Tenets of D&D?

[mgshamster]

On another board, I came across an argument that had me baffled, and I wanted to ask you fine folk, because I like many of the opinions presented by you all.

The discussion revolved around background features, and someone claimed that features are mechanically useless for a player, and that they're really just RP guidelines for the DM. I vehemently disagreed with this, and during the course of the conversation, this was stated:


That [background features are for players] can't possibly be the case. It violates every tenet about what it means to be a player, and what it means to be the DM. It violates the basic process of play. Players can't just make NPCs do things for them, any more than the DM can decide that a PC jumps off a cliff.

What tenets are these? Where do they come from? I've been playing and running D&D games for nearly 30 years since 2e, and I've never heard of such tenets.

Can any of you help me with the history here?

Note: I've also asked this person the same question, but I wanted to hear from you guys as well.

Note 2: The conversation can be found here. (http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?602786-Do-you-use-allow-custom-backgrounds&p=7295083&viewfull=1#post7295083)

[Kane0]

First i’ve heard of it.

Thing is, when it comes to tabletop games, and it seems RPGs in particular, a lot of the time there isnt an extensive written list of dos and don’ts as much as a series of gentlemens agreements that occurs in meatspace. Things like players taking control of each others characters or when you get to timeskip/montage.

Its one of those double edged swords where there exists the freedom to do whatever without being wrong by the books but still running the risk of offending the other humans that you play with because you dont care about a particular thing as much as they do, or have a differing opinion/approach that the book says nothing about.

Edit: Wait, I was wrong. The three tenets are Combat, Exploration and Interaction. No those are pillars, maybe he meant paladin tenets? But that wouldnt make sense. Hrm...

[Foxhound438]

>players can't just make NPC's do stuff for them

Okay, but background features giving you the ability to get beneficial results from specific actions is basically just the same as rolling well on a persuasion check. With most DM's, if you ask an NPC to lend you aid and roll persuasion and land a total of 23 or something, the DM will say sure to that. In the case of background features, it's saying "I want to do this, and my background feature says I can", which is about the same as saying "my roll says I can".

If the DM thinks that something simply can't be done (ie you're trying to use the noble's feature in an enemy land you might be told to scram by whoever is filtering access), they can rule as such. that's their role in the game in the first place.

[Bahamut7]

Not sure what that player was on about, but I can say many backgrounds offer in game benefits. Granted, they are typically campaign dependent. Now 4e backgrounds and themes (not all) had diversity and great benefits.

[Jerrykhor]

Some people's opinions are stupid and we should ignore them.

[prototype00]

The Tenets that Gygax hewed in tablets of frozen player’s tears, Cheeto dust and stale Mountain Dew of course!

It happened ages ago in the 1970s...

[Nettlekid]

Looking over that conversation, the disagreement seemed to be whether or not the Criminal background's feature of having a network for communication should be a tool for the DM to give hooks to a player or a tool for a player to send messages out through the world. Now, I would say it's both, so the argument was doomed to start with when they staunchly took sides. The person remarking on "tenets of D&D" was suggestion that allowing the player to use Criminal Contact to send messages violates what it means to be a PC versus an NPC.

They could have phrased their point a little better, but I do think it holds water. D&D is less flexible than games like Fate where the players and GM change the world and scenarios together; it's really designed to be a system in which a player controls their character, the Player Character, and every single other character and element of the world is under the control of the DM. A player doesn't get to say "I see a weak point and attack it!" or "I'm so convincing that the guards let me go without a punishment" or "Because I searched the Wizard's room I found his necromantic tome!" Sure, there may be some cases where the DM says they don't care about something and allows the player to design a world component or direct the actions of like a cohort, but that's still the DM allowing that control and the DM has the right to take control back if they need to do so for their world.

