D&D General Why Editions Don't Matter

[R_J_K75]

Even with a dozen house rules it's still D&D and always will be, because 99.9% of it remains the same as everyone else's D&D.

The players know what to expect. They should expect a game that is mostly the same, but has some changes per the 5e instruction to ask the DM if there are any changes.

I can understand tweaking a spell, skill, background, etc, and I'm not saying house-ruling is bad but its just not my thing as both a player or DM. Would I play in a campaign where the DM had a page or two of rule tweaks, probably. Would I play in a game with 150-200 pages of rule changes, absolutely not. If a gaming group has been together for years or decades, then of course the players know what to expect as far as what's house ruled and most likely even had a say in their implementation. In my experience the players in my gaming group fluctuate every few years so that has mostly been my reason for not house-ruling. In all honesty off the top of my head I can't think of one thing in the core 5E books that I think are so broken or incomplete to make me want to fix them or fill in the blanks. As we're playing as the DM I'll make a ruling and get on with life.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

...it is your report of someone else's testimony given to you (in this case, about the result of the coin.) How does that not meet the legal definition of "hearsay," (generally, though not always, inadmissible) testimony reporting on the testimony of a third party who is not present?

Ugh. Really? Are you doing this? Just to argue?

Okay, so here's the issue in a nutshell.

Spoiler: Long Explainer.

1. There is common definition of hearsay. It's actually derived from ... "Hear ... Say." What you heard someone say. However, because of the "bleeding effect" from the legal profession (mostly people watching Law & Order), it is exclusively used with the connotation of "untrustworthy" or "rumor." Let's use the following example to illustrate why, in common parlance, you might use (or not use) hearsay-

A. "Did you hear that Chad played a bard the other night?"
B. "Really? Did you see it? Were you there?"
A. "Naw. But Freddie said he heard other people talking about someone playing a bard, and that person looked kind of like Chad ..."
B. "Dude, we all know Chad is a stand-up guy who wouldn't play Bards. Stop spreading that hearsay."

Now, contrast that with the following:
A. "Oh my god, we were just attacked by a bear outside! Call the hospital! Chad's bleeding to death outside!"
B. "Eh, I don't know. I didn't actually see it. So ... hearsay, dude."


2. If you want to talk about the law, then you have to understand that as a general rule, there can be a difference between (say) state and federal issues of hearsay, but if we are looking at federal law, it's a very specific issue.
"Hearsay" is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted. (FRE 801(c)(1), (2)).

But what does that mean, really? Well, you have to unpack it. First, this has to do with testifying at a trial or hearing. Right? So this is involving Person A, testifying under oath (it's offered in evidence). Next, it has to be offered to "prove the truth of the matter asserted." That's actually huge- if you want the statement for another reason, it's not hearsay. Finally, it has to be a statement. Which ...

“Statement” means a person’s oral assertion, written assertion, or nonverbal conduct, if the person intended it as an assertion. (FRE 801(a)).

WOAH! So already we are beginning to see a problem, right, and a massive divergence with the common understanding. Written documents can be hearsay. (In fact, the most interesting disputes over hearsay have nothing to do with verbal statements).

But that's not all. It's not just exceptions to hearsay (see, e.g., FRE 803, 804). Some things just aren't hearsay because ... they aren't. Certain prior statements by parties (and opposing parties) are defined as "not hearsay" ... because they are defined that way. (FRE 801(d)).

I could keep playing this if I wanted to (really ... ) but I could sum it up with this- it doesn't meet the legal definition of hearsay because it's not a trial! It's not sworn testimony. The actual reasoning behind these legal distinctions matter (the long and the short of it is that you are trying to get the best and most reliable evidence at trials; this is similar to the reasoning behind the "best evidence" rule), but they don't really map on to the common understandings very well.

Now, if it was a trial (because, honestly, why the heck not?) then this is what would happen-
Snarf (would testify that Jake said "Heads" on the phone)
Ezekiel Raiden: I OBJECT! HEARSAY!
Judge: Counsel? How do you address the objection?
Snarf's attorney: This testimony is not being proffered for the truth of the matter asserted, but only to establish that there was an adjudication, not the result of the adjudication. The actual result will be testified to by Mr. Jake. Finally, this would be allowable as an exception as it is a present-sense utterance.
Judge: Objection overruled.

