D&D General "Hot" take: Aesthetically-pleasing rules are highly overvalued

[Dausuul]

I think they failed! Gygax was, above all, ORGANIZED.

...What?

Did you play AD&D with the same books I did? There are many adjectives I could apply to those books. "Organized" is not one of them.

I think you folks may be relying too much on your normal every day usage of "aesthetic" rather than reading the OP's specific explanation of how they're using the term in this thread.

3e's skill points system was designed with what the OP calls "meta-aesthetics" in mind, just like 4e's Power Sources were. They're there so that when you read the rules in the rulebook it has a certain look and feel, rather than with ease of use, balance, etc, in mind.

I am not at all convinced that this was the purpose of the skill point system, and would like to see something to back up that claim.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I don't see any problem with the spell. I'd rather have this natural language than a more precise keywording system, because you are talking about edge cases that aren't covered by the rules.

The best way to handle these edge cases is to allow the DM to make specific rulings based on the context of the situation at hand. Let the DM have the ability to examine the situation and make a judgement call.

But that is exactly the issue many of us have, which is that this is a resource which is of unknown value to a given PC. The player can only try to guess what sort of thing the GM will decide it is. They can't chose to select it vs something else, they can't decide to use it vs something else, they won't ride any stakes on it, because it could be worthless for all they know.
This kind of thing inhibits players from deciding to wager stakes and take risks. Instead they tend to just fall back on a small repertoire of well-understood tactics instead. Or more likely they 'play the DM' trying to measure just how much the DM is vested in a given outcome or scenario, or perhaps just using social engineering on them in some cases.
And what really is gained? The NUT of the motive was to let the GM, in a Gygaxian fashion, squelch 'abuse', which is really just a code word for "I don't like how easy this is to use." The 4e (at least) solution was to simply put things in a fairly narrow context, so 'Charm Person' generates a condition, and that has specific in-game effects. It can't really be abused because that's all it does! Now, that doesn't preclude other uses, but it puts them into things like 4e's 'page 42' (the rules for attempting things that are not already defined as powers or similar). Page 42 is pretty clear about what the expectations are there. In other situations you have SC rules, which are again pretty clear and give a good indication of the relative value of using a power as a resource cost in an SC. One of the issues with 5e is it lacks analogs to both of these, meaning you MUST leave things open-ended, and then you're always putting the GM in the spot of deciding if a given use is "OK" or not.

 

[Undrave]

Wait, what? I'm pretty sure skill checks are still in 5e... did you mean removed the "term" skill check?

There are no skill checks. You make an ABILITY CHECK and you may apply your proficiency bonus if it applies to the action you're doing. Technically, what's supposed to happen, is that you say "I want to do X" and your DM should tell you "give me ability check X" and then you say "I'm proficient with Y does that help?" and your DM goes "sure, you can add your proficiency bonus".

That's how it should go, but it doesn't, because people are used to say "I want to use skill X".

 

[Oofta]

There are no skill checks. You make an ABILITY CHECK and you may apply your proficiency bonus if it applies to the action you're doing. Technically, what's supposed to happen, is that you say "I want to do X" and your DM should tell you "give me ability check X" and then you say "I'm proficient with Y does that help?" and your DM goes "sure, you can add your proficiency bonus".

That's how it should go, but it doesn't, because people are used to say "I want to use skill X".

This is one of those areas where I think some people get overly concerned about verbiage. As long as intended action and result is clear there is no wrong way to do it at my table. YMMV.

 

[jayoungr]

I think you folks may be relying too much on your normal every day usage of "aesthetic" rather than reading the OP's specific explanation of how they're using the term in this thread.

Wait ... are you saying is that the problem here is that people are reading jargon as natural language?

 

[Wiseblood]

I wonder if....perhaps I still don’t understand. Is the Meta-aesthetic we are referring to self referencing aesthetic or post hoc rule creation that unintentionally or intentionally creates an implied rule?


What I mean is...does the difference between weapon attack, melee weapon attack, attacking with a melee weapon and the attack action have differences noted because rules that came after reference these differently?

 

[Undrave]

This is one of those areas where I think some people get overly concerned about verbiage. As long as intended action and result is clear there is no wrong way to do it at my table. YMMV.

No but I feel like the intended way to present it would help dissociate skills from ability score (like the eternal 'STR to intimidate' thing)

But then the book goes around and... describes the skill in each ability score's section... So I think it sends a mixed signal on what was intended to be a more flexible skill system.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

And I disagree. In my opinion, the 1e AD&D books are not well organized and Gygax was not, above all, organized. I don't think he ever claimed to be well organized, and you're the first person in over 40 years I've heard describe him or the AD&D 1e books that way. They are so disorganized that modern OSR reprints are primarily about re-organizing them so you can find all the rules which relate to one concept in one place.

I would refer you, for example, to the excellent AD&D 1e Combat Flowchart. Which is, frankly, insane. Rules are pulled from all over the place in the PHB and DMG and even elsewhere.

