D&D General Rules, Rules, Rules: Thoughts on the Past, Present, and Future of D&D

[MichaelSomething]

In addition, D&D at various points has tried to steer everyone to play a very specific way, the way it was "supposed to be played". IMHO it's always been a mistake. I think one of the strengths of D&D is that people have always had the option to make the game what they want. If the developers think PCs should be able to hide quite often, there should be a section in the DMG talking about it and telling the DM what the intent of the designers is and the logic behind it. Then the DM can look at that advice and learn from it instead of trying to force it on them because that never works.

Race as class! Gold for exp! Craft and Profession skills! Marking! Short rests!

 

[Thomas Shey]

I never made any mention of "building a system from the ground." Something being "design" doesn't require that in the least. Especially because, in a very real sense, D&D hasn't been designed that way in decades, possibly not since 1e and certainly not since 2e. No heartbreaker has ever been designed "from the ground up," for example; by definition they ride on the coattails of some other game or games. Doesn't make them any less efforts of design.

In fact, I'll argue that not being based to one degree or another on prior art is essentially nonexistent in the hobby at this point; every game out there builds on prior work, even if its in a negative sense (i.e. actively avoiding mechanical structures you have seen you think fail your purposes and thus looking for others). I buy a pretty fair number of game PDFs, and I can usually spot at least some antecedents in all of them (and in some of those I don't I suspect they're inspired by game systems I simply don't know well enough to identify their footprint).

Similarly, its been a long time since people usually bolted on rules decisions out of the blue; they're usually done by parallelism to some part of the rules at hand.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I think we are not going to agree on the objectivity or subjectivity of the term, which is fine. Again, if you feel it is too much of a burden, and if you feel it is too much like doing design work, fair enough. That is a totally valid reaction to a system. But people are here who prefer rulings approaches and are telling you they don't find it burdensome and they don't see it as anything like design, or being asked to do the designers work. I certainly don't.

I think what you are looking for in mechanics is a consistency (correct me if I am wrong as I may not understand your meaning), and rulings aren't really about mechanical consistency or probability consistency. They are about equipping the GM to fluidly respond in each specific moment, to the things the players are specifically asking to do, and to use the mechanics creatively so that they can bring the game to life. For me that means, I am not especially precious about whether this ruling or that ruling chart equally over time (i.e. if I make four different rulings about cats biting a person, I am less concerned about consistency over time of mechanics or probabilities than I am if it felt right for that moment). This may be too much handwaving for you, which is fair. Like I said, I don't think this is the one true objective style to play. It is just a style, and an approach to design, with its upsides and downsides. Ultimately though it is the one that produces better play for me as a GM and Player most of the time.

Yeah, that would be a problem for me.

My thing is, both parts of the term "roleplaying game" are important. Roleplaying requires a great deal of openness, flexibility, etc., and I'm keenly aware of that, I run a DW game. But for it to be a "game," the player needs to be able to make informed decisions, learn from them, and apply that learning going forward (whether "do better" after doing poorly, or "keep it up" after doing well.) Inconsistency is one of several ways that you prevent that from being possible. When the rules are inconsistent--when the rules change without the player's knowledge, so the player can't reason from past experience to future events (within the limits of probability, of course)--you aren't actually playing a game anymore. You are, at best, engaged in group improv where one person is allowed inordinate power over the improv setting. And it's cool if that's what you want, but you'd be much better served by dispensing with the pretense of having rules. If you are actually serious about having rules as...y'know, rules, then they need to be consistent so players can actually use them.

"60% of the time, it works every time" is a joke for a reason. So I am confused as to how this produces "better play," because if the rules...well, aren't rules, then there's no reasoning you can make from them. You can't learn what it means to make wise decisions. You just do things, and consequences happen, but no reasoning can validly connect the two together--there is no causative connection, because the cause of the results is the changed rules, not the choice.

