D&D 5E Behind the design of 5th edition Dungeons and Dragons: Well my impression as least.

[Imaro]

What additional finality is needed other than the PCs and the DM play out a scene and reaching an end to the scene? The fact that you could encounter the same NPCs again and have another social interaction or they could renegotiation on the same topic doesn't mean the other scene lacks finality.

Yeah this was one of those "problems" some claimed skill challenges "solved"... but I just never saw this problem in my games and eneded up finding the SC artificial limit much more limiting and less organic than free-forming it...

 

[Sacrosanct]

I've had some players who, because they themselves had ancestral inheritance that implies not just a kis of the blarny, but fornication therewith, would dump-stat Charisma because they could talk their way out of the situations. It's real nice to have a set of mechanics which say, "No, your Cha 4 prevents your character from even trying to be that glib."

Why do you need a rule for that? Why couldn't you (as the DM) just say, "That's how it sounds in your head, but because you have a CHA of 4, it comes out the opposite."

Stats have meaning by themselves. They don't necessarily have to have additional rules in order for them to have an impact to the game. Most people I played with usually went with the easy ability check. There wasn't a hard rule for it, but in these gray areas where we felt a roll was necessary, we just called for an ability check.

"Ok, you try to talk your way out. Make a CHA check (roll d20, if result is less than score, success)."

 

[Iosue]

A quick flip through didn't turn them up in either book.

Foraging and hunting rules are on page X51 of Cook/Marsh, and page 21 of Mentzer. They are indeed missing from the 1e DMG, or at least I couldn't find them. The PHB mentions the need to hunt or forage on page 101, but it isn't addressed in the DMG. In OD&D, such rules were offloaded to Outdoor Survival, much like the combat rules were offloaded to Chainmail.

The broader discussion has been about "early D&D", stradding B/X, OD&D and 1st ed AD&D.

Yes, but my reply was specifically about the degree to which monsters attacked on sight in B2.

I stand by my remark about "narrow and artificial". This is somewhat true of the combat rules, as you say, but I think moreso of the exploration rules. This comes out in the Luke Crane play report - for instance, in the way he plays the spider that turned up as a random encounter, and in the way that the hobgoblins are happy to bargain with the heavily-armed stranger who has turned up in their neighbourhood, and would cheerfully kill and rob them if he had a few friends with him. That's nothing like a normal social interaction - it is more like Diplomacy (as per the posts above) but instantiated into individuals rather than 19th century nation-states, and hence producing personalities that have no resemblance to anything normal that I can think of.

As soon as one asks, How would hobgoblins respond if we really think about the social dynamics between invaders and denezins, perhaps with refrence to real world examples? then the resolution of that scenario becomes very improbable. The hobgoblins could have just killed the fighter and taken his stuff.

I think your "narrow and artificial" statement is fine as it stands, as long as we acknowledge that a) it is also true of combat, and b) that even if the game play of exploration is narrow and artificial, it's still about exploration. I guess my point is, the rules are not meant as a simulation of real world phenomena, but rather to facilitate play as a game, within the paradigm I described above. It's about making choices. Naturally, given the difficulty of any game system to accurately and comprehensively model the real world, it is selective in the kinds of choices it foregrounds. In early D&D's case, it's concerned primarily with movement, carrying capacity, equipment, and certain degrees of perception (e.g., light and sound). Now, to be sure, this might not be everyone's cup of tea when it comes to exploration. Some folks would perhaps prefer more detail. Others would prefer to make things even more abstract. Others might prefer other details to focus on altogether. But that's a separate issue from whether the primary mode of play of early D&D dealt with exploration.

As far as the social interaction goes, and Luke Crane's example, this goes back to the game's inability to even approach a mechanics/rules driven simulation of real world interaction, and the "making results make sense is the DM's job" thing I've talked about before. Here, the DM's ability to set context is paramount, and why he is the impetus behind social interaction mechanics. In the specific case of Luke Crane's example, they are playing B1, "In Search of the Unknown". One of the distinct features of B1 is that it does not come pre-stocked. The rooms and special features are described, but it's up to the DM to stock the dungeon, using either the dungeon stocking rules in Basic, or rolling/choosing from a list of possible encounters in the back of the module. Notably, the list of possible encounters does not include any background information on the monsters -- it's up to the DM to fill in the blanks. So, why did the goblins let the character get away? Perhaps Luke gave them the back story of being goblin adventurers, there to plunder the abandoned castle themselves. In which case, they would not see the characters as intruders, but rather as "monsters" -- to be avoided if too strong, parleyed with if possible, and ambushed and attacked if the reward outweighed the risk. This is just speculating, but given that this party of hobgoblins were demanding treasure, it's a reasonable assumption.

