D&D General Why Editions Don't Matter

[TheSword]

I have to say, I pretty much agree, and always have, with what he has to say. I think we often (especially on forums) argue about the semantics. One thing of exceptional note is how D&D designers don't even play with the rules they are writing.

So I watched the clip and really enjoyed. Then binge watched the next 10 videos...

... then I found out he wrote one of my favourite adventures for AD&D... Unhallowed Ground, murder in a monastary.

Thanks so much for pointing this guy out. Loving it.

 

[Oofta]

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.

Yep. If the defined term can never realistically be achieved then I don't see the point, it's a variation of the appeal to extremes fallacy.

 

[Composer99]

I don't know, @TwoSix... I just don't see how your particular definition of incompleteness in a TTRPG has as much utility as you claim.

First, many if not most TTRPGs are meant to be unbounded or open-ended, in a sense, by which I mean they implicitly or explicitly expect or permit situations in the in-game fiction to come up in the course of gameplay that the rules - including mechanical methods of resolving changes in the in-game fiction without recourse to GM adjudication - simply don't adequately cover.

Second, the vast majority of TTRPGs with a GM expect, either implicitly or explicitly, that either the GM will adjudicate both any situation that comes up that the existing rules don't cover, or the GM will adjudicate even common gameplay situations.

In short, your proposed definition of completeness with respect to TTRPGs comes across as defining the outstanding majority of RPGs as "incomplete". You might be fine with that, but... it just seems too idiosyncratic to be a useful definition of incomplete.

A metric that relates to what extent adjudication of gameplay is GM says what happens versus players say what happens versus mechanics say what happens versus something or someone else says what happens in a TTRPG might well be useful, but I can't see it being useful as a way of telling whether a game is "complete" or not.

 

[Maxperson]

The coin-flip game covers everything.

You're more than welcome to tell me my particular definition is hot garbage, of course, I really don't mind. This has been a fun thread.

It doesn't quite cover everything. What if my PC has successfully used a coin flip to make my spells immune to being countered, but you are going to use your magic to be super magic that can't stopped by such things and want to counter the spell anyway, and then succeed on your coinflip? Does it work? Are you not allowed to even try? Can you try and it automatically fails? Do you have to flip to see if you can try? You need more than "a coin flip" resolves what you are trying to do.

 

[Oofta]

Aren't the Stealth rules somewhat notorious for giving some direction but leaving a lot of possible interactions up for grabs? I gloss over RAW debates because they're so boring, but I seem to remember that cropping up before.

Things were intentionally left largely up to the DM because there is no way they could describe every possible situation. Whether that works for any specific individual (I like it) is personal preference. They did give direction and specific rules. The DM decides if you can hide based on whether the creature you're hiding from can clearly see you with an example exception to the general rule. There's a podcast on the topic here if anyone cares.

Short version of the podcast: there can't be a clear and concise set of rules that covers every possible scenario for stealth. Rather than muck up the waters they kept it simple.

 

[TwoSix]

It doesn't quite cover everything. What if my PC has successfully used a coin flip to make my spells immune to being countered, but you are going to use your magic to be super magic that can't stopped by such things and want to counter the spell anyway, and then succeed on your coinflip? Does it work? Are you not allowed to even try? Can you try and it automatically fails? Do you have to flip to see if you can try? You need more than "a coin flip" resolves what you are trying to do.

Of course you can try. That's the point of the coin-flip game! Both participants have absolute authority to make any declaration they want. They can choose to limit their declarations for their own definitions of what fits the game, but it cannot be imposed on them except via coin-flip.

And yes, the coin-flip game would absolutely boil down to "Yes I do", "Flip", "No you didn't", "Flip" all the time, which is why no one plays it and we all use lots of specific rules. Unbounded authority to make declarations isn't really that fun.

 

[Maxperson]

Of course you can try. That's the point of the coin-flip game! Both participants have absolute authority to make any declaration they want. They can choose to limit their declarations for their own definitions of what fits the game, but it cannot be imposed on them except via coin-flip.