So that's what I think this person was remarking on as a "tenet of D&D," imagining that the Criminal Contact feature made NPCs show up and do the character's bidding. The proper way to resolve that would be to ask the DM if there are NPCs that can be made use of, and the DM can guide the player into the proper channel in which they can make use of those NPCs. Flip it the other way around - isn't it the worst when a DM takes control of your character and tells you that you're angry or frightened by something, or declares that you lashed out and attacked an innocent person and then other NPCs blame you for that action that you, the player, did not decide? That's the same thing, the DM should not be able to control PC actions, and players should not be able to control NPCs. By definition.

[LeonBH]

I don't know about the "tenets of D&D" but there the 5E general "rules" like the pillars of adventure and specific beats general. There's also the commonly cited "social contract" that must happen at every table.

But from the quote you present, it seems like they're saying DMs cannot violate a player's agency (they sure can) and players can't mind control an NPC due only to their whims. Seems like they're over aggrandizing it, but it seems to be the point of the quote.

[Arkhios]

Some people's opinions are stupid and we should ignore them.

Well said. *Ignoring the above person's opinion* :smallbiggrin:

(jk)

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

I don't see the backgrounds as being any more violative of the DM's rights than hirelings, or followers from Leadership or various 3E prestige classes.

[2D8HP]

I'll start:

Urchin
Position of Privilege
Athletics, Insight, playing cards, Piloting (watercraft)

...and I think I just created the fantasy version of Lone Starr. God damnit..
Hilarious!

Okay, my best guess of what that guy was on about is the "Tenet" that the rules are what the DM says they are


...Dungeons and Dragons, The Underground and Wilderness Adventures, p. 36: "... everything herein is fantastic, and the best way is to decide how you would like it to be, and then make it that way."

AD&D 1e, DMG, p. 9: "The game is the thing, and certain rules can be distorted or disregarded altogether in favor of play."

AD&D 2E, DMG, p. 3: "At conventions, in letters, and over the phone, I'm often asked for the instant answer to a fine point of the game rules. More often than not, I come back with a question -- what do you feel is right? And the people asking the question discover that not only can they create an answer, but that their answer is as good as anyone else's. The rules are only guidelines."

D&D 3.5 DMG, p. 6: "Good players will always realize that you have ultimate authority over the game mechanics, even superseding something in a rulebook."

Overriding a rule for good reason isn’t cheating. It’s part of the overall rules.

[In fact, you could make an amusing case that demanding that the DM never make a ruling that violates a published rule is cheating - since the published rules say that she can.]...

D&D 5e DMG, p. 263:: "As the Dungeon Master, You aren't limited by the rules in the Player's Handbook, the guidelines in this book, or the selection of monsters in the Monster Manual


I'd describe most RPG's I've played as:
1) GM describes a scene.
2) Player says an action that their PC attempts.
3) GM decides if the PC has no chance of success, no chance of failure, or a partial chance of success.
4) If a partial chance of success, GM makes up on the spot a percentage chance of success.
5) Player rolls dice. .
6) If the player rolls under (or over) the made up number their PC succeeds in attempting the task, if over (or under) the PC fails.
7) GM narrates the immediate consequences until it's time to again ask, "what do you do".
8) Repeat.

Otherwise, if you ask me the "Tenets" are:

Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser, Robin Hood, the Seven Samurai, and Sinbad?: Yes!

Avengers, James Bond, and the X-Men?: Eh nah.

But I think that's just me.

[PhoenixPhyre]

D&D 5e DMG, p. 263:: "As the Dungeon Master, You aren't limited by the rules in the Player's Handbook, the guidelines in this book, or the selection of monsters in the Monster Manual



That's an interesting quote. Note the phrasing:

* Rules in the PHB
* Guidelines in the DMG
* Monsters in the MM.

The last one is obvious, but it's the contrast between the first and second that interests me. It seems like the intent is that all the binding rules are in the PHB, and are player-focused. Note that the PHB doesn't talk to DMs--it presents things as "here are the mechanics that your DM may use to resolve situation X" and "here's how to build/run/equip a character." They're not (at least so it seems) binding on the DM. This is a very different feel from 3e or 4e, where the basic contract was that the rules were binding on everyone, DM included.

