say. One response I recall that stands out was "Well there's a lot there to unpack and I don't have the time now, so I'm just going to address this one thing..." and then watching as you continue to post just as much as you had been.

Lots of talk lately about trad advocates not being a monolith... yet lots of demands that I toe the line or else I'm some dirty narrativist.

The flaw in your argument is that it incorrectly attributes the issue to the “loose hand” itself, when the real problem is a breakdown in communication.

Yes, mechanics can be an effective and terse way to convey how things work, whether it's what a character can do, the abilities of a monster, or how a campaign is expected to function. But that's just one way to communicate, and it’s not always the best one. People vary in how they process and understand information. What works well for one player may be opaque to another.

Moreover, using game mechanics to communicate how a campaign works carries an implicit assumption: that the rules are not just descriptive but prescriptive. Many people grow up believing that the fair way to play any game is to follow its written rules. If something isn’t in the rules, they may assume it’s off-limits or unfair to invoke.

This can lead to problems when designers rely too heavily on mechanics to convey expectations. Overly rigid application of those mechanics, especially by players or referees who interpret the rules as a complete representation of the world, can actually obscure the intended flexibility or tone. If that’s intentional, fine. But too often, I don’t see designers consider this consequence.

As for me, this concern is why much of my Living World sandbox framework is presented as advice, not as a rigid system of rules. I want to give referees tools, not prescriptions, because communication, not mechanical enforcement, is the key to clarity and trust at the table.

No, the problem isn't my attributing it to a loose hand. The problem is the loose hand. I am not just talking about the mechanics themselves, but also how they are applied, and how they are discussed.

For instance, 5e never says if DCs should be shared verbally with players. It gives the GM the authority to determine DCs, and players understand that they will roll a d20 and add a relevant stat and/or skill. So the process as described is incomplete.

This is for fear of "offending" any group by picking a design and sticking with it. I mean... if they'd said the following:

Always share the DC of any task with the player before they roll. We realize that sometimes a character may not be aware of exactly how difficult a given task may be. However, there are two things to consider here... first, as the GM, you are responsible for all the information the players have, and so we feel it's best to bridge any possible gap in details by providing the DC to the players. Second, remember that we're playing a game and games work best when the participants understand the processes.

The @Lanefan s and @Micah Sweet s of the world would have just ignored it an played however they liked anyway. Now, there's certainly an argument that could be made that the success of 5e tells us they made the right call, and maybe that's true. I'd classify it more as a business decision than an actual design decision... or maybe a design decision made primarily for business concerns.

As a designer yourself, you have to realize that this kind of incomplete design of fundamental processes is a lapse in design.

I took it as a metaphor for whatever "not fun" thing could happen in a campaign. For example, Total Party Kills.

No, I think it's just about if you create a table then you are responsible for the selection of all the possible results of the table, and as such, if one is somehow problematic or bad for play, you can't blame the table. You have to blame the GM.

I do see that loose hand as a strength, and find it actively unpleasant to play any other way. To me, adding hard restraints to GMs makes the game less playable.

How so?

He certainly doesn't seem to have much good to say about trad play.

That's only because you think the things I say are "bad", even though they are not. Trad play is fantastic for showcasing GM authored material... be that a setting or a plot or a living world.

GM-focused play is not bad in my eyes. Somewhere along the way, it somehow became fashionable to rag on any game that is GM-focused, and so people had to start twisting their definitions (or as is the case in this thread, demand that others use their specific definition of a term). But if we look at the hobby at large, there are many people who love that kind of play. Adventure paths sell. Homebrewing entire worlds is popular. These are not bad things... they just may or may not be to someone's taste.

But trad play is fantastic at these things. Some of my fondest memories are playing through the old adventure modules with my older brother GMing for me when I was like 7. I've played plenty of such games and had a blast doing so. Trad play really suits prepared material of all kinds. It benefits from the large amounts of preparation and heavy investment by the GM. It excels when players are interested in exploring the GM's setting.

 

[Bedrockgames]

"If"? You've stated my preferences more often than I have in this thread.

I have just been trying to respond to your posts

You've also dodged a lot of what I've had to say. One response I recall that stands out was "Well there's a lot there to unpack and I don't have the time now, so I'm just going to address this one thing..." and then watching as you continue to post just as much as you had been.

I try to respond to points, but sometimes I m busy and respond to things that jump out. Sometimes I mean to get back to things and can't. Sometimes I think a point has been pounded into the ground and can be ignored, sometimes I think both sides have been stated and I can leave a point hanging, sometimes I don't have a formulated response to a point and just let it stand.

There have been moments where I have been frustrated and not said my position as well as I could have. But I feel like I have engaged you and others. And where I haven't others have stepped in and addressed a point

Lots of talk lately about trad advocates not being a monolith... yet lots of demands that I toe the line or else I'm some dirty narrativist.

I have never called you a dirty narrativist

 

[Micah Sweet]

I think it is at least true that many such systems are fairly focused. I'm not sure DW is a great example of that. It covers the general range of stuff that D&D does, which I think is the design goal. Obviously it is not aimed at the sort of living world fiction first play some of you favor, but it at least overlaps with a lot of D&D, and does many types of stories quite well.

