D&D General Why Editions Don't Matter

[Aldarc]

One thing I often see talked about amongst TTRPG designers is that many TTRPGs are terrible at teaching people how to play the game. There is a difference between being a good game designer and a good technical writer/instructor who knows how to effectively teach people how to play the game. As you say, @AnotherGuy, a lot of "best play" practice when it comes to our hobby comes indirectly from others rather than from the game books. Designers are clearly working on improving this art, but for everyone who learns, there are many more who have yet to learn.

 

[Imaro]

From 4e onwards the books, IMO, have become thin, for a number of reasons. I will say however that these streamlined books are not difficult to grasp, as many of us cut our teeth on the encyclopaedias of 1e-3e and we managed ok.

Having said all that, if my memory serves me correctly, in a recent video I watched by Mattew Colville (linked here by @Campbell) he stated that in D&D we have the tradition of learning how to play the game through other people not necessarily by the books. I'm paraphrasing of course but you get the idea. I strongly agree with him.

As for the example given above, it is absurd, the less we talk about it the better.

Emphasis mine...

Ok maybe I and my group are total outliers but... isn't this how the vast majority of people learn to play any ttrpg? I am trying to think of the last time I was new to a ttrpg, wasn't running it and I bought and read through the rules before playing... and I'm drawing a blank. Even if I am going to run something I usually have watched streams, videos, etc. about it because I want to make sure it's something I want to invest in. Do people still just buy a rulebook cold, with no prior knowledge or examples and play/run it off only reading the books?

 

[AnotherGuy]

Emphasis mine...

Ok maybe I and my group are total outliers but... isn't this how the vast majority of people learn to play any ttrpg? I am trying to think of the last time I was new to a ttrpg, wasn't running it and I bought and read through the rules before playing... and I'm drawing a blank. Even if I am going to run something I usually have watched streams, videos, etc. about it because I want to make sure it's something I want to invest in. Do people still just buy a rulebook cold, with no prior knowledge or examples and play/run it off only reading the books?

Yeah, my post and confusion stems from @gorice's post - specifically the below comment (emphasis mine).

5e is unfinished, and WotC relies on the community to insert knowledge [snip] about how to actually play the game.

 

[Xamnam]

Emphasis mine...

Ok maybe I and my group are total outliers but... isn't this how the vast majority of people learn to play any ttrpg? I am trying to think of the last time I was new to a ttrpg, wasn't running it and I bought and read through the rules before playing... and I'm drawing a blank. Even if I am going to run something I usually have watched streams, videos, etc. about it because I want to make sure it's something I want to invest in. Do people still just buy a rulebook cold, with no prior knowledge or examples and play/run it off only reading the books?

I'm not going to claim I'm the majority, by any stretch, but yes. That's how I learned to play D&D 5e when I was first invited to a table (with a borrowed book, not bought, admittedly), and it's how I prepared to run Trail of Cthulhu, Monster of the Week, Blades in the Dark, etc. I wildly prefer text over video for learning anything, so that I can take it in at my own pace instead of waiting for the speaker, and easily refer to previous concepts, let alone dealing with the potential house rules / errors in play from streams.

 

[Imaro]

I'm not going to claim I'm the majority, by any stretch, but yes. That's how I learned to play D&D 5e when I was first invited to a table (with a borrowed book, not bought, admittedly), and it's how I prepared to run Trail of Cthulhu, Monster of the Week, Blades in the Dark, etc. I wildly prefer text over video for learning anything, so that I can take it in at my own pace instead of waiting for the speaker, and easily refer to previous concepts, let alone dealing with the potential house rules / errors in play from streams.

Cool, and I didn't mean to imply people only learned the game in one way, I apologize if it came off that way.
I'm curious... did you have any serious issues (More or larger than you would with any other game) learning to play 5e?

 

[Xamnam]

Cool, and I didn't mean to imply people only learned the game in one way, I apologize if it came off that way.
I'm curious... did you have any serious issues (More or larger than you would with any other game) learning to play 5e?

Honestly, no. That's why I'm personally confused by the idea that 5E is an "incomplete" game, or rather, that's not been my experience in the slightest. There's nothing I ever ran into where I felt frustratingly adrift, or like the rules failed to support me.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Beyond that I'm not sure what your asking. The players are responsible for their PC, the DM is responsible for everything else. As far as advice, there's quite a bit in the DMG. That includes "The D&D rules help you and the other players have a good time, but the rules aren’t in charge. You’re the DM, and you are in charge of the game."

