D&D General Why Editions Don't Matter

[gorice]

So I'm going to address this because this seems like a common misconception. It reminds me that another poster in another thread made the comment that everyone agrees that the Dragonlance and the Hickman revolution were bad.

Look, on this forum, which has a fair number of OSR/FKR types, a fair number of modern D&D types, and a fair number of Fiction First/Documentary Now! types talking, you'll probably get a decent amount of agreement that "railroading" and "illusionism" and "fudging" are bad, m'kay?

And yet, I think people are doing an awful lot of projecting about their own personal playstyles. The last poll here, on enworld (which I think skews the results), showed that people were split 50/50 on fudging. "Illusionism" and "railroading" has been a component of D&D and RPGs ever since Simbalist was advocating for it in the late 70s (and certainly was before that). The rise of the so-called Hickman revolution (and, for that matter, VtM) was because groups were playing in that style.

If you look at how people actually play D&D, there are a fair number that employ AND enjoy elements of railroading and illusionism, regardless of your preferences. And it's for that reason that the DMG is written the way it is; it is not written to prescriptive, telling everyone how Gorice plays the game, and instructing them that this is the way.

Instead, it attempts to be descriptive, describing how people play, and giving the DM options as to how to run the game, and usually explaining why different approaches work (or don't work).

This is the whole point of multiple threads we have had; there isn't just one way to play, or to run the games. You might not like railroading and illusionism, and I might agree with you. And yet, there are tables that happily play using those techniques.

The reason you don't understand the "hedging" is because you fundamentally don't agree with the approach taken by the DMG, and by D&D overall. Which is totally fine! But as others repeatedly point out- the approach works. This is the most successful edition of D&D ever. It has onboarded more new players than any prior edition (I believe- I don't feel like digging up stats). For various interrelated reasons, it is accessible and successful. It is bizarre that people complain that it fails in bringing in new players in any manner. At a certain point, you have to ask ... who do we believe, the theory of what should be in the DMG, or our lying eyes?

There's a strong difference between hedging and choice. Choice implies rejection. Hedging is a refusal to commit. The DMG consistently (in my opinion; if you disagree, that's fine, but at this point I'm not going to be convinced by arguments that don't go to the text) sets up the DM as supreme 'architect of the adventure', and then hedges it by alluding to other approaches.

There is real 'contact with reality' here in the form of WotC's published adventures (almost all railroads), and my own experiences with the play culture (players who have been trained not to take initiative, DM's who only know how to run linear adventures).

I also think it is possible to call some play 'bad'. The example I gave above (the DM outright refusing to incorporate my statement about what my character was doing) was objectively bad. Not bad according to my tastes; just terrible. I don't expect every DM to run the game the way I prefer, but I do expect them to let their players actually play.

Finally, I'm not sure why everyone keeps bringing up player numbers and commercial success. Frankly, popularity is often worthless as an indicator of quality. It can be caused by all sorts of things.

 

[Oofta]

The problem with "I knew a guy once back in 2e who was a bad DM" is that perhaps there was just no amount of text, video or personal tutorials that could make them a good DM. Sometimes people are just never going to be good at something.

That's not an excuse, it's just reality. At one point I was in a large development group where I was the tutor of last resort. People who were struggling with the technology or learning how to code were sent to me. A lot of times I was able to help people out, other times they were better off in a different position (or ultimately let go) because they just didn't get it. In the same way some people will never have the aptitude to be a DM.

Of course things can be improved. Things can always be improved. I think the new video tutorial released along with the free encounter is a good idea and something they should continue doing. Maybe do a whole series and link to them in the new DMG. But the thing is I swear new people show up to the game never having read a single thing. You could have an instruction manual that was 2 pages long or the length of War and Peace and it wouldn't matter. Some people simply don't read what their PCs can do, or if they do they don't comprehend what they're reading. I see no way of fixing that.

 

[hawkeyefan]

This is clear text. Though at odds with map-and-key-based invisible rulebooks. It would be interesting to see how different these discussions would be if the Traveller approach, rather than the classic D&D approach, had become predominant across the hobby.

