D&D 5E Too many cooks (a DnDN retrospective)

[Hussar]

The turn of this thread is definitely related to the Social Contract at the table and the Creative Agenda. There is no objective orthodox here. There will be tables that run the gamut of contracts and agendas. There will be plenty of DMs who create primarily within the framework of the feedback of their players. Those players will have specific themes and archetypes they wish to play and that will be the construct that binds the DM. That DM may wish for the players to have as much autonomy as possible to be pro-active and join him in the fiction creation process. That DM may seek out mechanical resolution tools to reward players for such play. They seek the cultivation of a shared fiction and all of the player empowerment and incentives that enable that.

And there will be the exact inverse of that and everywhere in between. If 5e is going to cater to all Contracts and Agendas it needs to be malleable enough to do so and have the PC-build structure and mechanical resolution tools to propogate that. Arguing over some "one true Contract and Agenda" is ultimately pointless.

But, at the end of the day, you still have to write a game book. Which means you're going to have to come down on one side or the other, at least to some degree. I'd prefer they come down on the more open ended side and then let individual tables make the call.

In your example (the one about the casting mechanic), your player isn't excited about a character, he's excited about a game mechanic. If someone told me that the only reason he won't play is because he can't use THIS or THAT game mechanic, well frankly I don't know how much we'd really enjoy playing with him.

You as a player should be excited to play a wizard that's a member of the Order of Shazam , not about the fact that you're casting a certain way.

IMHO, of course. And again, I realize that not everyone has the same experience, and that's fine.

But, the only reason I cannot use this or that game mechanic is because the DM has told me that in his world, character class X always uses mechanic Y. If the mechanics don't matter, then why does it matter to the DM? Why does the DM get to dictate mechanics?

Or, better yet, why does WOTC get to dictate the mechanics?

I totally agree that I should be excited about playing a Wizard of the Order of Shazaam! But, why does that then necessitate me playing a Vancian wizard? What is it about being a Vancian caster that makes me a wizard? Tradition? It's always been thus? Because the DM told me so? Meh.

 

[pemerton]

Would you be fine if PCs made up their own deities to worship as clerics as well?

I'm generally happy for players to make up deities for their PCs, yes, if that's what they want to do. In my current campaign, however, they have chosen gods from the PHB list, but make up their own religious orders, detailed rules of doctrine, etc.

The point is that DM is the one who defines the setting-specific stuff.
Players can make suggestions, criticize, complain. Books can provide advice and guidelines. But DM makes the final decision, because its his world.

This is true for some groups. Other groups gives players the power to decide certain aspects of the setting - as part of PC build, or even as part of action resolution.

I don't DM to entitle me to more power. I DM because I enjoy the creative process. Given the choice between allowing a player to play a character that he/she is excited about and maintaining the "consistency" of my game world, I'll hand it to the player every single time. I'd much, MUCH rather have players that are enthusiastic about their character than try to force my fanfic on anyone.

Exactly this.

 

[Manbearcat]

But, at the end of the day, you still have to write a game book. Which means you're going to have to come down on one side or the other, at least to some degree. I'd prefer they come down on the more open ended side and then let individual tables make the call.

Yup. I agree. There is no one true Social Contract or Creative Agenda to rule them all. Therefore, let the table decide.

A player (or even a whole table) may possess the Gamist interest of a specific resource scheme...but they may also love a specific character story/archetype...that is a perfectly legitimate interest. They can be the greatest roleplayer in the world. They could have a Simulationist Agenda or a Narrativist Agenda to go with their Gamist interests. Or they could have neither. All are legitimate and, while the undertaking is large, the best way to handle this would be a highly QCed casting module that lets you unplug a certain resource scheme and plug in the one to your liking.

If they pull it off, it won't have any negative impact. There will be a default, easy-to-play, generic core. All tables will still have to establish their Social Contract. All tables will still have to establish their Creative Agenda. This will just be another option in the mix for specific playstyle preferences.

 

[Manbearcat]

Many of our various tables (due to that Social Contract, Creative Agenda and genre preferences) would look so different from one another so as to be almost unrecognizable. I'm all but certain that several here, including the lead poster would likely not like to play a game at my table with myself and my players. If that statement is anywhere near the truth (and I believe it is), then we really need to consider the narrowing of options as a poison pill that if 5e is forced to swallow, then it will be DOA.

