D&D Essay #1: Imbalance of Power [EDIT: 2nd draft in post 44.]

[LostSoul]

I don't mean to derail the thread too much, so I'll just answer all this "one rule to rule them all" stuff here.

That's rather disengenuous. If that's what you mean by having rules for every possibility, then all RPGs could be considered to have rules for every possibility, and the distinction becomes meaningless.

Does D&D have a rule that covers, hmm, let's say, seducing someone?

No, it doesn't.

Well, it does, in that it has DM fiat; but that's what the OP was talking about when he said no rule covers all eventualities. I'm pointing out you can have a mechanical rule that resolves actions without having to rely on fiat. (Except when to call for a roll, but that's a completely different thing from what I'm talking about.)

How does it deal with situations where you cannot succeed or fail?

With this little mechanic, there are no such situations.

What happens if I roll a success trying to do something impossible? For example, if I try to eat my head, or stick my (very human) elbow in my ear?

Nothing is impossible! It's a feature, not a flaw.

If this was a rule in a game somewhere, the game would have to rely on player's tastes to resolve things like this. In a gritty game, you might not want to try anything crazy. If it's not so gritty, let's say a psychedelic drug-trip game, eating your head might be possible and not even call for a roll!

How about a real rule? The only thing this rule really does is give the potential to make any game completely silly:

Well, you probably wouldn't need a DM since the player to your right is generating adversity for you. If you did have a DM, he'd have different responsibilities.

It's not a game, though; it's just a resolution mechanic. That's why it looks so silly.

EDIT: Got to the part where you claimed that one rule covers all possibilities. I do not believe that to be accurate, even in the example that you give. As with the DM in the OP, the player on the right is relying upon unstated "world knowledge" rules to determine when the die should, or should not, be rolled. In addition, the entire group is relying upon unstated "world knowledge" rules to determine whether something should be allowed, whether the die is rolled or not.

What you call "World Knowledge" I call "personal taste". I don't think "This is what I think is cool" is an unstated rule.

I don't see why that means you can't resolve any action with that rule.

 

[Quartz]

Contrary to what may be mor eintuitive, it isn't storytelling or immersion that makes a game an RPG, but gaining experience and increasing abilities.

I disagree. The adventures may indeed be episodic, but the characters don't necessarily increase in power during or after them. I think you're looking too much at RPGs like WoW and D&D. Other systems have very limited or no advancement. Traveller, Paranoia. Hero.

 

[Reynard]

I disagree. The adventures may indeed be episodic, but the characters don't necessarily increase in power during or after them. I think you're looking too much at RPGs like WoW and D&D. Other systems have very limited or no advancement. Traveller, Paranoia. Hero.

The essay is specifically about D&D.

 

[Fifth Element]

Does D&D have a rule that covers, hmm, let's say, seducing someone?

No, it doesn't.

Well, it does, in that it has DM fiat; but that's what the OP was talking about when he said no rule covers all eventualities. I'm pointing out you can have a mechanical rule that resolves actions without having to rely on fiat. (Except when to call for a roll, but that's a completely different thing from what I'm talking about.)

You mean, like the d20 System. For your seduction example, how about opposed Charisma checks. Or perhaps Bluff opposed by Sense Motive.

My point was that any game that has a basic mechanic has a rule to cover all eventualities, given your interpretation of what that means. In the d20 System, you make an ability check or a skill check or an attack roll, whatever is the most appropriate for the situation. That's the equivalent of your roll-high-on-a-d6 rule.

 

[Odhanan]

I say this because there are quite a few players who would like the game to evolve into a state where a DM is not needed anymore to play, and usually they think of it in terms of designing a ruleset so good that covers everything you ever need (if ever possible). But then without a DM there can hardly be anymore surprise, or secret to discover, or deceiving NPCs, or unknown locales... In a CRPG the computer can handle it, but in an extremely limited way compared to a human being (and then the other limit of automatic games is that they have no flexibility). In a tabletop game, not really possible to avoid someone to cover that role.

There are ways to do it. There was, for instance, a card game in France that allowed the players to tell a story on the spot using the cards they had in hand. Card types included characters (like say "Villain", or "Princess"), locations ("Tower", "Lair" etc), items, circumstances and events, and so on, so forth. One player was playing a card and started the game by using whatever was on the card. Then the next player interrupts using one of his own card and goes on with the story using the element on the card he played. And so on, so forth.

This was a stand-alone card game, not a RPG tool to be used within a session, but the idea for a tool usable within an RPG is there.

It would be theoretically possible to recreate the "fog of war" effect by using this sort of procedure. If that takes the form of cards like this, then every player would not know what type of cards the other players have in hand, nor when they would play each particular card. This recreates the element of surprise.

The only problem here is the coherence of it all. The DM can "hold it all together". The events of the game without DM I describe would become partly chaotic, improvised, and the whole game could be driven into the wall if the participants don't cooperate by building integrated events on top of each other's. If a single one player wants to wreck the game, that'd be fairly easy.

 

[Raven Crowking]

There are ways to do it. There was, for instance, a card game in France that allowed the players to tell a story on the spot using the cards they had in hand.

Yeah, I've got that game.

RC

 

[RFisher]

The rules are the contract with which the narrator transforms some measure of his creative power into an interactive game. Without some sort of rule, you just can't play, even with the most well-intentioned DM, it's not a game, it's a free-writing exercise.

I've played in freeform games--i.e. no rules. People taking the role of GM are perfectly capable of making it an interactive game without rules there to force them into it.

 

[Reynard]

As a general point of interest, for those that care: I work 4, 10 hour days, so I have tomorrow off. I will be writing the second draft sometiem tomorrow and posting it here.

Also: go ahead and follow the link above to the RPG.net thread. It is interesting in both the number of responses in general and the nature of those responses. (I found it interesting, anyway).

 

[LostSoul]

You mean, like the d20 System. For your seduction example, how about opposed Charisma checks. Or perhaps Bluff opposed by Sense Motive.

Yeah... but those are more like house rules than things in the book. It would be just as much by the rules for the DM to resolve based on his knowledge of the NPC, or the player's dialogue, or a percentile roll he makes himself. But D&D is pretty robust for tinkering like that.

 

[Varianor Abroad]

Yeah, I've got that game.

RC

There's an American English version Once Upon a Time. We found it fun, though being gamers managed to turn it into "combat storytelling" and had to create houserules like "no deserts".