 

[Thomas Shey]

"60% of the time, it works every time" is a joke for a reason. So I am confused as to how this produces "better play," because if the rules...well, aren't rules, then there's no reasoning you can make from them. You can't learn what it means to make wise decisions. You just do things, and consequences happen, but no reasoning can validly connect the two together--there is no causative connection, because the cause of the results is the changed rules, not the choice.

I'm going to make a cynical argument here: often you can in such games, but it has nothing to do with the presence and your understanding of the rules and everything to do with understanding the GM. If your reading of this statement is that I'm not being complimentary to that process, your reading is correct.

 

[Celebrim]

I buy a pretty fair number of game PDFs, and I can usually spot at least some antecedents in all of them (and in some of those I don't I suspect they're inspired by game systems I simply don't know well enough to identify their footprint).

I used to be somewhat impressed by, if not the implementation of the games by a designer I won't name, then at least the originality of his designs. I bought several of his books, ran them to disappointing results, but felt some satisfied with my purchase if only because "it made me think". But as my knowledge of game systems increased, I kept finding not only the antecedents for his rules systems, but also that the originals had perhaps better implementations.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Yeah, that would be a problem for me.

My thing is, both parts of the term "roleplaying game" are important. Roleplaying requires a great deal of openness, flexibility, etc., and I'm keenly aware of that, I run a DW game. But for it to be a "game," the player needs to be able to make informed decisions, learn from them, and apply that learning going forward (whether "do better" after doing poorly, or "keep it up" after doing well.) Inconsistency is one of several ways that you prevent that from being possible. When the rules are inconsistent--when the rules change without the player's knowledge, so the player can't reason from past experience to future events (within the limits of probability, of course)--you aren't actually playing a game anymore. You are, at best, engaged in group improv where one person is allowed inordinate power over the improv setting. And it's cool if that's what you want, but you'd be much better served by dispensing with the pretense of having rules. If you are actually serious about having rules as...y'know, rules, then they need to be consistent so players can actually use them.

I would still say you are playing a game. I don't think it is the way all people want to play though. But it isn't freeform improv. The idea of rulings is you are still bringing in mechanics and dice and allowing for both randomness to generate surprise and responding to player's declared actions so their choices matter. And they still have mechanics they are using. It is just a question of whether you want those mechanics to be be more fluid or not so they can be blended with the events that are arising.

Again, if this isn't your preference. That is fair. What I don't think is fair is saying we need to dispense with a pretense that we are playing a game, because I think it is pretty clear to any outside observer a game is in fact being played, rules are in fact being used, etc. This is also where I think these conversations run into trouble because instead of simply saying "I don't want to play that style, or that isn't my preference" we tend to build these arguments that exclude styles by linguistic arguments (i.e. making prescriptive arguments about the definition of RPG to exclude a style because it isn't deemed to be roleplaying or isn't deemed to be a game). I put a lot of thought and effort into both the rules systems I play and the rules systems I design. I just like having flexibility and fluidity so rulings can allow for the style I enjoy.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I used to be somewhat impressed by, if not the implementation of the games by a designer I won't name, then at least the originality of his designs. I bought several of his books, ran them to disappointing results, but felt some satisfied with my purchase if only because "it made me think". But as my knowledge of game systems increased, I kept finding not only the antecedents for his rules systems, but also that the originals had perhaps better implementations.

One of the fortunate things these days is that often designers will actively acknowledge the central inspiration for their system, but there's no question its still helpful to be broadly familiar with families of games when figuring out if a given system is going to really work for you.

 

[Oofta]

I'm not sure how it is possible to do so, considering we have never played together nor is there much chance we would ever do so. Anything we discuss will be abstracted from its specific details--the players, at the very least, will be abstract. Could you give an example of something that would meet this "concrete scenarios" requirement?

I gave an example above, I'll expand a bit. This is a stealth scenario, Tricksy the rogue is trying to sneak past some guards and into a building on the other side of a small gap. Corwin the cleric and Madge the Mage are a little ways away, far enough that they don't have to hide. They can provide backup for Tricksy if necessary. I'll assume this is in a city with a decent amount of background noise.

