D&D General The Best DM Advice Was Writren in 1981.

[Umbran]

Well, see the rest of the thread, I personally think it's absurd to worship only some selected sentences of the books and totally ignore the others, even though it's the same author(s) explaining their game.

Yeah, but most of use have now been playing the game far longer than he had when writing those words. The advice was written in 1981 - a mere seven years after D&D was first published. It is now just about 2022 - about 47 years after the game was first published. Indeed, 5e alone is now running on seven years.

The author was explaining their intent with their game, but many (indeed, probably most) of us now have more experience with his game, and games in general, than he did - we have our 20, 30, or 40 years of gaming to his 7 or so.

Which doesn't make what he wrote bad advice, but it questions the authority behind accepting that advice at face value. Maybe that advice needs to stand on its own, now, no matter who wrote it, or when it was written. And maybe people who aren't following that advice know something that he didn't really understand yet at the time of writing.

 

[Lyxen]

Yeah, but most of use have now been playing the game far longer than he had when writing those words. The advice was written in 1981 - a mere seven years after D&D was first published. It is now just about 2022 - about 47 years after the game was first published. Indeed, 5e alone is now running on seven years.

The author was explaining their intent with their game, but many (indeed, probably most) of us now have more experience with his game, and games in general, than he did - we have our 20, 30, or 40 years of gaming to his 7 or so.

Which doesn't make what he wrote bad advice, but it questions the authority behind accepting that advice at face value. Maybe that advice needs to stand on its own, now, no matter who wrote it, or when it was written. And maybe people who aren't following that advice know something that he didn't really understand yet at the time of writing.

Or maybe some people took previous editions like 3e and 4e way too seriously in terms of rules, because what I find interesting in that advice is that it exactly mirrors what 5e is telling us again: "To play D&D, and to play it well, you don’t need to read all the rules, memorize every detail of the game, or master the fine art of rolling funny looking dice. None of those things have any bearing on what’s best about the game."

So not only does it not stand on its own, but it's mirrored in what is, by far, the most successful edition of the game. I'm not condemning anyone for playing differently, buy maybe those people who think they understand something new (and actually rendered somewhat obsolete now) should actually read the books completely and maybe THEY could rediscover something too.

Because 5e was not created to be played only RAW, the rules are incomplete on purpose, by design: "The DM is key. Many unexpected things can happen in a D&D campaign, and no set of rules could reasonably account for every contingency. If the rules tried to do so, the game would become unplayable. An alternative would be for the rules to severely limit what characters can do, which would be counter to the open-endedness of D&D. The direction we chose for the current edition was to lay a foundation of rules that a DM could build on, and we embraced the DM’s role as the bridge between the things the rules address and the things they don’t."

From reading what they usually say about it, people playing RAW actually supplement it by many layers of house rules and personal interpretations which are actually totally debatable, see in particular stealth and vision. Maybe this, coupled with both age-old advice and very new shiny advice might incite them to consider that playing "RAW" is not some sort of badge of honor...

 

[Krachek]

Is this good advice? Down this path lies railroaded dragonlance modules

Using that advice to take the path of railroading is somehow … creative. Anyway that advice on how to use the dice is giving again in the 5ed DM guide, so you will conclude that DnD still encourage railroading!

 

[Lyxen]

Using that advice to take the path of railroading is somehow … creative. Anyway that advice on how to use the dice is giving again in the 5ed DM guide, so you will conclude that DnD still encourage railroading!

Exactly, although more detailed, the section on the "Role of Dice" is very interesting and quite in line with that advice. As for railroading, published adventures - which are quite popular - always include some level of railroading and actually the parts that don't (STK is (in)famous for this) sometimes lose the players, even experienced one. Too much of something is always bad, including railroading, but the level of tolerance (or expectation) of it varies table by table, and it does not make one play style superior to another.

 

[Eis]

I can't speak for all self-avowed grognards, but I've certainly been guilty of this in the past (and I mean the recent past, too. Like, in the last 1d4 years.)

if you don't want to roll you could just choose a number of years within that range, it is your prerogative as DM

 

[Oofta]

...

