D&D General Back to First Principles

[Fenris-77]

I believe he's indexing the deliberate design of the mechanical system elements to synchronize and produce a targeted play experience. Obviously true of PbtA and Blades, and also much more true of B/X than of any D&D edition 2nd through 5th. I'll let @Yora confirm.

 

[Lanefan]

This might be a semantics issue, but I think modern game design has lots of what I would call advancements over 80s design.

And at the same time (and by doing the same things) gone backwards.

One obvious one is the realization that looking things up on tables isn't ideal. THAC0 came along.

Tables and charts can and do, as others have already pointed out, provide much more granularity and design space. Yes it takes a moment to look something up, and tables referenced constantly (e.g. the combat matrix) can easily be simplified even without using THAC0; but I don't begrudge the time it takes if the result is a more detailed game.

Another is the idea that bigger is always better. It's a clearer game design when a low=fail and high=success

I'm a really big fan of the roll-under-stat mechanic for checks, which flat-out doesn't work in a bigger=better system.

Similarly using predefined conditions, damage types, and keywords in a game all create a better system of rules.

The problem with these is that all sorts of things end up getting shoehorned into keywords and conditions etc. where they really don't fit, just to stick to the design paradigm. The keyword becomes a hammer and the rules all start looking like nails.

These days, my poster child for this is 5e's advantage-disadvantage system. Brilliant idea, until everything under the sun got shoehorned into using it even when flat bonuses/penalties or a more granular approach would be far better.

And that also speaks to putting everything onto a d20 roll - sometimes greater or lesser granularity is needed than a d20 can provide and using other dice just makes more sense. For example sometimes a 5% chance of failure or success is way too much, yet that chance is still not zero and that has to be reflected somehow. Sure, one can use confirm rolls but isn't is simpler just to roll d% in the first place?

The other risk of using lots of keywords etc. is that the rulebooks can end up becoming dry as dust to read - all the entertainment is gone. 4e suffered from a bit of this but it's far from the worst: for an extreme example, try reading the long-form tournament rules for M:tG sometime.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

Predefined conditions, damage types and keywords have their virtues, but it's a bit of a continuum. The optimum number of such conditions kind of depends on your audience. While playing 3.x I liked that we had standard conditions for the first time which were easy to look up, but some of my fellow players lamented that there were too many to memorize. If you have to look them up frequently, you lose some of the benefits of standardization. Or, for another interesting example, take Grappling. 3.x had a very workable, clear, fiction-emulating system. Definitely the most mechanically robust and the one that "made the most sense" of any edition. Sadly, it was long and detailed enough that virtually no one had it memorized, and it would often prompt groans from other players when it was invoked. It also was subject to some nasty corner-case manipulation to make it arguably overpowered. Is that rule better or worse than, for example, the 5E grappling rules? I think that's mostly a matter of opinion.

Roll high = always good is, I would opine, a minor simplification. It's also an easy house rule to make to TSR-era D&D, and one I commonly use with B/X. Likewise THAC0 was a minor house rule for simplification.

Overall I agree that there are definitely some improved best practices in terms of how rules are presented to make them clearer, easier to understand, and to memorize or reference. Hence the popularity of OSE in presenting the rules of B/X in a clearer fashion.

I agree with OSR systems being a great idea if you want the simplicity in content of BECMI but the modern rules advancements of the 2020s.

I will use grapple as an example of why I feel 5e is less complex ruleswise than Basic.

This is the first THIRD (it's missing a table) of the grappling rules in Basic....

Wrestling (Optional)
When an unarmed character grabs a victim
and tries to hold him, pin him, or bear him to
the ground, this is called "wrestling." Humans,
demihumans, humanoid monsters, and human-
shaped undead monsters can all wrestle.

Restrictions
Who May Wrestle: Any character of any class
or level, most humanoid monsters, and undead
monsters that were originally human, demi-
human or humanoid may use wrestling.
Initiative, Armed vs. Unarmed: When a char-
acter attempts to wrestle an armed opponent,
the armed opponent always wins initiative auto-
matically.

Unintelligent Monsters: Unintelligent mon-
sters will always choose to use their normal at-
tacks instead of wrestling, unless controlled.
Monster Immunities: Several types of crea-
tures are immune to some or all of the effects of
wrestling: Noncorporeal undead (wraith, spec-
tre, etc.), oozes, jellies, slimes, and similar crea-
tures cannot be wrestled. Ethereal or elemental
creatures can be wrestled only by opponents in
the same form.

