Legends and Lore: A Different Way to Slice the Pie

[Doctor Proctor]

Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Article (A Different Way to Slice the Pie)

So imagine slicing the pie a different way. Rather than calling out attacks of opportunity as an element of D&D combat, you simply add the rules where and when they are needed. So it would say, as in 1st Edition, that if you move away from a foe, or use a missile weapon next to him, the foe gets a free attack.

This seems like a bad idea... Sure, it sounds simple in practice "Oh, just put the rule where it's needed, and it leads to less rules in the rules section!", but the problem is that things like OA's interact with multiple things.

In the PHB, for example, you would need to explain it in several different places according to his thinking.

1. The Fighter entry for Combat Superiority would need an explanation of OA's, since it gives a buff to them
2. The movement rules would need an explanation when it comes to moving out of a square adjacent to an enemy
3. Ranged attack rules would need a reference since those provoke OA's when adjacent

Or with Damage Resistance, you would need to explain that rule on every entry for every Dragon, since they all have resistances to various element types.

One advantage to introducing rules when they are needed is that you can keep low-level game play simple. There are many elements of the game that one might argue don't need to come into play at 1st level, such as damage resistance. It's a fine mechanic, but at 1st level, you kind of just want to roll dice and see if you hit. If you package damage resistance as a concept only within the situations where it arises (spells, monster descriptions, and so on), and then make sure that these rules situations don't come into play at low levels, you're set. Both the new player and the experienced player who just doesn't want to deal with a lot of rules can sit down, play a 1st-level character, and never even know that damage resistance (or teleportation, or scrying, or mind control, or grappling, or whatever concept you want to label as being unnecessary or overly cumbersome for low-level play) exists.

This idea is a little bit better, but still has some issues. You could do something like, say, introduce OA's at level 3. But what about when the players are level 2 (pre-OA) and have to fight level 3 monsters (theoretically post-OA here)? This would be trivially easy to fit into the XP budget, even to keep at an N+0 level encounter. So do the monsters not get OA's because the PC's are at level 2? If so, what happens when they reach level 3? Do the same monsters suddenly learn the ability to use OA's, even though their level hasn't changed at all?

Another problem arises with the scenario where the new player and experienced player are sitting down together and starting from level 1. I played 2e, but skipped over 3e before eventually coming back to D&D almost 10 years later for 4e. Most of the group I was playing with all played 3e (in one form or another). This led to a lot of confusion at the table though, as they were constantly trying to do things according to 3e rules at first, even though some of those things had completely changed in 4e. It had been so long since I had played that it was easier for me to forget the old 2e knowledge and learn the new system, but for them it was much harder because some of them were even in 3e campaigns concurrent with our 4e campaign!

You will run into the same problem with level based complexity. When the level 5 player rolls up a level 1 to start playing a new game, he might starting talking about "shifts" and "OA's", even though they haven't been introduced yet (since a shift is really designed to avoid OA's, there's not much reason to introduce them earlier). Not only would he need to "forget" his advanced knowledge, but it then might confuse new players or DM's because he's talking about things that aren't listed in the low level handbooks at all!

What are other people's thoughts on this column? Am I wrong, and Monte is up to something great, or is this just another pie in the sky column that doesn't really go anywhere?

 

[aurance]

I fundamentally disagree with Cook's assertion, agree with Doctor Proctor's. If there's a rule element that would work the same in 12 different situations, it simplifies things to call it one thing and define it instead of writing out the same rule 12 different times.

Incidentally, as I suspected I've been fundamentally disagreeing with most of what Cook says in these columns.

 

[keterys]

I'm pretty sure that such a change would have to be accompanied by a lot less possible OAs.

So the fighter wouldn't need to talk about them, because he wouldn't get a bonus to them.

I'm a little dubious they can pull it off for _most_ things. I do think it's possible to pull it off for some.

For example, conditions: make it so nothing in the heroic tier restrains, stuns, or dominates. Poof, less conditions to learn (and incidentally some better balanced powers).

 

[fba827]

the rules in general become a lot easier to remember and adjudicate when things are standardized. Unless it is a true exception, it is a lot easier to have it defined once (a lot like 4e has with conditions, regen, OAs, and so on) so that it can be consistent and easier to implement during the game.
it also reduces 'text overload' for a monster entry to see a couple key words and know what it means rather than (as a DM) trying to reread everything at the table to see if there is an exception hidden inside the text or if it's the standard text.

Now if it is something that is only going to come up in a very limited set of situations, then, sure introduce it only when it is relevant.

