The Trouble With Rules Discussions

[Emberashh]

Obviously this is a very DND-coded topic, and what I've observed is that that game's design tends to necessitate house rules, and in turn, ends up putting people in this bizarre, prescriptive attitute about what you can and cannot do, and what counts as a viable way to do something.

In 5e at least, Improvise Action is a thing, and through that mechanic you're inviting the DM to yes,and you. But, for most people if you point this out, it just devolves into thought termination cliches to the tune of mother may I.

Most DND fans don't typically get improv nor how its literally not a bad thing if the DM adds some qualifiers to what you want to do, but that isn't necessarily their fault, because of the tendency of DMs to not actually be yes,and'ing the idea.

All of this is rooted in the same core issues: DND is causing blocking, constantly, as so many of its rules fight against the core improv game at its center, and in turn, because DND does not recognize its an improv game (just as every other RPG is and doesn't) and so its design is all too often incompatible, and because it never teaches how to properly play that kind of game to begin with. People on either side of the DM Screen are causing blocking just as much as the game is as a result.

Back when I still bothered with DND at all, I usually got bullied out of topics for bringing up Improvise Action, but I think the fact that I never had these kinds of problems with 5e kind of speaks to what I'm getting at.

My playgroup at the time was basically all theater kids and we intuitively got improv (and also just didn't take the game that seriously, so we weren't ever that fussed over stepping away from how the game was written), so we had a lot of already ingrained ways to avoid or otherwise smooth over any blocking thst still occurred.

But this is also why I think, for people who end up looking at Dungeon Crawl Classics, why the Mighty Deed seems like such a revelation. There's very little difference between it and Improvise Action in terms of what you can use it to do, other than the fact that DCC spends the time to tell you its something you can do and that you aren't going to be arbitrarily denied. Some GMs might interpret that as limiting their own power, but really all its doing is saying you have to Yes,And them, just without saying it.

I know a lot of people are still weird about this interpretation in general because of the icky associations with improv stereotypes, but one should keep an open mind I think. So much of these weird idiosyncratic issues in the hobby become crystal clear when you can trace them all back to the same fundamental problem.

 

[Gorgon Zee]

How did I know it was a 2e game already?

It’s just very emblematic of the way DMs were taught to adjudicate games back then.

Each group needs to work out what style of game they are playing; specifically are they playing a game where rules are more important than simulation and narrative or not. When discussing on the internet it’s very hard to have consensus if your priorities are different AND you don’t acknowledge that.
Specific games have default priorities — 2E and 4E were very much “rules first” games. If the rules say X and it makes no simulational or narrative sense, the default way to play is that X happens. But another group may use a different priority, and so add house rules or just unspoken guides to prioritize simulation or a more narrative game.

Take the example quoted earlier about old-style CoC and not finding critical clues. A rules-priority group would have the game come to a halt. But a narrative-first group (which I feel is defintiely the default for CoC) just hand-waves that. They don’t even bother to add house rules because that is not the way the game is played. For them, there is no flaw in the rules, because a narrative way of playing is the accepted way of playing CoC, and there isn’t a rule that says “you cannot give players a clue when they fail to get it using mechanical resolution”, so the rules do not contradict the way the game needs to be played. Someone saying “if you play only by the rules as written, the game doesn’t work” is making a pointless statement to them, because that is not the way the game is played. In a rules-first game, like D&D4E, in the other hand, it’s a useful question.

So, if you want a profitable discussion on rules, you need to establish if rules have priority. If not, then be aware that the response “I don’t use that rule because it makes no sense” is a valid one — it basically says that the player wants to play Rules As Intended, not Rules as Written. So your argument attacking the system need to focus not on specifics, but on the overall. For CoC, the argument for weak rules is not “if the players fail to make rolls, the game collapses”, because that’s not RAI, and never happens in normal play. The argument is “since following clues is so important, why does the game not really have mechanics or rules to make that easier or more fun?” — which is why we know also have Trail of Cthulhu!

 

[Emerikol]

But this is also why I think, for people who end up looking at Dungeon Crawl Classics, why the Mighty Deed seems like such a revelation. There's very little difference between it and Improvise Action in terms of what you can use it to do, other than the fact that DCC spends the time to tell you its something you can do and that you aren't going to be arbitrarily denied. Some GMs might interpret that as limiting their own power, but really all its doing is saying you have to Yes,And them, just without saying it.

I've always thought DCC was an odd bird. I think they represent someone in the player pantheon but they are not what I imagined old school gaming to be. And I own DCC.

I am sympathetic to improv actions. It's at the core of C&C for example. I am dubious of limiting the DMs power (if anyone is still doubting that after all the threads). I think you just need a DM comfortable with such things.

