D&D 5E Resting and the frikkin' Elephant in the Room

[Satyrn]

To put it simply, we view both your player curveball and the DM heroically hitting said ball as strike outs - sorry. My players like to know that what is behind the door was there yesterday, and isnt just some stuff the DM decided was there when the PCs got there. Its really that simple. And we are not alone lol - half the D and D ers I meet are that way. They just don't like sandbox and sandbox DMs .... they'd rather be railroaded into a good story and adventure path that is pre-designed and balanced - they don't want the DM to decide whats behind the door once they get there, like I said.

To each their own - I just don't get why this concept is so difficult for many of you to understand. Almost all the games on the planet are predesigned - much of D and D history as well is dominated by people playing non-sandbox adventure paths - sure sandbox is dominant now in 5e but it hasn't always been that way.

Aye. My table's not concerned about DM ad-libbing the way you say yours is, but we are definitely happy to be railroaded along the way you talk about. The players want to hop aboard because there's still plenty of fun and excitement to be had exploring the train itself.

 

[OB1]

I think maybe the issue is that most of my players are gamers - D and D is another GAME for them , not story time. To be honest, that's the kind of players I have always seen. I personally dont know any rpgists, just min maxers lol. And they are levelers - so any variant that cuts down on leveling does not work.

Because my players enjoy sticking to the game board, balancing for me is relatively easy in my home brew stuff. I put a campaign plausible storyline driven time crunch on them, balance my encounters for 6-8 per day, and let them resource manage. They like the choices it gives them, as they do the other tactical choices and challenges I present them with on The Path. D and D for us is a tactical game, and we couldn't care less about having to stay on the game board, its fun there

Every other game we play has a game board as well, so its natural for us to want to play on one (it is after all the most dominant style of game in the world behind computer/console games). RPG purists on the other hand, like to walk off the monopoly board and go exploring. I understand that and can appreciate the personality type that enjoys that kind of thing - but we prefer the balance and depth of experience we get from the thoroughly thought-out and prepped game board - plus we then have the time to make it a fancy board (I create 3d lush dioramas). So why would we want to leave and go running off in the sand? ick! (the sand gets in the armor and starts to chafe....)

D and D has traditionally supported both styles to different degrees in different editions. Unfortunately 5e has largely abandoned us from a support standpoint (the rules themselves I would give an 8.5). I am therefore crying foul - I hate buying modules only to spend hours upon hours balancing them and setting the resource management dials.

Totally what you are looking for now, I would highly recommend Yawning Portal for your group to get that experience.

 

[Harzel]

To put it simply, we view both your player curveball and the DM heroically hitting said ball as strike outs - sorry. My players like to know that what is behind the door was there yesterday, and isnt just some stuff the DM decided was there when the PCs got there. Its really that simple. And we are not alone lol - half the D and D ers I meet are that way. They just don't like sandbox and sandbox DMs .... they'd rather be railroaded into a good story and adventure path that is pre-designed and balanced - they don't want the DM to decide whats behind the door once they get there, like I said.

To each their own - I just don't get why this concept is so difficult for many of you to understand.

Well, since you brought it up, there are three things that confuse me about what you have said - two major, one minor.

1. As [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] noted, you seem to be conflating sandbox-vs.-railroad with degree of DM improv. While they are certainly not unrelated, they are also certainly not the same thing.
2. On its own, the desire to not have the DM "decide what's behind the door once they get there" sounds like an abstract and not very well grounded aesthetic consideration. If the decision that the DM makes when you open the door is the same as (or even roughly equivalent to) what she would have decided earlier, why is that a problem? And if it is a problem, what is the acceptable "earlier"? Before the session? Yesterday? Last week? But in the context of some of your other comments, it seems like timing might really be a proxy for something else. That is, you and your players are perhaps thinking that if the DM makes the decision about what is behind the door "earlier", then something bad will be avoided - but what? From your previous comments, it seems like it might be some sort of malfeasance on the part of the DM, but I'm still not sure what it is you would be worried about.
3. A lesser issue, but does "My players like to know that what is behind the door was there yesterday" mean that the world has to be quite static, or am I just reading that too literally? Is it acceptable for what is behind the door to be affected by what they did in the room they are in, or even by when or how they open the door? Perhaps only ok if it depends on a rule that is codified and involves no DM judgement? Seems a bit limiting to me.