Contact Abilities: Special "touch" abilities (en-
ergy drain, turn to stone, etc.) function normally
during wrestling if the monster wishes them to.
For example, a character wrestling a cockatrice
must make a saving throw vs. turn to stone every round while in contact with the monster.

Preparing for Wrestling
Before the game or a crucial battle, the DM
should find each character's and monster's wres-
tling rating (WR).

Table that didn't cut and paste

Characters and NPCs Example: A 9th level
dwarf has a Strength of 17 and a Dexterity of 8;
he wears chain mail +3 and carries a shield. We
take his experience level and divide by 2, round-
ing up (5), his Strength bonus ( + 2), his Dexteri-
ty penalty (-1), and his basic armor class, not
counting magic or Dexterity adjustments (AC 4,
for +4); adding these together, we get his wres-
tling rating (WR) of 10. If he'd drop his shield,
his wrestling rating would go up to 11; if he'd
take off his armor first, it would go up to 15.
Monster Example: A Snow Ape has 3 + 1 HD
and wears no armor. We take its HD and multi-
ply by 2, dropping pluses (6) and add 9 ( + 9); its
WR is 15.

Worse armor classes (for instance, 9) result in
better wrestling ratings than good armor classes
(for instance, 2). This is correct. The more armor
a character is wearing, the harder it is for him to
wrestle effectively. Remember, magic bonuses
and Dexterity adjustments do not count toward
wrestling ratings.

Unlike other sections of the rules, in which
Hit Dice and levels are equated, this section uses
Hit Dice precisely, so a 25th level fighter still has
only 9 Hit Dice.

Wrestling Procedure
Each opponent involved in wrestling (whether
attacking or defending) makes a simple roll of
1d20 each round. If the character is trying to
wrestle, he adds his WR to the roll. If he is trying
to do something else (such as strike, use a dag-
ger, etc.), he does not add his WR that round.
The highest roll wins the round. Ties dictate no
result in that round. In normal wrestling con-
tests, characters move up and down the follow-
ing table according to how well they are doing.

Free
Grab
Takedown
Pin

Before the wrestler wrestles his target, both
targets are considered free. When one successfully attacks the other, he grabs his victim. If he wins the wrestling roll on the next round, he performs a takedown, bringing his opponent down to the ground and getting to a superior position over him. (If the victim is already down on the ground, the winner still gets into a superior position and sets himself up for the next round.) If he wins another wrestling roll on the next round, he has pinned his opponent.
This, of course, assumes that the victim isn't
fighting back. The victim normally does fight
back. So, each round the two parties are wres-
tling, each makes his wrestling roll. Compare the
two 1d20 rolls. The higher roll wins. A tie means
that there is no change in the characters' relative
situations. Now, if one character wins one
round, he moves the other fellow down one level
(from grab to takedown, for example). If the
other character wins the next, he moves the combat back up one level.

Example: Two characters are wrestling. The
first fighter has a WR of 15, and the second has a...

This was a THIRD of the grapple rules......

 

[JiffyPopTart]

And at the same time (and by doing the same things) gone backwards.

Tables and charts can and do, as others have already pointed out, provide much more granularity and design space. Yes it takes a moment to look something up, and tables referenced constantly (e.g. the combat matrix) can easily be simplified even without using THAC0; but I don't begrudge the time it takes if the result is a more detailed game.

I'm a really big fan of the roll-under-stat mechanic for checks, which flat-out doesn't work in a bigger=better system.

The problem with these is that all sorts of things end up getting shoehorned into keywords and conditions etc. where they really don't fit, just to stick to the design paradigm. The keyword becomes a hammer and the rules all start looking like nails.

These days, my poster child for this is 5e's advantage-disadvantage system. Brilliant idea, until everything under the sun got shoehorned into using it even when flat bonuses/penalties or a more granular approach would be far better.

And that also speaks to putting everything onto a d20 roll - sometimes greater or lesser granularity is needed than a d20 can provide and using other dice just makes more sense. For example sometimes a 5% chance of failure or success is way too much, yet that chance is still not zero and that has to be reflected somehow. Sure, one can use confirm rolls but isn't is simpler just to roll d% in the first place?

The other risk of using lots of keywords etc. is that the rulebooks can end up becoming dry as dust to read - all the entertainment is gone. 4e suffered from a bit of this but it's far from the worst: for an extreme example, try reading the long-form tournament rules for M:tG sometime.

Can you give me an example of how a table can be more detailed than a line item on a class writeup?

