D&D General Alternate thought - rule of cool is bad for gaming

[Thomas Shey]

And that's fair.

That said, if I'm playing a character knowingly going in to such terrain I'm going to do my best to make sure either I or someone else has a "getaway car"* such that if-when things really do go sideways at least one of us can get out and from there (maybe) do what's necessary to revive the rest of us.

* - examples: scroll or device of teleport or other fast long-range travel; devices of both invisibility and flight; abilities and-or devices that allow one to reliably hide and-or sneak; ability or device that allows one to shapeshift into a bird or bat or similar; etc.

Notice the kind of levels you mostly need for most of those. And that's assuming you're playing something pretty D&D-adjacent where that kind of stuff is available at all.

 

[Older Beholder]

Which has nothing to do with what the poster I responded to said. He assigned the success of 5e to a particular trait, and there is no reason to believe that's a major factor in it. I'd buy claims that Advantage/Disadvantage was the major reason as easy as that, and I pretty much hate that mechanic.

Yeah, Advantage/Disadvantage is another factor in the success of 5E.
Which, in a way plays into 'rulings over rules'.

I guess I should put a disclaimer here about this being my opinion.

 

[Lanefan]

Notice the kind of levels you mostly need for most of those.

Invisibility is a 2nd-level spell. Not-rare magic items that can help with evasion or sneaking or travel start coming online pretty early (except maybe in 5e if the DM is being stingy); you just have to snap them up. Even in a party of 3rd-4th level types at least one character ought to have a high chance of getting away from 'most any situation.

And that's assuming you're playing something pretty D&D-adjacent where that kind of stuff is available at all.

Given that this is a D&D thread, the assumption that we're talking about D&D (or adjacent) would seem to fit, yes.

 

[pemerton]

You clearly stated that you were not saying other games have clear rules for all things. Correct? I mean I could go back a few pages, but you stated DW just had a procedure, a way of resolving things. Of course it didn't provide details for everything.

Now your saying that D&D doesn’t have a procedure because it doesn't provide details?

Which is it? Do we need details or not?

I didn't say anything about Dungeon World's procedure. In fact in post 813 I indicated my lack of certainty about DW.

In Apocalypse World, here is the resolution procedure for jumping a crevasse. It beging with the framing.

The core framing and resolution principle is set out on p 116 of the rulebook:

Whenever someone turns and looks to you to say something, always say what the principles demand. . . .

Whenever there’s a pause in the conversation and everyone looks to you to say something, choose one of these things [ie a GM move from the list] and say it.​

The core principle that governs the making of GM moves is set out on p 117:

Always choose a move that can follow logically from what’s going on in the game’s fiction. It doesn’t have to be the only one, or the most likely, but it does have to make at least some kind of sense.

Generally, limit yourself to a move that’ll (a) set you up for a future harder move, and (b) give the players’ characters some
opportunity to act and react. A start to the action, not its conclusion.

However, when a player’s character hands you the perfect opportunity on a golden plate, make as hard and direct a move as you like. It’s not the meaner the better, although mean is often good. Best is: make it irrevocable.​

These principles operate against the background rule (p 109) that "Your job as MC [= GM] is to say everything else: everything about the world, and what everyone in the whole damned world says and does except the players’ characters."

So a player says that their PC goes somewhere, and then looks to the GM to tell them what they see or find there. The GM makes a move: "There's a crevasse in front of you. It's pretty wide, and is blocking you from going any further." That's the GM putting the PC in a spot. At this point, it's pretty soft.

Suppose the player asks, "Can I jump it?" and the GM answers, "No, it's too wide". Then if the player declares nevertheless that their PC jumps it, they've handed the GM an opportunity on a plate. The GM can make as hard and direct a move as they like (consistent with the principles) - maybe "You take your running leap, and it's obvious that you've got no hope of making it across. You fall and land on a ledge somewhere down below. Take 3 harm, armour piercing." That's the GM inflicting harm - in particular, the harm for a 2-story fall onto jagged ground (p 162).

