Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="FormerlyHemlock" data-source="post: 6652129" data-attributes="member: 6787650">You can run a game of D&D where rule resolution and content creation are separate responsibilities. The DM will always and must always be responsible for content creation, because as the Czege Principle states, "when one person is the author of both the character's adversity and its resolution, play isn't fun."[1] The DM doesn't necessarily have to be in charge of rule resolution. You can and I have resolved rules question by table consensus or majority vote. I don't always do it that way--for minor issues I'll just make the call, since I am both the DM and the most experienced RPGer and the most familiar with the 5E rules--but it's certainly not incompatible with 5E's style to take rulings out of the DM's exclusive province.The benefit of doing so is that it enhances player agency, which is the majority of the fun of D&D. Player agency is essentially the ability of a player to predict in advance the results of an interaction, without having to play 20 Questions With the DM first. It's not necessary that player be able to succeed, he just has to have a good understanding of what the odds are. The more closely you adhere to predictable rules at your table, the more easily players can immerse themselves in the world as actors in that world.I've mentioned before that one rule that works well at my table is the Rule of Yes: the first time in a campaign that you try something wacky, it just works and we'll go from there. The second time I may bother coming up with actual rules for e.g. how much rope you need to securely bind a roper's tentacles to itself so you can capture it safely without it eating you, but the first time it's guaranteed to work. This is an actual rule at our table, so the player thinking to himself, "Hmmm, I wonder if I can shadow jump straight up and then fall on top of that vampire with my wooden stake pointing straight down" can decide for himself whether he likes the merits of the plan (pro: badly damage the vampire; con: take falling damage) without the lag introduced by consulting the DM for a feasibility judgment first. Thus, the Rule of Yes leads to more player agency and fun at the table, but the fact that it only necessarily works once prevents it from getting out of control in abusive ways.[1] There are ways to run an enjoyable solo D&D game, but AFAIK they all externalize content creation to e.g. random tables, or at least to a separate asynchronous "authoring" mode.That sounds reasonable, and I share your frustration with the unfinished bits of 5E (e.g. the MM is particularly sparse on non-combat creature information) but what's the alternative that doesn't have some assembly required? I've never found a system of any kind that didn't require additional pieces, nor can I even really imagine what that system would look like as a commercial product. The closest I've ever seen is GURPS: Gulliver, but even that really only gives you rules for things without its specific purview (building very large/small/oddly shaped creatures/fast/slow/strong creatures and running them in a way which is both realistic and fun), leaving another 80% of the game that still requires DM fiat. What happens when someone drills a hole in this section of castle? Do you have castle structural integrity rules to tell you which floors will collapse? What kind of furniture is in this house where the hobgoblin vampires have been holed up for the past three weeks? Obviously the rooms aren't going to just be empty except for three vampires--but what is there? What do dragons eat and how often?You always run into these kinds of information vacuums in any system I've ever heard of. Some assembly is always required.</blockquote>

Verification