You can't have absolute authority and override someone else's authority at the same time. Those are mutually exclusive things. If I have absolute authority, then with a coin flip I can make it so that you can't do something, which means that you do not have absolute authority to make any declaration you want. If I cannot make a declaration that limits your authority, then I don't have absolute authority to make declarations. There are limits.

And yes, the coin-flip game would absolutely boil down to "Yes I do", "Flip", "No you didn't", "Flip" all the time, which is why no one plays it and we all use lots of specific rules. Unbounded authority to make declarations isn't really that fun.

This is just kids playing with no rules. Because I can just keep flipping until I succeed and so can you, which isn't really any different from when I was 7 and my friends and I were like, "I shot you!" "No you didn't!" "Yes I did!" "But I used my power to make your shot miss!" "No you didn't!" "Yes I did!"

 

[TwoSix]

I don't know, @TwoSix... I just don't see how your particular definition of incompleteness in a TTRPG has as much utility as you claim.

It might not! But I do offer a money-back guarantee.

First, many if not most TTRPGs are meant to be unbounded or open-ended, in a sense, by which I mean they implicitly or explicitly expect or permit situations in the in-game fiction to come up in the course of gameplay that the rules - including mechanical methods of resolving changes in the in-game fiction without recourse to GM adjudication - simply don't adequately cover.

Absolutely true.

Second, the vast majority of TTRPGs with a GM expect, either implicitly or explicitly, that either the GM will adjudicate both any situation that comes up that the existing rules don't cover, or the GM will adjudicate even common gameplay situations.

I'd quibble and say "large majority", but that's a quibble.

In short, your proposed definition of completeness with respect to TTRPGs comes across as defining the outstanding majority of RPGs as "incomplete". You might be fine with that, but... it just seems too idiosyncratic to be a useful definition of incomplete.

I would go so far as to say it labels every TTRPG as "incomplete". But there are degrees of incompleteness, which are interesting to discuss.

A metric that relates to what extent adjudication of gameplay is GM says what happens versus players say what happens versus mechanics say what happens versus something or someone else says what happens in a TTRPG might well be useful, but I can't see it being useful as a way of telling whether a game is "complete" or not.

I don't think trying to measure "completeness" is a useful metric at all, especially since "completeness" has no normative value.

 

[TwoSix]

You can't have absolute authority and override someone else's authority at the same time. Those are mutually exclusive things. If I have absolute authority, then with a coin flip I can make it so that you can't do something, which means that you do not have absolute authority to make any declaration you want. If I cannot make a declaration that limits your authority, then I don't have absolute authority to make declarations. There are limits.

Sure. And I would say there's a natural restriction on both participant's authority, one that is self-imposed: They want to keep playing the game.

If you had 2 people playing volleyball who can hit the ball infinitely far in the air, they can both choose to do that at any time, or they can choose to keep the ball relatively low so they can play volleyball.

This is just kids playing with no rules. Because I can just keep flipping until I succeed and so can you, which isn't really any different from when I was 7 and my friends and I were like, "I shot you!" "No you didn't!" "Yes I did!" "But I used my power to make your shot miss!" "No you didn't!" "Yes I did!"

Yep. Just because a game is complete doesn't mean it can't also be Calvinball.

 

[Charlaquin]

I would absolutely agree that all of them are pretty much the same, assuming perfectly fair participants, of course. I think we can all see the possibilities of unfair play in scenario 2.


Yes, absolutely correct. And that's exactly why most games have specified rules, even though it makes them more incomplete (by my self-employed definition, of course). Shared unlimited authority is simply too much to handle. That's why the coin-flip game is a hypothetical.

Does the coin-flip game even meet your definition of complete though? Someone has to apply their best judgement to determine what constitutes “an action” and requires a coin flip, as opposed to being a part of the player’s description or even being assumed and unnecessary to even narrate (for example, does the character need to flip a coin to dress themselves properly)?

There’s just no way for any RPG to be complete under this definition unless it’s run by a computer. Which… is certainly a way to define “complete” but it makes the claim that 5e is “incomplete” a pretty nothing-burger of a critique.