Legends and Lore - The Temperature of the Rules

[Umbran]

I cannot agree with this at all. With 3e (and now with 4e) I saw a very distinct shift in attitudes, and particularly a much greater emphasis on "RAW".

I've seen no dramatic shift - just a consistent pattern of growth through the editions.

In older editions it was just accepted that the DM would have a binder of house rules, and that the game would differ drastically from table to table. With 3e this ceased to be the case.

I think that's just incorrect. As an ironic example - much of this website's content is (and has always been) devoted to development of house rules, and discussion of how we differ from table to table. I see very little such expectation here, or when I play with folks outside my normal circle of gamers.

A lot of this was undoubtedly that 3e was a much tighter system where the older editions were, to put it mildly, a bit of a mess.

3e was a tighter system, sure. But the growth pattern from OD&D, 1e, 2e, and onwards is pretty obvious. And that pattern was by no means unique to D&D. Between 2e and 3e we had a longer gap in publication, but we saw the pattern instead expressed in White Wolf (which, for all its "storytelling" bent, has a pretty tactical ruleset), and Shadowrun, among others. It seems to me to have been an industry pattern, not just a D&D pattern.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

This is a case where the sheer weight of rules in D&D works against it. Because the rules cover so many things explicitly, and indeed simply because there are so many of them, there is an expectation amongst players that "this is how it is". Thus, there is more resistance to DMs changing, or indeed simply going beyond, the RAW. Heck, witness the backlash over the Roper encounter in "Forge of Fury" - and that despite the RAW clearly stating that there should be the occasional overwhelming encounter and there being a sidebar to precisely that effect in the module!

Burning Wheel doesn't have the same weight of rules, so I wouldn't expect players to put so much stock in playing by the RAW, and so I wouldn't expect nearly the backlash.

There may very well be people playing BW substantially removed from the RAW, but if so, they are swimming against a heavy current in the BW community. BW is very much played by RAW, and it is critical to a lot of its charm that it be so. The GM is expected, within the limits of that RAW, to absolutely screw over the characters every chance he gets. This is how the characters advance. The only time the GM can really back off is when the players start actively playing up the character traits to such an extent that they are mucking up the characters' lives all by themselves.

If you introduce a new monsters in BW, by the RAW, then you write it up according to some extensive guidelines. And then before it is used in a game, it is "peer reviewed" by at least some of the other players. (And any player can so introduce--not merely the GM.) The deliberate expectation is that meeting the new creature is not an "on no" surprise over capabilities, but rather "oh no, you brought that thing out!"

Now I don't think D&D, being a gateway game, should try to parrot that exact technique. I think D&D players, especially new ones, should have some of the wonder of exploration that comes from finding magic items and strange creatures and such. It is part of the point of the game. However, I do think that D&D would benefit greatly from explicit discussion of how the rules work and why they work they way they do. Put it right there in the first PHB and DMG. 3E made a few nods in this direction, and 4E made a few more (mainly aided, however, by the more transparent model than explicit discussion).

Even people who decide not to house rule--including those mainly playing in short-term games--can benefit greatly from supporting design text explain how and why something is the way it is. Plus, the resulting understanding is a benefit to those who house rule and those who would rather simply adjudicate on the fly. Even people who disagree on the how and why (or implementation) can quickly see to the heart of what is annoying them. This stuff is a lot more valuable than out of context spot rulings by "customer support" or any other such entity.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Present the rules, then explain to the DM how to go about changing them.

I'm into this.

I think the rules need a setting to start with, for more than just newbie DMs. Put simply, I don't want to have to bother taking a mini-course in DMing 101 in order to run a D&D game. I don't want to have to consider and mull over each choice my players make in the game. I don't want to have to grant permission for little things. I often want to be able to sit back and let the system take care of me, making choices as I desire rather than as a matter of course.

That said, a DM should be empowered to change the game as they see fit, as well. This is a slightly more "advanced" and time-intensive strategy, though. If I want to turn my D&D game into a postapocalyptic cyperpunk modern game, that is something I can do, but that is necessarily "off-book" -- I should expect to have to change and alter more moving parts than I would if running a bog-standard D&D.