So one of the players in my group is the nephew of another player, who I have been gaming with for something like 35 years.

The nephew has been watching us play for years, on the periphery. He's always been into the same kinds of things as his uncle and many of us, but he never actually played D&D all that much. A couple games over the years, but mostly his experience with RPGs was via video games. He played one game of Patfinder for a couple of sessions at a gaming store, and then was talking with his uncle about it, and the uncle invited him to join our game.

At the time, we were about to begin playing Blades in the Dark. So the nephew joined us. He took to the way Blades works much more quickly than the other players. He didn't have years of prior game experience... the way the game worked was just clearer to him than it was to the others.

I agree... if the Traveller approach had been more widespread earlier on, discussions today would potentially be very different.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

There's a strong difference between hedging and choice. Choice implies rejection. Hedging is a refusal to commit. The DMG consistently (in my opinion; if you disagree, that's fine, but at this point I'm not going to be convinced by arguments that don't go to the text) sets up the DM as supreme 'architect of the adventure', and then hedges it by alluding to other approaches.

Again, this isn't "hedging." The DMG is designed (for those who read it) to provide multiple options.

As for arguments that "go to the text," let's pretend you didn't say that, given I just had to "go to the text" just previously to this to point out how you were not representing the full options on the page of the text.

Simply put- the DMG is descriptive, not prescriptive. But I just said that.

Finally, I'm not sure why everyone keeps bringing up player numbers and commercial success. Frankly, popularity is often worthless as an indicator of quality. It can be caused by all sorts of things.

Because this conversation is about the effectiveness of 5e as a teaching tool- teaching people to play 5e, teaching them to play D&D. Now, we can argue over and over about whether or not people are best served by reading the DMG, or playing starter sets, or learning by playing with other groups, or watching CR, or watching other youtube videos, or watching Twitch streams, or reading websites, or going to an AL game, or any one of the many ways that people pick up D&D ....

But the proof is in the pudding. Which is to say- the reason people mention the popularity is obvious. Player numbers are the ultimate indicator that the game is successful at bringing in new players. That it is not teaching them "Gorice's play" is irrelevant to the question of whether or not it is bringing in more new players.

In the end, there is an objective measure (new players joining) and your measure (are they playing a game I think is quality). We can agree on one, and we can agree to disagree on the other.

 

[Campbell]

And this is the problem with the discussion... all evidence points to 5e being learned, played and run by more people than any other edition of D&D... yet anyone can go well that might not be the case because..."reasons"...Without anything whatsoever to support the assertion.

If Wizards of the Coast took the attitude that relative popularity meant you should not change anything ever if it is relatively popular D&D would never have become the much more accessible game it is today. It would have never reached its current heights of popularity. Things can always improve. They can always be done better. Imagine if Wizards would have never listened to feedback about how hard 3e was to run because it was the most popular it had ever been.

We know that one of the pain points for D&D is that many more people want to play than want to run the game. Trying to ameliorate this through providing clear, concise guidance that does not make the role feel much too large for anyone to fill could only help. Could only be an improvement in my opinion. Obviously Wizards needs to do their own usability research. This already seems like an area I expect to see them improve in the 2024 edition.

Speaking anecdotally it took me years to feel confident enough to run the game. The job always seemed too big. The expectations too grand. The instructions too unclear. When I tried I floundered and struggled. It wasn't until I got experience with games that did provide clear direction that I was able to successfully GM. Games like Dungeon World, B/X, 4e.

 

[Imaro]

If Wizards of the Coast took the attitude that relative popularity meant you should not change anything ever if it is relatively popular D&D would never have become the much more accessible game it is today. It would have never reached its current heights of popularity. Things can always improve. They can always be done better. Imagine if Wizards would have never listened to feedback about how hard 3e was to run because it was the most popular it had ever been.

We know that one of the pain points for D&D is that many more people want to play than want to run the game. Trying to ameliorate this through providing clear, concise guidance that does not make the role feel much too large for anyone to fill could only help. Could only be an improvement in my opinion. Obviously Wizards needs to do their own usability research. This already seems like an area I expect to see them improve in the 2024 edition.