(later)
Jake: (testifies that he said "Heads" on the phone)
Ezekiel Raiden: I OBJECT! HEARSAY!
Judge: Overruled.

(later)
Closing Argument by Snarf's Attorney: Ladies and Gentleman of the Jury, you might be asking yourself, "Why are we here? How is it that a simple question of flipping coins became a federal case with witnesses and sworn-to testimony? Is this not a waste of judicial and litigant resources? Is this not a waste of your time?" Well, I am asking myself the same question ....

Fin. For real.

 

[Maxperson]

None of what you wrote is in the rules. A DM could certainly rule that way, but as far as the Expert Rules are concerned, Cure Disease cures lycanthropy full stop.

It was ALL in the rules. The rule is that it takes an 11th level cleric to remove the lycanthrope. Full stop. He does it using a 3rd level spell. Full stop. If you are not both 11th level AND using the 3rd level spell(the requirements per RAW), you cannot cure lycanthropy. Full stop. That's all written rule.

So the 6th level cleric cannot by RAW cure a lycanthrope.

But that's all beside the point. The point is that B/X is particularly clear when it comes to procedures involving exploration, but is otherwise filled with these kinds of fuzzy areas where the DM is expected to fill in the specifics. Which, IMO, is fine. Good, even. It doesn't make B/X less complete, or in any way unplayable. And the same goes for 5e, which covers a lot more than B/X.

Yes. BECMI, 1e and 2e were full of holes that the DM had to fill. 3e tried to fill every hole, failed, and created more problems than it fixed in the process. 5e has gone back to prior to 3e with regard to what the rules cover.

 

[Garthanos]

Instead of responding to a bunch of stuff in pedantic detail, I'd like to try and clarify something. When I mention 'structures' or 'procedures', I'm thinking about recurrent processes that 'loop'. Play loops, right?

So, yes, I as a DM need to make a call about how long it takes for fire to burn through a rope bridge the PCs are standing on, or whether someone can jump across a chasm while wearing soaking wet armour. These kinds of rulings are completely normal in D&D, and I'm pretty comfortable making them, because they don't come up too often, and repeat even less.

(though, for example, some kind of flexible rule for counting down until something burns/explodes/whatever would be lovely, and indeed this is something I have a little houserule for).

4e has skill challenge as its countdown AND team tactics mechanism as well as providing experience for hard to achieve non-combat results. (Reading the DMG2 is my favorite explanation if you are not familiar)

The real difficulty comes from the stuff that repeats. If you're doing a piracy campaign, you're going to want to have some idea about how to handle naval battles and swashbuckling -- the odd judement call isn't going to cut it. The mental overhead is too much, and pretty soon you'll rule youself into a corner.

The other problem is: as a DM or GM, I want my players to be able to make informed choices about tactics, and meaningful decisions about what they do with their characters. If they're in a naval battle, they need to have some idea of their odds against that man-o'-war, and the risks involved in fighting it. If I'm winging everything, I have much less ability to provide that information.

Alongside informed choices or as an adjunct to it. The edition/system also helps create common expectations between players and DMs/GMs, in 4e skill was expected to be potentially as effective or analogous to magic. Martial practices should enable things akin to rituals though not necessarily the same and so on. Around level 16 (like 13 in 5e), flying becomes ubiquitous. Characters were progressing from heroic scale to demigod or legendary being doing the impossible or similar (although the heralded once and future king or Doomed Eternal Champion are definitely covered), as they changed tiers the numbers reflected this advancement, without resorting to item dependence like girdles of giant strength and vorpal weapons and so on. Expectations help when one is adjudicating on things not explicitly established.

 

[gorice]

You know, I think I need to do a better job of explaining why procedures are important, and how they relate to framing and player choices. This (way, way too long) post is me trying to clarify a couple of things before taking a break from this thread for a while (I've got to actually do some work sometime!).

Let's imagine that an adventuring party is delving into a lich's tomb to recover the Staff of Judgement, for reasons that don't concern us. I'm the DM, running 5e. I have a map of the dungeon, and will describe each room as the party explores it. I put a carrion crawler in one room, the lich in his chamber with the staff, and a big demon on the wandering monsters list. Examples are fictional, but extrapolated from personal experience.

In scenario (a), we use traditional exploration procedures, reaction rolls, supply tracking, the whole works, all imported from Basic or AD&D. Since we're going old-school, there will be no dice fudging.

