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

[AbdulAlhazred]

But... is that what the people who wrote the game wanted? Rules and mechanics that speak?

That would seems to fly in the face of the general idea of "rulings, not rules" that they had put forth for the edition. I suggest part of the problem people experience is in trying to listen to the rules, when maybe that's not the point. What if the rules are there to help you speak?

If you are listening to a symphony, and trying to find the voice of the second chair violin, it may be hard... because the main thrust of the piece is coming from the first chair. The second is usually playing harmony and accompaniment, not the main melody line. The second chair is meant to highlight and support, not to be heard in detail for itself...

Imagine, for a moment, that the rules are merely support. That, for the cases where things seem a tad ambiguous (because yes, natural language can be ambiguous) that you are intended to take it whichever way is mostly consistent that you deem fit? That nobody cares if two of us use slightly different surprise or exhaustion rules?

Of course the rules are only support Umbran. Let me point out, my experience with D&D started with reading three mysterious little brown books in 1975...
D&D, any RPG really, can, and probably should, be looked upon as a set of tools and guidelines. HOWEVER, that being said, modern RPGs have largely been successful by providing a definite platform, a set of rules which provides an answer to each participant at the level of "how do we handle this situation?" Now, exactly what that covers may vary from game-to-game, but I think my point is that, there is a viewpoint, shared by a large segment of the RPG industry, that it is ENABLING to give a general rule which is clear and applicable to all situations (obviously it may have situational variations, etc. depending on the game).

So, where Gygax propounded rules SYSTEMS as toolkits, most modern RPGs propound PROCESS as a toolkit, which the rules simply enact and support. Take Dungeon World as an example. There is no variation in its mechanics at all. Everything follows the "make a move, resolve the move, GM responds with hard or soft move in response" cycle. Every move involves the same toss of dice. The available moves are situational, and the outcomes vary depending on the nature and purpose of that move, but the core rule is very simple and basic. The problem is, if a rule system doesn't do that, if all the different parts don't speak the same language, or make music in harmony, then the focus of the players and GM shifts back to this sort of Gygaxian tension of GM as 'school master' and players as 'unruly children' where the GM's 'job' becomes to reign in the players attempts to 'achieve victory' through interpreting the rules in their favor. Even if this is not a major thrust of play, it muddies the waters in terms of the narrative sort of process that is being aimed at.

I didn't find the analysis of @Bacon Bits terribly compelling because it doesn't seem to be cognizant of this. They are analyzing (at least 4e) as if the goal was some sort of perfect rules coverage, which is of course a unicorn. That wasn't the goal. Instead if you read it as a Story Game (which it certainly at least partly is) then you come to understand the rules, things like keywords, etc. more in terms that would make sense in a game like Dungeon World. That is, system as platform upon which story is writ. It cannot be biased or incomplete, because it forms the agreement upon which that process happens, the paper so to speak. It is at least best if that paper is robust and provides some pretty strong process for any situation. Hence the existence of powers, skills, skill challenges, keywords.

Seen in that sense, 5e presents some difficulties, because it puts impediments in place in terms of treating the system as a known quantity. Really, I don't think this is something that cannot be dealt with, in the sense that it has a pretty universal basic mechanic, but you do have to go back and resurrect the 4e SC system, or provide something else in its place. In my own game there is no longer such a thing as a 'check', there are only 'challenges', and in that context checks can exist as tests to evolve the situation and determine objectively if the PCs moved towards or away from achieving their immediate goal. That clarifies the agenda, because 4e certainly wasn't totally clear on that, and I am pretty sure half of WotC's game designers didn't 'grok' the system and made the same analytical error as Bacon Bits does.

 

[Monayuris]

It's not just that there are other ways to play. The claim you end up with two situations is simply not true.