Well, all I can say is that all the rules of combat in 1e are in the combat chapter of the 1e DMG. There isn't a single rule anywhere else (maybe one of the later supplements could be excepted, like OA has rules related to Martial Arts which would have been in the combat chapter had they existed at the time). Those rules themselves may not be clear, in fact Gygax is famous for leaving many things unsaid or providing multiple conflicting interpretations, but the actual rules are in one place in 1e!
Now, there are rules about equipment, for example, that are in other places (IE how much damage does a longsword do, or what AC does leather armor grant) but again, the consistency is there, ALL of those rules fall under equipment, pure and simple, no exceptions.
Looking at the 'flowchart' actually exemplifies this. Everything in the first diagram is on DMG pp60-61. Where things are referenced to other rules sections, it is where there are rules about other things, races, classes, and monsters, which provide input to the surprise rules (IE PC Dex reaction bonus, elf abilities, etc.). Note that this wouldn't even be necessary in a unified system like 4e because the mechanic would simply be part of a more all-encompassing general rule, how to make checks, and so all that would be needed is for the surprise rules to state that Dex is a modifier to the check. I'd further note that the diagram devotes a bunch of space to dealing with various popular interpretations of the rules (IE reducing surprise checks to a % in order to compare different die sizes), which would AGAIN not be needed if 1e was a unified system.
My point seems made though, 1e's rules are actually quite modular and clearly organized. They are not so good in OTHER ways, but I don't agree that organization was a weakness of Gygax's. He seems pretty well-organized to me at least.

 

[Mistwell]

Well, all I can say is that all the rules of combat in 1e are in the combat chapter of the 1e DMG.. There isn't a single rule anywhere else (maybe one of the later supplements could be excepted, like OA has rules related to Martial Arts which would have been in the combat chapter had they existed at the time). Those rules themselves may not be clear, in fact Gygax is famous for leaving many things unsaid or providing multiple conflicting interpretations, but the actual rules are in one place in 1e!
Now, there are rules about equipment, for example, that are in other places (IE how much damage does a longsword do, or what AC does leather armor grant) but again, the consistency is there, ALL of those rules fall under equipment, pure and simple, no exceptions.
Looking at the 'flowchart' actually exemplifies this. Everything in the first diagram is on DMG pp60-61. Where things are referenced to other rules sections, it is where there are rules about other things, races, classes, and monsters, which provide input to the surprise rules (IE PC Dex reaction bonus, elf abilities, etc.). Note that this wouldn't even be necessary in a unified system like 4e because the mechanic would simply be part of a more all-encompassing general rule, how to make checks, and so all that would be needed is for the surprise rules to state that Dex is a modifier to the check. I'd further note that the diagram devotes a bunch of space to dealing with various popular interpretations of the rules (IE reducing surprise checks to a % in order to compare different die sizes), which would AGAIN not be needed if 1e was a unified system.
My point seems made though, 1e's rules are actually quite modular and clearly organized. They are not so good in OTHER ways, but I don't agree that organization was a weakness of Gygax's. He seems pretty well-organized to me at least.

You are objectively incorrect in saying the combat rules are only in the combat chapter of the DMG.

I honestly think you're on a one-man island on these claims. I don't think even the biggest 1e fan in the world agrees with you on this particular point. I'd challenge you to go on Dragonsfoot and make the claims you're making and sit back and watch the reaction. It will be quite the show.

You could also ask Gary's remaining family members in the industry. Even they will not agree with you on this particular topic.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

Any game where a player can say "I kick over the cauldron, spilling it towards the ogre, and jump over the Cauldron to attack the Troll" is a game anyone can play.

It's how I'd prefer to run all my games. For some reasons, my group has a variety of relationships with game rules that make me cringe. So basically, I prefer when they describe their intent, then I ask them to do the thing I deem relevant (make a check, ok, you've advantage on your roll) and describe the outcome. If they don't narrate their intent, gameplay in your proposed scenario, where the PC is figint a ogre and a troll runs as this :

Me: you have initiative, what do you do?
Player 1: mmmmmmm meditatively look at his character sheet
Me: ...
Player 1 : I am wondering if should roll History or Acrobatics.
Me : any chance you could explain the reasoning behind this conundrum?
Player 2 : easy, I jump over the cauldron and impale the ogre with my rapier.
Me : OK, make an attack roll
Player 2 : rolls 12..."ok I rolled 12, I add my +7 bonus, that's...(five full seconds pass) 18.
Rest of players: actually that's 19.
Me: OK you hit the ogre, for how much damage?
Player: 1d6+5, I roll 3 that's...
Me: sigh
Player 2 : I'd like to us an expertise dice as well.
Me: what effect do you want to do?
Player 2 : let me check takes smartphone to go online and read about what expertise dice actually do, despite playing the same character for 2 years
Player 1 : Hey! I just remembered about my move action, can I make a move action out of my turn?






What