Other similar games seem pretty broad to me as well, Burning Wheel is another fantasy system that is designed for a wide range of situations and setting on par with other major RPGs.

However, clarity, simple universal resolution mechanics, and a play process that is generally applicable means it is easy enough to simply adapt something like AW to many situations instead of trying to run it as is. There are now 1000s of PbtA games that are largely just AW with new playbooks, some tweaked moves, and often a subsystem or two. They're no more different from each other than flavors of GURPS or BRP.

Well, it's not the only reason I don't like Narrativist games.

 

[AlViking]

"If"? You've stated my preferences more often than I have in this thread.

You've also dodged a lot of what I've had to say. One response I recall that stands out was "Well there's a lot there to unpack and I don't have the time now, so I'm just going to address this one thing..." and then watching as you continue to post just as much as you had been.

Lots of talk lately about trad advocates not being a monolith... yet lots of demands that I toe the line or else I'm some dirty narrativist.

The fact that I disagree with some of your opinions does not mean I think you're a dirty narrativist. Or that if you were a narrativist that it would be a bad thing unless you declare that your style of game is objectively better.

No, the problem isn't my attributing it to a loose hand. The problem is the loose hand. I am not just talking about the mechanics themselves, but also how they are applied, and how they are discussed.

For instance, 5e never says if DCs should be shared verbally with players. It gives the GM the authority to determine DCs, and players understand that they will roll a d20 and add a relevant stat and/or skill. So the process as described is incomplete.

This is for fear of "offending" any group by picking a design and sticking with it. I mean... if they'd said the following:

Always share the DC of any task with the player before they roll. We realize that sometimes a character may not be aware of exactly how difficult a given task may be. However, there are two things to consider here... first, as the GM, you are responsible for all the information the players have, and so we feel it's best to bridge any possible gap in details by providing the DC to the players. Second, remember that we're playing a game and games work best when the participants understand the processes.

The @Lanefan s and @Micah Sweet s of the world would have just ignored it an played however they liked anyway. Now, there's certainly an argument that could be made that the success of 5e tells us they made the right call, and maybe that's true. I'd classify it more as a business decision than an actual design decision... or maybe a design decision made primarily for business concerns.

As a designer yourself, you have to realize that this kind of incomplete design of fundamental processes is a lapse in design.

Whether or not you should share specific DCs is a preference and one I don't happen to share. I'll typically give them a general idea if I think it makes sense but giving out a specific number? For me it takes me out of describing a scene and puts it firmly into game territory. It's not "incomplete design" it's leaving it up to each DM and table to decide what works best for them. It has nothing to do with offending people, it's that they want people to figure out what works best for them because if they include a line about sharing the DCs then some players will be upset if it's not provided.

No, I think it's just about if you create a table then you are responsible for the selection of all the possible results of the table, and as such, if one is somehow problematic or bad for play, you can't blame the table. You have to blame the GM.



How so?



That's only because you think the things I say are "bad", even though they are not. Trad play is fantastic for showcasing GM authored material... be that a setting or a plot or a living world.

GM-focused play is not bad in my eyes. Somewhere along the way, it somehow became fashionable to rag on any game that is GM-focused, and so people had to start twisting their definitions (or as is the case in this thread, demand that others use their specific definition of a term). But if we look at the hobby at large, there are many people who love that kind of play. Adventure paths sell. Homebrewing entire worlds is popular. These are not bad things... they just may or may not be to someone's taste.

But trad play is fantastic at these things. Some of my fondest memories are playing through the old adventure modules with my older brother GMing for me when I was like 7. I've played plenty of such games and had a blast doing so. Trad play really suits prepared material of all kinds. It benefits from the large amounts of preparation and heavy investment by the GM. It excels when players are interested in exploring the GM's setting.

 

[Thomas Shey]

So pick a game you think would be better for a new GM than D&D.

Do you want inside the D&D sphere or out?

If inside, PF2e. Its a bit much for some people, but that's an issue with exception based design as it expands (I have some issues with exception based design but they aren't really related to this). My intuition is that Shadow of the Weird Wizard would be too, but I'd want to go back and reread that and see if the author actually got into the weeds enough in common areas; I got the impression he had when playing Shadow of the Demon Lord, but its been a while.

Outside, I'd point at Mythras. Its not hesitant to go into detail in areas that might come up frequently, and it gives a really solid basis for extrapolating outside of it when it doesn't.

Some games are going to run into the issue that the play assumptions don't seem to justify going quite as far down the rabbithole as I'd like in some areas (because they aren't assumed they'd come up often), which could be a problem if using them for atypical uses. Some also wait until they're doing relevant supplemental material to cover some things because, again, they seem off the beaten path. But they still get there (a number of universal systems come to mind here).

Any game at all. Give examples of what you're talking about. Or not. I'm tired of the generalities and "more specific rules better" and "be a fan of your players" and "it's better for new GMs" when there's never anything to back it up than to repeat the platitudes. Some other games work completely differently of course but in those cases I don't see how anything would transfer over. Presumably you do.

