Playing D&D “Wrong”

I was a regular on a 1st Edition AD&D Forum for about 8 years, one thing I noticed after the first year was that certain topics would keep coming up. One that was most frequent and took the most variations, was the “you are playing it wrong” take. 

The most common form was the “you should play BTB” crowd. They would insist on eliminating all house rules and using the book as written. Play something else rather than modify D&D was the suggestion, as playing house ruled D&D with “fun” local house rules was playing it wrong.

Another variation argued that you should drop 1e entirely as it’s “broken” and just play other games, playing it with house rules to “fix it” is playing it wrong. It can’t be fixed.

Still a third version argued that D&D can only be played one way, e.g. only hack and slash, only violent, only competitively, and as such playing it in another way (e.g. more role play and less combat) is “playing it wrong”, play another game that does what you want better.

I’m seeing these arguments popping up here on Twitter. I want to address a few things about this, But to do so I will define a few terms. I don’t believe that saying you are "playing D&D wrong”, applies in many cases, you can run an unenjoyable game, or you can implement a rule in a mistaken way rather than willfully changing it

You can make mistakes running a game, but there isn’t any one playstyle, any one rule, that defines the game. D&D isn’t like other games, for all its flaws, and there are many, it is remarkably robust. There are over 100 retroclones of D&D, and people have been playing early editions since the 70’s straight through to today. 

I’m sure the number of people playing 5e now outstrips the number now playing all the older , the editions combined, and other contemporary games from BITD (e.g. Runequest). Still, the number of people and the work they are willing to do to modify an existing game suggests there is something there

Why not just play something else? I find that question odd, as every person I know who has been playing D&D for a long time has played other games. I have, about 15 or 16 other RPG’s over the last 35 years. I have tried other games, I come back to D&D for other reasons

So don’t assume that someone still playing Pathfinder has only played Pathfinder, or whatever. I buy new games and try them out, I play in conventions and with friends to try out other systems. I poach from them mercilessly, and add them to my game when they work

My suggestion is this, D&D is a good foundation to build upon, and remarkably flexible, because it is modular, you can remove or add a lot without breaking the game, for a few reasons:

1. It is based on bounded randomization with many tables, so adding or taking away some is not disruptive, and adding to or changing those tables is straightforward.
2. Gradually increasing levels of magic and HP sustain long term play, but lethality is still high due to many other mechanics (failed saves, poison), and individual ones can be added or dropped without great effect
3. The system of small cumulative bonuses (e.g. for melee, strength, weapon specialization, magical weapon “+”, etc.) is easily customizable, e.g. if you find the party is hitting too often, drop the weapon specialization.
4. D&D was built on the model of “mini-games” within the overall game, e.g the rules for casting spells from high level scrolls, psionics, combat in flight, etc. You can drop or use any of these without damaging the game
5. It was built to be multi-genre (e.g. sci fi, western and fantasy elements were assumed to be in use, with conversion rules for these systems, so it was always expected to add to the system and was designed for it
6. It can be run with much direction and "railroading" or pretty much entirely "sandbox" at the DM's discretion as designed, so it was created to be flexible.

There are other factors, but that’s enough. The point is that you can add or drop things and run a perfectly functional, fun game. Alignment is a great example, DMs often just dropped it. It is a central concept to the game, but it can run without it, you just have to change some magic items and ignore some metaphysics. Inconsistency only matters if it is gross, common and unfair, if your overall system of magic isn't completely conceptually watertight the game can still run. It ends up that pretty much anything in D&D can be changed, really the only thing that would be too much trouble to change, not impossible, but too cumbersome I think, would be, for example, changing 1e from a class based to a skill based system. That's pretty central to the design.

There are a few things that would be a lot of work, too much, but for most things, you can just patch it with whatever you like. Don’t like 1e initiative? Use the drawing chits out of a bowl method, go! That’s fine, it won’t break D&D to do that. Don't like the playable races? Just use other ones, the game won't break. Don't like racial ability limits? Don't use them, the game ticks along fine.

I run a game with described damage (no HP damage reporting to players), specified verbalized components for spells, location of hit tables, sustained damage and criticals, and substitutable components for spells. Of those 6 things, 4 are not BTB, two are rules options

No amount of house ruling makes a game “not D&D”, if that’s what you started with. There isn’t a point after which it is “no longer D&D”, again, there’s a point after which its too much work to change it, but I’ve played D&D where the players don’t roll any dice, I’ve let players run my monsters

Warlocks in my game say the verbal components of their spells, encounter reaction rolls and morale, along with XP=GP rules allow the pursuit of non-violent game goals, and prioritize outthinking rather than outfighting to solve problems

My games end up about 70% RP/resource management, 30% combat, is that still D&D?” Yes it is. So when people say you should play D&D “BTB” and minimize or eliminate house rules, that’s fine, but it isn’t the “right” way to play D&D. It’s one way to play D&D, as close to the book as possible, remembering that there is disagreement about what BTB is

But make no mistake, D&D runs just fine with house rules, the proof is in the pudding, though Gygax was right that too much tinkering could ruin a game, many games have become fine tuned through years of tinkering, and have survived with continuous play for many

