Rules, Rules, Rules (Legends & Lore)

[delericho]

So, Monte's latest "Legends & Lore" column is up, and deals with the question of how detailed the rules should be (in the context of the climb rules).

My thoughts:

- My immediate thought was, "where's the rest of it?" The article seems to be getting to a point, and then seems to just abruptly stop. I had expected something more.

- The poll's better this time. My preference is for something between Options 2 and 3 - provide a common framework for tasks, without micro-managing the details. Actually, 4e does pretty well with this, in the whole "page 42" thing.

- It occurs to me that this is an ideal place for modularity - the Core Rulebook should present the base system without much detail, and they could then publish a book giving far more detailed systems for those who want it (like the 1st Ed "Survival Guides").

 

[UngainlyTitan]

My though were pretty similar though I voted 3 I would prefer 2 with 3 like guidelines.
In practice I find myself using hte DC by level guidelinws and determining the degree of success bases on how well the role is.

 

[D'karr]

My preference would be a rules system that falls between 2 and 3. The rules should give me option 2, and concentrate on keeping all rules to that level of succinctness. A very simple and easy to understand way for the game table to run. It also provides enough leeway for the DM to make judgement calls based on experience, and table interaction. Then the game should give me optional enhancements, in the form of examples similar in form to 3 but not as "restricting".

In that way the "basic" rule is very general and easy to adjudicate, and I can add layers of detail as wanted based on "optional" complexity.

I would also like rules that include ways of "deriving expansions" to the rules. For example the skill list in 4e is adequate to cover most adventuring issues. The majority of adventuring outcomes can be extrapolated from that list. I particularly don't want a huge list of skills. But what if I want to do something like a joust, and I need to have a "riding" skill that is not in the general skill list. Then give me an "optional" way of expanding that by making derived rules. The ride skill can be a subskill of Nature, or it can be a combined skill or Athletics + Acrobatics + Nature. Give me some "optional" examples that let me expand on the already designed framework.

 

[Ryujin]

Given that a mid-Paragon character with good skill wouldn't even need a roll to succeed, on the toughest situation, I voted "leave it up to the DM." We've got a system in which the difficulties are supposed to scale. Why have set numbers?

 

[Jan van Leyden]

"The rule takes away the DM's ability to make a judgment call in her game."

and

"So while the actual mechanics that we're talking about are the same, the way each version of the rule is presented will have very different effects on how the game is actually played once everyone's sitting around the table."

And I have thought RPGers are an unruly bunch of people who change the rules or let them drop in their game. But now Mr. Cook wants to tell me that the designer's authority over the way people play is much more pronounced?

Such statements actually send a cold shiver down my back.

 

[Nullzone]

I went for option 2; the last thing I need is a chart providing ammo for players to argue about why they should be able to automatically succeed at something that I've presented to give them a challenge.

 

[delericho]

And I have thought RPGers are an unruly bunch of people who change the rules or let them drop in their game. But now Mr. Cook wants to tell me that the designer's authority over the way people play is much more pronounced?

While I agree with you in principle, since 3e there has been a marked move towards the practice of playing "by the rules" - players seem to be much more prone to quoting chapter and verse from the RAW and expecting the DM to follow those rules.

(Part of this increased prevalence is probably because the 3e/4e rules are much more exact and unambiguous than in the past - rules lawyers are no new thing, but there was just more wiggle room in the older editions.)

But then, I'm more or less convinced that this is a table-issue. I don't agree that the rules can make DMs 'good', nor can they make players 'good', and so any attempt by the rules to do so are futile.

 

[Gortle]

Choices

I went for 3. I'd prefer the rules to be there. It sets an expectation for the players and the GMs about what a character with a particular level of skill can do.

For something as common as a climb roll I'm happy for it to be black and white. There is still plenty of other situations for the GM to improvise on.

Without it GMs will just arbitrarily jack up the difficulty level (because that is a hard wall to climb and you are level 5 so the DC is X) and walls are as hard to climb at level 10 as they are at level 1.

I like the challenges and powers of the game to progress through the levels.


I do appreciate that Monty has given us 5 options including a none of the above.

 

[Hussar]

"The rule takes away the DM's ability to make a judgment call in her game."

and

"So while the actual mechanics that we're talking about are the same, the way each version of the rule is presented will have very different effects on how the game is actually played once everyone's sitting around the table."

And I have thought RPGers are an unruly bunch of people who change the rules or let them drop in their game. But now Mr. Cook wants to tell me that the designer's authority over the way people play is much more pronounced?

Such statements actually send a cold shiver down my back.

I'd say that the designer can most certainly have a huge influence on how a game is played. All you have to do is look at the difference in "voice" between editions and see how much that can affect how the game is approached. When the designer says X is true, it's not the easiest thing in the world for a lot of people to go against that.

Think of how much impact something like the Wealth by Levels guidelines had on adventure design. Or the Racial Level Limits had on which races/classes got played. Just to pick two examples off the top of my head. A third example would be the difference in how xp is awarded between edition. That can have a huge impact on play styles.

So, yes, I think Mr. Cook is dead on when he says that the way the game is written will have an enormous impact on how the game is played.

--------------

As far as the choices went, I picked the middle of the road two. But, given the choice, it'd probably be a 1.7. I'd much prefer the rules give you a fairly stock method for task resolution and then just modify from there. I do think Savage Worlds has a leg up here when it comes to complexity. I think that well written systems can have broadly applied task resolution systems and then allow for situational modifiers in small ranges.

I'm not sure if the number ranges that D&D works with though would really fit this paradigm. A small modifer gets lost pretty quickly when there is so much distance between top and bottom.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Given that a mid-Paragon character with good skill wouldn't even need a roll to succeed, on the toughest situation, I voted "leave it up to the DM." We've got a system in which the difficulties are supposed to scale. Why have set numbers?

I think this is a good example of the inherent problems with so much number scaling in 3 & 4E as you advance in levels. You want a standardized DC chart to reflect the difficulties of climbing any particular surface. However, because (in 4E for example) the numbers to PCs skills creep so high that as Ryujin said... by mid-Paragon a good PC no longer needs to roll to succeed. Thus we've lost a possible avenue for dramatic tension.

The only other option therefore is to make the DCs for climbing fluid... so that as a PC becomes more skilled, they still are required to make Climb checks. But at that point we get the situation where a wall that was a certain DC at 1st level has now morphed into a wall that is this new higher DC... not necessarily because the wall is more difficult, but merely because the DM wanted to present a challenge to the PC. It breaks a lot of reality in that way (unless the DM tries to get around it by taking standard DC walls and then modifying the DCs by throwing all kinds of oils, wind, darkness etc. etc. in attempts to raise the DCs so they present a challenge... but at some point when every wall is like that, it becomes kinda stupid).

It's a catch-22. How do you create DCs for non-supernatural events that don't become obsolete at some point because a PC advances past it? And what kind of challenges can you throw up instead that don't involve either heaping all manner of ridiculous modifiers to try and make the action more difficult. Or how do you explain away the changes in DC that come not from an action actually being more narratively difficult, but rather just from a fluid DC table put into place to keep the "dice rolling game" an active part of D&D throughout all levels?