D&D General Why Editions Don't Matter

[Imaro]

Because they are asking to be paid for it?

Like, what's the difference between getting medical advice from a dude on Facebook or dietary advice a gal on YouTube and getting advice from a physician or nutritionist? Someone is paying the latter two for their services, and if those services are faulty, you may have a legitimate grievance against them. Nothing guarantees that your doctor is going to give you better medical care than your weird aunt who likes herbs, but we still expect professionals like doctors, lawyers, and architects to be better at their jobs than untrained shlubs. Game designers who are selling a product are making an offer, a claim that their product is worth money. That alone is vastly different from some rando on Reddit giving their instructions on how utterly essential it is to make every adventure an invisible railroad—or, if you prefer a positive example, from someone like Matt Colville advising people on how to spice up their game by using certain tips and tricks.

I'm asking from a practical standpoint... what difference is it making in this situation? What recourse do those who believe 5e is incomplete and doesn't teach one how to play the game have since those are books vs if it was advice from a youtube personality?

 

[Imaro]

You should know very well that I am not making a case for 5e to change at all. I have never made any arguments that 5e should change. Only that it is not fundamentally more flexible than one built on conflict resolution rather than GM directed task resolution.

Just saw this and wanted to address it... I am not (at least currently) arguing whether 5e has lesser or greater degrees of flexibility than game X. That's a different conversation and one I would have to think about before getting into.

 

[Campbell]

I personally do not think it makes any difference where the expectations of how to play come from. Expectations that come from watching Critical Role matter as much as those that come from the rulebook or normative standards of play that define a play culture.

Personally I feel it is often easier to address ones that come from books because they tend to be less ingrained.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

So contracts don't exist to enforce agreements between parties and formalize the process of addressing grievances should one or both sides breach those agreements.

What, exactly, does contract law do then?

You're doing this again?

Okay, here's your example-

Seems like a pretty good assumption that if someone sells you a $50 book that purports to "guide" you on how to play a game, it should serve that function, no? And if it doesn't, you can validly say you were sold a bill of goods.

So what are you arguing, here?

A sells to B a book for $50. The book is called "How to play a game." You are dissatisfied with the book. What is your remedy? Is it an action under contract (UCC or common law)? Under tort (fraud)? Under statute (deceptive and unfair trade practices)? Do these answers change depending on whether A wrote the book, or is selling someone else's book to you? Do these answers change depending on whether or not there is an actual written document regarding the sale (which might govern, inter alia, terms and conditions such as a return)? Would some answers preclude other answers, under any so-called "rules."

Do you have any idea what I'm talking about, or do you want to argue? Again?

 

[Umbran]

Mod Note:
It seems to me this is a forum about games, not a forum about law.

If someone wants to actually try to sue WotC for selling "an incomplete game" they may take that to an actual court - at which time it will be news we can discuss. But going down a law rathole in a discussion of game editions isn't appropriate. Please let it go, folks.

 

[hawkeyefan]

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?

Okay.... so why must we keep the bit about "the rules don't run the game, you do" in favor of less problematic language? This is my point. There is a way to phrase that which can't be used to justify awful GMing.

You guys each said that the example of awful GMing technically was within the rules.

What if it wasn't? That's all.

You mean like in the DMG where it discusses the downfalls of ignoring the dice...

Does it do that? If you're referring to the Role of the Dice section, it does not do that. It says that not using dice promotes creativity by making players look at the situation rather than their character sheets.

I wouldn't say that the book describes not using dice as a negative in any way. But if you're aware of another section where it does so, I'm all ears.

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.

No, it's not about my ability to trust my GM. It's about the ability to define the role without the need to grant the role absolute authority which is then cited to somehow justify GMing that's clearly awful.

The example of play (which while many said was absurd, @Oofta shared one of his own which was just as absurd) was one we all agree on is bad.

What would be wrong with the PHB or DMG saying it's bad? Or "Here's a list of best practices" or "Here are things to try to avoid"? How would this be a bad thing?

What if the social contract, such as it may be, was defined in the books? Or if not defined, discussed with some pros and cons? Why do these things need to remain distinct?

