D&D 4E Ben Riggs' "What the Heck Happened with 4th Edition?" seminar at Gen Con 2023

[Zeromaru X]

Who said "need", exactly? I said I like them. I find them useful. I find that having some defined rules or at least guidelines encourages players to engage with the concept, in part because it helps them engage more with the setting. Give a person a set of instructions for how to do a thing and it's always going to be easier for them

I guess this is another example of preconceptions about how stuff works. I grew watching anime, so one of my preconceptions is that combat type characters, such as the D&D characters, need time to train. From there, logic says that they need a time to rest, a time for sharing with loved ones, a time for enjoying the hard won loot, etc.

I guess that for people that grew up with other sources of inspiration (like Lord of the Rings or Vance's books), that kind of thing is not a preconception of how fictional heroes work. In that case, I find merit in a system of rules that reminds/gives them that idea.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Two, importantly, board games are not RPGs. Board games are incredibly limited compared to RPGs. You do not have tactical infinity, the ability to try anything, in a board game. You do in RPGs. So the rules of RPGs are inherently under far more pressure than the rules of a board game. Their boundaries and limits are constantly tested and stretched and broken. Shenanigans is seen as a pillar of play by some.

As an aside, many of the TTRPGs that are, rightly, lauded for having great (or, IMO, "tight" design) accomplish this precisely because they are limited.

The more you institute constraints on what the game is about- force the genre, force the processes of play, force the methods, for the acceptable playing styles, force the ways that the GMs and the players can interact through proscription ... the easier it becomes to make the rules more complete.

This is neither bad, nor good, but it is a salient feature of design that I have observed.

Again, IMO, YMMV, etc.

 

[Alzrius]

It's clear that this is a topic that's important to you. It's not to me, so I'm going to clarify one or two points and then call it a day where this tangent is concerned.

You don’t keep how things work a secret unless the character wouldn’t know. How does magic work. Write it down and give it to the magic-using player.

I prefer to have that part already done, which is why I'm willing to put down money to use game systems that set those things down in terms of rules, presumably designed and play-tested by people better at creating games than I am.

You’ve never had people at any of your tables argue over the “objective” rules of a game? How lucky. Game rules are nowhere near as objective as people think.

Don't be snarky, please. The idea is that if having written rules leads to debates about their interpretation, having no rules except for what the referee comes up with has the potential to be even worse. While I think that "mother may I" is an unfair way of describing a lot of games rely heavily on referee adjudication, the underlying idea is one that I'm sympathetic to, in that having an impersonal set of rules governing what can be attempted – even when those rules are unclear – can be more empowering for players than having a single GM who determines everything. It also seems like less work for the GM as well.

Again, it's not all about trust. Genuine disagreements can arise, and when those happen it causes less tension for the group (in my experience) to be able to lay at least some of the blame for that on unclear rules than to make it entirely about a clash between two or more people. Written rules act as an insulator in that regard, to the point where you don't have to rely on trust in the first place, and I think there's merit in that.

 

[Nikosandros]

For what is worth, I never had "rules" disagreement while running free-forms, but I've had quite a few while running fully-fledged games.

 

[billd91]

I guess this is another example of preconceptions about how stuff works. I grew watching anime, so one of my preconceptions is that combat type characters, such as the D&D characters, need time to train. From there, logic says that they need a time to rest, a time for sharing with loved ones, a time for enjoying the hard won loot, etc.

I guess that for people that grew up with other sources of inspiration (like Lord of the Rings or Vance's books), that kind of thing is not a preconception of how fictional heroes work. In that case, I find merit in a system of rules that reminds/gives them that idea.

I'm confused. How does LotR as inspiration conflict with heroes needing a time to rest and enjoy fellowship, exactly?

 

[overgeeked]

As an aside, many of the TTRPGs that are, rightly, lauded for having great (or, IMO, "tight" design) accomplish this precisely because they are limited.

The more you institute constraints on what the game is about- force the genre, force the processes of play, force the methods, for the acceptable playing styles, force the ways that the GMs and the players can interact through proscription ... the easier it becomes to make the rules more complete.

This is neither bad, nor good, but it is a salient feature of design that I have observed.

Again, IMO, YMMV, etc.

Exactly. They're all RPGs because you're playing a character, but they are clearly different kinds of RPGs. Different genres of games, but not in a fantasy vs sci-fi vs pulp sense. They have different design goals. This one's a survival game, that one's a 4X game, that other one is a shooter or beat 'em up game.

While not generic, games like D&D and Pathfinder are more...broad...more like life sim games. Where you're meant to inhabit the character more, I guess. And the mechanics try to cover (almost) everything you can do in that character's life. Which leads to sprawling design and a voracious need for ever more rules to cover things and ever more complicated subsystems.

I prefer to have that part already done, which is why I'm willing to put down money to use game systems that set those things down in terms of rules, presumably designed and play-tested by people better at creating games than I am.

As a player there's no difference except saving the money. You have a document to reference.

The referee at your table running that FKR game just might be a professional game designer. No reason to assume they cannot be trusted to design things. Further, no reason to assume the stuff the pros put out is inherently better than everything else. I've bought professionally designed stinkers. I'm sure you have, too.

The idea is that if having written rules leads to debates about their interpretation, having no rules except for what the referee comes up with has the potential to be even worse.

Worse than what? The people at the table arguing about what the book really means? Okay. How are those arguments usually resolved? The referee makes a decision and the game moves on. So, why do you need the rulebook in the first place? You don't. If there's any question, the referee makes the call regardless of what the book says. The referee is the final authority of the game. What they say goes. Not the rulebook. You trust them to make those calls. If you don't, don't play with them. It's the same with FKR only you save money by not buying an overpriced coffee-table art book. Spend that on movies or novels or comics instead. Use those as your reference works.

