I'm sure D&D6e will be a huge success among certain types of players/DMs

From Peril in Pinebrook, the new official starting adventure:



Disclaimer, my sources in the twatter tell me this is so, if it's not then please provide evidence so I can correct them.

https://dungeonsanddragonsfan.com/peril-in-pinebrook-free-dnd-adventure/

I do agree to a point on the attack thing.
I once used alpha strike, focus fire tactics on the characters in a D&D game, and wiped the party. I tend not to do that anymore. I will have the opponents target on a semi-random fashion.

The rest is narrative trash. A GM should not fudge things unless absolutley necessary, because fudging things skews the ability for the players to assess threat.
This leads to the inevitable "Adult red dragon? The GM will save us. Yawn."
The "odds" should change because the players made a choice that affected the situation, not because the GM is holding their hand when they're losing.

Quote from: Ratman_tf on December 22, 2023, 05:13:00 PM
I do agree to a point on the attack thing.
I once used alpha strike, focus fire tactics on the characters in a D&D game, and wiped the party. I tend not to do that anymore. I will have the opponents target on a semi-random fashion.

The rest is narrative trash. A GM should not fudge things unless absolutley necessary, because fudging things skews the ability for the players to assess threat.
This leads to the inevitable "Adult red dragon? The GM will save us. Yawn."
The "odds" should change because the players made a choice that affected the situation, not because the GM is holding their hand when they're losing.

For some monsters it makes sense to have them switch their target, for others it doesn't, it can't be a hard rule on one way or the other, also sometimes the circumnstances might make it make sense or stop making sense.

This book's advice feels similar to the whole quantum ogre side of things. Where DMs are essentially supposed to change the circumstances to give the illusion of victory rather than trying to simulate a situation or the like. Player choice kinda gets trampled on, I feel, if there isn't the potential to succeed, fail, or otherwise alter the outcome on your own merits. Reminds me of the wizard of Oz's whole setup with the machine and the like.

My 2c from twitter:

---
"Fudging" and "illusionism" are popular in 2023.

It's okay if your table likes them, but I hate to see it taught as if that is the ONLY valid playstyle.

ESPECIALLY while you are learning the game.
--
I don't like this, but if your table wants kids gloves this is a valid playstyle... just be honest that this is what you're doing.

I think kids have to learn honesty and fair play too.
---
You absolutely can run a game where no PCs ever die for good.

E.g., Dark Souls. Or Toon.

Just be honest to your players about it.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on December 22, 2023, 04:57:01 PM
I'm sure D&D6e will be a huge success among certain types of players/DMs

From Peril in Pinebrook, the new official starting adventure

Naw this is just some 10 page freebee WOTC threw up on DNDBeyond. Most will never see it. It was released "inspired by The Practically Complete Guide to Dragons" which is part of their "perfect for new and younger players" line, and not even associated with the upcoming new edition. See here.

Quote from: Mistwell on December 22, 2023, 06:14:19 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on December 22, 2023, 04:57:01 PM
I'm sure D&D6e will be a huge success among certain types of players/DMs

From Peril in Pinebrook, the new official starting adventure

Naw this is just some 10 page freebee WOTC threw up on DNDBeyond. Most will never see it. It was released "inspired by The Practically Complete Guide to Dragons" which is part of their "perfect for new and younger players" line, and not even associated with the upcoming new edition. See here.

Except they both are made by the same kind of people in the same corporation and it shows said corporation mindset you're totally correct, it has nothing to do with the next edition made by said corporation.

The generations of absolute pathetic wretches that modern Liberalism has produced are shocking and loathsome.

Quote from: Mistwell on December 22, 2023, 06:14:19 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on December 22, 2023, 04:57:01 PM
I'm sure D&D6e will be a huge success among certain types of players/DMs

From Peril in Pinebrook, the new official starting adventure

Naw this is just some 10 page freebee WOTC threw up on DNDBeyond. Most will never see it. It was released "inspired by The Practically Complete Guide to Dragons" which is part of their "perfect for new and younger players" line, and not even associated with the upcoming new edition. See here.