 

[shoak1]

On its own, the desire to not have the DM "decide what's behind the door once they get there" sounds like an abstract and not very well grounded aesthetic consideration. If the decision that the DM makes when you open the door is the same as (or even roughly equivalent to) what she would have decided earlier, why is that a problem?

For many reasons. One is that it is unprovable - would he have chosen to put a Remove Poison potion in the room if he had not known their was poison there? Maybe.....To us and many other gamers, each DM ruling increases the taint on the scenario - increases the chances that the final outcome is different than that which "would have happened." Believe it or not, many MANY people would scoff at the idea of a fair and impartial human being getting to largely decide the results of the other players actions.

And if it is a problem, what is the acceptable "earlier"? Before the session? Yesterday? Last week?

The earlier the better up to a point - making them too early increases the chance something major storyline might have changed prior to the encounter's use and require modification of the scene. The world is not a static place.

But in the context of some of your other comments, it seems like timing might really be a proxy for something else. That is, you and your players are perhaps thinking that if the DM makes the decision about what is behind the door "earlier", then something bad will be avoided - but what? From your previous comments, it seems like it might be some sort of malfeasance on the part of the DM, but I'm still not sure what it is you would be worried about.

The best way I can explain it is to give you an analogy: Someone plays a game of Monopoly. They don't mind that someone designed the game, and it doesn't affect their willingness to play the game. They can understand and appreciate that the designer made the game to be balanced and fair. If they want, they can even examine and analyze the components of the game to see if they believe it to be balanced (I usually allow interested players to examine my write-ups after the encounter session if they are interested).

But very few people would enjoy a game of Monopoly where someone (even the game designer), no matter how "unbiased," "fair," or "benevolent" he is, to decide whether Boardwalk, or Baltic Street, or some other property (like Go To Jail), is in the space he lands on each time he lands on a space.

RPGers on the other hand, CAN enjoy playing such a game style - in fact, they often cannot conceive of playing any other way and even have difficulties understanding other game styles......

A lesser issue, but does "My players like to know that what is behind the door was there yesterday" mean that the world has to be quite static, or am I just reading that too literally? Is it acceptable for what is behind the door to be affected by what they did in the room they are in, or even by when or how they open the door? Perhaps only ok if it depends on a rule that is codified and involves no DM judgement? Seems a bit limiting to me.

Really? (Steve begins to feel Harzel is more interested in attacking Steve's play style than he is in understanding it.....)
No, it is not static, of course it can be affected. The goal in this play style is to REDUCE - not ELIMINATE - the need for the DM to make decisions on the fly. Typically I have contingencies written in ("Jorge's cronies will flee to their bosses room as soon as their morale hits 7"), but if something unexpected happens I have to wing it.

 

[OB1]

But very few people would enjoy a game of Monopoly where someone (even the game designer), no matter how "unbiased," "fair," or "benevolent" he is, to decide whether Boardwalk, or Baltic Street, or some other property (like Go To Jail), is in the space he lands on each time he lands on a space.

RPGers on the other hand, CAN enjoy playing such a game style - in fact, they often cannot conceive of playing any other way and even have difficulties understanding other game styles......

People play different types of games for different reasons and to have different experiences.

I'm not sure why you assert that RPGers can't conceive of playing a different way or in understanding different styles. I for one have no issue with understanding the way you wish to play, nor do I wish to tell you how to play.

When I play 5e (as opposed to saying play Wrath of Ashardelon or Castle Ravenloft) I'm playing specifically because I enjoy having a DM be able to change things on the fly and react to the unexpected. Done well, I have no idea what was decided beforehand versus what was made up on the fly, and most importantly, I don't want to know.

