Unpopular opinions go here

[Jd Smith1]

Unpopular opinion. “The DM can fix it at the table” is not the awesome defense people seem to think it is. It admits that yes, the design is bad and that yes, the game does need fixing by the punter who is stuck running the thing. In no way is it saying the design is good actually.

Very true.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I see it as a virtue, yes. I want tons of options, and I don't mind a big book full of 'em. I don't need D&D to become even simpler because some people think the list's too long.

There are approaches that don't require every spell to be a singular special case. The fact some D&D fans are allergic to that doesn't change that.

 

[Lanefan]

It isn't always being used as a defense, though. Some care about the complainer getting past their squabble and back into having the fun. From that perspective, rulings are a valid solution and a simple one at that. It takes dramattically less effort to get past an issue with a ruling than it is to go on the internet and yell at clouds.

And the perhaps ironic net effect at any given table of years of accumulated precedent-setting DM rulings in a rulings-not-rules system is that it slowly gets rules-heavier as play continues and more of those precedents get baked in as house rules.

 

[Lanefan]

I would say its more accurate that its a sign of inaccessibility and impracticality.

Its akin to wanting to have a proper joystick for a proper flight sim (ie, not arcade style like in Battlefield). These games aren't always all that complex, but they do become impractical to play with a mouse and keyboard, and only more so if the complexity actually does go up, and so the desire to have specialized equipment goes up.

Likewise in a TTRPG, having a lot of prewritten spells isn't really a complexity issue. It just isn't practical to memorize all of them, so it becomes more efficient to reference them. Cards are a more specialized tool for that than a book is.

Putting them on a website* makes them even easier to access during play: a couple of clicks on a tablet and there's your spell write-up.

* - which takes work, yes, but it's work that you only ever need to do once.

 

[Lanefan]

I see it as a virtue, yes. I want tons of options, and I don't mind a big book full of 'em. I don't need D&D to become even simpler because some people think the list's too long.

Agreed, but there's faster ways of accessing info than digging through a book; and ease of access is a virtue when you need that info right now.

 

[Emberashh]

Doesn’t work for saving throws?

Doesn’t apply to a shopping list of effects?

Doesn’t tell me anything about adjudicating effects - how much damage is done, is this a save for half or not, what rider effects happen, what impact does positioning happen, what is the impact of the twenty or thirty status effects DnD has…

Need I continue?

None of that matters. You don't need any of that content to convey the narrative effects they emulate, and the core resolution resolves all questions of what does or doesn't happen.

Putting them on a website* makes them even easier to access during play: a couple of clicks on a tablet and there's your spell write-up.

* - which takes work, yes, but it's work that you only ever need to do once.

Yep. Purple Sorcerer is a godsend for being a DCC spellcaster.

 

[overgeeked]

And the perhaps ironic net effect at any given table of years of accumulated precedent-setting DM rulings in a rulings-not-rules system is that it slowly gets rules-heavier as play continues and more of those precedents get baked in as house rules.

Only if those rulings are unique and non-transferable to other situations. Rulings made with an eye towards modularity and universality tend to not accumulate in the same way.

 

[Bedrockgames]

And the perhaps ironic net effect at any given table of years of accumulated precedent-setting DM rulings in a rulings-not-rules system is that it slowly gets rules-heavier as play continues and more of those precedents get baked in as house rules.

Rulings work great for me and don’t add weight unless you are using them to set precedent. When I do them, I am not trying to create new mechanics to use going forward but just making the best ruling (which may create an ad box mechanic or play around with existing ones in the setting) to deal with a specific situation. I think I’ve adopted maybe 1-2 rulings as house rules if they really found a niche.

 

[Emberashh]

Ive found with rulings its wise to rule how a desired effect is achieved rather than to rule the effect itself.

I don't think people would care much if they have to do something slightly different each time to get the Widget as long as they're consistently able to get the Widget barring bad luck.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

Good rules will not save a bad DM.

A good DM can save bad rules.

The people you play with account for more variance in game satisfaction than any other variable.

(But I still want the best rules possible)