D&D 5E Wondering Monster- Once Upon A Time

[Cyberen]

The "D&D" game advocated by [MENTION=3192]howandwhy99[/MENTION] is a CRPG, as one could replace the DM by a computer following hard-wired rules.
Having super-competent DMs seriously debating this strange idea is a real treat !

 

[pemerton]

The "D&D" game advocated by howandwhy99 is a CRPG, as one could replace the DM by a computer following hard-wired rules.
Having super-competent DMs seriously debating this strange idea is a real treat !

I've been puzzled for a long time by [MENTION=3192]howandwhy99[/MENTION]'s idea of D&D as a pattern-solving game - these posts are (maybe) starting to give me a clearer idea of what is meant, but I don't really see how it fits into my understanding of D&D. Especially if it makes Modlvay Basic a deviant version!

howandwhy99 also has views about the function of classes, and the way they earn XP, that I personally don't see as borne out by the classic rules texts.

 

[Kinak]

So you do all of those. I don't do any. There are elements I need to generate on the fly, like rolling Hit Points or NPC Ability Scores, but those results are not created by me. The code for doing so is determined beforehand, but that's so players can engage in gameplay: strategizing, remembering what has happened and extrapolating it 10, 20 moves into the future. Planning for and pragmatically mastering what is existent behind the screen.

Huh, well, I'm glad that we're communicating properly. I thought for sure you meant something other that what you said, but now I'm really glad I asked.

I understand what you're laying out, because that's literally the basis for a web-based RPG I designed. I just find it hard to imagine applying it when you're around a table. Even at my most prepared, running from a published scenario and doing all the battle prep before hand, I don't see any reason not to improvise.

As an example from my last session, there was an encounter that the AP authors and I all thought would be a fight to get through a guarded room. Instead the PCs were extremely respectful of the guards and didn't try to get through the room at all. They ended up having a nice chat. As written and prepped, they would still have been attacked, but it enriched the world and rewarded the players for thinking outside of the box.

You can improvise of course, but the DMG, MM, and adventure modules come in separate books from the PHB for a reason. It's why they say "Do not read if you are going to play this game." It's to deal with potential spoilers. Game spoilers, not story spoilers. It's clues to learning how to solve the Rubik's Cube, not knowing the generalities of a sequence before you read it. If you're improvising, you don't have a spoiler problem.

I think that depends entirely to what degree you're improvising.

I've absolutely run games where what you say is true. I don't touch the DMG or MMs and just wing it, describing magical items as they come to me and assigning monsters stats on the fly. I don't have any numbers, but I imagine that's a fairly uncommon mode of play.

What I'm running now, though, is fairly by the book. Stock magical items. Encounters strongly based on what's in the module. But there's still improvisation during session preparation and at the table, mostly in response to player actions or just me papering over my own mistakes.

If you have a group of players that wants to solve the Rubik's Cube, learning rules through play, I'm sure they're delighted to have you as a GM. I know a lot of my players in Metroplexity (the web-based RPG I mentioned) love that stuff. Then again, they also have an impartial referee in the form of a bunch of code and databases, which makes that easier.

Outside of the world of careful constrained (if numerous) choices, I'm not sure DMing should be so programmatic. My best experiences gaming are always when the players try something totally unexpected and I have to juggle things, trying to keep everything consistent and fun. I don't always succeed, but I enjoy getting better. I suppose dealing with things the rules can't is my Rubik's cube

Cheers!
Kinak

 

[howandwhy99]

I have read a lot of D&D books - the original books, all the 1st ed AD&D books, the B/X books, some 2nd ed books, some 3rd ed books, lots of 4e books.

None of them set out rules for how Dryads respond in all situations.

For instance, there is the reaction table. But what is the modifier on the reaction table if the PC who approaches the dryad is bringing her a plate of delicious pastries? Or offers, in return for some help from her, to perform a task in return? There are no rules for this in any of those editions. They rely upon the GM setting an adjustment. (Just as, in the Moldvay rulebook, the GM applies an ad hoc modifier to the hobgoblins' reaction roll when Silverleaf the Elf speaks to them.)