And the key is, this is both emergent and explosive, despite being light on rules. DMs can have ideas of how they think monsters may react, but players can surprise them, and quirky inspiration can strike. Combat in this paradigm is a resolved -- this means that it has a clear, predefined end state. Reaction roll-based interaction, OTOH, has no defined end state, so it might take up very little time, or it can take a great deal of time. And again, if you resolve a combat in 10 or 15 minutes, but then spend that amount of time or more on interaction with NPCs and monsters, then I think it's fair to say that combat is probably of lesser importance.

Combat is not artificial in that way - it doesn't require such a radically unrealistic way of framing human motivations and actions. I think the drift to combat as a focus of conflict is associated with a broader drift towards "verisimilitue" in world design, playing NPCs, etc. I think this works in conjunction with the alignment-driven change I've mentioned upthread.

Combat in D&D is incredibly artificial. Especially in early D&D, when using the Combat Sequence and Morale (which is very much like the reaction roll mechanics). Why does magic always go off before missile fire, which always happens before melee combat? Why does a monster that fails its morale roll runaway? (Or more likely in many combat heavy campaigns, why do almost all monsters fight to the death?) Why do whole groups get to act first, rather than individual people? These are all things that can be explained by an improvising DM, but the game's not really interested in answering them itself. Because combat is just an abstract resolution system, not a simulation.

I don't think this contrast is as marked as you are suggesting it to be. For instance, once the players learn about reaction rolls (either by reading the rule book, or by seeing the GM make them during play) it is going to occur to them that they can declare actions for their PCs that improve reaction rolls.

In the pursuit scenario that Luke Crane describes, the player, if he knows the spider's movement rate, can make a mecanicall-informed decision about the feasibility of escape, the need to ditch equipment (the weight of which is recorded with perfect accuracy on the character sheet), etc.

If the GM's decisions are motivated or determined by mechanical considerations, the players can extrapolate to these and apply them in their own reasoning.

Sure, but I don't see how that is quite relevant to my point. My point is not that it can't be done, simply that the game was not designed with the assumption these mechanics are the primary mode by which players interface with the game. A party can (and generally will) let a high-CHA character do the talking in order to get a bonus to the reaction roll. But they must still say what they are going to say to the DM, who will add whatever other modifier he thinks necessary (so a player who phones in the interaction, relying purely on his CHA bonus, may find the DM giving the roll a penalty that largely mitigates his bonus), and it's the DM who will make the roll and interpret the results. The player running from the spider may decide to drop gear in order to run faster, but a) this is perfectly keeping within the headspace of the character, and b) because he's interfacing in the game through the DM, the DM may rule that he is unable to drop gear with much precision and maintain his speed (e.g., dropping his entire backpack is probably doable; dropping heavy items that are in his backpage, probably not). In fact, given the blurring of player and character, the DM may not give him the option of perusing his equipment list at his leisure. Take the example of the player fleeing the spider while referring to his map. He is not given the option of simply following the map, and when he misspeaks, the DM does not allow him to correct himself.

Essentially, decisions informed by the mechanics is still different from the mechanics being the player's interface with the game. And again, there's no need to exclude the middle here. It's a spectrum that varies throughout the game's history, and according to the situation. There are moments in early D&D where mechanics are how they interface with the game -- the attack roll, the saving throw, their sense of how healthy their characters are. And there are moments in WotC D&D where no mechanics are involved at all. It's a tension that goes back to Gygax (mechanics!) and Arneson (DM!). Or heck, even before then (free Kriegsspiel! strict Kriegsspiel!). The difference is at the design level. You see a lot of things given to the DM to decide in early D&D, while 3e and 4e tried to handle more of the load. My point is that TSR D&D didn't do that because they didn't know how to design mechanical rules for things, nor because they thought those things were unimportant or a minor parts of the game.

 

[aramis erak]

Why do you need a rule for that? Why couldn't you (as the DM) just say, "That's how it sounds in your head, but because you have a CHA of 4, it comes out the opposite."

Stats have meaning by themselves. They don't necessarily have to have additional rules in order for them to have an impact to the game. Most people I played with usually went with the easy ability check. There wasn't a hard rule for it, but in these gray areas where we felt a roll was necessary, we just called for an ability check.

