L&L: The 2nd one this week (DM Packet)

[nnms]

The overall point: until the rationale of particular rules is understood, and the way they connect to the expectations/purposes of the play groups, it's hard to say anything very specific about "rules vs rulings".

I think you can take a look at the playtest document and see some of the rationale behind particular rules. Especially by contrasting them with other mechanics. Take, for example, the departure from having an encounter as a unit of game time connected to power refresh. Or the removal of in-combat non-magic healing. Or the movement of things that were under skill descriptions in 3.x under general movement rules. Or the adoption of an armour system to produce a certain range of ACs through the use of armour categories.

As for group expectations, isn't 5E supposed to be able to work for any player of any D&D edition? So how does "rules as guidelines" and "rulings not rules" work with all of that?

And what does it say about the idea of modularity being able to produce differing styles of play when the lead designer thinks the most interesting D&D comes from situations where the DM *must* making a ruling rather than use rules:

The Core Concept: Using Rules as Guidelines
The biggest thing we're aiming for in D&D Next is to give DMs a set of tools that they can use as they want. Checks, contests, saving throws, and attacks are the basic mechanics of the game in this iteration, and the combat rules and spells lay out specific ways to make use of those mechanics. The most interesting parts of D&D, at least in my experience, come into play when a DM must make a ruling rather than follow the rules to the letter.​

Are we back to "system doesn't matter"?

 

[mudbunny]

I guess I'm still waiting for the stuff they talked about in their preview articles. Which is modularity that would allow multiple groups to get something different out of the game. Given the goal of uniting the editions, the fact that they didn't lead with that makes me wonder if they've done any real work on it yet.

There is an obvious reason for not starting with that. They want to test the basic parts of the game first, before any additional modules are added on.

If the rules produce the play and people are getting together for a game, they can all say "let's use the combat maneuvers module. And the extended background one. And how about the fate bound heroes one?" whereas if it's all just guidelines for the DM to enforce in a rulings vs rules format, I think we'll end up back at the place where different people will be coming to the table wanting different things and not all getting the same thing out of their games that they'd want to.

I think clear rules modularity can help form group concensus rapidly and efficiently whereas I've read enough horror stories about "the GM just makes it all work."

This seems to be more of a problem between the DM and the group that needs to be decided upon *before* they sit down and start playing.

Can't the multiple styles of play be better supported with rules modules that actually produce that type of play when they are used than hoping the GM rules the right thing at the right time?

It seems to me, according to everything that has been said about D&D Next so far, that what you desire is exactly their plan. Have a base set of rules, and then optional stuff in modules that can be tacked on (or not) as the players and DM desire.

 

[Balesir]

It seems to me, according to everything that has been said about D&D Next so far, that what you desire is exactly their plan. Have a base set of rules, and then optional stuff in modules that can be tacked on (or not) as the players and DM desire.

I think it might be, but I see a very worrying dedication to "rulings not rules". Will there be a module that allows play without that philosophy? Because, since I see it as a broken and illogical tenet with no redeemenig features under any mode of play, if it doesn't it won't cover any style of play I want to engage in.

 

[nnms]

I think it might be, but I see a very worrying dedication to "rulings not rules". Will there be a module that allows play without that philosophy? Because, since I see it as a broken and illogical tenet with no redeemenig features under any mode of play, if it doesn't it won't cover any style of play I want to engage in.

The strongest criticism of "Rulings not rules" I ever read was that it is basically an admission that the rules don't work. That something about them is either broken or incomplete and that they don't produce the type of play they were designed to and thus, fail and need to be set aside.

Is that what your issue is with the tenet? Or is it more of an issue that one person setting aside the rules to make a decision that effects everyone else probably doesn't know better and shouldn't be armed with such in game power when the rules can work fine on their own?

Or is it the general violation of social conventions built on 5000+ years of human history where a game means that all agree to follow the rules and that if one participant sets them aside, they're doing something wrong?

 

[Balesir]

It's more that, even using "rulings, not rules" the person (or persons) making the rulings are operating to a set of rules (call them "principles", "models" or "processes" if you like) in making those rulings. So, what it boils down to is that the other (non-ruling) players are invited to engage in a game that has rules that they are not informed of. That makes the game, pretty much necessarily, not a game of "shared imagination". It becomes a game of one person's imagination that the others present play a game of "twenty questions" over.

 

[nnms]

It's more that, even using "rulings, not rules" the person (or persons) making the rulings are operating to a set of rules (call them "principles", "models" or "processes" if you like) in making those rulings. So, what it boils down to is that the other (non-ruling) players are invited to engage in a game that has rules that they are not informed of. That makes the game, pretty much necessarily, not a game of "shared imagination". It becomes a game of one person's imagination that the others present play a game of "twenty questions" over.

So it's more the second issue. I play quite a bit of GMless Fate and In A Wicked Age, so I get wanting to spread accessibility to the shared fiction around with the rules.

My issue is that of the first. That if the rules work, why would you need to set them aside? And if they don't work and you have to fix them with rulings, why not find rules that do work?

Imagine if a DM is good enough to fix broken rules through rulings, how much better the game could be with working rules and the DM's time and attention focused on the content of the sessions.

 

[jadrax]

My issue is that of the first. That if the rules work, why would you need to set them aside? And if they don't work and you have to fix them with rulings, why not find rules that do work?

There are no rules that work. You can not compress the complexity of the universe into a chapter of 300 page book.

 

[nnms]

There are no rules that work. You can not compress the complexity of the universe into a chapter of 300 page book.

Not everyone is interested in games that are about simulating reality.

When I say work, I mean "produce the type of play that the game was intended to produce."

 

[jadrax]

Not everyone is interested in games that are about simulating reality.

When I say work, I mean "produce the type of play that the game was intended to produce."

Possible, but as D&D is a game that has always tried to represent reality, I find it odd that any of those people would come here.

 

[nnms]

Possible, but as D&D is a game that has always tried to represent reality, I find it odd that any of those people would come here.

I'd say OD&D started with the goal of representing adventure in a mythic underworld rather than reality. The way doors were stuck for PCs but not for monsters, the way they'd close by themselves if not spiked open.

I'm not sure D&D has always been about representing reality-- but only representing things as real that are not specifically fantastic.

I see where you are coming from though.