AD&D uses reaction rolls and requires the DM to come up with most intelligent NPC behavior, that's to be done before play begins. Anything the players attempt that isn't covered by the rules, and the rules cover almost everything we can capably communicate to each other, is covered by the rule that it does occur. This may mean the referee can account for it within the possible variations of preset rules, or it's simply done with no connection to anything else. On my turn I speak, dance, sword fight, and balambazo. That last one the ref and I agree that we're not able to communicate on. I may have an idea of what it is, but no shared words or expressions between us allow me to to communicate it. So, by the rules it happens. But it doesn't effect anything else. Sort of like storytelling in other games, but most storytelling games still go under the illusion that players are "sharing" a story rather than each expressing one alone. (There is no shared mind space in the thought bubble above their heads. Each has their own.)

You may not be open to discussing that, but what you say has clear implications nevertheless - your post implies that Moldvay Basic is not D&D, or at least is recommending techniques that are not part of D&D.

In any event, what is the rule in D&D that covers the likelihood of a PC surviving a jump over a cliff by having his/her fall broken by an underground stream?

It isn't about techniques for storytelling or artistic creation so much as mechanics for game play. Moldvay Basic, and probably some other early publications of D&D, certainly Holmes edition, were created under different design assumptions. Again, what's D&D and what's not is up to others. I'm suggesting the hobby was designed more for game play than for creative expression, more for action within a recognized pattern than turn taking for unrestricted by rules expressionism.

Most rules are for multiverse creation. The portions of the game including maps / the game board. Your PC falls in a dungeon. Is the floor stone? water? If a character goes over a cliff, they may fall into an underground stream if it's on the map. Whether or not it breaks their fall depends on cliff height, what is keeping the stream hidden, and why it counts as underground. EDIT: Those are from my own design. Yours might be different.

In the hobgoblin reaction roll modifiers are applied based upon other factors already in the game. A DM doesn't make them up on the spot in the same way the pieces behind the screen in Mastermind are not arbitrarily switched around whenever the ref feels like it. Of course, it's easiest to understand that die rolls are not narrative resolution mechanics, but set rules for relationship behavior. Determining the results of a particular instance in the unchanging rule of the odds.

 

[howandwhy99]

Even at my most prepared, running from a published scenario and doing all the battle prep before hand, I don't see any reason not to improvise.

So, think of of Mastermind again and the ref changing the code after play has begun. Or think of changing the rules to any game during play. Professionals play high stakes poker. Why don't they quit playing by the rules and just give all the money to one person? It's the same thing, right? That's all stakes are in a game anyways. Kudos to others for their agreeable expressions. You like him, so you gave him the million dollars. That's been every poker game everywhere supposedly. ~The problem with narrative theory turned to games is it lends itself to absolutist beliefs like those above. I'm not saying these ideas are necessarily wrong, but they theories hardly convey most of what poker is. If we limited ourselves to this thinking alone I doubt many would play the highly expression-limited game of poker, and performers wouldn't be payed anywhere near so much cash.

As an example from my last session, there was an encounter that the AP authors and I all thought would be a fight to get through a guarded room. Instead the PCs were extremely respectful of the guards and didn't try to get through the room at all. They ended up having a nice chat. As written and prepped, they would still have been attacked, but it enriched the world and rewarded the players for thinking outside of the box.

D&D desperately needs rules for NPC behavior. There is some from the 80s and early 90s extrapolated from the cleric system in the AD&D DMG, but Gygax's rules tended to be unnecessarily complicated in my opinion. You can cover more with less. He sort of focused on endless modifiers without explaining the underlying mechanics he used (or maybe not even used) to determine them.

Outside of the world of careful constrained (if numerous) choices, I'm not sure DMing should be so programmatic. My best experiences gaming are always when the players try something totally unexpected and I have to juggle things, trying to keep everything consistent and fun. I don't always succeed, but I enjoy getting better. I suppose dealing with things the rules can't is my Rubik's cube

Rules can cover far more than you might be giving them credit for. Think of how much of real world combat is covered by the combat system rules - before the current exception-based designs that is. Rules keep things consistent so the DM doesn't have to remember every single last consequence of a game action, yet enables players to still engage in "long strand" strategy. Long term goals. Players realizing a dream that isn't about immediate gratification.

