D&D General Why Editions Don't Matter

[pemerton]

But can those games handle other scenarios? In detail?

Yes.

I mean ... D&D gives you tools. They may not be as "structured" as you want, but they are there. I can see a case being made for more explanation, the chase rules are just one example of how to run things and there could be myriad others.

I asserted that 2nd ed AD&D lacks certain tools that would have helped a GM avoid running a terrible game from which the players walked. I've pointed to a range of tools that could have helped, one of which was in print - in a different RPG - over 10 years before AD&D 2nd ed was published.

Are you asserting that 2nd ed AD&D in fact had the tools I say it didn't? In that case, please point me to them.

Are you asserting that 2nd ed AD&D was as good as it could possibly be - that there was no way of improving it by including those tools?

I can't tell what your point is.

Did your buddy give up DMing? More importantly, is this something you see on a regular basis? Because I don't. Then again most first time DMs should probably start with a module, not a custom campaign until they get the hang of the game.

The person I'm talking about wasn't a first-time GM. And was, as far as I could tell at the time, running a module. He kept GMing in the club where I met him. And as best I could tell at the time, he kept running railroads.

 

[Maxperson]

I'm in Chapter 9 of the PHB. Can the player say "Move to combat" or "I start combat" or the like? Reading it, I don't see
anything on a first pass that implies otherwise.

The player has no ability to control any part the game other than what his PC does. So no, he can't say "move to combat" or "I start combat." He can say, "I punch the dwarf in the nose" or "I jump out from behind the tree and shoot one of the orcs," which causes the DM to move things to combat. So in a way the player can "decide."

 

[EzekielRaiden]

To distill our concern down to it's base form. Whose playstyle are they going to categorize as 'bad' DMing?

To distill down my total bewilderment: Why does anyone's playstyle need to be categorized as "bad" DMing?

I brought this same point up earlier in the thread. While the discussion is being framed as guidance for running and playing D&D... there is an undertone of... because I believe that playstyle X is the right way to do it.

Where X is their preferred way of practices/resolution/whatever.

The kind of advice I'm asking for is completely style-agnostic. I've explicitly said, several times, the kinds of things that would be useful advice here: player psychology, group etiquette, ways to handle problematic player behaviors, ways to get DM expectations and player expectations lined up with one another, etc.

So it's been a long time since I picked up the DMG and just started reading through it. Honestly, it's pretty dang well written and absolutely full of great advice. A few excerpts are below.

All of this is just from the first 2 pages.

None of the first quote is advice in any form I recognize. "Focus on what you enjoy" and "it's supposed to be fun" are...not actually productive. Again, referencing the above, things like "some players are <personality type,> which means they value <activity> and don't get much out of <other activity.> Keep this player engaged by offering them <content>, and don't let them make everything be about <thing they want.>" This is obviously generic, but I have to speak in generalities because if I speak in specificities, I'll be nailed for narrowly supporting only one playstyle and (always exclusively by implication) giving the big middle finger to every other style. (But of course, if I do speak in generalities, I'll be accused of secretly trying to implicitly give the big middle finger to every other playstyle....)

One example of this is the description of the "Explorer," which is a very close description of one of my actual players (as in, I read the description to him, even though I don't run a 4e game, and he instantly said, "Oh, so me.") This read as follows:

An explorer loves to see new places in the fantasy world and to meet the residents of such places, fair and foul. All the explorer needs is the promise of an interesting locale or different culture, and off he goes to see that place.

The explorer wants to experience the wonders the game world has to offer. He also wants to know that there's more out there to find. He presses for details: proper names of characters and places, descriptions of the environment, and some idea of what's over the next hill. He's sometimes interested in the adventure plot and his character's motivations. (The explorer is close kin to both the actor and the storyteller.) The wonder of new discoveries is what is key to keeping the explorer happy.

AN EXPLORER...

• Seeks out new experiences in the game's setting.
• Likes learning hidden facts and locating lost items and places.
• Enjoys atmosphere as much as combat and story.
• Advances the plot by being willing to move ever on.

ENGAGE THE EXPLORER BY...

• Including elements that call for exploration.
• Rewarding curiosity and willingness to explore.
• Providing rich descriptions, and using cool maps and props.
• Recruiting him to map for the party.

BE SURE THAT THE EXPLORER DOESN'T...

• Use knowledge of the game world to his own advantage.
• Bore the other players or exhaust you with his thirst for detail.