As an aside, The Red Hand of Shargaas is underconned in 5e. For a CR 3 they can easily take on an entire CR4 party, which is what happened with a little help from two Orc meat shields.

I hit the same thing, what was supposed to be a medium encounter against level 8(?) PCs was going really sideways until I suggested the PC with a driftglobe make an intelligence check to know that it's daylight spell feature could counter the darkness (it's a 2nd level spell, daylight is 3rd). If it wasn't for that I think a handful of CR 3 monsters would have taken them out.

 

[CleverNickName]

Well, see the rest of the thread, I personally think it's absurd to worship only some selected sentences of the books and totally ignore the others, even though it's the same author(s) explaining their game. Understanding the intent is actually often more important than the words themselves. Missing that, and you might end up trying to dry your cat in a microwave, for example.

I was re-reading one of my favorite adventure modules, came across some pretty great advice, and decided to share it. (shrug) I don't know where you got "worship" from, perhaps your methods of worship differ from my own. As for the "selected sentences" part, I promise: I read the whole thing, all 32 pages of it.

Also, remember when writers only needed 32 pages to write an epic adventure? and could still include 16 new monsters, 15 maps, 6 NPCs, 6 alternate scenarios, and the outline of an entire campaign setting within that page count? That's also something that I think a lot of today's DMs have forgotten.

 

[Mercurius]

I don't really understand this association of RAW and old school, or "the dice fall where they may" with OSR (and grognards). The RAW phenomena seems more...middle school? Arising mainly during later TSR days and/or early WotC (3E). It seems aligned with an "anti-railroad" movement, and player empowerment, no matter the cost to the narrative.

I mean, I get that people look back at olden tymes and think Tomb of Horrors. But that was one module, designed for a specific effect. It didn't represent all D&D played in the 70s and 80s. Having grown up in the 80s, we always played fast and loose, and DMs were always empowered to keep things behind the screen.

The key was preserving the illusion that dice always determined outcomes. And, for the most part (like 95-99%) of the time, they did. But there were occasions that DMs (including myself) fudged or ignored dice. It is quite simple, actually: the DM's judgment trumps random chance. Rule zero, and all that.

But what about abusive DMs? Well, that's a different problem. That sort of person is going to find a way to be abusive, no matter what. RAW can't protect players from a maleficent DM who, if they really want to, can kill off a party at any time.

And what about railroading? Again, different problem. I can see how frequent dice-fudging can lead to railroading, but let's be honest: it isn't railroading if the player's don't realize they're being railroaded. I'm not saying that DM's should control the narrative towards whatever outcome they ultimately desire, but I am saying that there's absolutely nothing wrong with nudging things along, and again, as long as the players feel like they have choice, that's all that really matters to the actual play experience. And as long as the DM feels good about what they're doing, then its all good.

Now some DMs might be "chance purists" and detest fudging. That's fine, too. But that's their own choice and there's no need to advocate that as the "right way to do things" (aka One True Wayism). I mean, it is sort of like washing your hands every time you come inside. Fine if you want to do it, but no reason to criticize others for not caring. They may simply have other priorities like, I dunno, optimizing enjoyment for everyone at the table?

And that's the bottom line: the DM orchestrates the game table, and thus is the person most responsible for the enjoyment of all. They're not the only one responsible, but they certain have the largest share of responsibility. A DM should always have this question in the back of their mind, imo: What is the most enjoyable outcome? That isn't always, "You find a vorpal sword." Generally delayed gratification leads to greater overall enjoyment, which is why Monty Hallism tends to lead to diminished enjoyment (that is, less is more - but too little can also be bland). Nor is it always, "You win!" Sometimes loss and failure lead to greater enjoyment. I mean, there are always hills and valleys and the hills don't stand out unless there are valleys.

 

[Lyxen]

I don't really understand this association of RAW and old school, or "the dice fall where they may" with OSR (and grognards). The RAW phenomena seems more...middle school? Arising mainly during later TSR days and/or early WotC (3E). It seems aligned with an "anti-railroad" movement, and player empowerment, no matter the cost to the narrative.