I would say the player's expectations and sense of fair play were likely violated. In D&D this issue would be more of a social contract violation than a game rules violation, unless one includes the social contract as part of the game and in that case it would be both a game and social contract violation.

In a technical sense it satisfies the play loop...

What is the point of preserving the idea of total GM authority if there will be instances where that violates the social contract of the game?

Like, who cares if something like that is technically correct per the rules if the players are all disappointed?

What's the point of these two things being different?

It happens, I don't see a way of preventing it other than to vote with your feet and walk away from the table.

The players can do that, yes. Other ways to prevent it would be to explicitly say in the books that this kind of thing may be problematic for many players. To maybe talk about the cons of GM authority as well as the pros.

Maybe instead of just acknowledging that the rules can interfere with everyone's fun, point out that so can the GM.

Serious question: how does 5e teach these 'best practices'?

The books don't do much to establish best practices. They let others do that. And the reason is that others will draw all manner of conclusions, and so you'll get the whole gamut of advice. It's them having their cake and eating it, too.

Committing to actual "correct" ways of playing is fraught; they've promoted many approaches to play over the years, and so they need to cater to all these different camps of players. They don't want to upset or alienate any of these groups to the point where they can't even commit to best practices that pretty much everyone would agree are good.

Instead, they worded things with just enough wiggle room that folks who were already familiar with RPGs filled in the blank spots themselves. Anyone who isn't familiar with RPGs either wings it, or fills in the blanks by learning from other sources.

 

[FrogReaver]

What is the point of preserving the idea of total GM authority if there will be instances where that violates the social contract of the game?

Because there can be many different social contracts but only 1 set of rules.

Like, who cares if something like that is technically correct per the rules if the players are all disappointed?

I feel like that's what we have been saying. It doesn't matter if it's a broken rule or broken social contract if someone is disappointed. But it does matter in terms of contrasting D&D which doesn't have such explicit rules to games with such explicit rules. In that discussion it is important to talk about the social contract because it's the answer to most criticisms of D&D's rules being incomplete.

What's the point of these two things being different?

Because they are

The players can do that, yes. Other ways to prevent it would be to explicitly say in the books that this kind of thing may be problematic for many players. To maybe talk about the cons of GM authority as well as the pros.

Rules and Laws don't prevent bad behavior.

I think it depends on what you mean by 'talking about the pros and cons of GM authority'. The general discussion here about how other games split up traditional GM authority and grant some of that to players. I don't think that's all that useful for D&D rules texts to discuss. If you mean talking about how to avoid or mitigate some of the cons of high DM authority without outright removing it, then I agree.

Maybe instead of just acknowledging that the rules can interfere with everyone's fun, point out that so can the GM.

Isn't that what just happened when everyone came back and said a GM that would do what the GM in the example did was a bad GM?

The books don't do much to establish best practices. They let others do that. And the reason is that others will draw all manner of conclusions, and so you'll get the whole gamut of advice. It's them having their cake and eating it, too.

Committing to actual "correct" ways of playing is fraught; they've promoted many approaches to play over the years, and so they need to cater to all these different camps of players. They don't want to upset or alienate any of these groups to the point where they can't even commit to best practices that pretty much everyone would agree are good.

That's what we have been saying. Except maybe that last sentence.

Instead, they worded things with just enough wiggle room that folks who were already familiar with RPGs filled in the blank spots themselves. Anyone who isn't familiar with RPGs either wings it, or fills in the blanks by learning from other sources.

Indeed. That is what is being claimed.

 

[Imaro]

What is the point of preserving the idea of total GM authority if there will be instances where that violates the social contract of the game?

Like, who cares if something like that is technically correct per the rules if the players are all disappointed?

What's the point of these two things being different?

1. Because every general rule will run into outliers and exceptions... doesn't mean you should never have general rules.

2. Exactly

3. Don't understand what you are asking...Is there anything (GM authority, rules authority, group authority) that eliminates the possibility that all players are disappointed (especially with blatantly bad DM'ing?

The players can do that, yes. Other ways to prevent it would be to explicitly say in the books that this kind of thing may be problematic for many players. To maybe talk about the cons of GM authority as well as the pros.

