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

[Ahnehnois]

I think there's a big difference between having a GM inherently determine outcomes, and a GM framing a situation based on the character's fictional position, setting, cultural dynamics, and interrelationships with the other in-world participants.

I don't think there's a difference there at all. The outcome is determined in large part by how the situation is framed.

If the PCs simply roll into town without any thought given to what will happen, then yeah, they don't deserve to "interact with their player mechanics" when the bulk of the town guard descends on them to arrest them. Can they attempt to notice the ambush? Sure. Can they attempt to escape if the do notice it? Sure. If the players then want to interact mechanically through the use of powers, spells, negotiation, or combat to avoid the arrest attempt, hey, more power to them, that's why the rules are there.

That's true, but I think the word "deserve" is misleading. I don't think it's about making value judgments on who deserves what (though if that's what a DM wants it to be about, he can make it that way). I think it's most importantly about asking "what if?". What would happen in this circumstance?

Except that you are constantly telling the players what happens. In fact most player-DM conversations during play boil down to essentially this:

DM: "Here's the scene and situation"
Player(s): "I (we) do, or attempt, this"*
DM: "Here's what happens"*

* - these two things repeat until and unless there's a significant change in the scene or situation e.g. the party goes to another room, or a combat breaks out, or new people join a conversation, etc.

It matters not whether the DM has decided what happens beforehand or whether the outcome is left to a roll of dice, the "Here's what happens" part still happens regardless.

It's also frequently unclear to the players what's going on under the hood. The DM is telling you what happened, not how it happened. The players, like their characters, do not have a complete understanding of the causal chain (which is, in some part, the mechanics that are at play).

That's why in some cases it makes sense to have players roll checks for impossible things and then just tell them they failed. Then they don't know that it was impossible. In other cases, you want the impossibility to be apparent, so you just tell them upfront.

The same applies to successes. In some cases, you might want them to know that they rolled and just beat the DC, and other times, you might not want them to know that, and sometimes, you just want to move forward and not bother with the roll.

 

[Hussar]

But how are 5 and 6 (guaranteed "no") any more or less railroad-y than 1 or 2 (guaranteed "yes")?
By the same token, I-as-DM could think you have no chance of failing...you could roll a '1' on whatever you're trying and still sail through with flying colours. But if that is possible then the opposite must also be: that you'll sometimes hit situations where even a '20' won't get it done.
Except that you are constantly telling the players what happens. In fact most player-DM conversations during play boil down to essentially this:

DM: "Here's the scene and situation"
Player(s): "I (we) do, or attempt, this"*
DM: "Here's what happens"*

* - these two things repeat until and unless there's a significant change in the scene or situation e.g. the party goes to another room, or a combat breaks out, or new people join a conversation, etc.

It matters not whether the DM has decided what happens beforehand or whether the outcome is left to a roll of dice, the "Here's what happens" part still happens regardless.

Lan-"there's something happening here, what it is ain't exactly clear"-efan

Yes, but, that response from the DM is determined after the players make the attempt, isn't it?

If the players try and fail, then the DM tells you what happens. If the players try and succeed, then the DM tells you that a different thing happens.

What I try my utmost to ensure is that those two responses will be different. If the two responses are the same, then I feel that I have likely failed somewhere in my adjudication of the game. Just to be clear here, I have no problems with the DM adjudicating the results of the player's attempts to do something. That's perfectly fine.

What I object to is when the DM has pre-defined results in mind and the player's attempts become irrelevant.

 

[billd91]

What I object to is when the DM has pre-defined results in mind and the player's attempts become irrelevant.

Are you also saying it's impossible for the players to make their own attempt irrelevant? Because that's the way I'd see most attempts at diplomacy to get in to see the monarch that involved the PCs showing up in rags and smelling of the sewer. By approaching in that fashion, they've made their own attempt irrelevant - no die roll necessary. Clean up and approach in noble-appropriate finery and they're good to give it a try because they've made this attempt relevant.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Just to be clear here, I have no problems with the DM adjudicating the results of the player's attempts to do something.

