D&D General Why Editions Don't Matter

[Micah Sweet]

This is a really good point and begs the question...should the core rulebooks be considered the main instructor/example of how to play D&D and is that even desirable in an age where information can be more quickly and visually transmitted via other means?

I mean as some examples... how many people know GoT via reading the books vs. watching the HBO series? How many professions rely on in person training or apprenticeships? How many people quickly turn to Youtube, Tik Tok or an internet search in order to quickly figure out how to perform tasks or process information? If anything I feel, for the vast majority of new players and people interested in D&D, relying on them to read through 3 200+ page books, absorb the information and apply it in order to play D&D would be an outdated and detrimental model.

Truth be told I think expecting someone brand new to ttrpg's in general to sit down and read a 100 page book to play a game would be detrimental... it's an outdated (though preferable by some including myself at times) way of expecting people to absorb and process information. Honestly with the added benefit that streaming, podcasts, shows like Vox Machina and even programs like Adventurers League can also serve as marketing... I would argue more ttrpg games need to invest (and rely more) on alternative methods (streaming, networking, organized play, etc.) of disseminating how to play their games if they want more people to play their games...

YouTube is a wonderful resource. My wife watched a couple videos so she could learn how to replace the alternator in her car.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

First bit was re: 'hardness' of scene framing. Second was the lack of travel procedures. Sorry if it seems like I'm being a pedant here, but there are some details I want to get across.

So, for scene framing, during a game, maybe I just say 'hey, Brian, the morning after the party, you wake up in a prison cell wearing nothing but rags. You have no idea how you got there.' Or even: 'ok, so you're in the middle of a fight with the Kraken...'

Is it wrong, according to the rules? I take your point that the established fiction is really important here. But, assuming that the established fiction (which may or may not be known to the Brian) suggests it is possible, can I frame a scene this way? If not, what should I be doing? According to the rules, that is.

But why would you do that? Hypotheticals that are almost never going to happen aren’t, IMO, relevant. They don’t need to be future proofed against.

The kraken example is counterintuitive upon reading the PHB, to be fair. The other example does follow from the fiction, but is a huge leap unless the PC got out of control at said party, or some other setup has occurred.

Regarding travel procedures, the Alexandrian explains the issue much better than I could, so I'll leave this here. Interestingly, the final 5e playtest actually did contain a lot of procedures (what he calls 'structures') for this stuff, but they were mostly ripped out of the finished product. Oh, and please ignore the 'system matters' red flag. I don't think it's helpful to discuss that now.

I’ll check that out later. Thank you for the link.

With a published adventure, I think you're right, with the proviso that 'nuances and layers' include 'vitally important questions that you've been fudging your own solutions to since the start'.

I disagree completely. IME, new DMs either only use adventures for premade encounters and locations, or as inspiration, or if they do run the adventure they end up way out in left field quite quickly.

Because the game doesn’t require those procedures you’re talking about. You just play. Everything you need is in the core books.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

ew players and people interested in D&D, relying on them to read through 3 200+ page books, absorb the information and apply it in order to play D&D would be an outdated and detrimental model.

But no one reads the entire text before play. That isn't an expectation. The PHB has a how to play section. IME, the overwhelming majority read that, and don’t read much else until they are playing already.

 

[Imaro]

But no one reads the entire text before play. That isn't an expectation. The PHB has a how to play section. IME, the overwhelming majority read that, and don’t read much else until they are playing already.

I think we are pretty much in agreement in that we both believe... no one reads the entire text before play. Furthermore I would argue few if any read any part of the book before play, at least that's been my experience with new players. They try the game out or watch a stream and then decide to purchase some game stuff.