While I think that "mother may I" is an unfair way of describing a lot of games rely heavily on referee adjudication, the underlying idea is one that I'm sympathetic to, in that having an impersonal set of rules governing what can be attempted – even when those rules are unclear – can be more empowering for players than having a single GM who determines everything.

It's an illusion of empowerment. The referee still makes the final call regardless of what the rulebook says. The rulebooks also specifically call this out with whatever variation of Rule Zero they use. The rulebook cannot protect the player from the referee. Never has, never will as long as there is such a thing as a referee making calls.

Take 5E as an example. The referee still sets all the DCs, still determines all the monsters that show up, how all the NPCs act and react, etc. Yes, you can point to the athletics section of the Strength ability rules to say this or that, but whether your athletics skill is relevant or not is up to the referee. Whether the DC of that athletics check is 5 or 50 is also up to the referee.

It also seems like less work for the GM as well.

As someone who's actually done it, you'd be wrong. It's orders of magnitude less work.

Again, it's not all about trust. Genuine disagreements can arise, and when those happen it causes less tension for the group (in my experience) to be able to lay at least some of the blame for that on unclear rules than to make it entirely about a clash between two or more people. Written rules act as an insulator in that regard, to the point where you don't have to rely on trust in the first place, and I think there's merit in that.

Again, it's an illusion. The referee still has to make final the call. And either the player trusts them to do so or they don't.

 

[Pedantic]

While not generic, games like D&D and Pathfinder are more...broad...more like life sim games. Where you're meant to inhabit the character more, I guess. And the mechanics try to cover (almost) everything you can do in that character's life. Which leads to sprawling design and a voracious need for ever more rules to cover things and ever more complicated subsystems.

I don't really see this as a problem. If more subsystems are necessary, then we should just write more subsystems. Frankly a lot of them are probably reified FKR smaller rulings that have been iterated on.

The referee at your table running that FKR game just might be a professional game designer. No reason to assume they cannot be trusted to design things. Further, no reason to assume the stuff the pros put out is inherently better than everything else. I've bought professionally designed stinkers. I'm sure you have, too.

This is the point that I find most frustrating. If on the fly ad hoc design is as good or better than a published product, the published product is and was always bad. We let a lot of bad design go a lot further in TTRPGs than other kinds of games and that is frustrating...but it isn't inevitable, and nothing good comes from treating it as though it is. I want a class of designers that produce a better product that better achieves a set of design goals than a GM making it up on the spot. A system that fails to do that is an indictment of a particular design (and perhaps its designer) but not of the underlying possibility of design as a whole.

 

[Zeromaru X]

I'm confused. How does LotR as inspiration conflict with heroes needing a time to rest and enjoy fellowship, exactly?

You never see Aragorn, Legolas or Gimli training. They are already these baddass motherf*** who can take an army of orcs singlehandedly. You can infer that they trained at some point of their lives, but they don't need to train now. This can be applied to almost all characters in Western fiction.

On the other hand, you have people like Frodo or Sam, that never in the book get some basic training, yet they can fight because "plot". So, again, the idea that a character needs training to improve can be inferred but not shown.

As such, it never becomes a preconceived idea of "this is how heroic combat types characters must be".

The other stuff it is shown in these books, but the books usually focus on the drama/action, leaving the slice of life situations as secondary concerns. So, is no wonder that players treat them as non-important stuff to do.

That's all IMO, of course. As you say in these halls, YMMV.

 

[overgeeked]

I don't really see this as a problem. If more subsystems are necessary, then we should just write more subsystems.

Because it leads to unnecessary bloat. Fewer more broadly applicable systems take up less space than bespoke rules for every imaginable edge case. You cannot possibly run a game that legitimately had bespoke rules for everything. One copy of the rulebook would take more paper than the world has produced. Rules as physics simulation and covering every possible circumstance is an obvious non-starter. Yet people still argue for it.

Frankly a lot of them are probably reified FKR smaller rulings that have been iterated on.

This is the point that I find most frustrating. If on the fly ad hoc design is as good or better than a published product, the published product is and was always bad. We let a lot of bad design go a lot further in TTRPGs than other kinds of games and that is frustrating...but it isn't inevitable, and nothing good comes from treating it as though it is.

I mean...welcome to tabletop RPG design. That's exactly how most published games are designed. Some yahoo at a table somewhere has an idea that the table likes and they write it down. They iterate on it and maybe it finds its way into a game book someday. Check out the MCDM patreon, they're live designing their game and telling people how they're doing it. It's literally their designers sitting around playing the game and throwing out ideas and seeing what sticks.

I want a class of designers that produce a better product that better achieves a set of design goals than a GM making it up on the spot. A system that fails to do that is an indictment of a particular design (and perhaps its designer) but not of the underlying possibility of design as a whole.

The trouble is, the referee at the table with the players will always know what they want better than someone else in a far-off office. Always. I know what my players like infinitely better than anyone at WotC ever will. You know your players better than anyone at WotC ever will. So our designs, for the actual players at our actual tables, will always be better for us and our players than anything designed by some anonymous person on the far side of the country or world.

 

[Pedantic]

The trouble is, the referee at the table with the players will always know what they want better than someone else in a far-off office. Always. I know what my players like infinitely better than anyone at WotC ever will. You know your players better than anyone at WotC ever will. So our designs, for the actual players at our actual tables, will always be better for us and our players than anything designed by some anonymous person on the far side of the country or world.

Fundamentally, I don't think TTRPGs are a special case mechanically. I would rather play Brass Birmingham than Pedantic's Industrial Revolution with Cards special, because I think Martin Wallace is better at this than I am, and I want to benefit from his work. The same principle applies to TTRPGs, even if the application has fallen short historically, something I think has more to do with the market than an underlying truth about games design.