System Nudging

 A frequent objection given against my rants against certain post-TSR trends in D&D is that my rants do not target the system per se, but rather table behaviour. That it is possible to use it in a different way and not go where the game is implicitly inviting you to go.

I call this phenomenon of game invitation "system nudging". The basic idea is:

If you have rules in the core system for how fighters may build a stronghold, then you will see this happening more often than in a system that does not make this part of its core rules.

In other words, although the system is not necessarily telling you that you should do this, it is nonetheless nudging you in that direction. It's basically the system telling you how it wants to played.

How often does this happen in Classic D&D vs 5e?
The mortality rules for each set will give you a good idea.

There are degrees of nudging, and types. Some are intentional, others accidental because the developers didn't consider the implications of what they were doing.

For example, if the core rules tell you that at 9th level, a thief may construct a hideout which will attract 2-12 followers (and that the player may wish to consider starting a thieves guild from here) then that is the system nudging you towards this kind of play. If this were presented as an optional rule in a supplement instead, the nudge would be far weaker and one would expect that happening becomes far less prevalent at game tables.

Likewise, if the system rewards planning ahead and making decisions on your character that only become relevant several levels in the future, then the system is directly nudging players towards the "build" mini-game. It is also indirectly nudging away from premature character death.

Meanwhile, Classic D&D with its somewhat punitive "death at 0 hp" rules and quick character creation rules nudges tables towards a more accepting attitude concerning PC deaths.

A game that includes a roster celebrating the PCs that died on the way nudges the game even stronger in such a direction.

Castle Xyntillan's playtest credits name every character that died playtesting the module, along with cause of death.
A full 7 characters were burned to cinders by a stove - It must have been at the killer kitchen, though I cannot fathom from the text how it happened.

A game with alignment in the core rules nudges tables towards considering that as an aspect of their behaviour, even if it has no mechanical implications.

A game where XP for killing monsters is the primary source of XP will nudge players more towards being big game hunters than a game where gold is the primary source.

And yes, When you have a mechanic that turns everything into a button and places that button right in front of you, down to the granularity of setting DCs for tying knots and running down stairs, the tendency does become to push that button. 

Nudging also lies at the core of the old school philosophy - to play games that discourage players from only looking to their character sheets for solution to problems. The very concept of rules-light systems is founded upon system nudging. 

The arguments presented in the comments to this blog against the significance of nudging range from the thoughtful:

"I think it's important to factor in table-culture issues as well. Some of these problems do flow from the d20 system design, I think, but others instead reflect habits of play"

to

"You're not supposed to focus on that"

and

"Assholes stop good roleplaying, not dice."

So I told him "Assholes stop good roleplaying, not dice."

But then I saw a post on the OD&D forum on how 5e played in his group which really solidified my own opinion of it:

... I came to the conclusion that 5e really is designed for players who hate to even take notes* let alone track ammo, as the proliferation of spells or rules in place that make it so damage is relatively instantly healed, never starve, always take a rest so no Exhaustion, etc. & these players loved the freedom from restrictions to the point that they really couldn't take character harm or even death seriously, so nothing was a risk or a challenge.

They even boasted that 5e was designed for this.

They could play on their phones while they cake-walked thru adventures.

And they did.

They were about 8th level at the time & could have taken over the guild for themselves, but instead they handed over to some friendly thief NPCs & left for the tranquil wilderness.

They didn't want a HQ, they didn't know that they could do it (never did any of them read AD&D, BX, BECMI or 0e) or thought it could be an exciting part of the D&D game. 

Now, I have no judgements to bear on the decisions of that group per se. But one thing I do find it pivotal here is that it simply didn't occur to them that they could have taken over the guild. Because the game itself had zero nudges for it (maybe 5.5's new rules for bastions will change that, I don't know).

I think it is not just the absence of nudges at stake here, but the nudges that 5e has itself. It presents a game that is very much about a troupe of happy-go-lucky semi-immortal plucky adventurers who show up for the adventure of the week each session to pull off some signature moves in a cool way. 

I am grossly caricaturing here, but this is IMO, what 5e nudges towards, with its art direction, its deathless play and focus on how much of the fun is to be had with mechanical player widgets defining what your character can do.

Art direction also constitutes a form of nudging.

Of course you can play it differently. And I would say 5e is in fact rather open-ended as games go when it comes to nudging. But if you aren't getting your nudges from somewhere else to take the game in those different directions, then I think this is the default mode that the game invites you to play.

I see it also at our own game table. Players make different choices, approach the game differently, depending on the system. Switching from 5e to classic D&D has resulted in players being a lot more cautious and thinking through their approach. They become more interested in problem solving and finding lateral solution to challenges they previously were more inclined to swing a battleaxe at. 

The gold-for-xp mechanic has also tilted the moral shading of the group towards a more mercurial one.

And one thing that demonstrated  a major shortcoming in 5e's approach to mortality by comparison - They take the preservation of their own lives far more seriously. There are places they won't go, challenges they don't want to risk, because they know death is a very real possibility. in 5e, it really was more of "ok, we know better than to take on an ancient dragon, but otherwise, we'll wait until halfway into a fight to determine if we are in over our heads."

They are the same players, but the system nudges them in different directions.

Of course, you can argue "but you can play 5e and take mortality seriously too". Sure, but it basically working against the system, aka making extra work for yourselves to make it work.

Of course, you can houserule the nudges away. That is a time honoured tradition. 5e, I think, requires a lot of houseruling to do that. But it can be done and the system is rather more forgiving of this than 3e or 5e, imo. Hell, I made an entire game to nudge 5e into an old school direction. But that's a lot of effort (believe me).

Where am I going with this? My basic point really is to help people understand that choice of system really does influence how play unfolds in a lot of ways. The game wants to be played in certain ways and I think we should take those invitations at face value when reviewing them and consider how these nudges might affect the gameplay at the table in our choice of system.