How Years of Trying to Fix Obnoxious People Shrank D&D’s Appeal

How much should the outcomes of characters’ actions be decided by the dungeon master instead of the rules?

Before roleplaying games, the rules of a game specified every action players could take, and then decided the outcome of each possibility. The invention of the dungeon master freed players from the tyranny of the rules. Most editions of Dungeons & Dragons expected the DM to make frequent decisions about the characters’ fates—especially in the many situations the rules didn’t cover. “Prior to 3rd edition,” designer Monte Cook wrote, “‘the DM decides’ wasn’t just a fallback position; it often was the rule.”

The DM’s power to augment the rules enabled the hobby we love, but this power enabled capricious DMs to zap characters when players failed to laugh at their puns, to curry favor by lading treasure on their girlfriend’s characters, and to win D&D by killing the rest of the party.

So the designers entered what D&D’s Creative Director Mike Mearls calls “the business of trying to ‘fix’ obnoxious people.”

“D&D’s 3.5 and 4th editions were very much driven by an anxiety about controlling the experience of the game, leaving as little as possible to chance,” Mearls explained in a Twitter thread. “The designers aimed for consistency of play from campaign to campaign, and table to table. The fear was that an obnoxious player or DM would ruin the game, and that would drive people away from it. The thinking was that if we made things as procedural as possible, people would just follow the rules and have fun regardless of who they played with.”

So D&D’s fourth-edition designers devised rules that shrank the DM’s role as much as possible. Potentially, a DM’s duties could be limited to reading the box text, running the monsters, and announcing the skills that apply to the skill challenge. As much as possible, fourth edition shifts the game to the combat stage with its well-defined rules. In stark contrast to earlier editions, spells lacked effects outside of combat. Fourth edition defines combat powers as tightly as Magic: the Gathering cards, so the DM never needs to decide if, for example, you can take ongoing damage from cold and fire at the same time. For action outside of combat, fourth edition presents the skill challenge, where the DM only must decide if a skill helps the players—but only when the skill challenge fails to list the skill in advance.

In Mearls’ opinion, this basic design premise suffers from a fatal flaw. “It misses out on a ton of the elements that make RPGs distinct and doesn’t speak to why people enjoy D&D in the first place.”

Fifth edition’s design returns dungeon masters to their traditional role in the game. During the design, Rodney Thompson described the goal. “We want a system that makes it easy to be the DM, and at the same time trusts the DM to make the right call for any particular situation, rather than create many highly specific chunks of rules text in an attempt to cover every possible situation.”

“With fifth edition,” Mearls explained, “We assumed that the DM was there to have a good time, put on an engaging performance, and keep the group interested, excited, and happy. It’s a huge change, because we no longer expect you to turn to the book for an answer. We expect the DM to do that.”

The design team referred to the goal as “DM empowerment.” The phrase may be misleading, because the goal of DM empowerment is not to tickle a DM’s power fantasies. DM empowerment lets DMs fill gaps in the rules—and sometimes override the rules with their own judgement. DM empowerment lets your wizard use spells outside of combat, among other things.

Monte Cook touted the advantages of the approach. “Empowering DMs from the start facilitates simulation. No set of rules can cover every situation, and the DM can address fine details in a way no rulebook can. When it comes to how much of your turn is spent opening a door, perhaps it depends on the door. A large, heavy metal door might be your action to open, while opening a simple wooden door might not be an action at all. Another door might fall in between. Do you want the rules to try to cover every aspect of this relatively insignificant situation?”

DM empowerment reduces the volume of rules a game needs. Original D&D’s rules fit into a few pages because the game relied on the DM to resolve all the areas the rules failed to cover. Rodney Thompson explained that fifth edition also “trusts the DM to make the right call for any particular situation, rather than create many highly specific chunks of rules text in an attempt to cover every possible situation.”

“Fewer rules coupled with DM empowerment also facilitate story-focused play, because nothing slows down an exciting narrative like consulting a book or two . . . or ten,” Monte wrote. “Giving the DM the ability to adjudicate what you can and can’t do on your turn then players to be more freeform with their actions. They don’t need to worry about action types and can just state what they want to do. A player’s crazy plan might not fit into the tightly defined rules for what you can do in a round, but a good DM can quickly determine on the fly if it sounds reasonable and keep the story and action moving.”