Giving New and Younger players terrible GM advice doesn't bode well for their competency in writing RPGs.

Whether for 5E or 6E, this adventure certainly showcases the same WOTC quality that we have all come to know well.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on December 22, 2023, 04:57:01 PM
I'm sure D&D6e will be a huge success among certain types of players/DMs

From Peril in Pinebrook, the new official starting adventure:



Disclaimer, my sources in the twatter tell me this is so, if it's not then please provide evidence so I can correct them.

https://dungeonsanddragonsfan.com/peril-in-pinebrook-free-dnd-adventure/

I'll have to show it to my one "special" player that when there is a sign on the guillotine that tells the player to stick his dick into and receives a prize, who does that that he shouldn't be killed for his own stupidity.  I really only give him one death due to not knowing rules, like not using disengage because he wanted his attack to move away from the ogre at level 1 and getting crit killed.  Then there were about 5 other player deaths, the only other legitimate one was the cleric didn't have lesser restoration up and he became a shadow.  The other three was stupidity.  So five deaths for a campaign, three of which were stupidity.  Not going to coddle players, you do something stupid at the wrong place you die.  Hell I remember I had one idiot stick their nose in a pile of a known drug that causes mutation, the characters appendages turned to snakes and bit them to death.

The stupidity from 5E players only are truly amazing.  They don't realize the world has rules and the rule of cool won't save them from being retarded.

A few things to unpack there.

To start with, I'm with everyone else here in being very against illusionist gm-ing. I think this forum tends to trend towards the simulationist end of the GSN paradigm. Personally I'm unapologetically much more gamist in my approach, in that I'll generally prioritize a functionally playing game over one that accurately simulates reality. Even then, one of the basics of a functioning game is that the rules apply consistently and evenly, and that no one gets to cheat. To use a videogame analogy, having the DM change the rolls/stats behind the screen is akin to a videogame where the hit-detection malfunctions and it becomes unpredictable whether a weapon model colliding with a character model will cause damage, or a boss monster reads your inputs to attack you at the exact instant you start healing. It's the game itself cheating. I GM by a strict rule that once the "pieces are on the board", i.e., once I've described the scenario or written it down in my adventure notes, I take my hands off. No changing stats, no spawning monsters, etc. The rolls are the rolls. 

I say that to say this:
------------------------------------------------------
Where it says that "they don't want the excitement to lead to certain character death", I actually kind of agree. I highlight the word "certain", because that's key to the issue. For character death to be certain, the encounter must not reasonably be survivable, escapable or avoidable. Probably sounds like a low bar, but I've seen GMs fail to meet it. I call this out, because periodically I see people talking tough about how fairness doesn't matter in an RPG, and I always have the same thought: If your GM locked your level one character in a room with an ancient dragon and then proceeded to burn you to death in the first turn, I bet you'd be annoyed.

That's obviously an extreme example, but it makes the point. You don't need to --and shouldn't-- carefully balance every encounter to give the players a 76% chance of victory, but it's also a really dumb idea to railroad them into defeat.
-------------------------------------------------------
I also wonder to what extent it's actually fair to blame WOTC for this. Trust me, I hate WOTC as much as the next man, but I'm not sure they're the ones driving the general trend towards Illusionism. From what I've seen that trend is driven more by social media, RPG influencers and particularly youtubers. It's probably more fair to blame the Sly Flourishes, the "How to be a Great GM"s and the Matt Mercers of the world. WOTC might just be trying to chase what they perceive as the going trend in the hobby, albeit incompetently.
-------------------------------------------------------

A couple of people have mentioned target prioritization for NPCs. That's a tough one if you're trying to be the hands-off impartial GM. I always try to work out in my head what the individual monster's perspective is, and how tactical its thinking might be, but at the end of the day, the GM is benefitting from a detached bird's eye view from the encounter. It's very easy to accidentally play the monsters as either too efficient or too stupid. One thing I've considered trying is writing out in advance how a monster does target priority, so that at least I'm sure I'm not letting myself be influenced by the dynamic at the table.