Au contraire!

What I object to is when the DM has pre-defined results in mind and the player's attempts become irrelevant.

What if the player's attempts are actually irrelevant?

And why is it wrong for the DM to have pre-defined results in mind?

I think what you object to is simply your perception of malfeasance. Which is fine, but is not an objective commodity and not something you can read into in broad circumstances (such as discussing generic scenarios with DMs from around the world that you don't know). The reality is that DMing can be done with good intentions and bad.

 

[SkidAce]

This is further confounded, of course, by the assumptions that certain posters make that DMing is essentially in bad faith, and they like to use this "fiat" term to make blanket judgments about DMing decisions they don't like, but which aren't objectively wrong (and indeed in some cases are quite wise).

This has wisdom in and of itself for both sides.

 

[Ahnehnois]

This has wisdom in and of itself for both sides.

If we go back to the other example way above (the one that pemerton gives about resolving a hostile encounter through a skill challenge rather than attack rolls and combat actions), that isn't a call that I would have made. It's probably one that I would have objected to as a player, even if it may have benefited me. I don't think it was the right decision (based on the limited information that was provided), and I don't particularly like the underlying mechanics that allow such an uncertain situation.

But what I won't do is try to establish some jargon that declares a whole category of DMing actions as being invalid, so as to couch my opinion in some notion of all-knowing objectivity. It's just my opinion.

 

[SkidAce]

I think there's a big difference between having a GM inherently determine outcomes, and a GM framing a situation based on the character's fictional position, setting, cultural dynamics, and interrelationships with the other in-world participants. If, as a GM, I've framed a situation where a particular noble A) has clearly made it known through edict, "Wanted" posters, direct communication through underlings, etc., that he doesn't want anything to do with the PCs, and B) will instruct people under his influence to arrest the PCs on sight, then I don't think it's unreasonable to forcefully apply the effects of that fictional positioning should the PCs attempt to enter a location directly under the influence of that noble.

If the PCs simply roll into town without any thought given to what will happen, then yeah, they don't deserve to "interact with their player mechanics" when the bulk of the town guard descends on them to arrest them. Can they attempt to notice the ambush? Sure. Can they attempt to escape if the do notice it? Sure. If the players then want to interact mechanically through the use of powers, spells, negotiation, or combat to avoid the arrest attempt, hey, more power to them, that's why the rules are there.

If what you're saying you don't want to happen is, "Okay party, you roll into town, and oh, guess what, you're immediately beset upon by the guards, arrested, and detained," then I agree, that's hardly fun.

I get where you're coming from, [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION], I really do. It's clear from your posts here and elsewhere that in the past you've been subjected to some of the worst kinds of heavy-handed GM fiat, and it's something you never care to repeat or represent to your players.

I'm just really uncomfortable with the idea that a GM simply doesn't have the authority to say "No" under any circumstance.

It's a very precarious line, however. If you're saying "No" to some mechanical eventuality supported by the rules, and directly applicable to the PCs, there'd better be a very good reason to say it. I'm a little less forgiving when it comes to PCs having control over the scene framing itself, but even then, there's definitely times when you want to allow some player / PC control over the framing, and even instances where the rules assume that players have that control (as far as I can tell, the entire premise of Fate falls somewhere in this spectrum).

The opposite end of the spectrum, of course, are jerk players who do nothing but have their PCs run around and "poke holes" at the scene framing and rules, trying to find the exceptions that give them advantage. Or do it out of course of habit because eventually they think the GM will cave to the request.

Quoted for cosmic truth.

 

[Balesir]

Well, someone decides it at some point, yes? I'd much rather have the DM be deciding things in real time than some game writer deciding them years beforehand.

Ahnehnois has, in my view, been doing a bang-up job of arguing that there are always decisions in RPG adjudication that have not been settled up-front, and that therefore someone's judgement must be invoked during the game upon them. But this statement, in particular, has been bugging me nevertheless. I just don't agree with it. I think that I have realised why.

