D&D 5E D&D Lingua Franca, or 5e really, REALLY needs to create it's own new "space"

[Sunseeker]

I love how concise 4e rules can be. For me it's a beautiful thing. For many of my friends, it's a load of bullocks. For instance a rule that says:

"If you crit, make another attack,"

would be perfectly clear and playable for many of the players I play with. But in 4e words, this rule reads like:

"Once per round, when you score a critical hit with a barbarian attack power, you can immediately make a melee basic attack as a free action. You do not have to attack the same target that you scored a critical hit against."

It sounds like a lawyer doing the verbal tap dance in a court room. The amount of jargon in the first version is 2 words (crit and attack), the amount of jargon in the second version is 7-8 phrases depending on how you break it up (round, critical hit, barbarian, attack power, melee, basic attack, free action, target). I can see why many people hate this.

The first and second rule are two different things.
The first rule says "when I crit", okay, is that every time I roll a 20? Is that a crit within the definition of attacking? Skill-checking...oh it's a critical hit. okay, attacking.
The second rule tells us how often we can do it(once per round), there's no indication that this limit exists in the first rule.
The second rule tells us what can trigger this attack(Barbarian attack powers), there's no indication that this is limited to Barbarians in the first rule.
The second rule continues to clarify that you can only do a melee basic as this extra attack.
Then it goes on to say that this is a "free action" so people know what it costs them. Sometimes this stuff is a minor action.
And lastly, probably the only part of the rule that doesn't clarify it further, is that you can attack any target(presumably within range).

Quite simply, "when you crit, you can make another attack" is a bad rule which would lead to all sorts of abuse and misunderstanding. While the second rule may be verging on verbose, it is clear. It says HOW, it says WHEN and it says HOW OFTEN.

 

[avin]

Quite simply, "when you crit, you can make another attack" is a bad rule which would lead to all sorts of abuse and misunderstanding. While the second rule may be verging on verbose, it is clear. It says HOW, it says WHEN and it says HOW OFTEN.

Clear, but horrible to read, as most of 4E books in my opinion... I'm not trying to hit 4E here, as I said zillion of times, I' had a lot of fun DMing it, my point is that, while precise, this kind of text is an awful reading to a lot of people, including some big 4E fans I know. In special, Monster Manuals.

I would save book space for a language that goes closer to former editions style and use DDI to clarify rules using a more direct language.

 

[Sunseeker]

Clear, but horrible to read, as most of 4E books in my opinion... I'm not trying to hit 4E here, as I said zillion of times, I' had a lot of fun DMing it, my point is that, while precise, this kind of text is an awful reading to a lot of people, including some big 4E fans I know. In special, Monster Manuals.

Yeah, monster manuals were badly written, which is why I don't own them and just used DDI to make my own monsters.

I would save book space for a language that goes closer to former editions style and use DDI to clarify rules using a more direct language.

I wouldn't use DDI at all, for anything, other than people who want to read that stuff. If it's not in the book I just paid $40, and you're not giving me the eratta for free, I'm sure as heck not paying extra for rules clarification. Especially not a monthly sub.

 

[avin]

I wouldn't use DDI at all, for anything, other than people who want to read that stuff. If it's not in the book I just paid $40, and you're not giving me the eratta for free, I'm sure as heck not paying extra for rules clarification. Especially not a monthly sub.

You got a point... not everybody has DDI, but, unless middle ground is found, either fans of clear-style or fans of a more narrative-style will probably be unhappy with DDN.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

You got a point... not everybody has DDI, but, unless middle ground is found, either fans of clear-style or fans of a more narrative-style will probably be unhappy with DDN.

For me, the middle ground is the difference between the person with reasonable intent making a mistake, versus rules-lawyer proof legalese. I'm not saying the rest of it is perfect (definitely not), but that last sentence about not having to attack the same target is pure legalese that should be left to a ruling--perhaps with some modest guidance in the DMG about how it would usually go.

Write the rules so that a person trying to make them work will generally get them to work. (For example, don't pull the initial 3E trick of spreading language on attacks of opportunity all over the book and making this text internally inconsistent.) Leave the legal stuff to commentary--preferably well away from the main flow--or at the very least, confine it to sidebars.

 

[Storminator]

For me, the middle ground is the difference between the person with reasonable intent making a mistake, versus rules-lawyer proof legalese. I'm not saying the rest of it is perfect (definitely not), but that last sentence about not having to attack the same target is pure legalese that should be left to a ruling--perhaps with some modest guidance in the DMG about how it would usually go.

Not to get too hard on the example, but I wouldn't include any language that says "you're allowed to do X". The default should be "you're allowed. . . " I would only include exclusionary language, and I would think long and hard about how important that is before including it.