EDIT: To further clarify... I was more questioning the assumption that the default should be relying on the corebooks to be the primary device for new people to learn how to play.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

1 vs 2: The possibility of fudging, for starters. Even if the process is used faithfully, the secrecy/ignorance is clearly a factor that affects decision-making.
2 vs 3: The amount removed. You have to recruit a third party, who then reports to you, and you then report to the group. Now there's the element of hearsay, there's two different points of re-interpretation (Jake is unseen by everyone; your internal response is unseen by anyone but you.) Further, it implies that the group present at the table isn't actually "enough" to play. Other people have to be recruited. What happens if it's 2 am on a Thursday morning and no one you know is awake to flip a coin? Does the game just...halt?
1 vs 3 is just the concatenation of the above things.

So I am going to be as brief and positive as possible. I do not think it is helpful to try and just argue something without understanding what the person was saying. I think if you look at what I wrote, you probably realized that I probably wasn't advocating for a call Jake system. Which ... yeah.

Here, I would point out that what you are saying is neither correct nor incorrect, but wholly orthogonal to what I was saying. I will be completely explicit- the whole point was not that the method of adjudication doesn't matter for other reasons, but that for a ruleset, once an outside referent is used for adjudication that will return a result, that process is considered "complete" for purposes of the ruleset. The actual process doesn't matter. It was really more Chinese Room (which I referred to) than anything else.

It's really not that hard. You could add in "roll dice." "Call Larry." "Use random numbers generated from the phone book." "Play Rochambeau." Or ... whatever. That was the point!

That some methods are preferable to others ... was not the point. Yes, dice can be loaded. Coins can be manipulated. Hidden rolls can be fudged. You might not know anyone named Jake. Larry might be on vacation. Phone books might not exist anymore. Etc. So if you want to get into a conversation about your favorite methods of adjudication, feel free to! But you know- maybe not with me, and not using my post?

Good? Great!

(Finally, and just a general tip - given that most attorneys can't use hearsay correctly, unless you understand what it means, I really recommend not using it in normal conversation. Because then you'll get caught up in the whole, "Wait, do you mean it as a synonym for a rumor, or do you mean it in the technical sense?")

 

[hawkeyefan]

While I think it is perfectly natural to learn a game through secondary means… I learned most sports from coaches and from other kids as we played, for example… I think that any rules text should indeed be expected to provide clarity on play and how to handle any given situation.

That’s not how I’d generally describe D&D rulebooks. Though some editions do much better than others. And RPGs have differences compared to other games that are a factor as well.

But if we’re going to say that the rulebooks don’t serve the purpose of teaching the game, then the only other purpose would be to provide clarity when rules or processes are unclear or misunderstood by participants during play.

In this regard, they often fail. Again, some editions are better at this than others.

 

[Iosue]

I, for one, can't believe people are bringing up Moldvay Basic as complete game in contrast to 5e. And I love, love, love Moldvay Basic. More than anything else, it is D&D to me. But, it doesn't even deliver the game it suggests it is on the cover, the title page, and in the Foreword. Even when combined with the Expert Rules, it does not deliver on the promise of an RPG, which is that you can go anywhere and do anything. It's like the Model T: any color you want as long as it's black. In B/X, you can do anything you want, as long as it's exploration via dungeon- or hex-crawl.

Moldvay has rules on PCs being infected by lycanthropy. They are even vaguer than 5e: "Lycanthropy is a disease. Any human character who is severely hurt by were-creatures (losing more than half of his or her hit points when in battle with them) will become a lycanthrope of the same type in 2-24 (2d12) days. The victim will being to show signs of the disease after only half that time. [What signs?] The disease will kill non-humans instead of turning them into were-creatures. [How does it kill them? Does it show any signs?] It may only be cured by a high level cleric (11th level or greater, as explained in the D&D Expert Rules), [Did you just refer me to a completely different book?] who will do so for a suitable price or service? ["Suitable?" What the hell does "suitable" mean?] Any character who becomes a full werecreature will become an NPC, to be run by the DM only. [Can they still be cured to return to PC status?]"

By the way, per the Expert Rules? Cure Disease is a third level spell that will cure lycanthropy. Third level spells are available to clerics at Level 6. It doesn't require any special components or rituals. So why do we suddenly need to go to an 11th Level or greater cleric to get it healed, after doing some vague service or paying some vague price? How is the DM supposed to explain this? What if a party with a 6th level cleric gets someone infected with lycanthropy? Do they still have to go to an 11th level cleric and jump through unspecified hoops? Guess what, a newbie Moldvay DM has to connect all these dots by making stuff up themselves.