 

[overgeeked]

I agree with OSR systems being a great idea if you want the simplicity in content of BECMI but the modern rules advancements of the 2020s.

I will use grapple as an example of why I feel 5e is less complex ruleswise than Basic.

This is the first THIRD (it's missing a table) of the grappling rules in Basic....

Wrestling (Optional)
When an unarmed character grabs a victim
and tries to hold him, pin him, or bear him to
the ground, this is called "wrestling." Humans,
demihumans, humanoid monsters, and human-
shaped undead monsters can all wrestle.

Restrictions
Who May Wrestle: Any character of any class
or level, most humanoid monsters, and undead
monsters that were originally human, demi-
human or humanoid may use wrestling.
Initiative, Armed vs. Unarmed: When a char-
acter attempts to wrestle an armed opponent,
the armed opponent always wins initiative auto-
matically.

Unintelligent Monsters: Unintelligent mon-
sters will always choose to use their normal at-
tacks instead of wrestling, unless controlled.
Monster Immunities: Several types of crea-
tures are immune to some or all of the effects of
wrestling: Noncorporeal undead (wraith, spec-
tre, etc.), oozes, jellies, slimes, and similar crea-
tures cannot be wrestled. Ethereal or elemental
creatures can be wrestled only by opponents in
the same form.

Contact Abilities: Special "touch" abilities (en-
ergy drain, turn to stone, etc.) function normally
during wrestling if the monster wishes them to.
For example, a character wrestling a cockatrice
must make a saving throw vs. turn to stone every round while in contact with the monster.

Preparing for Wrestling
Before the game or a crucial battle, the DM
should find each character's and monster's wres-
tling rating (WR).

Table that didn't cut and paste

Characters and NPCs Example: A 9th level
dwarf has a Strength of 17 and a Dexterity of 8;
he wears chain mail +3 and carries a shield. We
take his experience level and divide by 2, round-
ing up (5), his Strength bonus ( + 2), his Dexteri-
ty penalty (-1), and his basic armor class, not
counting magic or Dexterity adjustments (AC 4,
for +4); adding these together, we get his wres-
tling rating (WR) of 10. If he'd drop his shield,
his wrestling rating would go up to 11; if he'd
take off his armor first, it would go up to 15.
Monster Example: A Snow Ape has 3 + 1 HD
and wears no armor. We take its HD and multi-
ply by 2, dropping pluses (6) and add 9 ( + 9); its
WR is 15.

Worse armor classes (for instance, 9) result in
better wrestling ratings than good armor classes
(for instance, 2). This is correct. The more armor
a character is wearing, the harder it is for him to
wrestle effectively. Remember, magic bonuses
and Dexterity adjustments do not count toward
wrestling ratings.

Unlike other sections of the rules, in which
Hit Dice and levels are equated, this section uses
Hit Dice precisely, so a 25th level fighter still has
only 9 Hit Dice.

Wrestling Procedure
Each opponent involved in wrestling (whether
attacking or defending) makes a simple roll of
1d20 each round. If the character is trying to
wrestle, he adds his WR to the roll. If he is trying
to do something else (such as strike, use a dag-
ger, etc.), he does not add his WR that round.
The highest roll wins the round. Ties dictate no
result in that round. In normal wrestling con-
tests, characters move up and down the follow-
ing table according to how well they are doing.

Free
Grab
Takedown
Pin

Before the wrestler wrestles his target, both
targets are considered free. When one successfully attacks the other, he grabs his victim. If he wins the wrestling roll on the next round, he performs a takedown, bringing his opponent down to the ground and getting to a superior position over him. (If the victim is already down on the ground, the winner still gets into a superior position and sets himself up for the next round.) If he wins another wrestling roll on the next round, he has pinned his opponent.
This, of course, assumes that the victim isn't
fighting back. The victim normally does fight
back. So, each round the two parties are wres-
tling, each makes his wrestling roll. Compare the
two 1d20 rolls. The higher roll wins. A tie means
that there is no change in the characters' relative
situations. Now, if one character wins one
round, he moves the other fellow down one level
(from grab to takedown, for example). If the
other character wins the next, he moves the combat back up one level.

Example: Two characters are wrestling. The
first fighter has a WR of 15, and the second has a...

This was a THIRD of the grapple rules......