Here's a third situation, and one which (in my opinion and experience) can make for pretty good RPGing:

• You have a clear statement of what the spell does - eg it makes someone inclined to be friendly towards you; and
• You have a clear set of resolution mechanics which (i) require player-side "moves" to be supported by the PCs fictional positioning, and which (ii) tell you who wins or loses once the dice are thrown.

Now the spell has a clear function: it establishes the fictional positioning "this person is inclined to be my friend", and hence permits making moves in the resolution system that otherwise wouldn't be possible. And success or failure in those moves tells us what actually happens.

4e works like this - both p 42 and skill challenges. Burning Wheel works like this. Cortex+ Heroic/Marvel Heroic RP works like this. Apocalypse World works broadly like this. Each of these systems differs in the details of its resolution mechanics, sometimes pretty importantly. But the basis are the same: action declarations hang upon fictional positioning, and players have resources or devices they can deploy to establish that fictional positioning.

In this respect I can cast Charm Person doesn't need any more (or less) GM adjudication than I've got some rope in my backpack.

(You can combine this third situation with more granular rules for particular spells: 4e does, especially in the combat context; so does Burning Wheel. But that doesn't affect the possibility, and reality, of the third situation.)

This is how 5E handles it as well as other systems like OSR - B/X and so on.

The spell has a clear description of what it does. If a situation that comes up that is not covered by the description, the GM can make a ruling.

I don't understand the distinction you are making.

 

[pemerton]

To generalise: rules can be written using keywords, or they can be written simply by reference to fictional positioning.

Keywords, in turn, can be shorthands for fictional positioning, or elements of a mechanical framework, or both.

4e uses keywords in both ways: Reliable is purely a mechanical keyword (it means the limited-use attack power is not expended if the attack misses); Fire is primarily a shorthand for fictional positioning (ie when you do this thing labelled "fire" there are flames and heat and the like going on!) but also enters into the mechanics (because there are creatures resistant to fire). The closest I can think of to keywords that are purely fictional positioning are power sources; and even those do a bit of mechanical work (eg the Sage of Ages has abilities that affect only Arcane powers).

Marvel Heroic RP uses more keywords purely for fictional positioning: eg the difference between a Mystic Bolt power rated at d10 and a Gatling Gun power with the same rating is purely one of fictional positioning. They don't interact with the mechanics in any different way.

Apocalypse World uses keywords ("tags") in places, and expressly flags when they are about the fiction ("cues" and "constraints") and when they are mechanical. But it also uses unmediated fictional positioning - eg consider the Seduce or Manipulate move:

When you try to seduce or manipulate someone, tell them what you want and roll+hot. For NPCs: on a hit, they ask you
to promise something first, and do it if you promise. On a 10+, whether you keep your promise is up to you, later. On a 7–9, they need some concrete assurance right now.​

Concrete assurance isn't a keyword. It's an unmediated description of the fiction that the player must bring about for his/her PC, if s/he wants the NPC to do whatever it is that s/he wants him/her to do.

I don't see how keywords are limiting or constraining; they're just useful for avoiding repetition or overly narrow descriptions of things (like @AbdulAlhazred's flametongue example). Nor do I see that unmediated references to fictional position have to lead towards "viking hat" GMing and associated pathologies. What that will tend to turn on is who gets to establish fictional position?, and what motivations do participants have to argue the toss? Gygaxian D&D generates incentives for players to argue the toss at nearly every turn, due to the need to husband resources and outwit the GM. What creates the comparatively "relaxed" feeling of 4e D&D or Cortex+ Heroic/MHRP and other games that might be compared to them is that they don't generate the same sorts of incentives.

Unmediated reference to fictional position isn't very helpful, though, if the resolution is almost entirely mechanical rather than fiction-driven (eg standard D&D combat).

The main job of the players is to advocate for their characters. Naturally, a part of that advocacy sometimes involves pushing against the rules and-or trying things the game might not be set up to handle; whereupon it becomes the job of the DM to push back if required, either by enforcing rules already in place or making rulings that are - one hopes - consistent with what's already been established in play.

