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

[pemerton]

a) that the claim that a game system has a rule for everything implies by extension that said game can equally well handle different playstyles and focuses from its participant

No it doesn't.

And it's obvious that it doesn't. I mean, the fact that a legal code had a rule that established the legal consequences of every possible human action (which eg the Napoleonic Code claimed to do when it was drafted) it does not follow that the legal code is equally applicable to any sort of human social, political or economic system.

The fact that a game has a rule to resolve every declared action does not mean that it can equally well handle different focuses. Suppose, for instance, the following two different rules for resolving journeys by car: one that permits the GM, in appropriate circumstances, to narrate that the car has run out of petrol; and one that obliges the GM, in appropriate circumstances, to narrate that the car has run out of petrol.

Those two different rules obviously produce a different focus and play experience in relation to the scarcity and rationing of fuel. It doesn't follow that a game, by including one of them and not the other, lacks a rule for resolving journeys by car.

 

[pemerton]

This is what was said by @pemerton , "Second, your claim is a non-sequitur. AW's rules - which provide for the resolution of any declared action - deliberately produce a certain sort of focus and play experience: the themes are scarcity, interpersonal conflict, and the ever-present threat of violence."

If my character has some iron, a location to do it, and the knowledge, I can declare that he is forging a shield for use. According to the above, the result can't just be a success. The rules say that the resolution of any declared action involves scarcity(doesn't apply), interpersonal conflict(doesn't apply) and/or some threat of violence. So I suppose the attempt to forge a shield has to involve some sort of threat of violence. But since the resolution requires it to fall into those three categories, the rules don't cover things like simply succeeding at something.

I did not say that the resolution of any declared action involves scarcity, interpersonal conflict, or the threat of violence. I said that the rules for action resolution produce a certain sort of focus and play experience.

If you want to grasp in more detail how they do this, it's not hard to find and read a copy of the game, or perhaps politely enquire.

I would add: if you can't see how the resolution of the action declaration "I forge a shield with my iron" can't generate outcomes that pertain to scarcity (can you find the fuel to keep your forge hot?), or interpersonal conflict (will your bellows boy keep pumping the bellow?), or the threat of violence (why is someone forging a shield if they don't anticipate violence?) then I'm a little puzzled if not utterly baffled.

 

[pemerton]

I'm talking about playstyle and focus, suggesting that a game that truly does have a rule for everything would by default be agnostic to both playstyle and focus as it could - by having a rule for everything - handle any playstyle and-or any focus with equal ease.

And I'm telling you that your suggestion is false. It has no basis in the theory of RPG design, nor in the actual experience of RPG design or playing RPGs.

I've got no idea on what grounds you even conjecture it!

 

[Lanefan]

I don't understand what this means. And I wish people would stop saying that I said things that I didn't.

I said that AW has a rule to resolve every action declaration. This is true.

As I recall, however, you phrased it as AW has a rule for everything; which is a considerably broader claim that encompasses much more than just action declarations.

It's the breadth of that claim - everything, after all, does mean everything - I've been questioning, in light of your statement in the same post as to how AW leans by design into a somewhat specific playstyle and focus.

What I said, and what is true, is that it has a rule for determining the result of every declared action. The actual result will follow from the application of the relevant rule. And it depends upon both elements of the fiction leading up to that moment of play, and elements of what has happened at the table leading up to that moment of play.

Suppose someone tries to jump across a really wide crevasse. I think it's well-known that 5e D&D can handle this easily in some contexts - eg the character is under a Jump spell, or has a STR score that is numerically greater than the width of the crevasse in feet. I think it's also well-known that there are other contexts - like the character attempting an unaided running jump - where there is a wide difference of opinion over what the proper resolution method is.

One reason for this is - despite your dismissal of "kerfluggles" - 5e D&D doesn't have a system of GM moves, nor a framework for making them.

In fairness, though, 5e does have a "rulings, not rules" mantra which allows the DM a lot more freedom when it comes to resolving actions that a) aren't covered by an existing rule and-or b) are neither guaranteed to be possible or impossible. I'm not necessarily saying it's a good way to do it, but it's perhaps better than nothing.

Much of the "wide difference of opinion" you refer to may simply be reflective of different DMs' rulings around similar issues that have asiren in different games/campaigns.

 

[FrogReaver]

@pemerton

If you simply mean AW has a resolution framework that covers all potential player declarations then:

1. It’s not clear why you view d&d as not having this? What possible player declaration in d&d is not covered by its resolution mechanics?

2. If in your view d&d does have this feature then doesn’t it seem rather obvious the initial claim RPG’s can’t have mechanics for everything meant something different than some player declared actions cannot be resolved by the resolution mechanics?