------------------------------------------------------
Just a weird coincidence, but this video popped up in my feed yesterday, making the argument that the 5e stat blocks are subtly designed for illusionist DM-ing. Kind of interesting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6CVeiPvR34

Quote from: ForgottenF on December 23, 2023, 05:06:27 PM
A few things to unpack there.

To start with, I'm with everyone else here in being very against illusionist gm-ing. I think this forum tends to trend towards the simulationist end of the GSN paradigm. Personally I'm unapologetically much more gamist in my approach, in that I'll generally prioritize a functionally playing game over one that accurately simulates reality. Even then, one of the basics of a functioning game is that the rules apply consistently and evenly, and that no one gets to cheat. To use a videogame analogy, having the DM change the rolls/stats behind the screen is akin to a videogame where the hit-detection malfunctions and it becomes unpredictable whether a weapon model colliding with a character model will cause damage, or a boss monster reads your inputs to attack you at the exact instant you start healing. It's the game itself cheating. I GM by a strict rule that once the "pieces are on the board", i.e., once I've described the scenario or written it down in my adventure notes, I take my hands off. No changing stats, no spawning monsters, etc. The rolls are the rolls. 

I say that to say this:
------------------------------------------------------
Where it says that "they don't want the excitement to lead to certain character death", I actually kind of agree. I highlight the word "certain", because that's key to the issue. For character death to be certain, the encounter must not reasonably be survivable, escapable or avoidable. Probably sounds like a low bar, but I've seen GMs fail to meet it. I call this out, because periodically I see people talking tough about how fairness doesn't matter in an RPG, and I always have the same thought: If your GM locked your level one character in a room with an ancient dragon and then proceeded to burn you to death in the first turn, I bet you'd be annoyed.

That's obviously an extreme example, but it makes the point. You don't need to --and shouldn't-- carefully balance every encounter to give the players a 76% chance of victory, but it's also a really dumb idea to railroad them into defeat.
-------------------------------------------------------
I also wonder to what extent it's actually fair to blame WOTC for this. Trust me, I hate WOTC as much as the next man, but I'm not sure they're the ones driving the general trend towards Illusionism. From what I've seen that trend is driven more by social media, RPG influencers and particularly youtubers. It's probably more fair to blame the Sly Flourishes, the "How to be a Great GM"s and the Matt Mercers of the world. WOTC might just be trying to chase what they perceive as the going trend in the hobby, albeit incompetently.
-------------------------------------------------------

A couple of people have mentioned target prioritization for NPCs. That's a tough one if you're trying to be the hands-off impartial GM. I always try to work out in my head what the individual monster's perspective is, and how tactical its thinking might be, but at the end of the day, the GM is benefitting from a detached bird's eye view from the encounter. It's very easy to accidentally play the monsters as either too efficient or too stupid. One thing I've considered trying is writing out in advance how a monster does target priority, so that at least I'm sure I'm not letting myself be influenced by the dynamic at the table.

------------------------------------------------------
Just a weird coincidence, but this video popped up in my feed yesterday, making the argument that the 5e stat blocks are subtly designed for illusionist DM-ing. Kind of interesting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6CVeiPvR34

I find negative reinforcement tends to get players to learn targeting.  Like allowing a wizard to get off that second lightning bolt off because everyone decided to take out the 10 hp guards because it was epic, rather than stopping the guy doing AE 35hp a shot.  I'm expecting a potential TPK now due to that decision by players who damn well know better and decided fuck it, they are fighting push overs.  Open the wrong secret door, say hello to the huge dragon.  Oh, you are opening giant doors in what appears to be an obvious dragon's lair and you just killed a sub-boss that was behind a red dragon illusion and you are pikachu surprised a huge red dragon is there and you have 6 level 11's but you have players a few players with 20 hps because you weren't thinking?  Sucks to be you guys.  And then when the red dragon puts up a faustian bargain where you give one of your magic items and he'll let you live and one player decides fuck that, you aren't getting his bow +1, well good luck players.

If more DM's played the game as it is and kept the rolls the way it is, we'd all have better games and not seeing complete and utter fuck ups like what I just DM'd today.  50/50 chance of a TPK by a CR Easy with six level 11's due to poor play and poor role playing experience.  When given a chance of life and come back later when healed but to reach for defeat for most of the party, that is called stupidity.

