Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Alternate thought - rule of cool is bad for gaming
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9389534" data-attributes="member: 6790260"><p>You cannot have <em>individual, singular</em> rules for everything. Everyone leaves out that part: the idea that, if you have a different situation, you necessarily have different rules for each one. That, I completely agree, is not merely unreasonable, it's <em>impossible</em>. No system of individual, singular rules could ever be totally comprehensive.</p><p></p><p>That's why you abandon the need for every situation to have a singular, individual rules expression. You embrace the fact that rules are <em>always</em> abstractions, and put that abstraction to work for you. My preferred expression of that is what I call "extensible framework" rules. Skill Challenges are one example of this concept. "Montage" sequences are another. What I've heard of <em>Blades in the Dark</em>'s rules sounds like another example. DW's moves like Undertake a Perilous Journey, Supply, Carouse, and even basic ones like Discern Realities, Spout Lore, and Defy Danger (probably the single most commonly-used move) are all examples of extensible frameworks: using one core, abstracted structure, you can cover essentially anything within the particular scope of that move. If it makes sense as a journey from one place to another that could be dangerous and uncertain, then that move is pretty much guaranteed to work, or at least be an extremely good starting point with some minor tweaking (e.g. it's perfectly applicable for ocean voyages with light tweaking, but might need some creativity if applied to a vision-quest type "journey into the mind" thing).</p><p></p><p></p><p>I haven't played AW, but I have played DW, and it's reasonably close.</p><p></p><p>Firstly, as noted above...many of the moves are abstract. This is the text of Undertake a Perilous Journey:</p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px">When you <strong>travel through hostile territory</strong>, choose one member of the party to act as trailblazer, one to scout ahead, and one to be quartermaster (the same character cannot have two jobs). If you don’t have enough party members or choose not to assign a job, treat that job as if it had rolled a 6. Each character with a job to do rolls+WIS. On a 10+ the quartermaster reduces the number of rations required by one. On a 10+ the trailblazer reduces the amount of time it takes to reach your destination (the GM will say by how much). On a 10+ the scout will spot any trouble quick enough to let you get the drop on it. On a 7–9 each roles performs their job as expected: the normal number of rations are consumed, the journey takes about as long as expected, no one gets the drop on you but you don’t get the drop on them either.</p><p></p><p>As usual, rolls are 2d6+MOD, in this case, WIS. (Three-letter abbreviations are always the modifier; if you use the full <em>word</em>, it's the total score. A very nice convention.) 7-9 is partial success, 10+ is full success. The rule is pretty abstract, because all the concrete details come from whatever fiction prompted the bold trigger: travel through hostile territory. Likewise, the <em>reason</em> is irrelevant; only the things needed to resolve the trigger are relevant.</p><p></p><p>DW has really excellent extensible design like this. Defy Danger is literally a single move for all possible "you're in trouble, how will you get out?" situations, be they combat, exploration, social, moral, magical, whatever, it's your one-stop-shop. That's what makes it so commonly rolled. And the results are simple. 10+, you're in the clear. 7-9, "you stumble, hesitate, or flinch: The GM will offer you a worse outcome, hard bargain, or ugly choice." Meaning, it's not a total loss...but you're scraping through, not sailing. 6-, you're gonna have a bad time. Damage, or something equally nasty (splitting the party, revealing an unwelcome truth, showing a downside to their playbook/moves/etc., or some other Bad Result).</p><p></p><p>By moving away from rules that need to give each individual situation its own singular rule, you can cover huge swathes with very few rules. The "basic" and "advanced" moves of DW, that is the generic ones any character can make use of, fit on two sides of a single sheet. And using the formats presented by those moves and others in the default playbooks, it's nearly effortless to create new moves in the same vein.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I would argue that the major difference between the mere (and IMO not very good, but you already know that) guidance in 5e and the "real" (again, IMO) Rule of Cool is that the guidance there is just to make rules logjams less likely to happen; the Rule of Cool is about ensuring that what is <em>fun</em> (if reasonable) does not get trumped by what is <em>predefined</em>. "If it's uncertain, roll" is not at all the same as "don't say 'there's no rules for improvised flight, so you can't,' say 'let's figure out how this would work, because I love that idea and there aren't any rules covering this' instead."