Also, careful about using the word fun. Currently fun is being conflated with narratively interesting. Games are highly addictive. Think of computer games. How many people consider computer games tools to create art? Like Photoshop or a word processor? Storygame rules are like a word processing program. The point is for the players to expressive themselves in spoken (or written) language. What most people believe is a computer game though is a program that can be won, whether playing other players within it or "the Computer" -more program. It's puzzle solving and primarily about pattern recognition-based learning. Players may create a Wiki like groups keep Character Logs to enable them to better play the game. My point is, "game fun" is largely held by most to be something other than personal expressionism.

I deal with applying the rules I have to what the players are attempting to do, which sounds like what you are doing outside them. I'd say, both can be enjoyably challenging from the DM's side of the game.

EDIT: Thanks for replying. Metroplexity looks pretty interesting.

 

[pemerton]

balambazo. That last one the ref and I agree that we're not able to communicate on. I may have an idea of what it is, but no shared words or expressions between us allow me to to communicate it.

I don't think this is relevant. The examples I've given - of unexpected jumps over cliffs, or unexpected proposals to NPCs, are not incomprehensible things. They are options that clearly make sense within the gameworld, and are communicated in ordinary English.

AD&D uses reaction rolls and requires the DM to come up with most intelligent NPC behavior, that's to be done before play begins.

What if it doesn't occur to the GM that the PCs will turn up bearing pastries? Or that a PC will make an offer of service in exchange for a favour? In that sort of case, how is the interaction between PC and NPC to be adjudicated?

Most rules are for multiverse creation. The portions of the game including maps / the game board. Your PC falls in a dungeon. Is the floor stone? water? If a character goes over a cliff, they may fall into an underground stream if it's on the map.

Moldvay is expressly talking about a situation in which the whole dungeon has not been mapped out. How are those sorts of cases to be dealt with?

the rules cover almost everything we can capably communicate to each other

D&D desperately needs rules for NPC behavior. There is some from the 80s and early 90s extrapolated from the cleric system in the AD&D DMG

What rules are you referring to here? What is "the cleric system in the AD&D DMG", other than the rules for gaining spells and changing gods?

 

[Cadence]

DM's don't improvise after the campaign begins in D&D.

I don't think that was true even by 1e RAW. Pages 9, 87, 92, and 110 in the DMG all explicitly talk about ignoring die rolls or things that were planned in advance if they don't further the long-term enjoyment of the game (ignoring pre-planned places for random monster rolls, reducing the treasure amount you left by post-hoc thievery or taxation if it was too large, having the character not actually die...).

Until you are sure of yourself, lean upon the book. Improvisation might be fine later, but until you are completely relaxed as the DM, don't run the risk of trying to "wing it" unless absolutely necessary. ...

AD&D uses reaction rolls and requires the DM to come up with most intelligent NPC behavior, that's to be done before play begins.

The 2e DMG explicitly dislikes reaction rolls unless "... the DM doesn't have a clue about what the monster will do" (pg. 102).

Selection of the reaction based on the situation ensures rational behavior and avoids the illogical results that rand die rolls can often give.

While the quote below from the preface is talking about what is possible for the DMG... I think something parallel could be said about any given DMs pre-planned campaign or adventure ideas.

Naturally, everything possible cannot be included in the whole of this work. As a participant in the game, I would not care to have anyone telling me exactly what must go into a campaign and how it must be handled; if so, why not play some game like chess? As the author I also realize there are limits to my creativity and imagination. Others will think of things I didn't, and devise things beyond my capability.

And in regards to Poker and other games:

Another major difference between role-playing games and other games is the ultimate goal. Everyone assumes that a game must have a beginning and an end and that the end comes when someone wins. That doesn't apply to roleplaying because no one "wins" in a role-playing game. The point of playing is not to win but to have fun and to socialize.

and

The game is unlike chess in that the rules are not cut and dried. In many places they are guildelines and suggested methods only. THis is part of the attraction of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons and is integral to the game.

 

[howandwhy99]

I don't think this is relevant. The examples I've given - of unexpected jumps over cliffs, or unexpected proposals to NPCs, are not incomprehensible things. They are options that clearly make sense within the gameworld, and are communicated in ordinary English.

What if it doesn't occur to the GM that the PCs will turn up bearing pastries? Or that a PC will make an offer of service in exchange for a favour? In that sort of case, how is the interaction between PC and NPC to be adjudicated?