In scenario (b), I play it by the book: which means, I just kind of wing it, aside from travel speeds and stuff like that, but I do use the keyed map, as the DMG suggests.

In scenario (c), I completely wing it, ignoring the DMG, throwing out the map, and running a linear dungeon like I've seen other people do, using only the stat blocks from the MM as guidance.

When we play (a), the PCs run into the carrion crawler, but my roll says it is asleep in its lair. The party backs up and manages to find a clever path around, then presses on until they find the lich. The fresh party sneaks up on the lich, and launches a clever attack involving holy water and an ersatz trebuchet, which I allow with an improvised ruling. Their ingenuity helps them secure a win (minus one PC, who dies in the fight), and, now low and health and supplies, they grab the staff and make a run for the exit. We're all ready to call it a night, when I roll a random encounter on the way out: the demon! The reaction roll says it is in a bad mood but will not immediately attack; I decide that this means it demands they hand over the staff. The party is not ready to take this thing on. I guess we end on a cliffhanger!

When we play (b), they PCs also run into the carrion crawler. As far as we know, beast is alert and the party can't outrun it (lots of rules for combat and none for chases mean that no-one thinks to try), so they decide to face it, taking some damage. Then they move on to the lich. The lich fight is exactly the same as in (a), including the holy water trebuchet, except that one of the PCs nearly dies. I feel bad and go easy on them, following the DMG's advice to fudge rolls occasionally. After a tough fight, I feel they've earned some downtime and we're all nearly ready to call it a night, so I decide it's not necessary to check for wandering monsters, following the DMG's advice to use them at my discretion. The party clears the remaining rooms of treasure and leaves.

In scenario (c), I decide the party needs a warm-up fight, so it encounters a quantum carrion crawler and defeats it, taking some damage. Then they say they want to push on and get the staff, so I ad-lib some gloomy dungeon descriptions and we get to the lich. The lich fight goes exactly the same as before; when it comes to the possible character death, I feel bad, since I forced them into a carrion crawler fight they didn't want, so I fudge things a bit. The PCs live happily ever after.

Some points, in no particular order:

• The loss of structure as we move from (a) through (b) to (c) reduces player choice. By the time we hit (c), the only meaningful choices made are how get past enemies/obstacles and whether to continue the adventure.
• Loss of structure increases my power as DM (in theory), but it also makes it difficult and unpleasant to exercise (in practice). Conversely, the high-structure example in (a) sometimes gives me creative prompts (like my ad-lib about the demon wanting the staff).
• The combination of strict exploration rules and players and DM reacting to those rules in (a) leads to situations no-one expected, like the sleeping carrion crawler and the demon's ultimatum. Conversely, (b) and (c) contain no surprises for me as the DM, aside from clever player tactics like the holy water.
• The ad-hoc ruling about the holy water trebuchet is in all three games.
• I am, of course, painting a picture of (a) in which the rules lead to interesting outcomes. Dull rules, a dull adventure, or bad luck might lead to rote boredom, and different people will get differing enjoyment out of different rules. So, it's not just a case of more procedure = better.

 

[Garthanos]

You know, I think I need to do a better job of explaining why procedures are important, and how they relate to framing and player choices. This (way, way too long) post is me trying to clarify a couple of things before taking a break from this thread for a while (I've got to actually do some work sometime!).

Let's imagine that an adventuring party is delving into a lich's tomb to recover the Staff of Judgement, for reasons that don't concern us. I'm the DM, running 5e. I have a map of the dungeon, and will describe each room as the party explores it. I put a carrion crawler in one room, the lich in his chamber with the staff, and a big demon on the wandering monsters list. Examples are fictional, but extrapolated from personal experience.

In scenario (a), we use traditional exploration procedures, reaction rolls, supply tracking, the whole works, all imported from Basic or AD&D. Since we're going old-school, there will be no dice fudging.

In scenario (b), I play it by the book: which means, I just kind of wing it, aside from travel speeds and stuff like that, but I do use the keyed map, as the DMG suggests.

In scenario (c), I completely wing it, ignoring the DMG, throwing out the map, and running a linear dungeon like I've seen other people do, using only the stat blocks from the MM as guidance.

