D&D General Why Editions Don't Matter

[Oofta]

Fate? Aspects cover pretty much literally everything, from the properties of locations and inanimate objects to the deepest inner secrets of a being to supernatural powers.

I've never played it, but isn't their resolution system similar to D&D's ability score modifier + proficiency greater than a target number? There are different modifiers and fate uses skills of course, but ultimately it's "add numbers and compare to a target". Obviously I'm over simplifying but unless there's something I'm missing they seem quite similar in concept to me. Not sure how fate would be considered more complete.

 

[Baron Opal II]

"The point of the video is we should all get along."

"You disagreed with me? Boot to the head."

"And one for Jenny and the wimp!"

 

[TwoSix]

So .... how is a system that entirely relies upon ad hoc adjudication not complete? Let's use your example, slightly modified.

1) There is a player and a DM.
2) The player makes a fictional persona, i.e. a character. The DM explains what is happening to the character, a scene.
3) The player explains what the character is going to attempt.
4) The DM narrates the effect of the player's actions. and presents a new scene.

That is a complete system!

In order to understand why, we can see that everything is specified- all the adjudication needed and required is specified within the rules. If that doesn't seem right, we can extrapolate using the "Chinese Room" analogy from AI ....

Imagine that the DM is (unbeknownst to the player) just using a coin flip to determine success/fail. The hidden coin flip would be equivalent to the ad hoc adjudication from the system perspective..... we are just subbing in "DM Brain" for "hidden coin flip" as a specified means.

Just something to think about.

Because I'm specifically defining "complete" to not include "DM brain" adjudication. If anything the DM makes a decision on without reference to the rules is actually part of the ruleset, then every RPG is actually complete.

Not saying you can't define it that way (we're just debating semantics, of course), but I feel my rather asymptotic definition of completeness at least has a little more utility.

 

[Aldarc]

Sounds interesting. I bounced off ICRPG for some reason, but maybe it's worth me taking a second look.

If you bounce off of it, then it's no big deal. I don't think it's as evocative as the games you listed. I do like the substantially flatter power curve of the game, as well as elements like loot progression, hearts, effort, table-facing DCs, etc.

Index Card RPG 2E is classless and has a loot-based progression system, so characters can lose all of their abilities if they lose their items. ICRPG Master Edition, however, provides characters with non-loot based abilities and moves closer to soft classes. I think that my ICRPG project may go for an alternative middle ground. It takes some small nods from games like Ryuutama, Worlds Without Number, and the upcoming Dragonbane RPG.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Because I'm specifically defining "complete" to not include "DM brain" adjudication. If anything the DM makes a decision on without reference to the rules is actually part of the ruleset, then every RPG is actually complete.

Not saying you can't define it that way (we're just debating semantics, of course), but I feel my rather asymptotic definition of completeness at least has a little more utility.

Fair, but I don't think you'd get much buy-in as a general rule; there's a difference between specified ad hoc adjudication, and "there is no rule, so make something up" adjudication, which is what I was trying to get at.

If the rule is "DM Brain" (or coin flip, or whatever) that's a rule.
If there isn't a rule, then .... you can default to DM Brain (or coin flip, or whatever). That's ... different. And it's important to differentiate the two things.

I think what you're trying to get at is that there is a specified method of adjudication. Because "DM Brain" and "coin flip" and "position of the moon" and "call the first person named Jake in your contacts and get their binding answer" and any number of outside referents are still valid methods of specified adjudication.

Which leads to two separate thoughts-

1. When people talk about 5e being "incomplete," they are usually discussing an absence of further rules and complexity, not a method of adjudication. 5e has the tools to adjudicate - it's just too simple for some people. They would prefer more- more subsystems, more tables, more rules for different kinds of combat. That's a different type of incompleteness.

2. When you discuss complete systems (like your coin flip system), you are still using background assumptions. The most prominent has to do with the idea that someone (player or DM) has to decide if something can be narrated, requires a coinflip, or if the coinflip is impossible. These are background considerations that can actually matter a great deal, but are usually subsumed under the rubric of "how the table plays," in most D&D games, but are more explicit in other games.

Put more concretely- who gets to call for (or veto) that coinflip can't always be assumed.

 

[Oofta]

Sure. I defined it a few posts up as the coin-flip game. No actually played RPG is complete, though.

Let me try to clarify. I'm defining completeness as "all mechanical resolutions within the game (pass-fail, degrees of success) are contained within the specified rules, and not delegated to the determination of the participants." The coin-flip game is complete, because every possible action's success is contained within the coin-flip. A pure Free Kriegspiel game, on the other hand, is entirely incomplete, because the success or failure of every action is determined entirely by one of the participants.