I guess the question I am coming to mentally is, at what point is it an exception rather than mainstream (i.e. if it applies to 5 creatures in the MM does it become a mainstream thing? or does it need to be more widespread than that to be standardized into a codified rule)

 

[Scribble]

the rules in general become a lot easier to remember and adjudicate when things are standardized.

But I think his point is to reduce the need to memorize certain rules in the first place.

In the current system we have an attack of Opportunity and that is defined as a thing, and how it comes about. So now we memorize that rule, and later on down the road things will call out: This causes an Attack of Opportunity.

IE Casting a spell provoked an AoO from nearby foes,

If we don't know what an AoO is ( we haven't memorized it) then we're in trouble, so we all have to memorize AoO.


What he's proposing is getting rid of the AoO as a thing, and then just saying Casting this spell grants a free attack to people nearby in the spell description.

Essentially what they do now with powers. I don't need to know what a certain mage power does if I'm not playing a mage. It only comes up when we use that power.



I get the feeling they want to make it so that you can sit down, create a character then jump into play and the rules would flow naturaly from play, rather then having to "learn the rules" prior to playing.

 

[Joshua Randall]

you can sit down, create a character then jump into play and the rules would flow naturaly from play

You can do that with any game (including 4e D&D). Start playing it, and look up the rules you need as you go.

rather then having to "learn the rules" prior to playing.

Some people prefer to master a game this way, though. A game shouldn't prevent you from learning the rules first if that's what you want to do.

 

[Scribble]

You can do that with any game (including 4e D&D). Start playing it, and look up the rules you need as you go.

Sure- but what I meant was instead of having a book to go back to and figure out what it's talking about, everything would be right there for you.

Nothing to reference.

Some people prefer to master a game this way, though. A game shouldn't prevent you from learning the rules first if that's what you want to do.

Same can be said about the other way- a game shouldn't force you to learn the rules before being able to use it.

(I know I'll get a million people saying that's an entitled gamers of today viewpoint, but who cares.)

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Sure- but what I meant was instead of having a book to go back to and figure out what it's talking about, everything would be right there for you.

Nothing to reference.

Soooooo, instead when you needed a rule you'd look it up in the book! lol.


Same can be said about the other way- a game shouldn't force you to learn the rules before being able to use it.

(I know I'll get a million people saying that's an entitled gamers of today viewpoint, but who cares.)[/QUOTE]

Here's the problem with putting the rule "wherever it is used", MANY of the rules are used in a LOT of places. Lets just look at ONE simple power, lets say Magic Missile.

How many rules does MM reference? Well, first of all it references the general rules on the frequency of use of powers, and the general rules on how to read a power and what is a keyword, what 'range 20' means, the OA rules associated with that, the LoS and LoE rules associated with that, and then it has a fairly involved interaction with the damage rules as well. Overall there are probably 20-30 rules that are relevant to this ONE simple power alone. Clearly there's no way in heck that all the rules related to each power are going to be re-introduced with each one. So, you're going to have to now draw some arbitrary line in the sand and call SOME of the rules "basic rules" that are never recapitulated and which the player WILL have to reference and some part of them which is now deemed for whatever arbitrary reason "power specific" and gets rehashed along with each power. In the case of the OA rule that Monte called out this will have to be done literally 100's of times in any book that contains a modicum of powers. Given that the OA rules themselves are about half a page long I'm thinking that dedicating 50 pages of the book to reprinting them 50 times is a non-starter. OK, you can instead reprint a 'reminder', but isn't that what the attack type entry for the power IS? Beyond that if a rule is rehashed even twice we've clearly created an issue if it is ever getting errata, on top of which just making sure text is identical in multiple places in a book is an added editorial chore that should be avoided.

Clearly there has to be somewhere where each rule is definitively established and referenced. I don't know what sort of bud Monte was using when he wrote this column, but it addled his wits... Maybe he just needs more sleep, or maybe he should try playing and running 4e before trying to improve on it!

Of course none of this precludes the existence of a beginner's box or a player's book that dedicates 20 pages to describing the rules in the form of an extensive example, but that's a lot different thing from trying to make a rule book where 'everything you need to know' is always on the page you happen to be referencing. I don't think Monte actually means anything like that anyhow, clearly. TBH if he can write an awesome intro book for 4e that guides you through a tutorial and introduces the various rules only when you need them? Great! OTOH from what I can see the RB pretty much did that.

