New Legend and Lore: Getting the Most out of the Rules

[Pentius]

DMG must also be evocative and full of ideas and hooks (in that 4E DMG II was excellent).

Hell, in that context, 4eDMG1 was excellent. I've never had a group get so much experience outside of killing things as I have since I started using 4e DMG1 guidelines.

 

[avin]

Hell, in that context, 4eDMG1 was excellent. I've never had a group get so much experience outside of killing things as I have since I started using 4e DMG1 guidelines.

Started playing D&D on second edition and I can't remember any of my DMs giving XP outside killing things.

On 3E I started DMing D&D and always give XP for clever ideas and overcoming challenges using other skills, so 4E doesn't changed that for my groups.

(/off topic)

 

[Pentius]

Started playing D&D on second edition and I can't remember any of my DMs giving XP outside killing things.

On 3E I started DMing D&D and always give XP for clever ideas and overcoming challenges using other skills, so 4E doesn't changed that for my groups.

(/off topic)

I vaguely recall it being suggested that one give exp for good roleplaying, but without guidelines for how much or how often, in my experience, it was always used when the Dm realized the party was less than 100 exp from levelling and would say, "Oh, yeah, you guys did good RP today, take the rest of the exp you need to level."

It was a thing I tried to do when Dming as well, but using the 4e guidelines marks the first time I've had a group earn fully half their exp(so far, anyway) from non-combat solutions to problems.

 

[delericho]

They should produce a really good Starter Set, and give that the task of teaching the game.

The place for providing inspiration is in the 'setting elements' - the campaign settings, of course, and adventures, but also in the Monster Manuals, and the "DM section" of DDI.

This then frees up the core rulebooks to be reference works, the role they will serve for the vast majority of their operational life.

Honestly, with fantasy now so much more mainstream than it was, the D&D Core Rulebooks is the last place I would go for inspiration. And a 300-page rulebook is not a good way to teach the game, no matter how it is written.

 

[Doug McCrae]

I went with 1, 1, 5, 5. In my view, the rules text should be very clear, but also short. The D&D rules are mostly far too long, with too much space taken up with monsters, powers, etc and not enough devoted to options (such as a quicker/slower combat system) and advice.

We don't need the rules to be a muse. Fantasy, and other fiction already does that job far better. No writer anything like as good as Tolkien, Vance or Moorcock has ever been employed by TSR or WotC.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

If they keep the rules elements reasonably short, then that frees up space for the more evocative text in setting material, examples, etc. But in the explanation of the rules themselves, I want pure reference material, written as clearly as possible.

 

[avin]

We don't need the rules to be a muse. Fantasy, and other fiction already does that job far better. No writer anything like as good as Tolkien, Vance or Moorcock has ever been employed by TSR or WotC.

In my very very personal and subjetive view, Planescape books were written by people as good as Vance and Moorcock.

Now, if we just could cast Ressurrection on Bukowski for a Modern setting and Chandler and Hammet for some noir...

 

[MatthewJHanson]

It's been said already, but I think it bares repeating.

I want my rules material to by crisp and clear, so I know exactly what it means. If it's dry and dull, that's okay.

I want my settings, adventure, and monster descriptions to be cool and evocative.

I enjoy conversational sidebars that tell us what the designers where thinking (and how to make house rules if we disagree).

Oh, and every intro book should include the play-script style "example of play." I never tire of reading those.

 

[mmadsen]

In my opinion, modern gaming books are, above all, verbose -- and the evocative "fluffy" bits often don't match the highly technical "crunchy" bits that follow.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

In my very very personal and subjective view, Planescape books were written by people as good as Vance and Moorcock.

Now, if we just could cast Ressurrection on Bukowski for a Modern setting and Chandler and Hammet for some noir...

Well, that's another reason for not writing core rules in an (edit: artistic) style. Good, bad, or indifferent, that kind of style some people will like and some will not. So that limits the appeal of the rules. For every person enchanted by the style, you'll have another less enthusiastic.

When it comes to the borderline, optional rules geared for a particular settting ... I'm not sure. I lean towards not going for evocative even then, because frankly, the next time someone shows me good evocative writing that is also good reference material, it will be the first. I don't even believe it is possible to do it, within the time and budget of an RPG--if at all. But if such writing belongs anywhere, then optional rules for a setting is the place.