And an edit as this was just in Mike Mearl's 11/26 Legends & Lore article:

Originally posted by Mike Mearls:
On top of this, we have the D&D spellcasting system. We're likely going to standardize casting a bit, both to keep things simpler and to make it much easier to convert from Vancian spell slots, a powers system, and so on, depending on what fits your campaign or setting.

 

[Lanefan]

But, at the end of the day, you still have to write a game book. Which means you're going to have to come down on one side or the other, at least to some degree. I'd prefer they come down on the more open ended side and then let individual tables make the call.

Or just design *a* system then let us decide whether or not to play it and-or whether or not to tweak it to taste.

But, the only reason I cannot use this or that game mechanic is because the DM has told me that in his world, character class X always uses mechanic Y. If the mechanics don't matter, then why does it matter to the DM? Why does the DM get to dictate mechanics?

Or, better yet, why does WOTC get to dictate the mechanics?

Simple. Because WotC designs the game, and the DM designs the setting and determines via house rules how WotC's game is going to interact with it.

I totally agree that I should be excited about playing a Wizard of the Order of Shazaam! But, why does that then necessitate me playing a Vancian wizard? What is it about being a Vancian caster that makes me a wizard? Tradition? It's always been thus? Because the DM told me so? Meh.

Because (metagame) that's how the game works that you're sitting down to play, and if that doesn't suit you then you can either find another or start your own; and because (in-game) that's the way the Order of Shazaam happens to train its students to cast spells.

Sorry, it's not 1982 anymore. Viking Hat, My Way or the Highway DMing isn't really the way to go anymore. Is it?

Sure it is, if the alternative is DM-as-passive-CPU while the inmates run the asylum.

Lan-"writing as both DM and player this time"-efan

 

[Hussar]

Simple. Because WotC designs the game, and the DM designs the setting and determines via house rules how WotC's game is going to interact with it.

But, this isn't necessarily true. The DM doesn't necessarily design the setting. I've DM'd and played at a number of tables where the DM is perfectly willing to make setting design a collaborative thing. If you have an idea to bring to the table and you're excited about it, so long as it's not breaking the system or grossly violating genre, many DM's I've played with have no problems with it.

Thus, I've seen Steven Kingesque Gunslinger rangers, for example, in games.

Not that a strong handed DM is a necessarily bad thing either. That's fine, if that's what the table wants. But, I'd rather the rules didn't presume this from the get go. I find the Dming advice in 1e D&D to be atrocious for exactly this reason. I have zero interest in a version of D&D that goes back to that level of antagonism between DM and players.

Not that I think anyone is advocating that anyway. But, I'd rather the system stay as neutral as possible and let the table find its own comfort zone.

 

[Remathilis]

Yeah, I've never really bought into the "I do more work, so, you should do what I tell you" argument. I don't DM to entitle me to more power. I DM because I enjoy the creative process. Given the choice between allowing a player to play a character that he/she is excited about and maintaining the "consistency" of my game world, I'll hand it to the player every single time. I'd much, MUCH rather have players that are enthusiastic about their character than try to force my fanfic on anyone.

I look forward to playing my fiendish half-dragon warforged samurai/gunslinger who dual-wields a shotgun and lightsaber in your campaign!

 

[Lanefan]

Not that a strong handed DM is a necessarily bad thing either. That's fine, if that's what the table wants. But, I'd rather the rules didn't presume this from the get go. I find the Dming advice in 1e D&D to be atrocious for exactly this reason.

I find it to be excellent for exactly this reason. A DM is - and is referred to often in the 1e DMG as - a referee. A referee in any sport or game is in charge of that game, period, end of story.

I have no use whatsoever for those who see the DM as nothing but a living breathing server running a MMORPG without the 'O' part. But that's where the culture of ever-increasing player entitlement will lead, and going by some things I've read on this site I'd say it's already got there at some tables.

I have zero interest in a version of D&D that goes back to that level of antagonism between DM and players.

That's a not-necessarily-correct assumption, that the relationship will automatically be (or become) antagonistic; and if it does it speaks more to the people involved than the system itself.

Lanefan

 

[Steely_Dan]

I'm intrigued by the standardised spell-casting statement, could be good, as the Wizard seems a tad messy/scattered in the last packet.

 

[Rechan]

Man. Remember the days of Golden Wyvern Style mages?