The thing with rules lawyers is that it's not a flaw with the rules: it's a flaw with the player and the DM. The problem is that the player doesn't trust the DM to make a "fun game." The player must accept the DM's authority. This is part of the social contract of the game. The DM's authority is absolute. A DM should absolutely take into account a variety of things -- from rules interactions to what people at their table like -- but without the trust of the players at the table, a DM who modifies things can't be authoritative, and won't be taken seriously.

Part of what can help this is a system that is largley free of cascading effects. 3e's moving parts were fairly tightly integrated, which meant that changing something like how treasure was assigned could dramatically alter elements of the game that had nothing to do with treasure. A system more like 1e or 2e's discrete bits of rules fob might encourage more players to trust their DM to change a fob or two out for a different one.

 

[TerraDave]

...the rules have become more defined at least in part due to the need for the kind of uniformity that Gary was going for when he went about crafting AD&D. The goal of making D&D rules more standardized and suited to impromptu play was well intentioned but brought with it some unforseen consequences.

...

This has been the trend for years. (The OSR crowd goes on and on about it).

More recently, 3.0 was there to clarify, 3.5 to really clarify, and 4 to rearrange to make sure things were really, really clear.

I don't think Monte is actually being neutral here. He is strongly implying that this has gone to far, it has limited discretion too much, and that it has reached the point were the flow and creativity of the game is hurt for little additional gain.

I tend to agree in principal. Not sure on the various practical bits they have actually unveiled.

 

[howandwhy99]

The "temperature," in this case, is rules implementation, and the adjustments represent the ability of the DM to alter things as he or she sees fit, based on the situation.

A dial for rules is not how they may be changed, that's easy, say the rules are what you desire them to be; instead rule dials are presumably a simplified and economical means to make vast changes in the game.

For the record I prefer a functional standard game first. If for nothing else then as a starting point of explanation for the diversity of home games to come. "This is the *Fahrvergnügen* game; here is how ours is different". Plus it retains the possibility for a shared commonality of experience for most players, while still retaining space for personalization and innovation.

The questions following the article have continually been hard for me to answer. Part of this is the way I run my game, but a good deal of it is quality parsing of the questions. For example, I voted 1 in all three instances this time, but "the rules are the rules" I agree with full-heartedly. This goes too for the DM being the final arbiter of the rules and he or she being empowered to adjudicate any situation derived from play. But then the following clauses in those questions I disagreed with. Structuring quantitative research questions is difficult. A limited open field response section could do the trick for sketchy cases (like me ;p), but then the comments might make this redundant. It may also be too much data to process. Still, it would mean non-registrees could submit their ideas.

 

[AeroDm]

I don't think Monte is actually being neutral here. He is strongly implying that this has gone to far, it has limited discretion too much, and that it has reached the point were the flow and creativity of the game is hurt for little additional gain.

I tend to agree in principal. Not sure on the various practical bits they have actually unveiled.

I tend to agree (both about Monte's intention and the result). My rant on the topic includes in pertinent part... I actually think the underlying topic of today's L&L is one of the most important they've touched on so far. The basic trade off between what should we rely on the DM to resolve and what should we develop rules to cover. When I pondered through it I saw it more as a scale with every conceivable event that could arise having to be placed on one side or the other. Each side brings along its own burdens and you have to figure out your preferred balance of rule-ambiguity and rule-precision.

For me, I view the costs of rule-precision to be greater than the costs of rule-ambiguity. If you want a precise rule, you carry that rule with you through all parts of the game. It hangs over ever other rule. If I wanted to push a statue onto a monster in 2e I probably just made an attack roll with strength. It makes sense, I mean, ultimately the statue is just going to do a bunch of damage, so an attack is proximate enough. You could move really far in 2e so we didn't worry about getting over there and climbing up to a point where I had leverage. We just rolled and saw what happens. Then it was someone else's turn.

As the game got more concrete, the existence of rules suggested limitations. We should probably see if I had enough movement to get over there and climb (half speed) up the statue. Since I'm climbing, I should probably make a quick check with a bonus since it is near a wall (chimney). If I didn't have enough move, then I don't have enough actions. I should probably make some sort of a Strength check and maybe a Dex-based melee touch since if the statue hits it'll do the damage I want. In 4e maybe instead it'd be an attack vs. Reflex and we'd consult the table for the limited damage expression. The more concrete editions certainly provide a more tools to resolve the action, but there were now so many little chances to fail that it was no longer worth trying. Attacking normally was easier and, often, more powerful.

