Hacker News Reader

Comment by jbaczuk | Hacker News Reader

I "played" D&D once with some people who play quite a bit, and was confused. Maybe I was expecting more clear rules of how to "win"? It seemed like it was more of a "choose you're own adventure" story rather than a game since the dungeon master is able to change the rules as you go and pretty much decide whether or not you are "successful" with whatever goals are established at the beginning. Is that accurate? In the end, it was a little frustrating and I decided I don't get it so I've never tried again.

View on HN

I'd call D&D more of a framework for collaborative storytelling that can absolutely be played as a game. The DM leads the adventure, the players decide how to respond to things. Everyone plays D&D a bit differently.

The most straightforward adventures that typically have a "win condition" are one shots/self-contained adventures from either WoTC or 3rd Party Publishers, like Curse of Strahd, Waterdeep: Dragon Heist, etc.

However, a lot of D&D groups I've played with might have characters die, but will rarely have a group "lose". However, because every group runs things a bit differently, a different group can drastically change how the game feels.

I play D&D because I’m hyper competitive and D&D doesn’t trip that “competing against other people” that makes me short circuit (and often spend a ton of money, Magic The Gathering especially got me so I won’t play that at all anymore) while still being that same kind of fun. It’s a way to hang out with my friends and tell a group story that’s fun to talk about and reminisce about “the time the evil demon lord tried to fly away and the Druid called upon the power of nature and hit him with a lightning bolt”. Or “that time the bard sold his soul to a devil”.

I don’t really remember specific combat we remember the fun and stories we told, even if they’re pretty lame compared to just reading a book. But they’re our unique story.

And if I put a ton of time into D&D that looks like “3D printing terrain” or “painting miniatures” (which are cool little statues so have some inherent aesthetic value) which are also fun hobbies (in my opinion) vs “accruing lots of thin pieces of cardboard” or “number goes up on screen”.

Correct. It is much more free form than other games (and even more free form RPGs exist).

Every group has their own style. The DM might be very strict or loose with his reading of the rules. Players could be more or less into the role playing aspect (do you have to do voices and talk in character or not). Ultimately, your character can do whatever the DM allows them to do. That might seem “unfair” but the DM is not your opponent trying to beat you, they’re telling a story with you.

There’s not really a win condition. Some groups play campaign modules which are pre-written stories the DM interprets for your group. Some make it up on the fly like an improv comedy group or nerd jazz.

There are usually fairly clear rules for executing the steps in a combat (what actions are "legal" on a character's turn), but the characters' goals in a campaign are entirely subjective. The overall flow of a campaign is collaborative storytelling: the DM sets the scene, but the characters decide their actions at any given point along the way, and having clearly delineated "go here next" is often viewed as a sign the DM is being too controlling.

Think of Lord of the Rings (both because it's a good example to make my point, and because it's the source of a lot of the inspiration for D&D). All the fellowship are independently given a vague mission to go to Rivendell. They then decide, in Rivendell, to embark on a quest to take the ring to Mordor. Consequences split them up on separate missions along the way; in a D&D game, splitting the party is poor etiquette, but it's a good example of how your immediate next steps can change in unpredictable ways. The overall journey of any given character is decided by that character based on their circumstances and personal values.

That's not entirely accurate. D&D _is_ a choose your own adventure, and there's not necessarily a way to "win"^1. However, the DM is not technically supposed to just "change the rules as you go" to decide whether or not something is successful (that said, everyone has their own house rules etc. etc.).

^1: Your DM can define an end goal/win condition for your campaign, though.

> However, the DM is not technically supposed to just "change the rules as you go" to decide whether or not something is successful

That's...highly variable. Page 236 of the 5th Edition Dungeon Master’s Guide addresses three valid approaches with pros and cons (nominally to the dice, but because of the role the dice play implicitly to the rules as a whole) ranging from using the rules, stats, and dice rolls for everything, to using the DM’s narrative judgment for everything, to a hybrid blended approach. (Previous editions of the rules had similar license to the same range of approaches with different framing.)

I would still say that in no case is the DM supposed to just change the rules as they go along. Whatever the method used by the DM, it should really be consistently applied.

You're right, D&D is more of a choose your own adventure than a game which you are meant to win or lose. It's group storytelling, where you're all writing the story as you go based on what happens.

It's not exactly accurate that the DM can change the rules as you go. The DM will sometimes say you can't do x or y, but a good DM doesn't do that capriciously. When I DM, I sometimes tell players flat-out "you can't do that", but it's because they've tried to do something which isn't possible in the fictional world (like if someone says they want to jump so high they land on the moon or whatever). Most of the time, when a player says they want to do something, they should either succeed outright (because it's not actually challenging for the character to do), or the rules of the game will give a clear way to determine success/failure. It sounds like you maybe didn't have a very good DM.

If you like the theme and ideas of the game but are looking for more of a pure strategy, win or lose by the rules sort of experience check out "dungeon crawl board games". Gloomhaven is the most popular of these, with Jaws of the Lion being a better/smaller introduction built on the same system.

Yeah, DnD is a weird one and it's hard to describe because it's really not like much else. I like to say it's one part shared storytelling and one part complex board game, but I do think you're right that in the end it's really more like playing a big game of choose your own adventure.

One thing to consider is that the DM you have can make a massive impact on your enjoyment of the game. I'd definitely encourage you to give it another shot, maybe with a different DM that more fits what you're looking for. But then again, it's also definitely not for everyone. We've had plenty of friend come into our group and just decide it wasn't for them.

When I first started playing I had the same reaction as you. I was trying to win and the rules didn't seem clear. I continued not because I liked the game, but because I enjoyed the company of my friends, even if the activity didn't make sense to me.

Now, whether as DM or player, I enjoy it not as a game to win, but as a story to explore. Like an interactive movie. Even when I am the author of the plot as DM, I can't predict what my players will do, and it becomes an enjoyable discovery as they force plot twists from their end.

its a series of wins,losses,and revelations, and choose your own path.

rule breaking is a kind of error handling, to get the game on track, sometimes as a plotline, such as chaotic magic zones, it shouldnt be the rule to break the rules.

some groups have house rules, and long game history. if you were sat down in midst of a campaign thats confusing.

some people really struggle with being a dungeon master [DM], but each DM has to play to the group and keep it provocative for everyone.

It seemed to me that if some clever thing came up like having the eagles fly the ring and drop it into Mt. Doom, the D.M. would say you can't do that even though it seems completely realistic in my opinion. I guess the primary objective was to create a long, interesting story and completing some objective was just secondary in order to meet the primary objective. I kinda prefer the former, and then just start another campaign...

i think even the eagles may have been corrupted by possesion of the ring, and the greater the victims might, the greater danger they present under thrall of the ring, thus lowly hobbits bore the ring.

whether hobbits, or eagles did it, it certainly caused a power vacuum, and the ensueing times would be the entry scenario to the next campaign.

Well, let's at least roll the dice to see if they become corrupted or not... The proclivity to corruption shouldn't necessarily be proportional to the might of the possessor.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com