To expand the hyopthetical, let's add one rule to coin-flip game. "The fictional persona, the character, must possess a helmet." With the addition of that rule, the game has now become incomplete, as there is no resolution method described for what happens when that rule is violated. The determination of the resolution must then be resolved ad-hoc by the participants.

If your standard is "No TTRPG could ever meet this standard" it leads to confusion because the implication is that it is possible to meet the standard. It's kind of like saying "Your car can't go 400 MPH." which implies that there are cars that can go that fast. It's quite different from saying "No street legal car can go 400 MPH"*.

So that's why people are pushing back. If you're saying it's a spectrum, I agree. I would say that OD&D is on the low end of the completeness spectrum, I would place 4E at the high end and 5E between OD&D and 3.x.

*I was going to say 300 MPH, but there is an exotic car that claims 316 MPH but it's contested. The fastest land based rocket "car" can go 763 MPH. The more you know ... something, something, something.

 

[TwoSix]

Fair, but I don't think you'd get much buy-in as a general rule; there's a difference between specified ad hoc adjudication, and "there is no rule, so make something up" adjudication, which is what I was trying to get at.

I gotta disagree. I don't think there's a huge difference between a rulebook saying "for this specific use case, make it up" and the rulebook saying "for every unspecified use case, just make it up".

If the rule is "DM Brain" (or coin flip, or whatever) that's a rule.
If there isn't a rule, then .... you can default to DM Brain (or coin flip, or whatever). That's ... different. And it's important to differentiate the two things.

I think there's a major difference between "delegating the authority to a participant" and "delegating the authority to a non-participant".

1. When people talk about 5e being "incomplete," they are usually discussing an absence of further rules and complexity, not a method of adjudication. 5e has the tools to adjudicate - it's just too simple for some people. They would prefer more- more subsystems, more tables, more rules for different kinds of combat. That's a different type of incompleteness.

Oh yea, absolutely different. The 5e "incompleteness" is more along the lines of "Hey, there are some pretty obvious use cases A, B, and C to extrapolate from this rule. They tell me what to do for A and B, but totally ignore C. Guess I'll just make an ability check."

2. When you discuss complete systems (like your coin flip system), you are still using background assumptions. The most prominent has to do with the idea that someone (player or DM) has to decide if something can be narrated, requires a coinflip, or if the coinflip is impossible. These are background considerations that can actually matter a great deal, but are usually subsumed under the rubric of "how the table plays," in most D&D games, but are more explicit in other games.

Put more concretely- who gets to call for (or veto) that coinflip can't always be assumed.

Actually, for the pure coin-flip game, no one gets to veto a coin-flip. That's a delegation of authority outside of the independent resolution. As soon as you decide to limit the game to particular subset of declarations to enforce genre or setting tropes or anything like that, at least one participant has to become a de facto arbiter.

 

[TwoSix]

If your standard is "No TTRPG could ever meet this standard" it leads to confusion because the implication is that it is possible to meet the standard. It's kind of like saying "Your car can't go 400 MPH." which implies that there are cars that can go that fast. It's quite different from saying "No street legal car can go 400 MPH"*.

So that's why people are pushing back. If you're saying it's a spectrum, I agree. I would say that OD&D is on the low end of the completeness spectrum, I would place 4E at the high end and 5E between OD&D and 3.x.

*I was going to say 300 MPH, but there is an exotic car that claims 316 MPH but it's contested. The fastest land based rocket "car" can go 763 MPH. The more you know ... something, something, something.

I don't mind if people push back. It's an interesting discussion about hypotheticals.

Trying to win a semantic debate is a fool's errand. I just enjoy the discussion.

 

[Charlaquin]

Because I'm specifically defining "complete" to not include "DM brain" adjudication. If anything the DM makes a decision on without reference to the rules is actually part of the ruleset, then every RPG is actually complete.

Not saying you can't define it that way (we're just debating semantics, of course), but I feel my rather asymptotic definition of completeness at least has a little more utility.

I mean, ok, I guess if you define “complete” in a way that excludes any referee adjudication, D&D is incomplete. But that feels like painting the target around the spot where your shots landed. It also excludes all RPGs and most sports from being considered complete.

 

[gorice]

For me, mechanical vs. personal might be another red herring. I think there are two different types of incompleteness at work here.

#1 is when the delegation of authority is lacking. 5e is clear in its most basic play loop, but for some other things I would argue (and I can go to the text to do this, though I really don't want to) that it falls flat.

#2 is when the tools for executing that authority are lacking. This is where you get people like me complaining that the exploration rules don't actually work. You could even divide this into #2.a, where there is something in the text that the rules don't serve to bring into play (like wandering monsters), and #2.b, where the execution of authority is unclear or impractical (like scene framing).