This isn't "natural". It's an artifice of a particular orientation in play - roughly, "husband resources and outwit the GM" - combined with a particular approach to resolution systems - roughly, a series of highly individuated subsystems each associated with a particular ingame process (eg the open locks subsystem, the spying subsystem, the sage subsystem, the loyalty subsystem - all of these can result in the discovery of secrets, but it's not clear which one to use as a model when a player wants to discover a secret by interrogating a prisoner).

I don't see this coming up in my Traveller games, even though Traveller is a sub-system based resolution framework. I think there are two reasons for this: (1) the sub-systems are pretty comprehensive of the plausible scope of activity for the game; (2) it's not a "husband resources and outwit the GM" game.

I certainly don't see it coming up in RPGs that don't use sub-system based resolution. In these games there literally isn't such a thing, at least from the mechanical point of view, as "the game not being set up to handle it". And players invoke the rules, they don't push against them.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Agreed! I for example have considered how skills might work better using 3d6 instead of 1d20 because this weighs thing heavily in favor of those who have bonuses in a skill; it naturally removes the problem that it's nearly guaranteed that someone will succeed at a roll if everyone gets to roll on a skill and it vastly lowers the chances that a skilled individual will fail at something simple. Heck, it even has a sort of historical precedent in the "roll under your ability score" systems of older editions. Yet, my players would never accept it because it ruins the symmetry of the 1d20 mechanic.

Nothing wrong with it, but my feeling is that any system boils down to a set of probabilities of different outcomes. So, you can ALWAYS take some sort of 'curve' and reduce it to a linear set of probabilities. Likewise with bonuses. If you were throwing 3d6, then you are correct that a +2 is considerably better than a +1, but it is probably pretty close to a linear +3. So, you could either get everyone to throw three dice and add them up, and stop playing with d20, OR you could create a non-linear bonus system (IE being 'level 2 in skill X' means you have a +3, not a +2).
I tie this in with another philosophy of my own in game design, which is "don't bother with the trivial stuff." In my game there are no +1s and such. +1 is not significant enough to really impact the narrative, so just don't bother with it. If something is dramatic enough to matter, then give (dis)advantage, which is basically about a +4 in most cases. This works well with the idea of non-linearity in that you don't see these small fixed bonuses, which would play out linearly in a d20 system. There are only large dramatic situational bonuses that come across as being pretty 'non-linear' in flavor. It also means that small incremental fixed bonuses are still around, so you can have a +2 weapon, it does the same thing for everyone, and that's fine, because it isn't really a big dramatic thing, just a small bonus that is always present on the PC's sheet, and (dis)advantage works off of that base.
Obviously what you want to do depends on your system and goals. In my case I evoke the feel of playing D&D, because that is basically what we're doing (at least in that game) and so I WANT a d20, but if you are building your own distinct system, then 3d6 is fine, and it could simplify other aspects of the rules, which is always good.

 

[Davinshe]

Nothing wrong with it, but my feeling is that any system boils down to a set of probabilities of different outcomes. So, you can ALWAYS take some sort of 'curve' and reduce it to a linear set of probabilities. Likewise with bonuses. If you were throwing 3d6, then you are correct that a +2 is considerably better than a +1, but it is probably pretty close to a linear +3. So, you could either get everyone to throw three dice and add them up, and stop playing with d20, OR you could create a non-linear bonus system (IE being 'level 2 in skill X' means you have a +3, not a +2).
I tie this in with another philosophy of my own in game design, which is "don't bother with the trivial stuff." In my game there are no +1s and such. +1 is not significant enough to really impact the narrative, so just don't bother with it. If something is dramatic enough to matter, then give (dis)advantage, which is basically about a +4 in most cases. This works well with the idea of non-linearity in that you don't see these small fixed bonuses, which would play out linearly in a d20 system. There are only large dramatic situational bonuses that come across as being pretty 'non-linear' in flavor. It also means that small incremental fixed bonuses are still around, so you can have a +2 weapon, it does the same thing for everyone, and that's fine, because it isn't really a big dramatic thing, just a small bonus that is always present on the PC's sheet, and (dis)advantage works off of that base.
Obviously what you want to do depends on your system and goals. In my case I evoke the feel of playing D&D, because that is basically what we're doing (at least in that game) and so I WANT a d20, but if you are building your own distinct system, then 3d6 is fine, and it could simplify other aspects of the rules, which is always good.