For me I take the claim that an RPGs cannot have rules for everything to mean something much different than a resolution framework cannot cover all potential actions. (The word cover is doing alot of work here.. as in cover it how?).

 

[Zardnaar]

Theoretically I fine with it in small doses.

In practice it slows the game down and I'm seen DMs play favorites based on who's banging who then that blows up and yeah.

 

[Oofta]

I don't understand what this means. And I wish people would stop saying that I said things that I didn't.

I said that AW has a rule to resolve every action declaration. This is true.

I don't know what 47 possible results of declared actions you think are precluded by AW's rules: given that on a 6- the GM can make as hard and direct a move as they like, it's not clear what examples you would have in mind.

I didn't say that AW focuses resolution into three categories (of what?). I did say that the rules "produce a certain sort of focus and play experience: the themes are scarcity, interpersonal conflict, and the ever-present threat of violence".

You and @Oofta seem to have an a priori belief that no system can be more "universal" in its capacity to handle action resolution than 5e D&D. I think if you actually had a look at how some other systems handle action resolution so as to have a clear rule for how to resolve any declared action, you might find it interesting.

I did not assert that AW tells you the result of every declared action. How could it?

What I said, and what is true, is that it has a rule for determining the result of every declared action. The actual result will follow from the application of the relevant rule. And it depends upon both elements of the fiction leading up to that moment of play, and elements of what has happened at the table leading up to that moment of play.

Suppose someone tries to jump across a really wide crevasse. I think it's well-known that 5e D&D can handle this easily in some contexts - eg the character is under a Jump spell, or has a STR score that is numerically greater than the width of the crevasse in feet. I think it's also well-known that there are other contexts - like the character attempting an unaided running jump - where there is a wide difference of opinion over what the proper resolution method is.

One reason for this is - despite your dismissal of "kerfluggles" - 5e D&D doesn't have a system of GM moves, nor a framework for making them.

This difference of AW compared to 5e D&D is part of how it is able to have a resolution procedure for any declared action.

I didn't say it's better. I said it's different. One of the difference is that, unlike 5e D&D, it has a resolution procedure for any declared action.

I don't know what you mean by "defined rules to any significant level of granularity". I've told you what the rules are. They tell everyone at the table whose job it is to say what happens next, in response to any action being declared, and they also establish the parameters that constraint what it is that can be said.

That seems granular enough to me - it tells us who gets to speak, and it guides them in what they may or may not say.

But if you didn't mean to state or imply that DW was superior, why make repeatedly make the statement that it "has a rule to resolve every declared action". Because D&D also has such rules. DW just handles it differently (sometimes with a random roll) in a more narrative style with more restrictions on the GM.

I can state that D&D also has everything covered. That's the issue I have with your statements. The way the rules are implemented is just different, it's comparing apples and oranges.

 

[Oofta]

@pemerton

If you simply mean AW has a resolution framework that covers all potential player declarations then:

1. It’s not clear why you view d&d as not having this? What possible player declaration in d&d is not covered by its resolution mechanics?

2. If in your view d&d does have this feature then doesn’t it seem rather obvious the initial claim RPG’s can’t have mechanics for everything meant something different than some player declared actions cannot be resolved by the resolution mechanics?

For me I take the claim that an RPGs cannot have rules for everything to mean something much different than a resolution framework cannot cover all potential actions. (The word cover is doing alot of work here.. as in cover it how?).

PbtA games have restrictions on the GM as well as the players. But both have frameworks that define how everything is decided, it just gives a lot of leeway to the DM. On the other hand, because of that leeway and flexibility I would state that a D&D game can cover a lot of ground that PbtA games do although, of course, in a different fashion. Because apples and oranges.

 

[pemerton]

As I recall, however, you phrased it as AW has a rule for everything

I responded to this: "It’s not an undefined resolution. It’s acknowledging you can’t reasonably have rules for everything. Trying to leads to never really getting to play because you have to constantly stop play to look up rules. You will inevitably have gaps in the rules."

I replied "And yet Apocalypse World does." It has resolution rules for every action declaration.

The reason that AW does have this, but (say) AD&D doesn't, is not because AW's rulebook is 100x or 1000x bigger. It's because AW uses a different rules architecture. Contra what @Oofta asserted upthread, it is not just labelling the same thing with new names.

 

[Oofta]

Theoretically I fine with it in small doses.

In practice it slows the game down and I'm seen DMs play favorites based on who's banging who then that blows up and yeah.

Or even just who's personalities happen to click. Which can be just as bad when everyone else is left out.