I'd describe very few of the games I'm talking about as "work completely differently". All the above games I reference are trad games with representative mechanics. I've also never said word one about "new GMs" or "be a fan of your players" so perhaps if you're going to take me to task you can go to the trouble of not conflating me with other people. Other people may think this is a "new GM" problem, but I just think its a problem for GMs in general.

That's a preference. I don't really see as big an issue as you do and they talk about it quite a bit in the 2024 DMG. But again ... in other games how does that work? If there's a disagreement on rules how is it decided?

Are you under the impression I think other games as a set are automatically better about this? As I said, the top-down approach may have started with D&D but it colonized a lot of the hobby, and though there are games I think are better about it in their suggestions, the GM-culture thing is almost independent of system.

 

[JConstantine]

Lots of talk lately about trad advocates not being a monolith... yet lots of demands that I toe the line or else I'm some dirty narrativist.

Trad play is fantastic for showcasing GM authored material... be that a setting or a plot or a living world.

GM-focused play is not bad in my eyes.

One of the things that came up in this thread before I joined, that I find contentious is the conflation of GM-created/authored with GM-driven. A notable example was you holding up BitD as a player-driven sandbox (and, to be clear, I agree it is), even though RAW the GM is the one deciding and presenting obstacles and complications, and is encouraged to provide opportunities for scores. Yet you disputed that @Bedrockgames sandbox was player-driven even though his approach is like 95% in line with how BitD is supposed to be run going by the book.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

The narrativist-leaning folk might bristle at this, but one is learning to GM. Think of it like stabilising wheels on a bike: useful when first starting to learn to ride (or just too lazy to maintain balance), but they're going to be restrictive, even detrimental for some things you might want to do, like bike tricks.

Leaving aside agreement or disagreement, BY FAR the simplest type of game to run is a dungeon crawl using a system like B/X that is built for exactly that. But B/X is unique amongst such systems in spelling out how to play. It falls a bit short in some areas though, probably more due to being dated than anything else.

I think something like Apocalypse World could be pretty straightforward, but probably requires that the GM has played at least a little bit. They SHOULD be able to follow the text, but it can be a little tricky to master good framing and whatnot cold.

Trying to run something like 5e cold, certainly if the kinds of situations are open ended complex things like social situations where trad is not great, yeah that's usually going to be a lot learning experience for sure!

I think B2 is basically the epitome of starting scenarios, though it would be improved if the action started at the caves.

 

[AlViking]

Do you want inside the D&D sphere or out?

If inside, PF2e. Its a bit much for some people, but that's an issue with exception based design as it expands (I have some issues with exception based design but they aren't really related to this). My intuition is that Shadow of the Weird Wizard would be too, but I'd want to go back and reread that and see if the author actually got into the weeds enough in common areas; I got the impression he had when playing Shadow of the Demon Lord, but its been a while.

Outside, I'd point at Mythras. Its not hesitant to go into detail in areas that might come up frequently, and it gives a really solid basis for extrapolating outside of it when it doesn't.

Some games are going to run into the issue that the play assumptions don't seem to justify going quite as far down the rabbithole as I'd like in some areas (because they aren't assumed they'd come up often), which could be a problem if using them for atypical uses. Some also wait until they're doing relevant supplemental material to cover some things because, again, they seem off the beaten path. But they still get there (a number of universal systems come to mind here).



I'd describe very few of the games I'm talking about as "work completely differently". All the above games I reference are trad games with representative mechanics. I've also never said word one about "new GMs" or "be a fan of your players" so perhaps if you're going to take me to task you can go to the trouble of not conflating me with other people. Other people may think this is a "new GM" problem, but I just think its a problem for GMs in general.



Are you under the impression I think other games as a set are automatically better about this? As I said, the top-down approach may have started with D&D but it colonized a lot of the hobby, and though there are games I think are better about it in their suggestions, the GM-culture thing is almost independent of system.

So is it that you can't or simply won't give me a simple example of a specific rule for a specific game that a new GM could learn from and then apply to D&D? If you're talking about traditional games then it should be fairly easy "This is what would happen in D&D, this is what happens in game X and why I think it's better for new GMs."

It's not a big deal, I was just trying to understand your statement that you think most GMs would benefit from playing other games. It's been a while since I spent much effort playing other games but when I did I didn't really learn much I thought applied to D&D or would have made me a better DM. But you've been pretty adamant about it so I was curious. I didn't say you were talking about games with completely different approach, I just acknowledge that there are games that take approaches that don't really apply to a traditional games.

 

[Umbran]

That was entirely my point--some things can be expected to exist in a particular area. In this case, the area was a sickroom where a person had been left to recover, thus, jugs, cups, and bowls for water and cleaning wounds, jars for medicines and herbs, and so forth.

Pemerton said that he (or whoever the GM was) just didn't mention a vessel; therefore, the player had to roll to see one.

Okay, then I see no disagreement.

The GM can, within some limits, state some things exist in the fiction.
If the GM doesn't state so explicitly, the player has a way to insert things as well:

In one game style, the player asks the GM if one is present.
In another game type, the player asks the dice if one is present.

Not really a big difference there.