When we play (a), the PCs run into the carrion crawler, but my roll says it is asleep in its lair. The party backs up and manages to find a clever path around, then presses on until they find the lich. The fresh party sneaks up on the lich, and launches a clever attack involving holy water and an ersatz trebuchet, which I allow with an improvised ruling. Their ingenuity helps them secure a win (minus one PC, who dies in the fight), and, now low and health and supplies, they grab the staff and make a run for the exit. We're all ready to call it a night, when I roll a random encounter on the way out: the demon! The reaction roll says it is in a bad mood but will not immediately attack; I decide that this means it demands they hand over the staff. The party is not ready to take this thing on. I guess we end on a cliffhanger!

When we play (b), they PCs also run into the carrion crawler. As far as we know, beast is alert and the party can't outrun it (lots of rules for combat and none for chases mean that no-one thinks to try), so they decide to face it, taking some damage. Then they move on to the lich. The lich fight is exactly the same as in (a), including the holy water trebuchet, except that one of the PCs nearly dies. I feel bad and go easy on them, following the DMG's advice to fudge rolls occasionally. After a tough fight, I feel they've earned some downtime and we're all nearly ready to call it a night, so I decide it's not necessary to check for wandering monsters, following the DMG's advice to use them at my discretion. The party clears the remaining rooms of treasure and leaves.

In scenario (c), I decide the party needs a warm-up fight, so it encounters a quantum carrion crawler and defeats it, taking some damage. Then they say they want to push on and get the staff, so I ad-lib some gloomy dungeon descriptions and we get to the lich. The lich fight goes exactly the same as before; when it comes to the possible character death, I feel bad, since I forced them into a carrion crawler fight they didn't want, so I fudge things a bit. The PCs live happily ever after.

Some points, in no particular order:

• The loss of structure as we move from (a) through (b) to (c) reduces player choice. By the time we hit (c), the only meaningful choices made are how get past enemies/obstacles and whether to continue the adventure.
• Loss of structure increases my power as DM (in theory), but it also makes it difficult and unpleasant to exercise (in practice). Conversely, the high-structure example in (a) sometimes gives me creative prompts (like my ad-lib about the demon wanting the staff).
• The combination of strict exploration rules and players and DM reacting to those rules in (a) leads to situations no-one expected, like the sleeping carrion crawler and the demon's ultimatum.

The exploration rules do not need to be super strict they can be fairly abstracted and still lead to empowered player choices and encourage unusual approaches while allowing defined investments by player in the results. The compromise can avoid the rote boredom... and bring in some of the benefits of b/c I think.

• Conversely, (b) and (c) contain no surprises for me as the DM, aside from clever player tactics like the holy water.
• The ad-hoc ruling about the holy water trebuchet is in all three games.
• I am, of course, painting a picture of (a) in which the rules lead to interesting outcomes. Dull rules, a dull adventure, or bad luck might lead to rote boredom, and different people will get differing enjoyment out of different rules. So, it's not just a case of more procedure = better.

 

[Composer99]

[Big long post. Go read the whole thing, just not in this quote.]

Honestly, that didn't come across as an attempt to clarify a position about the completeness, or lack thereof, in game procedures across editions of D&D so much as it came across as inveighing against styles of DMing you don't care for.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

It doesn't feel all that different from Critical Role to me. I'm not saying there isn't a lot of diversity inside the D&D space, just that it's not more diverse in play than other games. The way I look at is D&D is the roleplaying equivalent of serialized police procedurals. Homicide - Life on the Street* is fairly different in feel to something like Law and Order or NCIS. Police procedurals are also different by orders of magnitude compared to crime shows like Breaking Bad, The Ozarks and Sons of Anarchy that also show plenty of diversity. Police procedurals are more popular because people generally like the conceits of police procedurals more, not because they are more diverse in their offerings.

* Best TV show ever made.

Lol okay man.

 

[Hex08]

Lol okay man.

Well, that was pretty condescending.

 

[Imaro]

It doesn't feel all that different from Critical Role to me. I'm not saying there isn't a lot of diversity inside the D&D space, just that it's not more diverse in play than other games. The way I look at is D&D is the roleplaying equivalent of serialized police procedurals. Homicide - Life on the Street* is fairly different in feel to something like Law and Order or NCIS. Police procedurals are also different by orders of magnitude compared to crime shows like Breaking Bad, The Ozarks and Sons of Anarchy that also show plenty of diversity. Police procedurals are more popular because people generally like the conceits of police procedurals more, not because they are more diverse in their offerings.

* Best TV show ever made.

I'm curious when you say "different" what exactly do you mean? Mechanics wise, genre wise, trope wise, setting wise...