D&D 5E D&D Next Q&A: Character Roleplaying Traits, XP as Reward & Inspiration

[DEFCON 1]

Did you read any of the previous discussion to understand what my point was referencing to? Because not much of what you said seemed to have anything to do about why skill challenges and inspiration rules are in the game.

 

[Balesir]

Did you read any of the previous discussion to understand what my point was referencing to? Because not much of what you said seemed to have anything to do about why skill challenges and inspiration rules are in the game.

Yes, and while I initially found your arguments intriguing I think this gets to the nub of why I think they are a mischaracterisation of what is going on (and what you are suggesting).

As [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] says, rules are necessary for pacing, reward and so on. What you are saying seems to amount to "well, these sort of rules (rather simple, naive and un-naturalistic) are OK for beginners, but experienced players will need to develop their own rules that are not written down, are only vaguely understood even by their originator and are subject to their own preferences and beliefs even as they change.

Developing your own rules that are shaped by your own beliefs and preferences does not seem like a bad idea, overall, but having them mutable with time seems a dubious idea and having them incompletely communicated and understood by all the players seems decidedly retrograde, to me. It would be fine for an exercise of imagination confined to oneself, but RPGs are a shared, group activity. The rules need to be shared and commonly understood, before they are anything else, it seems to me.

 

[pemerton]

So, do rules teach? Well, they communicate, and that's a key part of teaching. But it's a key function even after the teaching part is done, too, so I would say that "teaching" is a pretty minor part of their role, all things considered.

I agree with this.

And actually, I don't have much credence in the notion that we would start with more-or-less formal rules like the combat mechanics, the skill challenge mechanics, inspiration mechanics (when they come into being), etc, and then - over time - "graduate" to a rules-less, or rewritten and less formal, version of the rules which will give us a better or truer RPGing experience.

With RPGing, as with any game, change the rules and you significantly (not completely) change the experience. I might change the rules over time if I start with ones that I discover I don't like. But if rules are well-designed and clear - so those who pick them up know what the rules are expected to do, and the rules actually do that - then I wouldn't expect that many users to change their mind over time. Certainly, from WotC's point of view, I want them to be desigining rules that they intend to be stable over time and with use - not rules that they would expect you to throw away once you've come to understand them!

 

[DEFCON 1]

As [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] says, rules are necessary for pacing, reward and so on. What you are saying seems to amount to "well, these sort of rules (rather simple, naive and un-naturalistic) are OK for beginners, but experienced players will need to develop their own rules that are not written down, are only vaguely understood even by their originator and are subject to their own preferences and beliefs even as they change..

I said nothing of the sort. I neither implied that the rules are simple, naive, or unnaturalistic, nor did I imply that experienced players NEED to develop their own rules.

My point was a simple one.

For new players learning how to play D&D... having a set rule set and game mechanics to read and follow is EASIER than just being told "You can do X!" and then letting them sink or swim on their own trying to figure out what that means. Having concise rules and examples to follow will TEACH them not only how to play the game... but also get them up-to-speed faster. They will learn better and stronger roleplaying technique because they have rules and examples to show them how it's all supposed to work.

So telling new players that they should develop well-rounded characters for a better roleplay experience... but not actually show them what that means or how to do it... means these players have to just hope that what they come up with on their own "just works." As opposed to the game saying "To develop a well-rounded character, you might want to have positive aspects to your personality, negative aspects to your personality, connections to other characters, and connections to the plot. To get these... you can follow Rules X, Y, and Z, and here's the mechanics where you can use them while playing."

I am stunned that this is so incomprehensible.

It has NOTHING to do with what the rules are-- whether they are just meant for beginning players, or are actually advanced enough that they are applicable, useful and fun for experienced players too. THAT DOESN'T MATTER. My ONLY point was comparing "Having rules" to "Not having rules" in teaching inexperienced players how to play and get better at the game.

If either of you can't handle that fact that that's what having rules does, then I don't know what to tell you. Don't get bent all out of shape that the rules you think are so awesome also have the added benefit that they're damn useful in teaching players how to play.

 

[Balesir]

I said nothing of the sort. I neither implied that the rules are simple, naive, or unnaturalistic,

Indeed you didn't - I did. I did it in an attempt to show that I understood your motivations in saying what you were saying, as I had gleaned them from your earlier posts (more on that anon), but apparently it was taken as some sort of accusation; it was intended as no such thing.

If you have some other reason for thinking that using different rules from those written in the rulebook is generally a superior option, I will treat it on its merits if you should see fit to divulge it to me. In the meantime I'll just assume that it's some sort of inscrutable secret.

nor did I imply that experienced players NEED to develop their own rules.

No, but that wasn't my point, either. What you did do was make it clear that you thought that experienced players would be and even should be expected to develop their own rules, as shown by the quotes I respond to below.

My point was a simple one.