The concept of 'only having the more complicated rules at higher level' makes no sense to me at all, as others have said. The vast majority of the general rules of the game apply in situations that come up at all levels and it is undesirable in a whole host of ways to make the rules inconsistent. Nor is that in any way shape or form how even Basic D&D did it. Characters started out simpler, which they don't do as much in 4e, but the rules never did. They were just pretty simple to start with and there were no non-optional general rules that you didn't use at level 1. Some might just not come up until higher levels, which is fine. Level 1 monsters don't need DR, great! They don't ever have threatening reach, or immediate actions, great! There's a bit you can do there, and it might ease the entry into the game a bit for a new player, but it is that even worth an L&L article to talk about? It is a detail of content design for the game is all. It doesn't even have to be universal, complicated stuff can exist for level 1, it could just be marked "more advanced stuff" or whatever. That's fine too!

 

[Doctor Proctor]

But I think his point is to reduce the need to memorize certain rules in the first place.

In the current system we have an attack of Opportunity and that is defined as a thing, and how it comes about. So now we memorize that rule, and later on down the road things will call out: This causes an Attack of Opportunity.

IE Casting a spell provoked an AoO from nearby foes,

If we don't know what an AoO is ( we haven't memorized it) then we're in trouble, so we all have to memorize AoO.


What he's proposing is getting rid of the AoO as a thing, and then just saying Casting this spell grants a free attack to people nearby in the spell description.

So fine, we add to Magic Missile "Using Magic Missile while adjacent to an enemy gives him a free attack against you." What about Thunderwave? Well, that doesn't need it I guess, so we don't include it. But Scorching Burst? That provokes, so we have to add to that one "Using Thunderwave while adjacent to an enemy him a free attack against you". Could of Daggers? Same thing. You will have to replicate this rule dozens, perhaps hundreds of times for each class.

Essentially what they do now with powers. I don't need to know what a certain mage power does if I'm not playing a mage. It only comes up when we use that power.

True, you may not be playing a mage, but you'll be going up against enemy artillery. So now the DM needs this printed on every monster stat block where its appropriate as well. That's another few hundred iterations of the same basic rule.

A big problem though is that I just noticed a mistake in the text! I said "provokes a free attack", which might imply that it's a free action. However, it's an opportunity action, so now I need to issue some errata. I now have to track every single individual instance of that rule in every bit of published material. This includes, but is not limited to: PHB's, Power Source books, Dragon, Monster Manuals, DMG, Adventurer's Vault (some items grant ranged attacks that would provoke OA's, and possibly modify or negate them), MME, Camgaign Guides, etc... If any one of them is missed, it could create confusion because there is no general rule saying "And Opporunity Attack uses an Opportunity Action" that would prevent the interpretation that the designers meant this instance should be a free action, since they never errata'd it.

Having a singular rule under the heading of "Attacks of Opportunity" negates this issue though, since you only have to issue a single update for each time it's explained. I would guess that would be, maybe 4 or 5 times in the game currently? (PHB1, maybe a reprint in PHB2, HotFL, HotFK, and perhaps in the DMG?)

I get the feeling they want to make it so that you can sit down, create a character then jump into play and the rules would flow naturaly from play, rather then having to "learn the rules" prior to playing.

If that's what you want though, then why not find a system that offers that, instead of complicating the D&D system by creating these complexity tiers through repeated instances of the same rules cropping up explicity, rather than being defined in a rules section? Or better yet, just create soemthing like the Level 0 Character Creation optional rules and slap it into the DMG as a starter adventure. This would be it's own little sandbox with special rules that don't apply elsewhere. Then, when you're done and you've hit Level 1, you read the rules in the PHB and start playing the game with all the components in place.

The only other thing I could see working would be to segregate the books by tier, and then have additional complexity show up in the other tiers. We already have the skeleton of such a system with the ideas of Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies, as well as Paragon and Epic feats. You would need a Heroic, Paragon and Epic PHB (or at least different sections with complete rulesets bound in a single book), as well Heroic, Paragon and Epic versions of the DMG and Monster Manuals (this would help alleviate the issue I mentioned in the OP about the Level 3 monsters vs Level 2 characters that should technicaly have access to rules that the PC's don't). In effect, you're creating three separate games that all sit on top of each other, but each one would have a complete and codified rules set like we have now.

The only problem with that solution is that it risks fracturing the system. You might never play Paragon because your DM only has the Heroic DMG and Heroic MM. At least now the PHB and DMG each include a complete set of rules and serve as a sort of minimum barrier to entry that ensures that both sides of the table are on equal footing.

 

[TerraDave]

I actually liked this better then some recent ones, because what it discusses and proposes is less obvious and has more substance to it.

And hence people are more likely to disagree with it, as they are.