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?

I didn't say it was confusing, nor did I say it was a bad design choice. Honestly, it's pretty genius. Doesn't mean there isn't a drawback to it.

My point is in the seeming dichotomy between the rules of the game, and the social contract. I don't think there should be such a dichotomy, nor that there needs to be.

The rules of the game are just as important as the GM. I don't think it's a good idea to place the GM above the rules. The reason is that you then get GMs who make decisions that they think are justified even if everyone else thinks they're awful.

I'd prefer if the rules point out things that are awful instead of just saying "It's all up to you" and then expecting everyone to get it right.

This idea that a TRRPG must spoon feed players and DMs is just foreign to me. Same with the idea that any amount of text or more rules is somehow going to make a bad DM a good one.

Clarity equals spoon feeding? Ha okay.

As for advice and guidance in the text, I would say that yes, that will help people improve. I would offer specific examples, but maybe I'll just let all of human history and endeavor speak for me on that one.

 

[Oofta]

If you don't think its possible to get advice that looks good on the surface but is terrible in execution, or that such events have a price in terms of players' impression of a game, I don't know what to tell you.

So ... you try somethin out and it doesn't work. You learn from your mistake and have a better understanding of the game. It's only a problem if you don't get, or pay attention to, feedback from your players. As a software developer I've had to learn multiple new technologies over the years, it's not really that different. Some advice works, some thing your try and their crap.

How else do you expect to learn?

 

[Baron Opal II]

Again, I don't understand what that means. You just...opt to start playing in a completely different way now and then? That doesn't seem any different from just being "DM says" etc., it's just this time "DM says you should ask Bob."

Not speaking for Imaro, but for me.

Playstyles can change over time, so that the gameplay drifts from "I, the DM, says..." to "In these cases, the player says...". The player gains more authority over the narrative. This ceding of narrative authority tends to be permanent, because the player made some decisions that are now "canon". This is not "well, the DM is still in control, it's just an illusion that the player has control. The DM still has total authority." Because if it was, when the DM rescinded that authority it would hurt the player's feelings and break the social contract that was adjusted.

And we're all friends here and don't jab our fingers in our friend's eye.

 

[Oofta]

So you do get it... You opt to play in a different way. I guess my question is why does it need to be any different or more complicated that the DM says you should ask Bob (and now that's binding)??

EDIT: If I and my group decide in 5e players are capable of creating player quests... how is this any different then a game of 4e with player quests?

Ok let me try this a different way... Apparently you and some other posters believe the 5e books are incomplete and don't teach the game (and if I am lumping you in mistakenly I apologize but the example should still stand even if you remove yourself)... the fact that it's in a book changes this from the same situation if it was a video or a forum post that claimed to teach D&D how exactly?

In part I think it's a mistake to believe the core books are supposed to teach the game. They have some general stuff, but there's a reason we have starter sets. Starter sets are supposed to help new DMs, the core books are support for the game with a bit of teaching.

 

[Aldarc]

This idea that a TRRPG must spoon feed players and DMs is just foreign to me. Same with the idea that any amount of text or more rules is somehow going to make a bad DM a good one.

IMHO, it's less about spoon feeding anyone and more about providing cogent explanations of the game. Being smart about how you write for your audience isn't about spoon-feeding them. Again, one thing that I have noticed that TTRPG designers are taking an active note of how other non-TTRPG games explain their games to players.

Board games, for example, don't get entire books to explain their rules. They have to do proportionately more with less text. And setup and play time for some board games can be longer than the setup time for some TTRPGs. Similarly, video games are competing with the player's attention span and patience. So the opening moments and hours of game play are incredibly important for new player retention, which is why video game developers put so much time and effort into cogent explanations of their game mechanics or features in those opening moments.

I don't think that more text or more rules will make a bad DM into a good one; however, I do think that cogent texts that sets out clear game expectations, principles, goals, advice, etc. are far more instructive and helpful than a lot of vague, platitudinal* advice buried in meandering texts. Again, it's not about less or more but about cogent and efficient use of what text there is.

* insert the usual "it's all about fun!"