Maybe when the player asks, "Can I jump it?" the GM answers, "It's pretty wide - you're not sure about your chances!" Suppose the player then declares that their PC jumps it nevertheless. Well, the core principle for player-side moves is, "if you do it, you do it" (p 12): "whenever the character does something that counts as a move, it’s the move and the player rolls dice." And this character is "doing it" - as per the rule for the basic move Act Under Fire (p 190),

When you do something under fire, or dig in to endure fire, roll+cool. On a 10+, you do it. On a 7–9, you flinch, hesitate, or stall: the MC can offer you a worse outcome, a hard bargain, or an ugly choice.

You can read “under fire” to mean any kind of serious pressure at all. Call for this move whenever someone does something requiring unusual discipline, resolve, endurance or care.​

Jumping a crevasse that is so wide the character is not sure about their chances seems like it requires unusual discipline and resolve - so the player rolls the dice. If they get 10+, they make it. On a 7 to 9, the GM makes a soft move - maybe a hard bargain: "You take your run-up, but just as you get to the edge you have doubts, but you're committed and so you make your leap. You think you're not going to make it, but then you grab hold of the ledge on the other side - but your <whatever> is falling out of your pocket. You don't think you can save it from falling and pull yourself up". The GM is taking away their stuff.

On a 6 or less, the GM can make as hard and direct a move as they like - see above.

There's no point at which it's unclear whose job it is to say what happens next, or what the parameters are within which they are to say that.

 

[Oofta]

To me that's an incomplete process. The process would be to inform us of what the various DCs mean with regard to how far. I also don't agree that giving more complete jump information would necessitate other types of information be given. Jumping farther via athletics is a bit of an outlier with it's need for precision.

They give us general categories. Jump further via athletics may be a bit of an outlier for you, and I'm not saying it wouldn't be nice to have a suggestion. But in 3E they tried to do that and it was kind of never ending because there are a lot of "outliers".

In any case the point I was making was that we do have a process for resolution. It's not perfect because there will never be one, but it does exist and is clearly spelled out.

 

[Oofta]

Which has nothing to do with what the poster I responded to said. He assigned the success of 5e to a particular trait, and there is no reason to believe that's a major factor in it. I'd buy claims that Advantage/Disadvantage was the major reason as easy as that, and I pretty much hate that mechanic.

There's long been this line of thought, subtly repeated time and time again that the rules and implementation of 5E have basically nothing to do with it's success. That it was just a lucky accident of timing. Throw in the idea that if that same set of circumstances had happened during [insert favorite edition here] that version would have been just as successful.

I disagree. In the case of rulings over rules, I think it's a very important philosophical shift from the previous WotC developed versions of D&D and, yes, I think it has a lot to do with the enjoyment and flexibility of the game. A game that is fun to play, along with some luck and timing, is what has made 5E as successful as it is. We'll never know exactly what percentage of course, but I think it's a large factor for a lot of people.

 

[Oofta]

I didn't say anything about Dungeon World's procedure. In fact in post 813 I indicated my lack of certainty about DW.

In Apocalypse World, here is the resolution procedure for jumping a crevasse. It beging with the framing.

The core framing and resolution principle is set out on p 116 of the rulebook:

Whenever someone turns and looks to you to say something, always say what the principles demand. . . .​

​

Whenever there’s a pause in the conversation and everyone looks to you to say something, choose one of these things [ie a GM move from the list] and say it.​

The core principle that governs the making of GM moves is set out on p 117:

Always choose a move that can follow logically from what’s going on in the game’s fiction. It doesn’t have to be the only one, or the most likely, but it does have to make at least some kind of sense.​

​

Generally, limit yourself to a move that’ll (a) set you up for a future harder move, and (b) give the players’ characters some​

opportunity to act and react. A start to the action, not its conclusion.​

​

However, when a player’s character hands you the perfect opportunity on a golden plate, make as hard and direct a move as you like. It’s not the meaner the better, although mean is often good. Best is: make it irrevocable.​

These principles operate against the background rule (p 109) that "Your job as MC [= GM] is to say everything else: everything about the world, and what everyone in the whole damned world says and does except the players’ characters."

So a player says that their PC goes somewhere, and then looks to the GM to tell them what they see or find there. The GM makes a move: "There's a crevasse in front of you. It's pretty wide, and is blocking you from going any further." That's the GM putting the PC in a spot. At this point, it's pretty soft.