There is some shrubbery left by some local knights on the side of the road. There are 2 guards, A and B. A is watching the street in the general direction of the shrubbery, B is watching in the other direction.

Using either set of rules the DM has decided that the shrubbery provides enough cover so Tricksy can hide behind it. The DM has also decided that the guards are bored and easily distracted

Step 1: Tricksy is crouching down behind the shrubbery and is slowly creeping up to a gap.
Step 2: Guard A starts walking past the shrubbery to the point where Tricksy could be clearly seen.
Step 3: An assassin is sneaking up on Corwin and Madge. Corwin has a high wisdom along with proficiency and prodigy in perception, along with the observant feet has a passive perception of 25 [I player actually did this in one of my games].

How the game plays out:
Step 1: Using either the old or new rules, the DM decided that there was somewhere that the PC could hide. In either case, the DM has to make a ruling on whether or not there is sufficient cover. Tricksy rolls a 16 for their stealth/hide check.

5E:​

• Tricksy can be hidden from one guard and not another. In this case it would be the same number (they have passive perception 10 for this example).
• The assassin may or may not be in a position to clearly see Tricksy and has a 13 passive perception. In 5E it doesn't matter to the guards whether he sees Tricksy or not, he's not going to give away his position by shouting to let them know.

2024:​

• Hidden is a condition, you are either hidden or not.
• To hide you succeed on a DC 15 check, enemy passive perception doesn't matter
• The enemy can try to make a perception check

Step 2: In both cases Tricksy is no longer behind cover from guard A, he is seen

5E:​

• Tricksy is still hidden from guard B which gives the group options. Tricksy could start combat and hope to take the guard out quickly, Corwin could cast a silence spell so A can't shout a warning,.

2024:​

• Tricksy no longer has the hidden condition once A knows where Tricksy is. Everyone rolls initiative

Step 3:

5E:​

• The assassin rolls stealth with a +9, gets a 20.
• Corwin, with their passive perception of 25(!) notices the assassin and is not surprised if combat starts
• Madge with a normal passive perception doesn't notice the assassin and is surprised.

2024:​

• If the assassin got a 20, neither Corwin nor Madge notices them. Corwin is frustrated because his investment in perception has no effect.
• If the assassin got a 14 both Corwin and Madge notice them, even if Madge has a +0 perception.

I'll add a bonus step 4. Let's say guard A was dealt with somehow and B is still unaware of Tricksy.

5E​

• The DM could decide that B is oblivious enough that Tricksy can cross the open space unnoticed
• Madge could cast an illusion to temporarily distract B, perhaps giving Tricksy advantage on their check or just making it automatic.

2024:​

• Tricksy can't cross the gap and remain hidden because they are not behind cover.

With either set of rules, the DM is making a lot of decisions and rulings. Does the shrubbery provide enough cover or not is the main one in this simple scenario. Are Corwin and Madge out of sight enough so that they are automatically hidden? Are Corwin and Madge far enough away that with the noise of the city one of the guards is going to hear them casting a spell?

But the rules for the 2024 lead to both weirdness such as B automatically knowing where someone is because A notices them. Bugs me when this happens in video games, it will never happen in a game of D&D that I'm DMing. It doesn't matter if Corwin has a +15 and Madge has a -1 on perception checks for noticing the assassin sneaking up on them. Tricksy can't, according to 2024 RAW sneak past B no matter how distracted they are because B could see him when he crosses the gap in step 4.

The 2024 edition doesn't make the DM's life any easier, it complicates it. Not only to they have to be more aware of the exact rule, if they want Tricksy to have a decent chance to get past the guards their hands are tied unless they ignore the rules. It provides fewer options and decision points for the players as well. More concrete, specific rules made the scenario worse all around as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Malmuria]

And it's cool if that's what you want, but you'd be much better served by dispensing with the pretense of having rules

Exactly!

 

[Laurefindel]

The sun will rise, the sun will set, and I'll have lunch.

I usually have lunch between sunrise and sunset, but okay...