 

[Emberashh]

I've always thought DCC was an odd bird. I think they represent someone in the player pantheon but they are not what I imagined old school gaming to be. And I own DCC.

I am sympathetic to improv actions. It's at the core of C&C for example. I am dubious of limiting the DMs power (if anyone is still doubting that after all the threads). I think you just need a DM comfortable with such things.

Yeah DCC isn't really old school in the sense that it recreates really old games; its after all based on 3e DND. Its explicitly about emulating the really wild and fantastic stories that sometimes emerged out of play of the actual old school games, and making that the actual experience all the time, which is why all the Tables are there and why they go into all this depth to systematize how wild and wacky stuff happens.

Its also why I think DCC is deceptively simple. The book itself is huge, but most of it is just systems you engage in to get that wild experience; the actual mechanics you have to learn to play are actually fairly minimal, and if you're coming from DND you already know 90% of them.

 

[TiQuinn]

Each group needs to work out what style of game they are playing; specifically are they playing a game where rules are more important than simulation and narrative or not. When discussing on the internet it’s very hard to have consensus if your priorities are different AND you don’t acknowledge that.
Specific games have default priorities — 2E and 4E were very much “rules first” games. If the rules say X and it makes no simulational or narrative sense, the default way to play is that X happens. But another group may use a different priority, and so add house rules or just unspoken guides to prioritize simulation or a more narrative game.

Take the example quoted earlier about old-style CoC and not finding critical clues. A rules-priority group would have the game come to a halt. But a narrative-first group (which I feel is defintiely the default for CoC) just hand-waves that. They don’t even bother to add house rules because that is not the way the game is played. For them, there is no flaw in the rules, because a narrative way of playing is the accepted way of playing CoC, and there isn’t a rule that says “you cannot give players a clue when they fail to get it using mechanical resolution”, so the rules do not contradict the way the game needs to be played. Someone saying “if you play only by the rules as written, the game doesn’t work” is making a pointless statement to them, because that is not the way the game is played. In a rules-first game, like D&D4E, in the other hand, it’s a useful question.

So, if you want a profitable discussion on rules, you need to establish if rules have priority. If not, then be aware that the response “I don’t use that rule because it makes no sense” is a valid one — it basically says that the player wants to play Rules As Intended, not Rules as Written. So your argument attacking the system need to focus not on specifics, but on the overall. For CoC, the argument for weak rules is not “if the players fail to make rolls, the game collapses”, because that’s not RAI, and never happens in normal play. The argument is “since following clues is so important, why does the game not really have mechanics or rules to make that easier or more fun?” — which is why we know also have Trail of Cthulhu!

I only disagree with 2e being a rules first game in the sense that reading many of the rules in 2e were so imprecise that they forced even more interpretations of the rules that could differ from table to table than later games or editions did, as with the example of the Ring of Free Action mentioned earlier. 4e, as I understood it, was much more precise about what did and did not happen when a spell, ability, or item was used.

 

[payn]

It can be frustrating discussing rules with people who are die hard fans of a game they've been playing for years. Very often they have so much experience with the rules they no longer see the flaws because they have workarounds. I asked for some advice for Call of Cthulhu years ago because investigations would sometimes come to a screeching halt because all the PCs failed their relevant investigatory skill rolls.

The advice I got from long time Cthlhu players was to just give the players whatever clue they needed to continue with the scenario. Not bad advice, and it's actually printed in the 7th edition CoC rules, but at the time it wasn't a part of the rules. I pointed out this was a flaw in the rules and it was like a Monty Python sketch.

CoC Fan: It's not a flaw in the rules.
Me: You literally have a workaround to the problem.
CoC Fan: That doesn't mean the rules are flawed.
Me: You don't make a workaround for something that works.

I run into the same problem from the other side to. I love Savage Worlds, but when a die hard fan takes umbrage when someone refers to the system as "swingy" I can't help but acknowledge the criticism. It is swingy.

Yeah, you see this sort of thing a lot. It's like 3.x rules discussions where someone says "X is broken" and someone replies "no, it's fine, because you can always use Rule 0 to fix it".

These are good examples of what folks call Oberoni fallacy. The idea is that because the GM can fix, houserule, homebrew a given situation, the rules are perfectly fine as is.

Within a certain context I can understand that line of thought. Although, often time it seems like just a way to shut down a conversation about an aspect of a game they simply dont care about. I've learned after 1-2 interactions its time to just stop replying because you wont actually discuss the topic at hand, but whether oberoni is appropriate or not.

 

[Emerikol]

Yeah DCC isn't really old school in the sense that it recreates really old games; its after all based on 3e DND. Its explicitly about emulating the really wild and fantastic stories that sometimes emerged out of play of the actual old school games, and making that the actual experience all the time, which is why all the Tables are there and why they go into all this depth to systematize how wild and wacky stuff happens.