That's where good DMing, not just DMing, comes in.

As the DM, your creative vision needs to guide everyone. You need to convey it. You also need to solicit communication from players, and you're the one who has to incorporate their perspective into your vision. Avoiding misunderstandings involves everyone at the table, but like the in-game happenings, it's ultimately up to the guy at the head of the table.

Basically, DMing is leadership.

This is a vision of GMing that I, personally, have come to abhor.

The idea of GM as Meister; as Artiste and Heirophant, administering Good Gaming (TM) to the unwashed and ignorant masses is something that at one time I accepted as received wisdom, but now I just feel faintly repulsed by. But, if I put my own current biases aside for just a moment, I think it is just an aspect of a much older debate.

Ahnehnois says that it's quite possible to be a bad DM - to make bad judgements as a DM - but to still be a DM. The question I would ask is: can this not apply just as much to the players? As a motional system, consider one in which the characters have a 50% chance to succeed at anything they attempt. That is the entirety of the "system". Sure, some players might attempt ludicrous stuff. They might simply drive the game to get dominance for their character. But that will ruin the game for them as well as everyone else; why should this not be "their mistake to make"?

It seems to me that this is just the old "Forms of Government" argument about Benevolent Dictators and Democracies. One side says that any Dictatorship is bad, because power corrupts; the other side says Democracy cannot work well because, in the words of Winston Churchill, "the best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter".

In other words, is a game best formed and directed by a single creative vision, or is collaboration and consensus best? That, it seems to me, is ultimately a matter of taste. I am, however, still forcibly reminded of Churchill's other famous saying about democracy: "it's the worst system of government there is - apart from all the others that we have tried, from time to time".


Aside: There are exceptional cases, of course. I think [MENTION=3192]howandwhy99[/MENTION] may have a good case for GM dictatorship with a "puzzle-setter" paradigm, if I can ascertain from him exacly how it can work in a functional manner.

 

[Ahnehnois]

In other words, is a game best formed and directed by a single creative vision, or is collaboration and consensus best? That, it seems to me, is ultimately a matter of taste. I am, however, still forcibly reminded of Churchill's other famous saying about democracy: "it's the worst system of government there is - apart from all the others that we have tried, from time to time".

Ah, but the hidden truth is that D&D is a democracy. Even democratic countries generally don't have voters directly making policy, we have representative democracies. That is, we elect people to be in charge.

The reason we do that is that direct democracy is cumbersome and fickle. Some really wacky things get done through direct voting (typically on ballot initiatives), but by and large very little gets done. Appointing someone to make decisions for us allows that person to have the top-down perspective and widespread authority of a monarch, but accountability to the masses (and typically limitations based on pre-established rules).

How many DMs do you know that aren't chosen or accepted by their players to be such?

The idea of GM as Meister; as Artiste and Heirophant, administering Good Gaming (TM) to the unwashed and ignorant masses is something that at one time I accepted as received wisdom, but now I just feel faintly repulsed by.

It sounds elitist and possibly arrogant when you put it that way. However, the reality is that not all people have equal capacities. With regards to actual democracies, there's often a philosophical question of whether you want to elect the most average person (to be representative of the most people) or the smartest/wisest/best person (to make good decisions for everyone). I come down firmly on the latter with regards to D&D.

In my case, I did not start as a DM, and had no aspirations to it. I started DMing because we enjoyed aspects of the game, but there were problems with our DM. We traded around spots, and more and more the group asked for me to run games, to the point where I became the primary DM and others either abdicated or left. To this day, whenever I want a break and try to trade around DMing responsibilities, the people in the group look at is as a chore. I'm the best DM and I run the best games, and they want me. They've been quite explicit about all of this.