Edit: I forgot the most important question of all. What happens when a 6th level cleric casts Cure Disease on a lycanthrope the party encounters in a dungeon?

What happens if my magic-user picks up the fallen fighter's sword and attacks with it? B/X doesn't say. What if my magic-user decides to stop being a magic-user and wants to learn to fight/pick locks/join a church? B/X doesn't say. Iosue, you say, you're being silly. B/X is a game focused on exploration. It's complete within that context. Okay, how high or far can my character jump? That seems like something that would come up somewhat commonly in exploration, what with all the pit traps and such. How does my cleric hide? Don't even get me started on the amount of hand-wavey "it's-up-to-the-DM" stuff is in the Stronghold section of the Dungeon Master Information chapter.

None of this is really meant as a critique of the B/X rules. In reality I think much of the above can be considered strengths when looked at from a different perspective. I'm just pushing back on the idea that even B/X as a whole is somehow more complete than 5e. The 5e rules cover far more breadth of playing styles and at-table objectives. 5e may not go as far in depth on any of these as B/X goes into dungeon/hex crawl exploration, but then it can't really afford to, having many masters to serve.

 

[Iosue]

But if we’re going to say that the rulebooks don’t serve the purpose of teaching the game, then the only other purpose would be to provide clarity when rules or processes are unclear or misunderstood by participants during play.

I would say that the primary purpose of D&D rulebooks is to provide more options. That's really the only reason anyone would need to buy the Core Three instead of just using the rules in the Starter Sets/Essentials Kit and/or the Basic Rules PDFs.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Oh, it could be anything really. It is more about establishing your "ruling" for future use and it standardizes it for new players, so they know what to expect in those situations.

ruleings that I kept and then kicked myself for...

can things stick to an invisible opponent and make them visible (there is no right answer, just PCs complaining or abusing)
Can you target a rope with a ranged attack
how flammable is (fill in the blank here)
in an enclosed space can fire eat oxygen and as such suffocate things
how athletics checks interact with jump
how acrobatics checks interact with fall
if you know a language that uses the same alphabet as another one can you read both?
can you train a (fill in animal here) like this youtube video shows can be done in real life?
can you pull some ones ear off with mage hand (this one DOES have a right answer...no)
what parts of the armor are needed to get the AC, and what parts give you disadvantage (NO I don't want porn plate...)
If I am enlarged, and I pick up a large weapon it still does large damage but my weapon enlarged doesn't... how does that work (God insert pym particle mubo jumbo here)
can you teleport/dimension door a creature I am grappling to a height and drop them?
how does CPR work on death saves


by the way. this isn't 'every house rule/ruleing' not even close... this is last month of 2 games a week

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Yes, largely because GMs “connect the dots” as @gorice mentioned.

Insofar as connecting dots is anything more than narrative pacing and setting up encounters in most basic 5e games, I'm not sure I even agree.

And the way we connect those dots will depend on many things, but it all comes from sources other than the books. If we're long time gamers like many of us here, we use our years of experience with previous editions or other RPGs. If we're new to RPGs then it seems like youtube channels and streamed shows are a major source of guidance.

I just haven’t seen that play out. Most new people I meet started watching explanatory videos after several sessions of play. They learned how to play from the books.

I think that with 5E, as I mentioned earlier, there are two ways to look at it. If we have something like the Starter Kit and are playing Lost Mines of Phandelver, then there is more guidance on what to do as a GM, but it is specific to that scenario. Still helpful in understanding what we're supposed to do as a GM.

But setting aside published adventures, I think it's much easier to imagine people struggling. I'm not saying that there aren't people who can read the PHB and DMG and figure it all out. But I don't think it's all that contentious to say that some people will struggle.

And I think it’s only a fair statement insofar as some people will struggle to learn literally any system, in any context.