None of this means that D&D’s rules lack a purpose. D&D remains a game about making choices and seeing the consequences (often while in dungeons with dragons). The rules serve as the physics of the game world. As much as convenient, rules should enable players to see the likely consequences of an action, make wise or reckless choices, and then let the dice settle the outcome. Rules help span the gulf between a character’s real experience in the game world and what players learn from a DM’s description. (See Would You Play With a Dungeon Master Who Kept Your Character Sheet and Hid Your PC’s Hit Points?.) Elegant games cover most of the actions players may take with compact rules that deliver verisimilitude. (See From the Brown Books to Next, D&D Tries for Elegance.)

In a roleplaying game, characters face perils, and sometimes harsh consequences. Without such possibilities, the game lacks tension and everyone grows bored. The rules help the DM avoid becoming the players’ adversary—the person to blame when something goes wrong. Monte wrote, “If the rule is printed in a book, it’s easier to assume that it’s balanced and consistent, and players are less likely to question it.” When I run a game and the players succeed, I want them to credit themselves; when something goes bad, I want them to blame the die rolls set by the rules.

The best roleplaying games strike a balance between rules and empowered game masters. D&D owes some of its recent success to elegant rules, some to DM empowerment, and some to modern dungeon masters better suited to their empowered role.

Early in the life of D&D, DMs struggled more with their role keeping the group interested, excited, and happy. Everyone came to D&D from a life seeing and playing only competitive games, so DMs tended to fall into a familiar style of playing to win. And let’s face it, the example set by co-creator Gary Gygax reinforced some of the DM-to-win archetype. After all, when his group made smart plays by listening at doors and searching rubbish for treasure, Gary struck back by creating ear seekers and rot grubs.

Until recently, if you didn’t go to conventions, you could be a dungeon master for decades and almost certainly only see a couple of other DMs in action. Today, every potential DM can stream examples of other DMs acting as fans of the characters. Plus, DMs grow up exposed to electronic roleplaying games. Today’s DMs rarely need to be tied by rules to enable a fun game.

The biggest competitor to D&D is not another tabletop game, it’s World of Warcraft and countless other computer and video games that duplicate most of the D&D experience, 24/7, with better graphics. D&D enjoys two competitive advantages: face-to-face social interaction, and the DM’s ability to account for actions outside of the game’s rules. When D&D’s designers worked to eliminate the DM’s judgement from the game, they threw out a key advantage. Without a DM, why bother to log off?

Related: Why Fourth Edition Seemed Like the Savior Dungeons & Dragons Needed

This entry was posted in Role-playing game design, Role-playing game history and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to How Years of Trying to Fix Obnoxious People Shrank D&D’s Appeal

  1. Scott says:

    Also a major difference between D&D and an MMO like World of Warcraft is that character actions cannot fundamentally change the world around them in an MMO but they can in D&D.

  2. Creeper Jr. says:

    This is all very good and interesting. It’s important that the DM not be sidelined to a mere “human computer” to run the “code” of the rule set.

    I will say that I loved DMing 4th Ed. because there were simple-to-use rules for creating encounters and the monsters were easy to run. Logistically, 5e is a mess to prepare and run in combat. I also really enjoyed skill challenges and have used them in our 5e game several times.

  3. Chops says:

    TLDR version: We made 4th Ed like a MMO and everyone hated it because it played like a bad MMO and not D&D. Which in turn made Paizo take off because everyone played Pathfinder instead.

  4. Jamie says:

    Another key difference is the story can be unique to your players and not just a pre determined side quest. The pc can truly have an experience no other person can have.

  5. alphastream says:

    There is a balance here. Yes, it was wrong to assume that rules should be simplified and codified to the point where decisions and interactions are lessened. Skill challenges, run poorly (including the way described in the DMG), were boring affairs lacking in narrative value and an exercise in picking your best skill and rolling.

    BUT, simplifying and streamlining can also be a boon. We saw how monster and encounter design and even adventure design could draw tons of DMs and players to the in-store program called D&D Encounters. DMs loved being able to run an hour of play wit 1-2 pages of very simple (and yet engaging) adventure text. Spells turned into far simpler powers meant DMs could jump in with less experience. True story: despite playing and DMing D&D for 17 years, when 3E came out I waited 9 months before DMing my first organized play game because I felt I didn’t know 3E spells well enough to run a game. We’ve taken a step backwards here, in that many DMs again feel they can’t DM (especially at high levels) because of the complexity of spells.