Its also why I think DCC is deceptively simple. The book itself is huge, but most of it is just systems you engage in to get that wild experience; the actual mechanics you have to learn to play are actually fairly minimal, and if you're coming from DND you already know 90% of them.

Yeah that is probably another, perhaps better, way of saying what I was thinking.

One thing I really liked about Goodman Games as a company was their old school module run. I own most of them. I wish they had stuck with making modules for more than one system. I think they could have held a strong position in the OSR space.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

These are good examples of what folks call Oberoni fallacy. The idea is that because the GM can fix, houserule, homebrew a given situation, the rules are perfectly fine as is.

Within a certain context I can understand that line of thought. Although, often time it seems like just a way to shut down a conversation about an aspect of a game they simply dont care about. I've learned after 1-2 interactions its time to just stop replying because you wont actually discuss the topic at hand, but whether oberoni is appropriate or not.

I think that both can be true at once - that the rule can be both broken and fine because the GM can fix it. Arguing over Oberoni is pointless IMO. It is simply a matter of the rule not needing to be fixed once one understands their options to work-around. But I don't think anyone is ever arguing that it can't or shouldn't be fixed, just because it needn't be.

 

[tetrasodium]

These are good examples of what folks call Oberoni fallacy. The idea is that because the GM can fix, houserule, homebrew a given situation, the rules are perfectly fine as is.

Within a certain context I can understand that line of thought. Although, often time it seems like just a way to shut down a conversation about an aspect of a game they simply dont care about. I've learned after 1-2 interactions its time to just stop replying because you wont actually discuss the topic at hand, but whether oberoni is appropriate or not.

I think that 3.x has a secondary fork where it's not quite oberoni yet still a case where x is fine because Y tool exists in the dmg/MM expressly so the GM can use it to tune X to the needs of their table. Take an easy example like weapon based DR & the eventual scenario where full BaB classes at the table with partial BaB classes will see a scenario where one is incapable of missing a monster the other can barely hit or vice versa in how the DR could strongly encourage weapon choices that either narrow the gap to something more reasonable or make those basically guaranteed successful attacks fairly harmless.

For all of its faults one of 3.x's biggest strengths was that there was so much done to keep providing the GM with tools to manage those faults as needed on a table by table & campaign by campaign level. If someone complaining about X rejects the tool designed to manage it or (often) are just attacking a whiteroom problem & doesn't understand how the pieces work it will very much come off looking like oberoni as described, but it was oftennot that simple

 

[tetrasodium]

Gravity is not physics?

Doesn't matter. You are ignoring the reasons why a GM might feel the need to make such a call in order to attack the call they made based on the irrelevant excuse rather than trying to justify why shooting from walls & ceilings while moving is not terrible for the game as described in the post you quoted.

And no one uses a sling therefore the sling must’ve been the first move towards an adversarial loophole? Sorry, I don’t follow that logic.

I literally explained it.

"Physics nothing, gravity was the excuse to counter what would have obviously forced an immediate choice between adversarial encounter design or ignoring how one PC deciding to godmode through every indoor encounter impacts the fun of the other players" That part should be pretty clear as both choices are bad for the overall health & fun at the table where there is at least one player other than the rogue.

I didn't stop there though & connected a few other dots you are overlooking the statement immediately following . "The very fact that the rouge was using a sling when no player uses a sling unless they have no better option even hints that "ok I'll use a sling" very well may have been the first step in adversarial loophole seeking when the GM said don't along the lines of "but your thrown daggers is down there and quivers tend to empty when turned upside down."

This was also a 2e game and slings were a much more common weapon for thieves, wizards and druids to use than in later editions.

yes it was a 2e game and my statement remains true because they had better options

Spoiler

Thieves have a limited selection of weapons.
Most of their time is spent practicing thieving
skills. The allowed weapons are club, dagger,
dart, hand crossbow, knife, lasso, short bow,
sling, broad sword, long sword, short sword,
and staff. A thief can wear leather, studded
leather, padded leather, or elven chain armor.
When wearing any allowed armor other than
leather, the thief’s abilities are penalized (see
Table 29).

One of those options being the shortbow that would rely on the quiver I mentioned. Either way it doesn't matter because having one player at the table running around in combats with the previously described godmode is still bad for the game in ways previously described

Again, I wouldn’t want to give a player an item like that and then have to tell the player your arrows fall out, your sling bullets drop as you try to load them, anything in your pockets falls out, your spell components drop from your hand, etc, etc, etc.

This No True Scottsman style Real GM belt buckle thumping is simply not relevant & continues to avoid the very real game health reasons why a GM might make a call like the one described in order to complain about it based on the in fiction excuse used to hang the call on.