 

[shoak1]

I'm not sure why you assert that RPGers can't conceive of playing a different way or in understanding different styles. I for one have no issue with understanding the way you wish to play, nor do I wish to tell you how to play.

.....a glance through posts directed at me will clearly support the view that "often RPGers have a hard time understanding other styles." Notice the careful choice of words I use - specifically "often" not "always."

 

[OB1]

.....a glance through posts directed at me will clearly support the view that "often RPGers have a hard time understanding other styles." Notice the careful choice of words I use - specifically "often" not "always."

I don't see that those posts show they don't understand your style, only that they are trying to better understand your own point of view so that they can better offer suggestions for how to fit 5E to your preferred play style, since the default style for 5E is strong DM adjudication.

Because while 5E supports many styles of play, both the rules books and adventure paths lean towards heavy DM adjudication to meet the stated primary goal of play as described in the PHB. "The DM creates adventures for the characters, who navigate its hazards and decide which paths to explore... Then the DM determines the results of the adventurers' actions and narrates what they experience. Because the DM can improvise to react to anything the payers attempt, D&D is infinitely flexible, and each adventure can be exciting and unexpected... Together, the DM and the players create an exciting story of bold adventurers who confront deadly perils."

I am absolutely NOT saying that this is the way 5E must be played and experienced, only that the rules and APs are purposefully designed to meet these stated goals and it's what the system "out of the box" does best.

 

[shoak1]

I don't see that those posts show they don't understand your style, only that they are trying to better understand your own point of view so that they can better offer suggestions for how to fit 5E to your preferred play style, since the default style for 5E is strong DM adjudication.

Because while 5E supports many styles of play, both the rules books and adventure paths lean towards heavy DM adjudication to meet the stated primary goal of play as described in the PHB. "The DM creates adventures for the characters, who navigate its hazards and decide which paths to explore... Then the DM determines the results of the adventurers' actions and narrates what they experience. Because the DM can improvise to react to anything the payers attempt, D&D is infinitely flexible, and each adventure can be exciting and unexpected... Together, the DM and the players create an exciting story of bold adventurers who confront deadly perils."

I am absolutely NOT saying that this is the way 5E must be played and experienced, only that the rules and APs are purposefully designed to meet these stated goals and it's what the system "out of the box" does best.

I'm not sure you noticed what you did there - your quote indicated "the DM can improvise to react to anything the players attempt" and then used it as your evidence that "both the rules books and adventure paths lean towards heavy DM adjudication."

My stories evolve through PC actions and player input, each adventure can be exciting and unexpected, on occasion I improvise and react to players actions, and I determine the results of the adventurers' actions and narrates what they experience - just as the quote indicates. So how does that section support your play style over mine?

 

[Soul Stigma]

I'm not sure you noticed what you did there - your quote indicated "the DM can improvise to react to anything the players attempt" and then used it as your evidence that "both the rules books and adventure paths lean towards heavy DM adjudication."

My stories evolve through PC actions and player input, each adventure can be exciting and unexpected, on occasion I improvise and react to players actions, and I determine the results of the adventurers' actions and narrates what they experience - just as the quote indicates. So how does that section support your play style over mine?

Because you can't improvise to react to anything the players attempt if all outcomes must be preset and nothing can be invented on the fly by the DM. As long as your players remain on the railroad, there's no issue, but if they deviate from what is planned, what do you do?

 

[Harzel]

1. A lesser issue, but does "My players like to know that what is behind the door was there yesterday" mean that the world has to be quite static, or am I just reading that too literally? Is it acceptable for what is behind the door to be affected by what they did in the room they are in, or even by when or how they open the door? Perhaps only ok if it depends on a rule that is codified and involves no DM judgement? Seems a bit limiting to me.

Really? (Steve begins to feel Harzel is more interested in attacking Steve's play style than he is in understanding it.....)

Yeah, that last sentence that you quoted from me was a poor choice on my part. However, the questions were a sincere attempt to understand where you were drawing the line.
[EDIT: And the rest of your response did​ answer my questions. Thank you.]