They seem to think that younger players will be too dumb to notice the obvious fudging or that they won't find it condescending and annoying.  Also, a lot of the people supporting this act like D&D 5e is some grim and gritty game where death is always right around the corner.  It's not.  It's really, really not.  5e characters go down fairly often but they rarely actually die.  If you are worried about characters dying, the obvious solution would be to have characters start at level 3 and give them a few healing potions.  The odds of a character dying outright from damage at that level are pretty much zero.  The characters will be a bit more complicated but they will all have their class' signature ability at that point.  It's a big step up in capability.  If you are really worried, you can always throw in a tag-along support character with spells like bless and healing word to buff them and pop them back up when they go down.  You probably won't need it though.  The CR system tends to deliver very easy encounters if you use it as is.  It considers an encounter with 4 cr 1/2 thugs to be of medium difficulty for a group of 4 level 3 PCs.  It's not.  It's really, really not.  The PCs will win easily.  If you bother with the healbot npcs, it's only insurance in case they get really unlucky in one of the encounters.  I have had a monster get 4 crits in a row.  It doesn't happen often but it happens. 

Quote from: honeydipperdavid on December 23, 2023, 06:59:38 PM

Quote from: ForgottenF on December 23, 2023, 05:06:27 PM
A few things to unpack there....
------------------------------------------------------
Where it says that "they don't want the excitement to lead to certain character death", I actually kind of agree. I highlight the word "certain", because that's key to the issue. For character death to be certain, the encounter must not reasonably be survivable, escapable or avoidable. Probably sounds like a low bar, but I've seen GMs fail to meet it. I call this out, because periodically I see people talking tough about how fairness doesn't matter in an RPG, and I always have the same thought: If your GM locked your level one character in a room with an ancient dragon and then proceeded to burn you to death in the first turn, I bet you'd be annoyed.

That's obviously an extreme example, but it makes the point. You don't need to --and shouldn't-- carefully balance every encounter to give the players a 76% chance of victory, but it's also a really dumb idea to railroad them into defeat....

I find negative reinforcement tends to get players to learn targeting.  Like allowing a wizard to get off that second lightning bolt off because everyone decided to take out the 10 hp guards because it was epic, rather than stopping the guy doing AE 35hp a shot.  I'm expecting a potential TPK now due to that decision by players who damn well know better and decided fuck it, they are fighting push overs.  Open the wrong secret door, say hello to the huge dragon.  Oh, you are opening giant doors in what appears to be an obvious dragon's lair and you just killed a sub-boss that was behind a red dragon illusion and you are pikachu surprised a huge red dragon is there and you have 6 level 11's but you have players a few players with 20 hps because you weren't thinking?  Sucks to be you guys.  And then when the red dragon puts up a faustian bargain where you give one of your magic items and he'll let you live and one player decides fuck that, you aren't getting his bow +1, well good luck players.

If more DM's played the game as it is and kept the rolls the way it is, we'd all have better games and not seeing complete and utter fuck ups like what I just DM'd today.  50/50 chance of a TPK by a CR Easy with six level 11's due to poor play and poor role playing experience.  When given a chance of life and come back later when healed but to reach for defeat for most of the party, that is called stupidity.

As far as the dragon goes, it seems like you gave them a more than fair shot. Under the three-fold test I put forward above, the encounter was both avoidable and escapable, and might even be survivable with 6 level 11s, so it'd definitely be kosher by me.

When it comes to the wizard, I'm of two minds. Maybe this is a generational thing. I play with a slightly younger crowd, and a lot of them are big videogamers, so I've never had to teach anyone basic game tactics like focusing down the enemy's chief damage dealer. If anything I experience the opposite problem. I might be alone in this, but there's a nebulous point where too much tactical efficiency starts to feel like metagaming to me. Flip your scenario on its head a little: Imagine a character has three goblins trying to murder them with spears, and they ignore the proximate threat to get more damage on the big bad one of their allies is fighting. Tactically correct, but I have difficulty believing it's what the character would do in the situation.