Not really on topic, but interesting.

[DivisibleByZero]

What he meant was that BGs offer no mechanical benefits. And he was right.
The benefits BGs provide are almost exclusively used for RP scenarios (or to cut corners and do away with rolling therein).

[KorvinStarmast]

What he meant was that BGs offer no mechanical benefits.
Not quite true.
Proficiencies in two ability checks.
For example, the ability to handle a sailing ship from the Sailor background. That will come into play when a roll for how the party deals with a storm at sea, or tries to sail up the river once they have captured a river going vessel.
Vehicle handling for the Soldier background. (An ability check)
Various tool proficiencies in other background.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

Not quite true.
Proficiencies in two ability checks.
For example, the ability to handle a sailing ship from the Sailor background. That will come into play when a roll for how the party deals with a storm at sea, or tries to sail up the river once they have captured a river going vessel.
Vehicle handling for the Soldier background. (An ability check)
Various tool proficiencies in other background.

I think what he's saying is that the other pieces offer no mechanical benefit. For example, the Bad Reputation feature of the Pirate background allows the player-character to "get away with minor criminal offenses, such as refusing to pay for food at a tavern or breaking down doors at a local shop". A player-character with the Noble background "can secure an audience with a local noble if you need to" and is assumed to have the right to be wherever they are. Those are features of the backgrounds that express themselves in ways that are difficult-to-impossible to express numerically, and manifest by altering how NPCs in the DM's world behave.

I don't see a problem with that, because the DM and the players should be working cooperatively. A DM who objects to a player using the Criminal background to find a message-carrier seems to me to be overly dogmatic and controlling.

[Ninja_Prawn]

The discussion revolved around background features, and someone claimed that features are mechanically useless for a player, and that they're really just RP guidelines for the DM.

I get where they're coming from. Background features (not the other aspects of backgrounds) are primarily and for the most part tools that exist so that the DMs can entangle the players with plot hooks, and/or ignore some of the trivial minutiae that they don't want to deal with (like the outlander feature that lets them passively forage for food on behalf of the entire party).

My interpretation of 5e design philosophy is that background features shouldn't be giving tangible, mechanical benefits to the players (like "you have advantage on <X roll> when <Y circumstance>." That's a badly-designed background feature). The ideal background feature gives the DM ways to advance the plot, disseminate exposition or gently steer the players back on track. That's not to say they're 'guidelines' at all (they're black and white features, open to as much or as little DM interpretation as any other player-facing feature), or that they are 'useless for the player' - particularly if the player wants to find plot hooks, access exposition or get the party back on track.

So I'd say that claiming that "it violates every tenet about what it means to be a player, and what it means to be the DM. It violates the basic process of play" is a ludicrous exaggeration. It may well be that the person who said that didn't really mean it; maybe they were just frustrated with the discussion. But that kind of talk definitely undermines their point and will only set people against them even more strongly.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

I get where they're coming from. Background features (not the other aspects of backgrounds) are primarily and for the most part tools that exist so that the DMs can entangle the players with plot hooks, and/or ignore some of the trivial minutiae that they don't want to deal with (like the outlander feature that lets them passively forage for food on behalf of the entire party).

My interpretation of 5e design philosophy is that background features shouldn't be giving tangible, mechanical benefits to the players (like "you have advantage on <X roll> when <Y circumstance>." That's a badly-designed background feature). The ideal background feature gives the DM ways to advance the plot, disseminate exposition or gently steer the players back on track. That's not to say they're 'guidelines' at all (they're black and white features, open to as much or as little DM interpretation as any other player-facing feature), or that they are 'useless for the player' - particularly if the player wants to find plot hooks, access exposition or get the party back on track.