"Ok, you try to talk your way out. Make a CHA check (roll d20, if result is less than score, success)."

Because the rule takes the wind out of their sales without the "You're being an ass" reaction from them. They agreed to play by the rules, so having that rule/mechanic makes it far easier to convince them it really works that way.

Rulings not rules is great in theory; it fails in practice due to the need for player portability. Organized Play tends to make up for less strict rules, as those in the organized play tend to bring the interpretations with them.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Because the rule takes the wind out of their sales without the "You're being an ass" reaction from them. They agreed to play by the rules, so having that rule/mechanic makes it far easier to convince them it really works that way.

Rulings not rules is great in theory; it fails in practice due to the need for player portability. Organized Play tends to make up for less strict rules, as those in the organized play tend to bring the interpretations with them.

I disagree. Ruling not rules does not fail in practice. Hundreds of thousands of gamers, for decades, not only had fun, but the hobby grew exponentially with rulings not rules. Rulings not rules only fails when you have people at the table with poor social resolution skills. I.e., not talking with each other like adults, or not utilizing alternatives. Dick DM? DM yourself or get another one. Dick players? Don't play with them.

But by and large, rulings not rules works perfectly fine for most people.

 

[Aenghus]

I disagree. Ruling not rules does not fail in practice. Hundreds of thousands of gamers, for decades, not only had fun, but the hobby grew exponentially with rulings not rules. Rulings not rules only fails when you have people at the table with poor social resolution skills. I.e., not talking with each other like adults, or not utilizing alternatives. Dick DM? DM yourself or get another one. Dick players? Don't play with them.

But by and large, rulings not rules works perfectly fine for most people.

I object to the tactic of painting people who disagree with you over "rulings not rules" as the only unreasonable people.

I've seen plenty of unreason on all sides of this issue.

IMO it's a matter of taste. Some players and DMs want definitive rules, even if they immediately go and houserule them. So don't, most as usual are in the middle somewhere.

For me the advantages of clear rules outweigh the disadvantages, YMMV.

I haven't bought 5e primarily because of the "rulings not rules" philosophy underpinning it. I can recognise it's a good game for the intended audience, which no longer includes me.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I object to the tactic of painting people who disagree with you over "rulings not rules" as the only unreasonable people.
.

You're more than welcome do disagree of course. Free world. But one cannot make a general statement that rulings not rules fails in practice, because that's simply not true unless one of the things I mentioned above is taking place. There's nothing wrong with not liking rulings not rules, but that does not mean it's failing. It just means you (general you) don't prefer it.

 

[the Jester]

Rulings not rules is great in theory; it fails in practice due to the need for player portability.

I guess that explains why early D&D never took off.

 

[aramis erak]

I guess that explains why early D&D never took off.

Player portability is far more an issue now than early D&D (pre-79). People are more likely to move cities and/or areas of town than in the 1970's. And are more likely to move repeatedly. Not just "move to college; move to post college job's city, stay there until retirement"...


Players have easier access to authoritative answers than in the 70's. As in, "what is this supposed to mean, Mr. Designer?"
Players have easier access to players in other groups than in the 70's. As in, internet boards.
Players have easier access to information about how various other groups are playing.
Organized play results in more participation in multiple different DM's groups, and in some cases, in the occasional guest DM.
A widespread convention scene also increases participation in multiple DM's games.

D&D started to have major griping about the mechanics when players started to reach out to groups beyond their close circle via the nets in the 80's (usenet, Fidonet, and later, WWIVnet, and the collegiate era of the internet, which ran roughly '88-'95).

The more DM's one can reasonably expect to play a single ruleset with, and the more players who are moving and need to find new groups, the more important consistency of rules becomes to prevent widespread dissatisfaction with the game.

It's fine to have optional rules, and such... but having concrete core mechanics (and the social rules ones in the DMG are pretty well done; I'd have preferred a 5 step rather than 3 step scale of initial states) means that, should SB play at PN's table rather than mine, he knows that the basic mechanics of the TNs to make an action happen by social skills are in fact going to still apply, and won't nerf his character concept.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Player portability is far more an issue now than early D&D (pre-79). People are more likely to move cities and/or areas of town than in the 1970's. And are more likely to move repeatedly. Not just "move to college; move to post college job's city, stay there until retirement"...

You have a source for this, I'm assuming?