D&D 5E Simulation vs Game - Where should D&D 5e aim?

[Ratskinner]

It's true of D&D, though, at least the earlier editions. As far as this thread is concerned, I would say that it is "where" 5E should "aim".

I agree that it seems to have been true of the earliest incarnations of the game. However, even within 1e's lifespan you can see that that uniformity of purpose was beginning to "crack", and there's indications that people started to approach the game differently from very early on.

Not exactly. I'm not after the challenge of it. I want self-determination. I want to take responsibility for my actions. I want to know that, whatever happens to me, I earned it myself, rather than because it was supposed to happen.

...seems to me that that's still part of enjoying the challenge of it. I mean, you're talking about "earning" your character's fate. That sounds like your enjoyment is derived from the "reward" end of the challenge, rather than say the tactical exercise or dice rolling that got you there.

I would rather beat up three kobolds honestly than a hundred biased frost giants.

I have no idea what "honestly" means here, or even could. Does it mean "without fudging the rolls/rules"? If so, then that's (a big) part of what motivated the development of narrative games & mechanics in the first place. If you think that somehow there is a set of statistics or rules that "truly" reflect a kobold or frost giant...then I don't know what that means. They, their behavior, and their statistics are utterly contrived to begin with!

 

[JRRNeiklot]

I think this is a very fundamental difference in playstyle, that I flagged upthread in a reply to [MENTION=6775031]Saelorn[/MENTION].

Gygax takes it as central to play that, while the GM writes up the dungeon, it is the players who choose what they encounter within it (subject to the GM's wandering monsters; hence part of being a skilful player is minimising the time spent dealing with the GM's wanderers).



As soon as a group starts playing in the way that [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] has described - ie using pre-packaged adventures designed for PCs of a given level - then all these remarks from Gygax become completely irrelevant. It is the GM (whether solely, or drawing upon a module author) who chooses the difficulty of the encounters. At that point, the difference between "objective" monster building and 4e-style monster building seems completely one of taste. They are simply different tools for generating encounters of a given mathematical difficulty.

I can't see Hussar's comment, as I put him on ignore years ago.

I use prepublished module 90% of the time, though I sometimes add in custom content, or an odd encounter from another source. But I populate the world with these adventure locales before the campaign ever starts. Players might here about the Slavers (A series) at first level. The Tomb of Horrors is usually a legend every child knows about. They are free to head to either locale at any time. They'll likely hear about other places as they travel. Railroading the pcs into a particular adventure is not something I'd enjoy as a pc or a dm, unless it's at a convention or other one-shot. As a campaign, that's not any kind of D&D I'd be interested in playing. The GROUP chooses where they go and what they encounter, otherwise why bother playing, if the dm controls where you go and what level creatures you'll face. That's not gaming, that's listening to the dm read his wannabe novel.

 

[pemerton]

why bother playing, if the dm controls where you go and what level creatures you'll face. That's not gaming, that's listening to the dm read his wannabe novel.

Seriously, is there a rule somewhere in the ENworld terms of use that says that any expression of different playstyle preferences must be accompanied by snide remarks and rampant mischaracterisation?

Multiple posters on this very thread have explained how a range of non-Gygaxian approaches to play might work (eg [MENTION=6688937]Ratskinner[/MENTION] fewer than 20 posts above yours). Your post really just suggests that you don't have much familiarity with those other approaches and techniques.

For instance, in my 4e campaign several of the characters are devotees of the Raven Queen and hence foes of Orcus. Thus they meet lots of undead, Orcus cultists etc to beat up on.

Who decided that Orcus cultists would be a focus of play? The players, by building those PCs and running them in the campaign.

Who stats up the actual culists, decides when they will turn up, what sort of secrets goals they have, etc? Me, the GM.

Who decides what happens when the PCs and the cultists collide? The whole table, by applying the action resolution rules.

This isn't very Gygaxian (eg there is no "dungeon" which the players explore via their PCs), but it has nothing in common with listening to someone read a wannabe novel.

Railroading the pcs into a particular adventure is not something I'd enjoy as a pc or a dm, unless it's at a convention or other one-shot

And by your own admission, you play pre-scripted adventure in some circumstances. Is playing a module at a convention like having the GM read you a novel? That's not true of the decent convention adventures I've played, because while the GM establishes the framing, the resolution is determined via actual play.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

The dungeon is not necessary, my players spend way more time outside of one than in. But the idea of THIS is where you're going, and THESE are what you'll encounter is anathema to a campaign. Sure, those cultists you mention might show up anywhere, but they should only be interested in the pcs because they interfered with their plans or otherwise drew attention to themselves. Which is driven by pc action, not the dm. The disconnect I have is running a particular module (whether store bought or homebrew) and the players have no choice but to go there. You're going through White Plume mountain tonight, damnit, I don't care if you do want to chase that pick pocket down in the Temple of the Frog.

 

[Balesir]

The dungeon is not necessary, my players spend way more time outside of one than in. But the idea of THIS is where you're going, and THESE are what you'll encounter is anathema to a campaign. Sure, those cultists you mention might show up anywhere, but they should only be interested in the pcs because they interfered with their plans or otherwise drew attention to themselves. Which is driven by pc action, not the dm. The disconnect I have is running a particular module (whether store bought or homebrew) and the players have no choice but to go there. You're going through White Plume mountain tonight, damnit, I don't care if you do want to chase that pick pocket down in the Temple of the Frog.