I think you somewhat demonstrated my point. Your objection is not based as much on whether it not the mathematical change would be helpful or harmful to the game but rather in the fact that rolling 3d6 instead of d20 no longer feels like d&d to you (even though universally using d20 for all attacks, skills, and saves was not standard prior to 3rd edition). It's not that the change is good or bad, it is jarring from an aesthetic standpoint and breaks with a core symmetry.

 

[Undrave]

In 1e each round had a number of 'segments' in it, and each spell took a certain number of these segments to cast. While casting, you could be interrupted by all kinds of things including jostling not even strong enough to cause damage. Casting in melee was impossible, as IMO it should be.

The world didn't end. People still played casters.

But casting times and interruptibility certainly reined casters in and made them/their players more cautious about what they were doing; and removing these constraints in 3e is largely what let casters get out of control in that edition. Instead of putting those constraints back in, 4e instead went the dull-and-boring route and nerfed a lot of spells; and 5e has largely kept the 4e approach.

Of course an intelligent opponent is going to try and interrupt casting, just like the PCs are going to try to interrupt any enemy casters they're fighting.

Oh, and it's also trivially easy to make D&D that much more granular.

I can see the appeal on a tactical level, but I feel like as an individual player the gameplay loop wouldn't appeal to as many people. A lot of people don't like spending turns doing nothing: "You're up Elwyn, what do you do with your turn?" "I continue to cast my spell." "Okay, Gerald, your turn." It feels pretty passive, I know I wouldn't really enjoy it. It also gives the caster a very heightened sense of importance, they become precious artillery that must be protected at all cost which in turn will make a certain specific play style more optimal than other almost all the time. If nothing else, you'd need the flexibility to faster and slower spell to avoid that.

Casting in melee also has its own narrative appeal that's different from the frail artillery at the back and the game should have ways to do it.

Late to the party, but:

I find most issues I've seen with rules in 5e come at least as much from reading the text as if it were technical writing than from the way the rules are actually written. If you treat them as being vague on purpose, a lot of arguments shift from "why did they pick this exact word?" to "What makes sense here?" - which is usually a lot clearer.

'Common sense' is all well and good until you realize it's not that 'common'

I disagree that mainstream appeal is an inherent good when discussing the quality of any given game. Personally ease of recruitment is not something I need to solve for. Particularly if it is indiscriminate. What I am looking for are games that contribute to play rather than just get out of the way. Ease of recruitment only matters so far as finding the right players to play a given game. If a given game is attractive to a mass of people who want to play in ways I do not wish to than I have a selection rather than a recruitment issue. Even worse if it does not appeal to the players I wish to play with.

My critiques will always be creative critiques rather than ones based on appeal, but I think you can aim for both quality and appeal at the same time to a certain degree. I think you can have clear rules that are still evocative by more directly calling out where GM judgement is required. There are many ways to write rules. Arcane natural language and dry technical manual are not the only choices.

Which is all well and good if you're a creator, but NOT if you're a large corporation trying to make a buck. Mainstream appeal IS important for DnD's bottom line, like it or not.

 

[pemerton]

This is how 5E handles it as well as other systems like OSR - B/X and so on.

The spell has a clear description of what it does. If a situation that comes up that is not covered by the description, the GM can make a ruling.

I don't understand the distinction you are making.

I didn't say anything about the GM making a ruling.