What rules are you referring to here? What is "the cleric system in the AD&D DMG", other than the rules for gaining spells and changing gods?

So I trust you will accept that if one runs a puzzle game going around online explaining precisely what the puzzle's design is isn't in the designer's best interest. Publishing the NYT crossword answers before the puzzle isn't wise, if the point is challenging the players that is. So my answers may not be as specific as you desire.

The quotes above are your 1, 2, and 4. Balambazo was to demonstrate that the game rules do have borders where codes can fail, but still contain rule support for when a player's desires do. This is not me trying to skirt your point. All the specific questions you brought up, perhaps thinking they fall outside any rules design, are expressly addressed under the rules I use.

The cleric system is the game system for the cleric classes to explore. It includes alignment, some of the ability score breakdowns, and all the rules covered outside the material realms (usually found under divine spells). It also includes all of the behavioral rules for intelligent creatures and the DMG has quite a bit about NPC personality, morale, and loyalty. Shared class rules address clerics in a way too and the DMG includes mass behavior of intelligent creatures, for instance: trade, economies, goods manufacture, services, alliances, government, and all the societal material only generally discussed, but where mechanics were not provided.

Moldvay is expressly talking about a situation in which the whole dungeon has not been mapped out. How are those sorts of cases to be dealt with?

I'd stop the game and let the players know why, but that's likely a prep issue. You might think of this as a version of sandbox games. If you wander off the map, there are rules for generating more of it. Sometimes this can be done on the fly (like HP) during a session, sometimes not. A good guideline is to always to have more map (gameboard) than the players can explore in any given session.

My question to you is: If the purpose of a game's design is to trade turns for equal story telling, something I see as obviously not desired in earlier games, why have 100s (1000s?) of pages of world simulation rules? Shouldn't OD&D have been able to fit on a page? Is storytelling really why people went crazy over D&D in the 70s? Is it why they went crazy over Pacman?

 

[am181d]

My question to you is: If the purpose of a game's design is to trade turns for equal story telling, something I see as obviously not desired in earlier games, why have 100s (1000s?) of pages of world simulation rules? Shouldn't OD&D have been able to fit on a page? Is storytelling really why people went crazy over D&D in the 70s? Is it why they went crazy over Pacman?

I think this is the fault in your thinking: A game can be a combination of multiple things, including storytelling and improvisational elements (*role-playing elements*) alongside combat/strategy and simulationist elements. Some people prefer more of some of these elements than others, but the general assumption for most RPGs is a mix of all of these.

(That said, certainly there's nothing wrong with running a game to your taste, emphasizing the elements you like the most and de-emphasizing the elements you dislike.)

 

[howandwhy99]

I don't think that was true even by 1e RAW. Pages 9, 87, 92, and 110 in the DMG all explicitly talk about ignoring die rolls or things that were planned in advance if they don't further the long-term enjoyment of the game (ignoring pre-planned places for random monster rolls, reducing the treasure amount you left by post-hoc thievery or taxation if it was too large, having the character not actually die...).
SNIP

I don't give much credence to anything in 2e and 1e has a number of design problems itself, not the least of which is Gygax actually suggesting players fudge die rolls as you aptly point out. 1e was a mix of brilliant to poor design and the same goes for its GM advice too. I don't deny some of bad RPG design may have been due this lack of clarity and poor advice, but I don't see anything you quoted to convince me AD&D was designed so the DM could routinely break the rules on purpose. I don't disagree many people did, even the author. But why all the meticulous math and resource counting then?

I think this is the fault in your thinking: A game can be a combination of multiple things, including storytelling and improvisational elements (*role-playing elements*) alongside combat/strategy and simulationist elements. Some people prefer more of some of these elements than others, but the general assumption for most RPGs is a mix of all of these.

(That said, certainly there's nothing wrong with running a game to your taste, emphasizing the elements you like the most and de-emphasizing the elements you dislike.)

The 90s and d20 designs are very indicative of this mix. Lots of rules for strategy and then a wide absence where someone is simply supposed to "make it up". I suggest most games aren't made that way anymore, including D&D Next. These are mostly based on narrative theory though than game theory. So you get a whole lot of "the point is to make things up" which is divided up among "participants" rather than strategy and game play being the focus. And yes, in the 1970s role strategizing was == role playing.