This is focused, useful, productive advice that is completely style-agnostic. It identifies the priorities of the associated player type, specific things you can do or use that enrich the experience for that player type, and typical problem behaviors to watch out for from that player type. It doesn't waste space, nor is it miserly: it communicates a lot of information quickly and efficiently. This profile (as implied by the references to the "actor" and "storyteller") is but one of the eight "Player Motivations" listed. The opening paragraphs explicitly say that many players enjoy a variety of different things, and it's pretty clear that a given player might evince multiple motivations, whether serially or simultaneously.

Your second quote is...closer to advice, but open-ended to the point of near-uselessness. It boils down to "It's up to you; here's one canned example, figure everything else out yourself." That's not advice, and is certainly not practical enough to be broadly-applicable.

The third isn't advice at all, and isn't even trying to be, it's just a high-level description of the book's contents. I don't understand why you included it.

The fourth also isn't advice at all. It's a fluffy, qualitative description. It's the equivalent of painting a beautiful sensory picture of how fluffy and moist and delicately sweet the perfect batch of cupcakes is, without actually telling people any of the ingredients cupcakes contain, the techniques needed to make cupcakes, or the common difficulties encountered while baking. In the very strict sense of "how things are done in practice," it has no practical value. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be there--evocative value is very important!--but if your intent was to give examples of advice, it is devoid of such content.

Not sure what you're getting at. I mentioned some improvements to the DMG above. But even if they make drastic improvements I simply don't think it will change much. First, very few people actually read the advice in the DMG.

Repeating the statement does not make it true. I have yet to see any actual evidence that "very few people actually read the advice in the DMG." And, if we actually make the advice very good, wouldn't that encourage people to read it? Many--even 4e critics--spoke very highly of 4e's DMG. Hard to cogently praise something you've never read.

But even if they do, it takes practice and experience.

I never said it didn't. I'm saying, we can avoid common pitfalls and errors, improve the starting experience, and make the jump into DMing easier and more effective for the people who try. I have explicitly and repeatedly said that some things will require experience. That is not a reason to abandon any effort at teaching.

I've had DMs that ran the gamut from awful to awesome. Years of experience DMing didn't really move the needle up the scale all that far. I've had newbie DMs that were enthusiastic that made mistakes but ran a fun game. I've had experienced DMs that insisted on reading every bit of box text and taking 5 minutes or more drawing maps that had to match the module's maps exactly.

Then...wouldn't it be useful to communicate to DMs about known ways that certain practices can go wrong, and methods to address those concerns? Again, things like the above, which (as far as I can tell) are playstyle-agnostic and focused on "finding ways to make your game work for your group."

The worst experiences I've had were with experienced DMs. One only ran super deadly killer dungeons. Another had a d6 with body parts on it that he rolled if enemies crit. Roll the "head"? Gee, too bad another PC got beheaded!

Okay. I...don't really understand what I'm supposed to get from this. It seems to be undercutting your own point--experience didn't make these DMs better. Experience, in fact, failed to make any appreciable change at all in their behavior. If experience is so unreliable, shouldn't we be willing to add other options to the toolbox, like useful advice and instruction?

The new DMs? They needed a few pointers and feedback but most were decent, sometimes even good. A good DM has more to do with attitude and being able to read the players than anything in my experience.

Okay. Why can't the DMG include at least some of those "few pointers"? Obviously feedback requires a live audience and practice, but a lot of feedback can be generalized into useful advice. DMing isn't some vastly esoteric thing where every single table is totally, completely, unutterably, ineffably different with absolutely nothing in common whatsoever. A lot of DMing pitfalls and problems are quite common.

I believe it's because the 'critics' have suggested some degree of change or improvement is perfectly fine, but people asking for things to get better keep pushing for better and better without any clear end in sight.

1. Why is it a bad thing to ask for things to get better?
2. As I have said, many of the alleged efforts to make things better were never adequate to begin with, and at least I have been very consistent on that front--I've never said otherwise.
3. Even apart from the previous to things, this would be you admitting to a slippery slope fallacy: "Oh, so if doing A wasn't good enough, and now you're asking for B, then clearly reaching X, Y, and Z won't be good enough either and you'll keep making demands forever." You have not established that such demands will occur; you've simply accused people of making such demands, often when they have explicitly rejected doing so. It's not productive or effective. It comes up all the time and gets a cross response every single time. Why keep doing it when it never ever actually gets anywhere?

Because those critics are happy with things the way they are, more or less.

Seems like kind of a crappy position to take then. "Because I'm happy with the way things are, you must be a demanding jerk who will never be happy with anything less than perfection." Why take such a position?

And just maybe IMO, because the changes being proposed are mostly abstract and not concrete, it's really easy to picture an abstract change yucking on your yum.