PS

 

[Mengu]

Quite simply, "when you crit, you can make another attack" is a bad rule which would lead to all sorts of abuse and misunderstanding. While the second rule may be verging on verbose, it is clear. It says HOW, it says WHEN and it says HOW OFTEN.

Didn't say it was a good rule. Just said my friends would be perfectly happy with it. The rule in this case, is for a Barbarian's Rampage. If the barbarian's player reads on the internet that he can make an extra attack when he crits, and has never actually looked at the rule book. It might turn out that he plays it correctly every time for an entire campaign. He makes very natural assumptions that since he is a barbarian, this rule applies to hit with melee attacks, and the assumption that he is going to make a melee basic attack when he crits (and not a ranged basic attack, or a howling strike attack). He very naturally forgets about this ability when he crits with his dragonborn breath, or the occasional thrown javelin, and naturally is puzzled on the times he gets a double crit on his turn, asking the DM if he can use it twice.

I dislike imprecise rules as much as the next rules guru, but it does make life much simpler for the average non-guru, when rules are based on some simple theories, rather than precise wording. And even if you play it in an unintended way, it's not going to be the end of the world because crits don't come up on cue. So the risk/reward of simplicity can be evaluated.

Do I want precise rules like 4e? Yes, I do, every time. It is very difficult for me to make the counter argument. Is that what's best for D&D? I'm beginning to think, perhaps not. Perhaps a lot of minor details could be left to the interpretation of the DM and players. Does the spell "Fireball" really need the Fire keyword? Or is that something that can be assumed? Does it catch hay bails on fire? Does it melt ice or boil water? Can it blow a door off its hinges? Maybe it's best to have a rules system that allows these questions to be answered by the DM, rather than setting the expectation that the system will answer all your questions, like 4e did.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Clear, but horrible to read, as most of 4E books in my opinion...

This all comes down to preferences in the end. Those who want to read the books like a novel, and those who want to refer to the books like an instruction manual. The books have gotten treated both ways over the years, and each side would indicate which style was better.

The biggest issue will be if WotC attempts to cater to both sides in the same book. While I have no doubt you can... having the legalese to accurately instruct the the rules to the person reading it as well as making it flow in a way that makes for pleasurable reading... doing so will drive the word count up. So it begs the question whether that ends up being worthwhile? Especially if it means some parts of the rules get shunted off to another book because they just don't have the space to include it in this one?

 

[Ahnehnois]

At conventions like GenCon ,PaxEast & many local cons, I have run "learn to play D&D", which draws both old gamers & total noobs. The on-going campaigns might be another issue. Both GenCon & PaxEast draw all types of gamer hardcore & noob alike, who want to try the newest D&D edition without either buying the books or have a home group. The on-going campaigns might be another issue. If that is not a good cross section then I am unsure what you would consider one ?

It's a little like looking at the average NFL fan by taking a sample from box seats at a stadium. Or looking at the average doctor by going to a conference at a university. Or looking at the average single young adult by going to a bar. I'm not saying the group at conventions isn't diverse, I'm saying it isn't representative of the gaming population as a whole, because going to a convention is in itself an unusual activity.

I've DMed and played for close to 15 years with dozens of people. I've never been to a convention or seriously considered doing so, despite the fact that there's a significant one not far from me (right around this time of year in fact). No one I know has ever been to a convention, or played in any kind of organized way or with people who weren't met through everyday social activities. Most don't even post on message boards like this one. I'm also a lifelong Star Trek fan who's never been to a convention for that. I don't understand conventions.

The point is not that there is anything wrong with conventions or with convention gaming, but that when you say that people at rpg conventions don't struggle with rpg terminology, I don't take that as being applicable to the population of actual or potential rpg players as a whole, because I believe the vast majority of D&D players will never go to one (just my opinion; I don't know what data there is available), just as most NFL fans watch their games at home, most physicians are in private practice or hospitals and grab their continuing ed at small events, and young singles spend their nights in all kinds of places.

What I would consider a cross section is a general phone survey that asks random people whether they play rpgs.

 

[Ariosto]

I think the 4e designers did a fair job of keeping familiar terms where they used things more or less resembling their old referents. For that matter, consider the retention of the old range of ability scores when the bonus factors are what really get used (and rolling dice to generate them is out of fashion). "Experience points" perform rather a different function (if any at all) than in the original game -- but they are traditional.

For the tons of new Powers, it stands to reason that there should be new names. The style of names might or might not be to the taste of a majority, but from a practical standpoint what I found irksome in the 4e PHB was lack of a list. It's awkward to need to know a taxonomy just to look up something. (I have made up quite a few Power names scattered in posts, and without class/level data, who could be sure offhand which were the fakes?)