Maybe instead of just acknowledging that the rules can interfere with everyone's fun, point out that so can the GM.

You mean like in the DMG where it discusses the downfalls of ignoring the dice... or states that the DM should "Call for an attack roll when a character tries to hit a creature or an object with an attack"... which pretty much seems to cover this absurd situation.

The books don't do much to establish best practices. They let others do that. And the reason is that others will draw all manner of conclusions, and so you'll get the whole gamut of advice. It's them having their cake and eating it, too.

No it's me as a DM having my cake and eating it too. It's being able to create my own stye and individual way of running a D&D game using their framework of rules with minimal interference from a prescribed way that I'm "supposed" to correctly do it. That's what you're not grasping. Maybe you don't like that flexibility... maybe you don't trust your DM with that authority... maybe it's just not for you... but that doesn't in turn make it a bad thing or the wrong design choice.

Committing to actual "correct" ways of playing is fraught; they've promoted many approaches to play over the years, and so they need to cater to all these different camps of players. They don't want to upset or alienate any of these groups to the point where they can't even commit to best practices that pretty much everyone would agree are good.

Funny that, because that was one of the goals of 5th edition... and here we are with the most popular and most played edition to date. If we are measuring quality by how well they seem to have hit their design goals I'd say 5th edition is one of the best designed games ever. This forum alone shows me there is no such thing as a universal "best practice" and my experience playing the game is that even when people think something is a best practice there will be exceptions.

Furthermore I would assume that if everyone thinks practice A best... well then they would naturally gravitate to that practice or at least eventually get to the point that it is integrated into their game.

Instead, they worded things with just enough wiggle room that folks who were already familiar with RPGs filled in the blank spots themselves. Anyone who isn't familiar with RPGs either wings it, or fills in the blanks by learning from other sources.

We literally have someone in the thread who was new, who learned to play the game from just the books and didn't have this issue that keeps getting brought up. We have millions of people playing this game without an out cry of confusion or distress over not understanding and yet this notion keeps getting brought up. It makes me think either one of 2 things is happening...

Either... People aren't confused and the game is complete enough to run as is.

Or... The majority prefer having that wiggle room, it was a superior design choice for the goals of 5e and for the majority playing 5e it creates an enjoyable experience.

Now I have to ask... what is your basis for thinking the game is confusing so many people and they are having to fill in blanks? And what is your proof this was a bad design choice?

 

[gorice]

From 4e onwards the books, IMO, have become thin, for a number of reasons. I will say however that these streamlined books are not difficult to grasp, as many of us cut our teeth on the encyclopaedias of 1e-3e and we managed ok.

The books aren't thin, they're huge. If you look at the Basic line of rules, or OD&D, the books are much more terse. With the exception of OD&D (IMO), they are also much more useful than the pile of prolix that is the 5e DMG.

Having said all that, if my memory serves me correctly, in a recent video I watched by Mattew Colville (linked here by @Campbell) he stated that in D&D we have the tradition of learning how to play the game through other people not necessarily by the books. I'm paraphrasing of course but you get the idea. I strongly agree with him.

This is absolutely true, and I don't think anyone's denying it. Any more than they deny that some people also read the books. We can say 'the books don't exist in a vacuum' and 'the content of the books is important' at the same time.

As for the example given above, it is absurd, the less we talk about it the better.

Which one? I think the examples illustrate two points: (1) the simple point, which we all seem to agree on to some extent, that the rules have gaps in them that are filled by bits of the broader play culture; and (2), that this can create actual consternation at the table.

Honestly, no. That's why I'm personally confused by the idea that 5E is an "incomplete" game, or rather, that's not been my experience in the slightest. There's nothing I ever ran into where I felt frustratingly adrift, or like the rules failed to support me.

I envy you. Out of interest: how would you describe your play style?

Because there can be many different social contracts but only 1 set of rules.

The point about social contracts is important, and I don't want to minimise it. I hope I'm not giving the impression that I think an RPG can or should be some kind of closed system. But, if you're a designer and you're going to rely on social contract and play culture to move your game, shouldn't you be putting that front and centre in your rulebooks? Maybe with examples of different types of contracts and goals of play? And maybe, even, tools to help different groups achieve those?

WotC doesn't just want to (per @hawkeyefan ) have its cake and eat it, it wants to do so while maintaining the illusion that there is no cake.