Suppose the player asks, "Can I jump it?" and the GM answers, "No, it's too wide". Then if the player declares nevertheless that their PC jumps it, they've handed the GM an opportunity on a plate. The GM can make as hard and direct a move as they like (consistent with the principles) - maybe "You take your running leap, and it's obvious that you've got no hope of making it across. You fall and land on a ledge somewhere down below. Take 3 harm, armour piercing." That's the GM inflicting harm - in particular, the harm for a 2-story fall onto jagged ground (p 162).

Maybe when the player asks, "Can I jump it?" the GM answers, "It's pretty wide - you're not sure about your chances!" Suppose the player then declares that their PC jumps it nevertheless. Well, the core principle for player-side moves is, "if you do it, you do it" (p 12): "whenever the character does something that counts as a move, it’s the move and the player rolls dice." And this character is "doing it" - as per the rule for the basic move Act Under Fire (p 190),

When you do something under fire, or dig in to endure fire, roll+cool. On a 10+, you do it. On a 7–9, you flinch, hesitate, or stall: the MC can offer you a worse outcome, a hard bargain, or an ugly choice.​

​

You can read “under fire” to mean any kind of serious pressure at all. Call for this move whenever someone does something requiring unusual discipline, resolve, endurance or care.​

Jumping a crevasse that is so wide the character is not sure about their chances seems like it requires unusual discipline and resolve - so the player rolls the dice. If they get 10+, they make it. On a 7 to 9, the GM makes a soft move - maybe a hard bargain: "You take your run-up, but just as you get to the edge you have doubts, but you're committed and so you make your leap. You think you're not going to make it, but then you grab hold of the ledge on the other side - but your <whatever> is falling out of your pocket. You don't think you can save it from falling and pull yourself up". The GM is taking away their stuff.

On a 6 or less, the GM can make as hard and direct a move as they like - see above.

There's no point at which it's unclear whose job it is to say what happens next, or what the parameters are within which they are to say that.

Both games have a resolution process for jumping a chasm in D&D despite your insistence to the contrary.

 

[Aldarc]

I disagree. In the case of rulings over rules, I think it's a very important philosophical shift from the previous WotC developed versions of D&D and, yes, I think it has a lot to do with the enjoyment and flexibility of the game. A game that is fun to play, along with some luck and timing, is what has made 5E as successful as it is. We'll never know exactly what percentage of course, but I think it's a large factor for a lot of people.

"Rulings not rules" was mostly done to court the OSR crowd. However, since that time, the OSR crowd didn't come back to 5e D&D, and the culture of WotC 5e D&D has increasingly emphasized, in practice, rules over rulings.

So let's imagine that we left out "rulings not rules" from 5e but kept everything else the same, also tightening a few places of vague rules that may require rulings, do you not think that 5e would have been just as successful? I actually think that it would have been precisely because of the quality of the rules.

 

[Oofta]

"Rulings not rules" was mostly done to court the OSR crowd. However, since that time, the OSR crowd didn't come back to 5e D&D, and the culture of WotC 5e D&D has increasingly emphasized, in practice, rules over rulings.

So let's imagine that we left out "rulings not rules" from 5e but kept everything else the same, also tightening a few places of vague rules that may require rulings, do you not think that 5e would have been just as successful? I actually think that it would have been precisely because of the quality of the rules.

We'll never know and it's all just opinion. I think rulings over rules servers two purposes.

First, there's no more searching for the specific rule. My poster child for this is climbing walls - in 3.x there was a wall chart. Look up the chart, pick the type of wall and you have your DC. Except it was all an illusion because as a DM I would look at the chart, figure out the DC I wanted and find the wall type. Then again I had to do that because I'd describe a wall and people would hold up play and say "Wait a minute there's a chart for that! Somewhere [followed by potentially flipping through multiple books]." It slowed things down for no good reason.

Second, as a DM I can shift the game a bit one direction or another depending on the type of game I, and the group, enjoy. The fact that one table doesn't run exactly like another is a strength, not a weakness in my opinion.

But we'll never know. Might as well ask what would have happened if I had asked the other sister out in 9th grade. Likely not a huge change, but you never know.

 

[TwoSix]

Both games have a resolution process for jumping a chasm in D&D despite your insistence to the contrary.

Is “Yo DM, just make something up” a process? That seems to be the semantic distinction being argued.