D&D 5E Disintegrate Vs. Druid

[Noctem]

But it's not a simulation of real life, it's a game. And plenty of other games manage to clarify their rules just fine without people arguing over what the rules say. (Even really complicated board games can have perfectly clear rules)

So I don't think this defense holds up. And I don't think there is no proper way to do it. Of course there is. Tabletop games have had proper and clear rules for decades. D&D really is no different. There's no excuse.

Agreed on all counts.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Imaculata]

Second, people often use analogies to illustrate. I could have used code (as in computer code) to illustrate the tension between complexity simplicity, but the point remains the same. I used the law because the law is written in language and specifies rules (like a game) and is written and interpreted. It's also a pretty good analogy. There will always be a conflict between simplicity and complexity. There is no "just create a base that answers all questions, and let people modify it." But if an analogy is not sufficient or does not carry weight with you, just use experience; think back to any edition of D&D, no matter how simple (yes, you can go back to the 70s) that did not spark lively discussions about rules interpretations.

And this is where it all boils down to game design. Yes, D&D has a lot of complicated elements in it, which need rules. This is common among all role playing systems: It tries to simulate combat, or tries to resolve things that would normally be handled by the computer in a video game, by using dice.

I went to Spiel in Germany this year, which may be one of the largest board game conventions in the world. And one of the wonderful things of attending this convention, is that you get to meet a lot of up and coming game designers, and try out their games. And you run into a ton of games that while very pretty on the cover, just have very complex and unintuitive rules, and way too many mechanics crammed into it.

But there are also games that manage to do a lot, with very little rules. That is the elegance of game design. You want the game to be very flexible, without inventing a new rule for every little detail. Add too much, and before you know it, your entire game is filled with clutter to represent every health point, mana point, money, item, special item, etc, etc, and the size of the manual rivals The Lord of the Rings.

I won't deny that D&D is a complex game by design. But it has slowly been getting more streamlined and coherent with each edition. I do believe there's such a thing as writing perfect rules, where there is no confusion or debate over them.

 

[Noctem]

While I apologize that the response caused the defensiveness on your part, I will try and explain things.

First, It's a very slimy arguing tactic to call someone defensive the moment you have someone respond to a claim you make in a discussion. Basically, it's a gotcha type statement intended to cause the person to actually become defensive while attempting to hide the fact you yourself are defensive. To be clear, I am not defensive, you're a random person on the internet comparing dnd to real life and the laws, regulations and constitution of the united states. You're using that comparison to say that I'm incorrect in an earlier statement. I'm explaining that the comparison you're making is flawed because of the reasons I've outlined previously and others in this post. And lastly, calling someone defensive (even if they actually are acting that way) doesn't solve anything so I would actually recommend you not bring that up to people you're speaking with since if anything it'll just make things worse.

I think what you should do instead is compare this table top strategy game to OTHER table top strategy games which have clear and fluid rules text that don't leave people with the ambiguity and confusion 5e often does. Imaculata pointed this out above. The design philosophy behind this was imo a bad call by the designers. Since then they've had to nominate one of their own as the "rules guy", create an entire website for hosting the responses to rules questions, etc.. Basically, they have now spent resources of all kinds to patch the problem they created on purpose. Imo, after 4e and the experience they got from it, they could have created a much more stable and concrete base for the rules of the game. But I still like 5e and play it as both PC and DM.

 

[seebs]

But it's not a simulation of real life, it's a game. And plenty of other games manage to clarify their rules just fine without people arguing over what the rules say. (Even really complicated board games can have perfectly clear rules)

So I don't think this defense holds up. And I don't think there is no proper way to do it. Of course there is. Tabletop games have had proper and clear rules for decades. D&D really is no different. There's no excuse.

I have never seen an RPG that I would say had "proper and clear rules" that were any better at being reasonably clear than, say, 5e. I've seen lots that were worse.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[seebs]

I will say: The "smoking something" remark was totally out of line. I had been under the impression that everyone understands the distinction between verisimilitude and realism, and that the mere fact that the world D&D simulates is different from ours doesn't mean it's necessarily going to be any simpler to simulate to a comparable degree of accuracy. D&D has always tried to be significantly closer to a simulation of a world than most tabletop games; the exceptions are RPGs, and I've read and played dozens of RPGs, and I don't think I'd say that any of them struck me as having particularly unambiguous rules that were immune to confusion.

 

[Noctem]

I'm not entirely sure what's going on here

I see so you're taking my posts as being attacks against your person instead of replies to your arguments themselves. That explains why the conversation is going the way it is. Also btw, the what are you smoking comment was a tongue in cheek joke. It's a common teasing remark for someone being confused about what someone is saying or doing in my experience. Maybe that just didn't translate well online.

As explained, calling someone defensive as soon as they reply to you does not serve to defuse anything. In fact it has the opposite effect! I explained this to you in my earlier post. You then apologize for me feeling "defensive". How do you not understand why that would also not help in any situation? lol. Sorry not sorry anyone?

The rules for 5e are not increasingly complex rules, they are by design less complex than previous editions of dnd. The problem is that in an effort to make them less complex the designers also made them less clear and more ambiguous. You're also merging 2 different things, rules complexity and rules being unambiguous. You can have both at the same time or even neither, that's the point that me and Imaculata are trying to make.

Your RPG accomplishments and anecdotal evidence as to why you're right don't make it so. That's not an argument, that's at best commentary everyone should skip for the discussion to advance. And furthermore telling me that if I think I don't like the design, I should design 5e myself doesn't serve to advance the conversation either. I can already do that in my home game via houserules should I or anyone else want to do so. That's just more lashing out on your part.

Anyway I don't see it as being productive to reply to you further, so have a good day.

 

[Imaculata]

I don't suppose you've never had an argument, or a house rule, in Monopoly? And that's a pretty simple game that doesn't involve rules that modify other rules (meta-rules), other than, perhaps, things such as "When you pass Go, you don't get to collect $200." Board games that involve rule modifications (like cosmic encounters) inevitably have rules "discussions," and D&D, and RPGs, necessarily have rules that modify other rules because of their nature- the complexity is one of the reasons we play (I suppose we could all just play Dungeon instead).

I can't remember ever having an argument with anyone over the rules of Monopoly, nor even a game that is a bit more complicated, such as Betrayal at House on the Hill. There will always be house rules, but we're discussing specific house rules here that have emerged as a result of unclear rules... I don't see that very often when playing other tabletop games.

Wouldn't you agree that the description of the Disintegrate spell could easily be reworded in a way that gets rid of any confusion?

So, then... couldn't you do that with the whole book?

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*