The second concern, that D&D is “broken” and not worth fixing, is again, mistaken, as many, many, many people have “fixed” it and used it for multi-year campaigns with many players. I’ve run several myself, and I’m not unique. It may not be worth the time to fix some things…

… and other games do some things better than a “grafted on” to D&D version will do, so for example, skill based systems like Runequest do skills better than D&D with skills bolted on, but that doesn’t mean the D&D version can’t be servicable

Yes, there are some fault lines in the game, but they just become locations for house ruling and creating a different version of the game. I’ve seen endless variations on D&D’s basic structure, all creative, different (in design and in play) that are just as vaild and interesting as other games

So that’s why I reject the “D&D is hopelessly flawed, so why try to fix it” version of “you are playing it wrong”. That leaves the playstyle example. The argument seems to be shaping up to, if you use “Rule 0”, the DM is the final arbiter in the game, that it can be “toxic” and unfair to the players. 

The argument is that D&D was conceived as a competitive game, specifically the DM challenging the players, working in an adversarial fashion. So a rule 0 like this has the potential for abuse. And of course it does, we all have stories of abusive DM’s, and abusive players.

I've also seen the argument that D&D sort of has to be played in this adversarial way, as the game designer suggests it, so he must have designed the game to be played that way and no other. Or that playing it other ways is a "bad fit" so shouldn't be done, or perhaps will produce a bad gaming experience for the players.

But quite honestly, I haven’t seen many people play D&D this way, it may be something that shaped Gygax’s presentation of the rules, but it hasn’t dominated game play. D&D is most often played, to my observation, with the DM as a neutral arbiter for difficult rules calls

The DM is not in competition with the players or considered to have “won” if they do badly or “lost” if they do well. I don’t see DM’s from early editions saying this sort of stuff. In my 8 years on Dragonsfoot no one argued this way. I don't see people today saying this, I see everyone saying you are winning if everyone has fun. Most people don't think of D&D as a competition in the way Gygax did, and those who do certainly don't see it as an excuse for abuse.

Sure, they liked to challenge their players, but there was never a sense of working against them, or reveling in their defeat. I think there is a tendency to overgeneralize about early edition D&D, just like 5e isn’t so collaborative that the game isn’t challenging for the players, early edition isn’t so adversarial that the game is toxic

I think the focus should be on identifying abusive DM’s and empowering players to challenge them at the table or find more welcoming games. I’ve played with DM’s who were abusive, I’m interested in figuring out how to minimize that sort of thing.

But the idea of having the DM be the final arbiter can be perfectly democratic, the group agrees to it in session 0. I’ve been discussing this rule with players all my life. In my game I get the final say if we are disagreeing and it’s taking up too much time at the table. But I also leave it open to discuss the ruling out of the game, my main concern is to ensure we don’t waste too much time arguing at the table. It isn’t inherently unfair to have a referee, but we need mechanisms for identifying bad behavior and empowering players to avoid being abused.

As a DM I explain my rulings to my players as all of them are working towards one day running their own D&D or other games. They want to learn (I run games for an after school program), so I let them look at all the books at the table. Gygax would never have done this. But D&D still works when you do this. I find few things "have" to happen for it to be D&D, as long as it starts as some version of the game and is modified from there.

I find any essentialist claims about D&D to be ill-informed. It is adaptable. I suspect many RPG’s are. I go to the forums for other games sometimes to watch people debate house rules for other games too, other games go through multiple editions, other games are house ruled, other games produce variants and disagreements about rules interpretations. This adaptability has led to a lot of tinkering. D&D is a kit-bashing game, and it doesn’t fall to essentialist definition.

So you aren’t playing it wrong if you run 80% RP and 20% combat in D&D, even if other systems do the RP “better”, you aren’t playing it wrong if you house rule it, everyone house rules it, and people house rule other games too.

You aren’t playing it wrong if you are running it competitively or non-competitively, if the DM is the final arbiter or you achieve decisions by consensus. All that matters is that everyone is having fun, exciting gaming. That’s it. 

If you are being abusive to your players, unfair to individuals or groups, ruling against some players more often, using your power to intimidate people or bully them, then you are playing it wrong. 

If you are disrupting other players, talking over them, telling them how to play their characters, you are playing it wrong, as it is not fun for all. If it’s too easy and everyone loses interest you are playing it wrong, if it’s too hard and everyone loses interest you are playing it wrong.

But that’s about it. It can all be distilled down to this, with D&D, the only way to “play it wrong” is to run a non-consensual, unenjoyable game. Any playstyle or rule set of D&D can produce an enjoyable game, and there is ample evidence that many have.

I would like to see the discussion shift to how to deal with DM’s who are abusive or toxic, how to help players in those games and help them to avoid those games, and how the DM avoids being abusive, what tricks and tips do people use to check themselves?

Rather than more people suggesting the game should be played in one way or another, or suggesting it shouldn’t be played at all. There are some nuanced conversations about how to remain neutral as a DM that aren’t happening because of hot takes on this stuff, that’s too bad

I'll revisit this topic soon as I have some thoughts on how to deal with abusive DM's, but the first step was to address the "you are playing it wrong" arguments that I have been seeing more and more on Twitter lately.