See, here's the problem, as mentioned above. It's a "heads I win, tails you lose" argument from people criticizing any effort at change.

If you give specifics, you will be accused of excluding anything that wasn't mentioned in the specifics--no matter how hard you work to specify that you're just making one example. Or, almost as commonly, your example will be dismissed as overly specific. "We're talking about a whole game here, not just one fiddly specific instance!" The "white room" rebuttal, for example, is very frequently used to write off anything even remotely specific as too specific to ever be useful in any way.

So we adapt, by speaking in generalities, in abstractions that can be applied elsewhere. But now, as you can see, that's also unacceptable. Generalities are too general; they can't be applied because they're clearly a subversive effort to sneak something nasty in. If someone speaks in abstractions and generalities, they're secretly trying to destroy specific playstyles they hate.

Heads you win; tails we lose.

I addressed it when you brought it up earlier, and I'll do so now. They can offer advice and guidance about multiple playstyles. There's no need to eliminate anyone's style.

Agreed--although my example above is (as far as I can see) style-agnostic, there can and IMO should be style-specific advice for a variety of styles, not just a single one. Some groups value a lot of DM control, other groups value a DM-hands-off approach; both things have their pitfalls and benefits, and discussing those things and what helps make them sing would be useful information.

I get that there's a new edition coming, and so people are on guard about what may be changed... but I don't think calling for more clarity and better guidance are the kinds of changes you have to worry about.

Agreed.

 

[FrogReaver]

To distill down my total bewilderment: Why does anyone's playstyle need to be categorized as "bad" DMing?

Because when one says 'do it this way', it also means 'don't do it' those other ways.

 

[FrogReaver]

The kind of advice I'm asking for is completely style-agnostic. I've explicitly said, several times, the kinds of things that would be useful advice here: player psychology, group etiquette, ways to handle problematic player behaviors, ways to get DM expectations and player expectations lined up with one another, etc.

The current DMG talks about player psychology on page 3 of the introduction (this also is partially related to getting DM and player expectations aligned). A snippet that is followed by actual breakdowns of 'player types'

"Knowing what your players enjoy most about the D&D game helps you create and run adventures that they will enjoy and remember. Once you know which of the following activities each player in your group enjoys the most, you can tailor adventures that satisfy your players’ preferences as much as possible, thus keeping them engaged."

It also provides plenty of advice on group etiquette

"Table Rules
Ideally, players come to the gaming table with the same coal: to have a fun time together. This section gives recommendations for table rules you can establish to help meet that goal. Here are some fundamentals:
Foster respect. Don't bring personal conflicts to the table or let disagreements escalate into bad feelings. Don't touch others' dice if they’re sensitive about it.
Avoid distractions. Turn off the television and video games. If you have young children, hire a babysitter. Reducing distractions helps players stay in character and enjoy the story. It might be fine to have players wandering away from the table and back, but some players prefer planned breaks.
Have snacks. Decide before a session who will bring food and drink. This is often something the players can handle."

"Table Talk
Set expectations about how players talk at the table:

• Make it clear who's speaking: the character or the player (out of character).
• Decide how you feel about a player sharing information that his or her character wouldn't know or that the character is incapable of sharing as a result of being unconscious, dead, or far away,
• Are you all right with players retracting what they just said their characters did?"

I don't think it talks about problem players and I think that's likely because there's no great all around advice for dealing with a problem player. Those situations are usually unique. IMO.

Like, I really think much of what you bring up is already there, at least to some degree.

 

[FrogReaver]

One example of this is the description of the "Explorer," which is a very close description of one of my actual players (as in, I read the description to him, even though I don't run a 4e game, and he instantly said, "Oh, so me.") This read as follows:

'snip due to quote in original comment'

This is focused, useful, productive advice that is completely style-agnostic. It identifies the priorities of the associated player type, specific things you can do or use that enrich the experience for that player type, and typical problem behaviors to watch out for from that player type. It doesn't waste space, nor is it miserly: it communicates a lot of information quickly and efficiently. This profile (as implied by the references to the "actor" and "storyteller") is but one of the eight "Player Motivations" listed. The opening paragraphs explicitly say that many players enjoy a variety of different things, and it's pretty clear that a given player might evince multiple motivations, whether serially or simultaneously.

The 5e DMG has similar (on page 3 of the introduction no less):

"Exploring
Players who desire exploration want to experience the wonders that a fantasy world has to offer. They want to know what's around the next corner or hill. They also like to find hidden clues and treasure.
Engage players who like exploration by

• dropping clues that hint at things yet to come.
• letting them find things when they take the time to explore.
• providing rich descriptions of exciting environments, and using interesting maps and props,
• giving monsters secrets to uncover or cultural details to learn."