Any more I'd rather handle things with a simple opposed 2d6 roll, higher roll wins. "I try to grapple them." "They try to resist. Roll it." There's no point in mechanics that detailed. It's funny that that's basically how they handle it (bolded above with d20s instead of 2d6s), but for some reason they needed a few thousand words to explain it.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

Any more I'd rather handle things with a simple opposed 2d6 roll, higher roll wins. "I try to grapple them." "They try to resist. Roll it." There's no point in mechanics that detailed. It's funny that that's basically how they handle it (bolded above with d20s instead of 2d6s), but for some reason they needed a few thousand words to explain it.

The funny bit is that it's not a bad system, it's just that the way it's written (because of when it was created) is very difficult to wade through.

If that same exact system were made in 2021 all the individual monster type call outs would be moved to the monster entries, the halving your HD would convert to using your proficiency bonus, and most of the levels of grapple would be tied to conditiond instead of spelled out.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

Nah. RPGs don't advance cumulatively: they aren't a technology, and you'd be hard-pressed to liken their design to a science. Their changes over time are more like fashion trends—evolution, but not necessarily advancement.

I'd go even further, they're like film or painting, we have artistic movements that present new ethos in reaction to previously dominant works, that in turn condition individuals to their aesthetic values and pereptrate themselves until a new movement comes along to react to and challenge those values. Sometimes, these reactions take the form of a return to an earlier movement (but inevitably have their own quirks that distinguish them from that movement, because they understand it differently than their predecessors did) and other times they represent a push for originality or progress, with their own interpretation of what that means. But each movement leaves a trail of adherents, both old and new in its wake because the artifacts of its presence are still around, so the aesthetic values that formulate the movement remain and compete with whatever movements currently dominate the medium.

 

[Lanefan]

Can you give me an example of how a table can be more detailed than a line item on a class writeup?

A few:

Saving throw matrix by class and damage type; or by material and damage type for items. All the info is in one place, DM-side, and the players can just roll the dice and let the DM sort it out without having to note down numerous different save requirements on their character sheets and-or noting what each type of material needs to save against each type of damage or effect. (I keep these charts nailed to the back of my DM screen )

Table of possible fumble* effects. Any character can fumble, and having a lengthy list of possible effects and-or combinations where the player rolls d% and the DM looks it up on a table is way more interesting - and detailed - than a simple "Fumble = d4 damage to self" note on a character sheet.

* - or other similar somewhat-unpredictable occurrences e.g. wild magic surge effects.

Further, many tables and charts are used - particularly during char-gen - for generating single line items on character sheets. If you want to randomly roll to see what languages you speak, there's a detailed table for that. There's a long table for rolling secondary skill/past profession. My game has magical herbs as a thing; and every time a Ranger (or anyone, for that matter) searches for them I've a long series of DM-side charts and tables that determine (based mostly on terrain type) whether anything is found, and if yes then what is found and how many. And so forth......

 

[Mannahnin]

I agree with OSR systems being a great idea if you want the simplicity in content of BECMI but the modern rules advancements of the 2020s.

I will use grapple as an example of why I feel 5e is less complex ruleswise than Basic.

This is the first THIRD (it's missing a table) of the grappling rules in Basic....

Your criticisms of these grapple rules are well-founded. I will quibble that they don't come from the Basic rules; IIRC they come from the Companion rules, and were written with the expectation that they'd be used by experienced players and DMs.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

A few:

Saving throw matrix by class and damage type; or by material and damage type for items. All the info is in one place, DM-side, and the players can just roll the dice and let the DM sort it out without having to note down numerous different save requirements on their character sheets and-or noting what each type of material needs to save against each type of damage or effect. (I keep these charts nailed to the back of my DM screen )

Table of possible fumble* effects. Any character can fumble, and having a lengthy list of possible effects and-or combinations where the player rolls d% and the DM looks it up on a table is way more interesting - and detailed - than a simple "Fumble = d4 damage to self" note on a character sheet.

* - or other similar somewhat-unpredictable occurrences e.g. wild magic surge effects.

Further, many tables and charts are used - particularly during char-gen - for generating single line items on character sheets. If you want to randomly roll to see what languages you speak, there's a detailed table for that. There's a long table for rolling secondary skill/past profession. My game has magical herbs as a thing; and every time a Ranger (or anyone, for that matter) searches for them I've a long series of DM-side charts and tables that determine (based mostly on terrain type) whether anything is found, and if yes then what is found and how many. And so forth......

I can't argue with the bottom ones, but I am referring to charts in lieu of frequently referenced numbers. Certainy a table/list works best for a collection of random things.

If a GM wanted to parse all their player saves I guess a big chart works for that too, but it still seems more complicated to me than the players having that info listed in their class section of the rules.