</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 9389534, member: 6790260"] You cannot have [I]individual, singular[/I] rules for everything. Everyone leaves out that part: the idea that, if you have a different situation, you necessarily have different rules for each one. That, I completely agree, is not merely unreasonable, it's [I]impossible[/I]. No system of individual, singular rules could ever be totally comprehensive. That's why you abandon the need for every situation to have a singular, individual rules expression. You embrace the fact that rules are [I]always[/I] abstractions, and put that abstraction to work for you. My preferred expression of that is what I call "extensible framework" rules. Skill Challenges are one example of this concept. "Montage" sequences are another. What I've heard of [I]Blades in the Dark[/I]'s rules sounds like another example. DW's moves like Undertake a Perilous Journey, Supply, Carouse, and even basic ones like Discern Realities, Spout Lore, and Defy Danger (probably the single most commonly-used move) are all examples of extensible frameworks: using one core, abstracted structure, you can cover essentially anything within the particular scope of that move. If it makes sense as a journey from one place to another that could be dangerous and uncertain, then that move is pretty much guaranteed to work, or at least be an extremely good starting point with some minor tweaking (e.g. it's perfectly applicable for ocean voyages with light tweaking, but might need some creativity if applied to a vision-quest type "journey into the mind" thing). I haven't played AW, but I have played DW, and it's reasonably close. Firstly, as noted above...many of the moves are abstract. This is the text of Undertake a Perilous Journey: [INDENT]When you [B]travel through hostile territory[/B], choose one member of the party to act as trailblazer, one to scout ahead, and one to be quartermaster (the same character cannot have two jobs). If you don’t have enough party members or choose not to assign a job, treat that job as if it had rolled a 6. Each character with a job to do rolls+WIS. On a 10+ the quartermaster reduces the number of rations required by one. On a 10+ the trailblazer reduces the amount of time it takes to reach your destination (the GM will say by how much). On a 10+ the scout will spot any trouble quick enough to let you get the drop on it. On a 7–9 each roles performs their job as expected: the normal number of rations are consumed, the journey takes about as long as expected, no one gets the drop on you but you don’t get the drop on them either.[/INDENT] As usual, rolls are 2d6+MOD, in this case, WIS. (Three-letter abbreviations are always the modifier; if you use the full [I]word[/I], it's the total score. A very nice convention.) 7-9 is partial success, 10+ is full success. The rule is pretty abstract, because all the concrete details come from whatever fiction prompted the bold trigger: travel through hostile territory. Likewise, the [I]reason[/I] is irrelevant; only the things needed to resolve the trigger are relevant. DW has really excellent extensible design like this. Defy Danger is literally a single move for all possible "you're in trouble, how will you get out?" situations, be they combat, exploration, social, moral, magical, whatever, it's your one-stop-shop. That's what makes it so commonly rolled. And the results are simple. 10+, you're in the clear. 7-9, "you stumble, hesitate, or flinch: The GM will offer you a worse outcome, hard bargain, or ugly choice." Meaning, it's not a total loss...but you're scraping through, not sailing. 6-, you're gonna have a bad time. Damage, or something equally nasty (splitting the party, revealing an unwelcome truth, showing a downside to their playbook/moves/etc., or some other Bad Result). By moving away from rules that need to give each individual situation its own singular rule, you can cover huge swathes with very few rules. The "basic" and "advanced" moves of DW, that is the generic ones any character can make use of, fit on two sides of a single sheet. And using the formats presented by those moves and others in the default playbooks, it's nearly effortless to create new moves in the same vein. I would argue that the major difference between the mere (and IMO not very good, but you already know that) guidance in 5e and the "real" (again, IMO) Rule of Cool is that the guidance there is just to make rules logjams less likely to happen; the Rule of Cool is about ensuring that what is [I]fun[/I] (if reasonable) does not get trumped by what is [I]predefined[/I]. "If it's uncertain, roll" is not at all the same as "don't say 'there's no rules for improvised flight, so you can't,' say 'let's figure out how this would work, because I love that idea and there aren't any rules covering this' instead." [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Alternate thought - rule of cool is bad for gaming
Top