I never said it didn't. I'm saying, we can avoid common pitfalls and errors, improve the starting experience, and make the jump into DMing easier and more effective for the people who try. I have explicitly and repeatedly said that some things will require experience. That is not a reason to abandon any effort at teaching.

IMO. One man's pitfall can be another's stairway to heaven

 

[FrogReaver]

1. Why is it a bad thing to ask for things to get better?

1) Motivations matter and 2) what you call better may not be better to me.

2. As I have said, many of the alleged efforts to make things better were never adequate to begin with, and at least I have been very consistent on that front--I've never said otherwise.
3. Even apart from the previous to things, this would be you admitting to a slippery slope fallacy: "Oh, so if doing A wasn't good enough, and now you're asking for B, then clearly reaching X, Y, and Z won't be good enough either and you'll keep making demands forever." You have not established that such demands will occur; you've simply accused people of making such demands, often when they have explicitly rejected doing so. It's not productive or effective. It comes up all the time and gets a cross response every single time. Why keep doing it when it never ever actually gets anywhere?

I'm not complaining about some future slippery slope. I'm complaining about right here and now. People have discussed and agree to what amounts to small changes. Even I agree with some small changes. But those small changes aren't enough for you (as you just stated). That's precisely what I'm talking about when I say 'pushing for better and better without any clear end in sight.'

We aren't anti-change for the better. We just aren't for the undefined large changes you want to make.

 

[Aldarc]

I think a lot of young DMs/GMs get a bit over their skis because they think they have build a whole world (or be actively interested in world building) when you just need a solid backdrop to start. I also think we are taught to focus way too much on what will happen in the future. Games often point beginners towards these massive adventure tomes that are really intimidating.

This is why I think that it's best to "start small" and have advised other DMs do the same. I saw one of my past DMs burn out in real time because he thought that he had to world-build everything about the entire world, including taking into account physics so that the planet's size, solar orbit, etc. made sense.

I know I would have been better served by something like Matt Colville's 4 room dungeons or the Worlds Without Number approach of asking players what they want to do next session and just prepping material around that. Prep what you need for the next game and whatever else is fun. No more than that.

Speaking personally for me the world building was a big part of what I struggled with. Scenario design and character design are fun for me, but like world building details - intricate histories, geography and the like are really boring and need to be in the context of cool scenario design for me to give a rip. Someone telling me that was alright would have been immensely helpful.

I would potentially go with something like Beyond the Wall and Other Adventures. Give GMs a starter town or tools to create a basic town (e.g., Fallcrest, Phandelver, Stonetop, Hommlet, etc.) that provides a backdrop and character hooks for an initial scenario. Bonus points if the players get to make input about the village. Then provide tools and guidelines for how to plan/prep session scenarios that build on previous ones.

Sure, experience is great! Asking for better guidance doesn't impact that at all!

Good experience and good guidance are like a nice pair of shoes. I can walk further with both than I can with only one. I'm not sure why people seem to reluctant for better guidance so others can walk more comfortably.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

1) Motivations matter and 2) what you call better may not be better to me.


I'm not complaining about some future slippery slope[....] We aren't anti-change for the better. We just aren't for the undefined large changes you want to make.

Then, if you would be so kind

Stop acting like anyone here is asking for perfection.

No one here is ever going to be asking for perfection. Characterizing the other side as asking for "miracles" or "perfection" or the like is just bad-faith argumentation. It's either asserting a slippery slope, or battling a strawman--take your pick. So please, please, please, I am begging you, STOP doing that. Stop characterizing it that way.

Because that's something that's been going on literally forever. Did you know? I've been discussing this stuff for well over a decade at this point. And it happens every single time. Every single bloody time, any request for improvement, no matter how mildly worded, no matter how hard you work to make it congenial and positive and affirming, you WILL get torn up one side and down the other for being "demanding" and expecting "perfection" or "miracles" or dealing in "absolutes" etc., etc. ad nauseam.

It's incredibly tiresome. It would be really, really, really, REALLY nice if people could just...not. And instead actually try to discuss.

It would be nice if, for once, we had a thread where the folks who think nothing is wrong would listen with intent to understand, rather than listening with intent to reply.

 

[Imaro]

I'm starting to wonder, with the amount of info being proposed, that is later being shown to actually be in the current DMG... How many of those crying out for improvements actually own or have even read the DMG...