I agree, I have the same feeling, which is why I reminded that the old school was more about the adventure than the rules, just as 5e is. 3e started a trend of "player empowerment" which had good intents at the core, but which, in my opinion, is detrimental from the spirit of the gamer, which has always needed a DM to be in control.

I mean, I get that people look back at olden tymes and think Tomb of Horrors. But that was one module, designed for a specific effect. It didn't represent all D&D played in the 70s and 80s. Having grown up in the 80s, we always played fast and loose, and DMs were always empowered to keep things behind the screen.

Indeed.

The key was preserving the illusion that dice always determined outcomes. And, for the most part (like 95-99%) of the time, they did. But there were occasions that DMs (including myself) fudged or ignored dice. It is quite simple, actually: the DM's judgment trumps random chance. Rule zero, and all that.

Exactly, and the basic principle was that the players trusted their DMs, and actually were part of that illusion too.

But what about abusive DMs? Well, that's a different problem. That sort of person is going to find a way to be abusive, no matter what. RAW can't protect players from a maleficent DM who, if they really want to, can kill off a party at any time.

Again, I fully agree, especially since I never met any abusive DM. Lots of things are said based on things which are, to me, mostly urban legends and odd exceptions.

And what about railroading? Again, different problem. I can see how frequent dice-fudging can lead to railroading, but let's be honest: it isn't railroading if the player's don't realize they're being railroaded.

Or if, being mature about what fantasy is about and in particular fantasy roleplaying, they agree on being railroaded now and then, and actually play along because they know it's one of the ways to really epic adventures.

I'm not saying that DM's should control the narrative towards whatever outcome they ultimately desire, but I am saying that there's absolutely nothing wrong with nudging things along, and again, as long as the players feel like they have choice, that's all that really matters to the actual play experience. And as long as the DM feels good about what they're doing, then its all good.

And even beyond that, there is nothing wrong about the DM controlling the narrative, full stop. For Christ's sake, all the published adventures - which are very popular - are built that way with some sort of railroading in there, if only to start the adventure, and follow the chapters. After that, you can have adventures that are extremely linear and that people still love, for example WD-DH (I personally hate it, but some people really love it and place it first in the published adventure). It all depends on what the table expects and about maintaining that collective spirit between the players and the DM. If the DM railroads a bit, why is that against the players ? It is on the contrary probable that he is doing that FOR the players, so that the adventure can be properly epic, because sandboxes are very nice, but they are rarely epic, this requires at least some sort of storyline.

Now some DMs might be "chance purists" and detest fudging. That's fine, too. But that's their own choice. I mean, it is sort of like washing your hands every time you come inside. Fine if you want to do it, but no reason to criticize others for not caring.

Exactly. This comes from the more competitive side of gaming which came with 3e and player empowerment, leading in turn to more of a players vs. DM perspective. As you point out above, the previous competitive side demonstrated by modules such as Tomb of Horrors was really a very small fraction of gaming at the time. But with 3e, it took on a completely different tone, in particular with whole groups where a DM had to show that he was playing by the rules, using the RAW and rolling dices in the open, to show that he was not "cheating" against the players. And for me this culminated with 4e, with a very precise ruleset and the idea that the DM was really mostly the referee in a competitive sport, setting up situations to test his players in a completely fair process that could not be discussed.

I'm not saying that it's not a valid way to play the game, there are so many of these, but it has created a community of elitist DMs and players who sort of look down on people not being part of that "competition". And that is detrimental to the spirit of the game, which for me has always been that of the most collaborative game ever, with all players including the DM just sitting together as friends to tell a really epic story.

 

[Umbran]

Or maybe some people took previous editions like 3e and 4e way too seriously in terms of rules, because what I find interesting in that advice is that it exactly mirrors what 5e is telling us again: "To play D&D, and to play it well, you don’t need to read all the rules, memorize every detail of the game, or master the fine art of rolling funny looking dice. None of those things have any bearing on what’s best about the game."

As if you know what's best about the game... for everyone, on the entire planet, for all time?

One True Wayism gets so tired.