Speaking anecdotally it took me years to feel confident enough to run the game. The job always seemed too big. The expectations too grand. The instructions too unclear. When I tried I floundered and struggled. It wasn't until I got experience with games that did provide clear direction that I was able to successfully GM. Games like Dungeon World, B/X, 4e.

The funny thing is we have had a previous edition that provided clear concise guidance, which was not to the tastes/preferences/whatever of many players and DM's which didn't provide the success level of 5e and at the same time caused multiple rifts in the playerbase. I mean we keep dancing around this but there was at least 1 edition that went this route and it just wasn't as successful.

EDIT: We can disparage popularity and sales all we want to but it most certainly is one of the most important driving factors for many of WotC choices concerning D&D.

 

[AnotherGuy]

Speaking anecdotally it took me years to feel confident enough to run the game. The job always seemed too big. The expectations too grand. The instructions too unclear. When I tried I floundered and struggled. It wasn't until I got experience with games that did provide clear direction that I was able to successfully GM. Games like Dungeon World, B/X, 4e.

I find this is similar to what Oofta, perhaps others too, said about the best teacher being experience. This reminds me also of what @Manbearcat had said to one of the other posters (could have been @FrogReaver or someone else, my memory is shoddy) about how their skills as a BitD GM would improve running more BitD games. The poster was concerned as a GM with having to think on their feet about using hard and soft moves and the degree thereof during PC failures.

 

[Umbran]

It's a self-reinforcing cycle, which is why so many posters are so wedded to it and instantly propose bad faith play as the only possible result the moment alternatives are suggested.

Mod Note:
Now, consider the possibility for a moment that you are wrong, or at least hyperbolic. What, then, does this assertion of yours do to the conversation?

Does it not begin its own self-reinforcing cycle where assumptions of bad faith on the part of others is always proposed?

If you want to propose increased trust at the table, it helps to model that behavior in the conversation.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I find this is similar to what Oofta, perhaps others too, said about the best teacher being experience. This reminds me also of what @Manbearcat had said to one of the other posters (could have been @FrogReaver or someone else, my memory is shoddy) about how their skills as GM would improve running BitD. The poster was concerned as a GM with having to think on their feet about using hard and soft moves and the degree thereof during PC failures.

Personally, I think that every GM (and player) should play a variety of games and styles. Not only is experience the best teacher, but there is a massive advantage to trying a variety of different approaches to play. A lot of my regular 5e gaming is informed by experiences playing and running everything from Amber Diceless, Fiasco, FKR, and rules-lite games, and I regularly create (and run) rules-lite one shots to play with adjudication methods and genre types.

The thing about the success of 5e is that it has spillover effects- the more people come into the hobby, the larger the playerbase that will eventually try other things. A rising tide, and all that.

 

[Umbran]

What would make the GM advice in the DMG more cogent and useful for you? I will not accept "doing nothing" as an answer, because I want to force you to state what you would change and how you would change it.

While I feel this is the question folks should be asking, I feel a need to remind you that you don't get to demand or force anyone to do anything. This is a fundamentally antagonistic positioning, which really isn't appropriate to the situation, or particularly constructive.

If you aren't willing to accept answers you don't like, do not ask the question.

Again, the fact that the OneD&D DMG will conscientiously be written by Chris Perkins so it is more accessible for newcomers is a pretty telling symptom of this issue.

With all due respect, your guess at the motivation does not stand as evidence of an actual problem.

In my house, I often work as a sort of sous chef for my wife - I do a lot of the most basic food preparation tasks - the chopping, slicing, peeling, rinsing and draining, minding of the rice or pasta, and so on. I am good enough at making things seamless for my wife when she's cooking that people watching us prepare Thanksgiving have used the word "dance " to describe it. There is no problem, no "symptom" here. We work really well in the kitchen.

But, can I do better? Of course! I am not a restaurant-quality sous chef. My knife work could be more precise, and definitely faster, for example. Do I need to be better, for what I am doing? Not in the least! Might I still want to be? Sure.

There does not have to be a problem for one to wish to improve.