D&D General Why Editions Don't Matter

[Umbran]

On that note. D&D is often criticized for treating combat differently than other aspects of the game. Blades in the dark does exactly the same thing. Scores (basically their version of a scene/mission) follow different rules than downtime for example.

I don't think the criticism is so simple as, "different parts of the game are handled differently".

In D&D (and almost all traditional games) combat is handled differently than other conflict resolution. And if your interest lies in other conflicts, that can be an issue.

 

[pemerton]

On that note. D&D is often criticized for treating combat differently than other aspects of the game. Blades in the dark does exactly the same thing. Scores (basically their version of a scene/mission) follow different rules than downtime for example.

I don't think the criticism is so simple as, "different parts of the game are handled differently".

In D&D (and almost all traditional games) combat is handled differently than other conflict resolution. And if your interest lies in other conflicts, that can be an issue.

An alternative take to Umbran's would be this: in 5e D&D only combats are genuinely action scenes; other scenes are really transition scenes, in which the table collectively negotiates the lead-up to the next action scene.

 

[Umbran]

If I, the GM know nothing about pottery, then ditto!

So, there is at least one common edge case that matters here - the players don't know what they don't know. This can leave players in the situation of not recognizing when they should be asking questions or taking actions for more information.

 

[pemerton]

THAT I can accept. It's surely very accurate. THIS I cannot, "...the GM is using me as a piece in their own solitaire play." I mean, I believe you feel that way, but you aren't actually being treated that way.

The GM has created a situation/puzzle that I - the player - can't resolve without the GM feeding me the information that will help solve it. That is the solitaire aspect I am referring to. The GM is providing a solution to a problem entirely of their own making.

 

[Maxperson]

The GM has created a situation/puzzle that I - the player - can't resolve without the GM feeding me the information that will help solve it.

What puzzle? You keep trying to frame this as some sort of puzzle to solve, but that's not what I said. Yet you said you understood me.

 

[Aldarc]

I don't think the criticism is so simple as, "different parts of the game are handled differently".

In D&D (and almost all traditional games) combat is handled differently than other conflict resolution. And if your interest lies in other conflicts, that can be an issue.

From the onset of D&D, the combat rules were their own mini-game: "Oh, we're in combat. Pull out the Chainmail rules." "Roll for initiative" is practically synonymous with "commence the combat mini-game."

In games like Fate or Cortex, however, conflict is conflict and all conflict risks taking you out of the scene. There may be different stess tracks - e.g., physical, mental, social, fear, exhausted, wealth, etc. - but the conflict resolution remains constant.

 

[DND_Reborn]

From the onset of D&D, the combat rules were their own mini-game: "Oh, we're in combat. Pull out the Chainmail rules." "Roll for initiative" is practically synonymous with "commence the combat mini-game."

I would think the other direction, really. D&D was originally more about combat, it wasn't the "mini-game", it really was the game. But YMMV of course.

 

[FrogReaver]

@FrogReaver

Fundamentally how you decide which consequences to apply of those listed is by first looking to your GM Goals and Principles, letting them guide your decisions. Also look to GM Actions and Best Practices. Try to avoid the listed Bad Habits. There's no rote process but there is plenty there to guide your decision making process.

Which of those options I listed above would have been against the principles or found on the gm bad habits list?

By the way how are you finding it so far? What sort of Crew do your players have going on?

They are a human sacrifice cult that’s tends toward chaos. They tend to go on take out a target style missions. (As I’ve said many times - my players really are the bad guys).

It’s going well. The players still have a d&d 5e mindset and tend toward trying to perfect a plan instead of providing me the detail I need to kick off a score. Makes downtime to score transition a bit difficult. But the players seem to be having fun - maybe more fun in downtime than in the score itself.

 

[Oofta]

Which is exactly what I was referring to earlier. These games don't end up giving you a concrete throughline once you get past character creation. (I never played Morrowind myself, but had a similar experience with Oblivion: I spent ages creating a character and doing the intro stuff, and when I finally got out, I had no sense of what to do. I bumbled around for a bit, got lost, and then died almost instantly when a random wolf attacked me.

I never played Oblivion again after that.

This is the experience I'm talking about with permitting things but not supporting them. You get lost in the weeds. You wander away from what the rules support, and get stuck on something they don't. There's little reason to stick with it, because you wandered off into things you want to do and the game doesn't help you do them, and the things it does help you do weren't that compelling or you'd have done them.

Hence why I used the term "rules-avoidant" rather than rules-light. 5e isn't rules-light. There hasn't been an official rules-light D&D for ages, if there ever was one. ("We ignored the rules," no matter how commonplace it might have been, doesn't actually make the game rules-light!) But 5e does actively avoid having rules for a lot of things. Crafting and magic item economy, for example. This doesn't end up making it particularly light, it has plenty of mechanical oddities (like the rules surrounding "melee weapon attack" from "an attack using a melee weapon" etc.) It just means it chooses to have no rules whatsoever for various things.

That absence is palpable. I've seen dozens of threads and posts over the years talking about how 5e showers characters in gold and then gives them no reason to actually spend it. Threads about crafting are less common, but I've seen plenty of them as well. And, as noted, the many, many, MANY posts where someone asks for advice and gets the answer, "You're the DM, do whatever you want!" All that freedom, all those infinitely many options, and yet no support.

Why do you need rules to implement goals and motivation? D&D has never really had that and in my experience has never needed it. Yes, in some editions we had the magic item bonus hamster wheel where they codified the "you need a +X weapon by level y" but other than that I don't see any way the rules can provide goals. [EDIT: I think of reward systems such as leveling to be different from goals and motivation although it's complicated and some people don't separate them.]

It's always been up to the DM (or a module) to provide reasons to adventure. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that "showering PCs with gold" is an issue you only have because of a flawed reward model. Yes, it's fun to get loot, but as you've said if you have nothing to spend it on why bother. My solution? I ignore the rules for the amount of treasure people get and only give them a limited amount based on what I think they'll need, and have the opportunity, to spend. At lower levels that means enough money to cover living expenses and buy potions. At higher levels I open up a limited magic mart*. In one campaign getting gold to fund a small army was a goal so the party got more treasure.

How much treasure the PCs get is always in the hand of the DM. It's a case where if you follow the random treasure chart, you actually demotivate people because treasure becomes meaningless. What motivates players will vary from individual to individual, there's no set of rules that could motivate everyone. For me, it's a matter of throwing out multiple threads and letting the players choose which thread to follow while throwing in the occasional surprise development from left field.

But I think this has always been an issue. I don't know how all games handle it, but I can't imagine how the rules of the game are going to provide motivation for every player. At least not a game with as many options as D&D.

*I think a price list should be more clearly defined, I made my own for my group.

 

[FrogReaver]

I don't think the criticism is so simple as, "different parts of the game are handled differently".

In D&D (and almost all traditional games) combat is handled differently than other conflict resolution. And if your interest lies in other conflicts, that can be an issue.

Oh, I think one criticism really is that simple. There’s often many other criticisms layered on top though.