I'm the DM because they (democratically) decided that they trusted be to be so. In part, it's because I know the rules better and have various intellectual and creative talents, but it's also in large part due to how open I've been about the process and how actively I've incorporated the players into it. It's certainly a positive evaluation I'm giving myself, but it would be disingenuous to do otherwise. With great power comes great responsibility. If I'm getting four hours of people's time to run a game of make-believe, I'd better be good at it. I'd better be better than most. Again, DMing is leadership.

The question I would ask is: can this not apply just as much to the players? As a motional system, consider one in which the characters have a 50% chance to succeed at anything they attempt. That is the entirety of the "system". Sure, some players might attempt ludicrous stuff. They might simply drive the game to get dominance for their character. But that will ruin the game for them as well as everyone else; why should this not be "their mistake to make"?

There could be such a system. It could work. To my mind, it's a challenge because too many cooks spoil the pot. What happens when players go rogue or start conflicting with each other? It's hard to affirmatively move the game forward and hard to resolve disagreements if everyone has that kind of authority. Crowdsourcing is not necessarily a good thing.

Here, we're in a D&D forum, which is a game that has multiple players and one Dungeon Master. The "master" is meant to be taken literally. There's a reason this game concentrates power. It provides a fast-moving and cohesive game. It's not the only way to do things, but it is the way this particular game has decided they should be done, and it is a good way.

 

[innerdude]

Simply put, because the Red Box is too simple, while (pre-UA) 1e already bakes in a lot of the relatively basic changes I'd add:
- class divorced from race - an Elf can be various classes, etc.
- more classes to support more archetypes
- all the levels of the game are there; where Red Box only has the low ones and BECMI splits them up.*
- a wider variety of spells, weapons, etc.

* - I can't speak to Rules Compendium at all as I don't own it and in fact have never even laid eyes on it.

From this jumping-off pont it's pretty easy to strip out the uglier bits and simplify some of the rest:
- drop weapon speed and weapon vs. armour type
- drop the initiative system and replace with something dirt simple e.g. everyone rolls d6 each round, ties are allowed
- open up what races can be what classes, and how far they can advance (though keeping some restrictions to taste is fine too)
- drop the grappling rules and replace with...well, whatever you can dream up; they've never been done right yet
- (personal peeve) drop psyonics
- streamline the combat matrix somewhat
- give monsters the benefits they'd get from their stats e.g. hit/damage from strength, h.p. from con, etc.
- organize the books better, failing that at least provide a good index

But keep the overall philosophies:
- the DM worries about most of the mechanics while the players worry about the exploration, story, and characterizations
- the game-as-designed starts out somewhat gritty and evolves into heroic fantasy as it goes along (obviously this can be changed to suit each table)
- the math is loose enough that a bit of messing with the system doesn't break the game
- character archetypes are well supported
- magic isn't always the answer, it's risky and easily interrupted
- the concept of character build a la 3e/4e is almost nonexistent
- multiclassing is disadvantageous
- characters are usually simple enough that playing more than one at a time is easily possible if one wants
- character generation is relatively easy
- level advancement is a result of play rather than the reason for it
- the general feel is open-ended and somewhat random rather than pre-packaged
- guidelines, not rules

There are some very elegant mechanics in 1e that have been lost - cleric-vs.-undead turning matrix, resurrection and system shock survival rolls, teleport has risks, polymorph self has limits and poly. other is always unwelcome, revival from death costs you a con. point meaning death (usually) has permanent consequences, etc., etc.

I'd be tempted to use 2e as a jumping-off point instead except that at release it was missing too many things (lots of classes weren't there, all the evil was stripped out, etc.) and later on it became too bloated and unwieldy.

Not the most coherent answer, I realize, but it's a start.

Lanefan

See, there's this gaming company called Pinnacle Entertainment Games? And they made that game. And called it Savage Worlds.

Seriously, everything you've evoked in this description is EXACTLY the way Savage Worlds plays as a fantasy system at my table. I've said it before, tongue-in-cheek, that Savage Worlds is the best version of BECMI in the world that Wizards of the Coast never created.