So I'd say that claiming that "it violates every tenet about what it means to be a player, and what it means to be the DM. It violates the basic process of play" is a ludicrous exaggeration. It may well be that the person who said that didn't really mean it; maybe they were just frustrated with the discussion. But that kind of talk definitely undermines their point and will only set people against them even more strongly.

They're just as much tools the players can use to express agency in the world, and that is a good thing. Having the Sailor background and being able to trade your proficiency for free passage without rolling for it is a good thing. It adds verisimilitude and makes the player feel like their character belongs. They have a niche independent of their actions in a given campaign. Players getting to affect the world is desirable, because it keeps the game from being a DM power trip.

[2D8HP]

I get where they're coming from. Background features (not the other aspects of backgrounds) are primarily and for the most part tools that exist so that the DMs can entangle the players with plot hooks, and/or ignore some of the trivial minutiae that they don't want to deal with (like the outlander feature that lets them passively forage for food on behalf of the entire party)....


They're just as much tools the players can use to express agency in the world, and that is a good thing. Having the Sailor background and being able to trade your proficiency for free passage without rolling for it is a good thing.....
For me "Backgrounds" (along with "Ideals", "Bonds" etc.) are a reason to choose 5e over other games, and only limiting them to published ones is a dilution, a quick look at the alternate ones in the SCAG and the published adventures should be enough to go on.

The hard part is deciding what to make the "primary" background.

To take two fictional examples:

Ulrich von Bek from Moorcock's The Warhound and the World's Pain is a Noble, than a Soldier, then a Mercenary, than a Knight Errant.

Sam Vimes, from Terry Pratchett's Disc World series

“Angua looked at Vimes’s face, which was staring through her. She knew her boss. He thought war was simply another crime, like murder. He didn’t much like people with titles, and regarded being a duke as a job description rather than a lever to greatness. He had an odd sense of humour. And he had a sense for what she thought of as harbingers, those little straws in the wind that said there was a storm coming.”
Young Vimes - Urchin background.
Adult Vimes - City Watch SCAG background
Later Vimes - Noble background (though he chaff's at that label)

[Easy_Lee]

There are no tenets because WotC has not provided them. Further, no one can agree on what those tenets ought to be.

"A DM may not control a player's character." That's a good tenet. But it isn't written down. In fact, rule zero seemingly permits a DM to do anything, including taking control of PCs.

I think WotC ought to release tenets. That would help new players and new DMs better understand how they should play if they want to have a good time. But they'd have to be generally applicable, like the one I provided, and sparse. Otherwise, players would ignore them.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

.
For me "Backgrounds" (along with "Ideals", "Bonds" etc.) are a reason to choose 5e over other games, and only limiting them to published ones is a dilution, a quick look at the alternate ones in the SCAG and the published adventures should be enough to go on.

The hard part is deciding what to make the "primary" background.

To take two fictional examples:

Ulrich von Bek from Moorcock's The Warhound and the World's Pain is a Noble, than a Soldier, then a Mercenary, than a Knight Errant.

Sam Vimes, from Terry Pratchett's Disc World series

Young Vimes - Urchin background.
Adult Vimes - City Watch SCAG background
Later Vimes - Noble background (though he chaff's at that label)

Depends when you start playing Vimes, I think. The background represents what happens before you pick the character up. So if you take, say, Ti-Phillippe from the Kushiel's novels, his background is Sailor because that's what he did before he entered the story. He's also, sort of, a Noble and an Entertainer and maybe some other stuff too, but that all happens in his story - that is, it all happens as part of the campaign. He doesn't get those features, because he doesn't need to; he builds that reputation and those connections organically rather than having them baked in as a part of the character.

Totally agree that the backgrounds are one of my favorite parts of the system.

[KorvinStarmast]

I don't see a problem with that, because the DM and the players should be working cooperatively. A DM who objects to a player using the Criminal background to find a message-carrier seems to me to be overly dogmatic and controlling. Yeah, in general accord with your whole post.