I said (i) the spell helps establish fictional position (eg the ogre is inclined to be my friend or I'm blasting fire from my fingertips! or whatever), and (ii) that fictional positioning feeds into the resolution framework (eg because the ogre is inclined to be my friend, I can ask a favour of it; or because fire is blasting from my fingertips, I can try and set the shed on fire).

B/X doesn't work like this, because it has no general resolution system. Nor, really, does 5e - as @AbdulAlhazred has posted, it needs something like a skill challenge for non-combat resolution.

4e does, though. And so do various other non-D&D systems.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Why though? What's the advantage of having those rules in only one place if they say the same thing? That means I don't have to buy two books to have all the rules I'm gonna need. I suppose you just want me to sit there and say 'I do this' and the DM tell me 'roll this' and then oh... I did it! or I failed, but I don't know why or how? How am I suppose to make decisions if I don't know how the stuff on my character sheet affects outcomes?

The problem I'm talking about is that SOME of each rule is in the PHB, and the REST is in the DMG. Gygax totally avoided this, he simply decreed that rules are the business of the DM and they are ALL in the DMG. You literally, in 1e, have no information on how combat actually works until you read the DMG. This works.
However, I'm not really advocating that stance, just that rules should be in one place. Otherwise they inevitably become unclear and usually subject to different interpretations depending on which version you read. If everything is duplicated in EACH BOOK, well, that obviously is wasteful.
What seems to be happening in modern D&Ds is that the PHB is intended to be the 'rule book' so the players can play. The DMG then becomes more of a 'resource' and 'advice', but inevitably that steers into making statements that are interpreted as rules or effectively ARE rules. I'm fine with there being some stuff in each place, but it should be carefully looked at so that there isn't duplication. Also I think the terms 'PHB' and 'DMG' are probably not good choices. They made sense to Gygax in terms of 1e when he literally hid the rules from the players, but a game like 5e does NOT have that goal! Calling them 'rules' and 'resources' might be better.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Beastmasters never work... They're either overpowered or absolute trash. They should just treat animal companions as a PC of their own with progression, HP and all that entails and just go "Here, you want a battle companion? Well you juggle two creature yourself" and just tell the DM they can just build encounters taking into account +1 PC.

I disagree. I can show you mathematically that 4e's Beastmaster is barely, if at all, inferior in combat to a BA build Ranger. The ACTUAL problem with BM is that people were absolutely determined that it had to work in one certain way (IE the beast had to be able to make super potent attacks) and any other possibility was simply rejected without any real analysis.
This is an example of where the rules simply don't match up with what people expect and anticipate. One option would be to simply flavor things differently. The real issue was that I agree with you, a 'beastmaster' where the beast is an overwhelming combatant WILL NOT work, particularly in 4e. So this was not an option for whomever designed the MP1 BM option. They had to come up with a solution, which was to make the BM ranger a secondary controller and allow their combat potency to be about 5-10% less in order to compensate. The Beast is actually fine, but its main uses are as a blocker, and as a tool outside of combat (which is an aspect that 4e has trouble factoring into its balance equation).

 

[Monayuris]

I didn't say anything about the GM making a ruling.

I said (i) the spell helps establish fictional position (eg the ogre is inclined to be my friend or I'm blasting fire from my fingertips! or whatever), and (ii) that fictional positioning feeds into the resolution framework (eg because the ogre is inclined to be my friend, I can ask a favour of it; or because fire is blasting from my fingertips, I can try and set the shed on fire).

B/X doesn't work like this, because it has no general resolution system. Nor, really, does 5e - as @AbdulAlhazred has posted, it needs something like a skill challenge for non-combat resolution.

4e does, though. And so do various other non-D&D systems.

I'm sorry I'm not following you.

In both B/X and in 5E I can use the charm person spell to charm and ogre and have it behave as if it is in inclined be a friend.

Likewise I can set fire to all kinds of things in both of those games.

I don’t need a general resolution framework to do any of those things. I don’t need a skill challenge to set a shed on fire.