Have fun with that straw man you seem to be building for yourself there, because I don't see anyone here advocating that style of play.

Now, I have played in and run sessions that could, at a stretch, be characterised in this way. When both players and GM are extremely busy and the players just want some arse-kicking action and tactical kabluie a short, ready-made scenario can be just the thing to get a fix of RPG - but I wouldn't say any of us prefer that mode of play. It's a compromise; a second-best that we adopt when a preferred method of operation is not available. And it's done with the agreement of all involved; one of us might say "I don't have any time to create anything proper, but I'll run you guys through the Temple of the Frog God, if you like - make characters to suit?" It's not ideal, but it gets some roleplaying in when we have noo time for anything better.

Other than this, I haven't heard anyone - here or anywhere else - actually propose that railroaded play is a good thing. But not every mode of play other than a sandbox is a railroad. Try playing something like Fiasco, PrimeTime Adventures or Universalis. You will find games where railroading is actually impossible - but they do not involve sandboxes and they are built to promote stories out of play. The idea that the only alternative to a pre-made sandbox is GM force railroading is a false notion arising simply from lack of knowledge or understanding.

 

[billd91]

Seriously, is there a rule somewhere in the ENworld terms of use that says that any expression of different playstyle preferences must be accompanied by snide remarks and rampant mischaracterisation?

Multiple posters on this very thread have explained how a range of non-Gygaxian approaches to play might work (eg [MENTION=6688937]Ratskinner[/MENTION] fewer than 20 posts above yours). Your post really just suggests that you don't have much familiarity with those other approaches and techniques.

I'd turn around and ask if there's some rule in the ENworld terms of use that say someone who, I would say, has a fairly distinct if rigid preference for play style must be talked down to like they're simply ignorant and need enlightening. Clearly, JRRNeiklot's tenure around here would suggest that he is aware of these other approaches and techniques - but his statements make it clear that he not only doesn't value them, he devalues them. That may put him out of step with many other gamers around here and may make his views the source of argument, but that doesn't mean you should condescend to him.

 

[SkidAce]

I can't see Hussar's comment, as I put him on ignore years ago.

I use prepublished module 90% of the time, though I sometimes add in custom content, or an odd encounter from another source. But I populate the world with these adventure locales before the campaign ever starts. Players might here about the Slavers (A series) at first level. The Tomb of Horrors is usually a legend every child knows about. They are free to head to either locale at any time. They'll likely hear about other places as they travel. Railroading the pcs into a particular adventure is not something I'd enjoy as a pc or a dm, unless it's at a convention or other one-shot. As a campaign, that's not any kind of D&D I'd be interested in playing. The GROUP chooses where they go and what they encounter, otherwise why bother playing, if the dm controls where you go and what level creatures you'll face. That's not gaming, that's listening to the dm read his wannabe novel.

I do the same thing. With the extra work involved if the players take a course that there is no "location" detailed for.

This makes me wonder. (Considering I don't have a literary, psychological, sociological, math, statistical, or even Forgist, Masters or Phd degree).

Our gaming world (homebrew) is considered a sandbox, roughly like [MENTION=717]JRRNeiklot[/MENTION] describes above.

BUT, the players drive the narrative by exploring where they choose. At the end of each gaming session, I may need to ask what they see their characters doing or striving for in the upcoming games. In case I need to further develop the area, OR incorporate their ideas (why yes, the Dragonlord is behind the trade embargo.).

The players are driving the train. (hehe)

So is my game both "styles" or neither?

 

[Balesir]

I'd turn around and ask if there's some rule in the ENworld terms of use that say someone who, I would say, has a fairly distinct if rigid preference for play style must be talked down to like they're simply ignorant and need enlightening. Clearly, JRRNeiklot's tenure around here would suggest that he is aware of these other approaches and techniques - but his statements make it clear that he not only doesn't value them, he devalues them.

Devaluing them is fine, but why does he then feel it necessary to assert that, since they are not sandboxes, they must be railroads. This is clearly wrong. Further, it is insulting and inflammatory. I would say that an assumption that someone who makes statements that are both wrong and insulting/inflammatory is merely ignorant and in need of enlightemnet is a positively tolerant and gentle approach to take.

 

[Balesir]

So is my game both "styles" or neither?

Sounds like a good, practical mix, to me. A sandbox with scope for player input and with the GM making use of player intentions/interests.

 

[Imaro]

Hang on @Imaro. What?!?

[sblock]Ned Stark is publicly executed by surprise. In front of his daughter. The order is given by the boy betrothed to his daughter who forces her to watch. This event is the primary motivation of the entire series and directly leads to the war between north and south.

How is this not a dramatic death?

[/sblock]

I think we may just have differing opinions on what constitutes a "dramatic" death... you seem to believe that every death in the books was a dramatic one because it affected someone... While IMO, many are very mundane and... well... not dramatic at all. I agree about the red wedding but I just don't see these others as dramatic... I'll give two more examples of an non-dramatic vs. a dramatic death below... which is a big spoiler for those who are only following the show

[sblock]

Kal Drogo dying from an infected wound... not dramatic

Prince Martell dying at the hands of the Mountain... dramatic
[/sblock]