Subsequent editions provide better tools, but so many tools that creativity was often stifled. I don't think many people saw that coming, but I also don't think the solution is to introduce even more codification.

 

[KidSnide]

I think the right approach is to say "the temperature is set to 70 degrees, but here's how you can change it and here's what it will feel like if you do."

There are a lot of nobs and dials that a GM can adjust for a campaign, and as several folks have noted, it's hard enough for a newbie GM to start a campaign without having to make two dozen decisions he or she doesn't understand. That is why well chosen defaults are important to a campaign.

Other folks have said that experienced GMs know to ignore the rules and don't need guidance. That's wrong for two reasons.

First, 90+% of truly experienced GMs are only amateur game designers. Well considered and playtested optional rules are a boon for experienced GMs who can focus on adventures, monsters and magic items and don't have to spend time thinking about mucking with the larger balance issues.

Second, most GMs are someplace between total newbies and truly experienced. Many GMs want to change things up after their first couple of campaigns, and well-designed optional rules are a great way to have a second or third campaign that is cool and distinct from the default configuration. These developing GMs on their second or third or forth campaign need guidance on how to best implement their particular vision in a way that's fun for their players.

I tend to think that a Game Builder's Guide is one of the missing pieces of D&D. Such a guide could provide many of the optional "campaign setting" rules, along with world-building advice and a few pre-packaged sub-genres (such as "pirates" and "Greek heroes").

-KS

 

[Crazy Jerome]

@AreoDm, I largely agree with you on codification, but with one caveat. I think some rules codification is fine as long as the design is heavily explored, tested, and explained. The last is what I was aluding to in my previous post.

For example, there is no inherent reason why the exact 3E skill list can't be a good choice. There are tradeoffs in any design, and here the authors were clearly going for some kind of compromise position between modeling complex characters versus balance (via class and cross-class skills, ranks).

Likewise, there is no inherent reason why the 4E skill list can't be a good choice. Here, they are clearly going for some kind of split system, where crafting and other such activities are outside the scope of the system, while sneaking and analyzing magic are inside it.

But I object to having a 3E skill list without explaining the compromise, when the presentation tries to pretend that craft and use rope are just as valuable as search or diplomacy. And I equally object to having the 4E skill list without explaining the split--and thus some broad guidelines (i.e. not codified) on how the DM should handle a character trying to craft something or use a rope.

Now, in fairness, you can't explain everything you didn't do, and why. But you can explain where the lines were drawn, and why. Couple that with some guidelines for handling things outside the scope of the codified rules, and the why for the excluded stuff is fairly obvious.

And I guess where I circle back to largely agreeing with your conclusion is that--absent such an explanation--people begin to suspect that there isn't one. I know that is how I view the 3E skill system. Commentary on some of the pieces dropped in 4E would seem to indicate that others feel the same about 4E.

In the end, good codification is less about ever increasing scope of rules and more about clarity on the boundaries. Sometimes, the good codification solution is to say, "the rule stops here," and then supplement with some advice on what to do when something outside that comes up.

 

[S'mon]

I certainly prefer universal guidelines on setting DCs ("15 is moderate") to a list for every situation. OTOH when it comes to campaign settings I like a strong 'default' position ("The world is ancient" "PCs are dungeon-delving adventurers") then guidelines on how to deviate from that norm.

 

[Hussar]

Yeah, I'm going to agree with S'mon here. I don't want to play amateur game designer just to play the game. I want a game that will work right out of the box. If I want to change how things work, I would like the rules to be as transparent as possible and maybe sidebars from the designers on how to possibly achieve different fairly common results.

For example, it wouldn't hurt for the core game to present a pretty concrete experience, but also include methods for dialing up or down from that baseline. And, really, I think many games are far more similar than different. If they weren't then modules would never sell. The fact that you can make generic modules and expect people to use them in their game means that the baseline has to be fairly common.

D&D, IMO, is not a generic gaming system. Trying to make it so by starting the baseline at zero and then expecting the DM to build from there is taking D&D in the same direction as Savage Worlds. Not necessarily a bad thing, but, for a game as weighty as D&D, going that route makes things so complicated.