    So, I think there is a balance to be struck between these design goals of keeping the game engaging and keeping it easy to learn and simple.

    I would also say that while 3E really built up the game and added a lot, 4E in many ways was working to fix problems – the length of an adventuring day, the need for someone to “have” to play the cleric, how many magic items a character had, and even how much experience a DM needed to feel confident. It really took the laundry list of issues, including “bad DMs” and tried to fix them. The legacy of those fixes is excellent. We can see many of those improvements carried on into 5E.

  6. Ty says:

    In the RAW vs. RAI argument, I’d say my DMing would tend to lean slightly RAI. That being said, I’ve always enjoyed 4E’s robust combat mechanics. If you really want to bring up arbitrary rules-lawyering, I’ve always felt 3.5 (any by extension Pathfinder) was by far the worst transgressor of this. 3.5 was the playground of the rules lawyer. I was there. There was always some obscure thing players could drudge up, some weird arbitrary nonsense that let them be all weird. 4E was much more tight and focused, and I appreciated that. Plus, there’s nothing in 4E that says player’s can’t use their powers outside of combat. Seriously- Where do people keep getting that??? If your DM’s not a total nonce and it makes sense, why not? You all talk of DM empowerment…… act empowered.

    I can’t say I personally love 5E, but I certainly don’t hate it either. It just feels too simplistic with combat rules to me, which is my main beef. I can run it just fine, but when players question things I feel a bit less supported by the system. “The rules help the DM avoid becoming the players’ adversary—the person to blame when something goes wrong.” I totally agree with that statement, and 4E had tight combat rules, thus saving that DM. Furthermore, everyone seems to think 4E was so combat heavy because of those rules, but it really doesn’t need to be, at least any more than any other edition. But when the situation does devolves into a fight, it’s nice to know that everyone’s “playing fair.” I’m running a 4E campaign now, in 2019, and we play once a week and it’s been going for about ten sessions now. We’ve had about 3 combats in that time, total. 4Es a wonderful system without combat, and don’t let *anyone* tell you otherwise. They’re either lying or bad at advice/DMing.

    For any new players reading this, don’t be like the 4E haters of yesteryear; at least actually go out and *try it*. It’s good, and even if you don’t like it, at least you won’t be just talking out of your butt. I’d rather be a RAI DM with robust rules to fall back on than a RAW DM with shoddy, loosey-goosey rules that leaves players feeling unsatisfied.

    TLDR; No edition is perfect, and a good DM makes or breaks the game, regardless of system. Know your craft.

    (RAI= Rules as Intended, RAW= Rules as Written).

  7. Jared Jeanquart says:

    I went into this article from a Google Now card and was expecting it to talk about rampant misogyny and racism among D&D players and how that’s the reason that the player base is so disgustingly overwhelmingly straight white and male, something-something-trump something something Nazis.

    Instead it was actually sane and interesting.

    Goddamnit, I need to get off the internet for a bit.

  8. Spinz says:

    4th edition: the d&d that was most suited towards videogame rules, and never got its own videogame that took advantage of the actual game rules. May we never have to play it again.

    • There are a lot of good ideas in 4th edition that were mixed in with the bad, and I hope that the hypothetical 6th edition takes the time to search for those good ideas.

  9. Pingback: DwDnD – Designing Adventures (Part 1) Overview – Misdirected Mark Productions

  10. Truly empowering a DM involved nt just giving them freedom, but giving them guidelines on how to use that freedom. I feel like 3.5 did that second part better than 5e does. Sure, a great DM can run a great adventure in 5e with the power the game explicitly bestows on them, but 3.5 implicitly bestows much the same powers on a DM while giving more solid foundations for a new or mediocre DM to stand on and take root in. With 5e, you run the risk of a DM who doesn’t know what they’re doing improvising something mediocre.
    Like you said, the big competition D&D faces is video games. The biggest strength video RPGs have is that they are designed by entire teams of professional game designers, who dedicate years of their lives to making the game as engaging as possible. I wouldn’t want to pit that against one amateur who has maybe a few hours per week to dedicate to designing their tabletop sessions, not without support. DM guidelines are that support, a way for the professional game designers at WotC to lend some of their insight to people who need it.

Leave a Reply