For new players learning how to play D&D... having a set rule set and game mechanics to read and follow is EASIER than just being told "You can do X!" and then letting them sink or swim on their own trying to figure out what that means. Having concise rules and examples to follow will TEACH them not only how to play the game... but also get them up-to-speed faster. They will learn better and stronger roleplaying technique because they have rules and examples to show them how it's all supposed to work.

Telling participants what they can do without giving any information about what the consequences might be seems to me to be a disfunctional way to run pretty much anything, so this seems like an obvious point. So obvious, in fact, that it applies to everyone, not just beginners. So, "telling people the rules will get them up to speed faster"? Well, yes. Of course it will. But once they have learned those rules, they won't - or at least ought not - just forget them. They will carry on using them. Learning the rules is part of learning the game, not some sort of adjunct.

So telling new players that they should develop well-rounded characters for a better roleplay experience... but not actually show them what that means or how to do it... means these players have to just hope that what they come up with on their own "just works." As opposed to the game saying "To develop a well-rounded character, you might want to have positive aspects to your personality, negative aspects to your personality, connections to other characters, and connections to the plot. To get these... you can follow Rules X, Y, and Z, and here's the mechanics where you can use them while playing."

This seems to fall under a similar head to your earlier assertions about desiring to abandon written rules (see below). Either the game system gives rewards for attaching personality traits and quirks to your character, in which case the rules for that should be stated, or there is some other reason why "they should develop well-rounded characters for a better roleplay experience". I have my own reasons why I think having "well-rounded characters" is desirable, but - once bitten twice shy - all I can say about your reasons is that you haven't told me what they are. So, this paragraph amounts to telling me "there are some reasons why all players ought to develop well-rounded characters, but for newbies having game rules that reward them doing so is an alternative I'm prepared to accept". I can't really respond to that, except to say that without further explanation it sounds like baloney.

It has NOTHING to do with what the rules are-- whether they are just meant for beginning players, or are actually advanced enough that they are applicable, useful and fun for experienced players too. THAT DOESN'T MATTER. My ONLY point was comparing "Having rules" to "Not having rules" in teaching inexperienced players how to play and get better at the game.

Well, as I said above, that sounds like a no-brainer, to me. But, if that was your only point, why did you say earlier:

What were Skill Challenges? They were a way for new DMs to learn how to create and advance a story using skill checks to determine whether or not the party succeeded in what they wanted to do. Experienced DMs already have a pretty good grasp on how to advance their stories through PC interaction, rolling checks as they felt necessary for dramatic tension or whatnot... and thus the formalized game system of "X successes before 3 failures" was seen as unnecessary for probably most of them.

But the Skill Challenge system wasn't designed for them. It was designed for those who needed to learn a framework that they did not yet already instinctually know.

So, these rules are for beginner DMs to learn the ropes? That's not how I use them, and I think it covers only a small part of their usefulness.

But the real question here is this...

Should the game put it in as a default that can be removed... or put it in as a "module" that should be added?

And WotC's take on this I think is the right one: Less experienced or new RPG players will tend to play "by the book" because they won't yet know how or why to change the rules. As they say... you have to learn the rules before you can break them. So by including Inspiration as part of the default advanced game... we're more likely to see the system used by the very people for whom it was designed for. The new or less experienced players.

The experienced RPG player? It's already assumed they are going to take the rules and modify/modularize/redesign them to create the type of game they want to play. So asking them to take Inspiration out if they don't want it... is a much, much easier thing for them to do successfully, than it would be for new players to have to figure out how or why they would ADD said game system into their game.

So, again, the point of learning the rules is so that you can break them. Why? If the rules need changing, surely they need changing for everyone?

They are "beginner-ish" in that they are actual game systems that a person can read, learn from, and use. They instruct you on how to help create a well-rounded character or to create and run a scene that uses skill checks. When the book could just say "you want to create a well-rounded character to play" but doesn't go into what that means or how a player might go about it... actually giving you a format and examples on how to *is* a system for new and inexperienced players to use.

So, again, there is some (secret?) reason why only beginners should feel bound to follow the rules. Others should write their own rules - this is, apparently, somehow superior. Why?

Now are they useful enough that even advanced players can use them and enjoy them? Absolutely, and my third post mentioned that. But advanced players can also rip apart the combat rules if they want and create their entire own from the pieces, they can create well-round three-dimensional characters without any help or aid from the book, and can create or improvise whole storylines without a format of when to ask for checks (if at all). So the combat, skill challenge and inspiration rules are not necessary for advanced players if they don't feel they need them. But they most certainly do work for them if they enjoy them or want to use an established game system.

I would say that it doesn't take too much experience to see whether you find a set of rules enjoyable or not; if you don't then you don't have to play by those rules - that's everyone's prerogative. What I don't understand is the assumption that this is somehow to be expected, or natural. That would only be true if the rules were crap, as far as I can see.

But there's no reason to deny that having a set of rules and game system is meant to help players learn to play the game and eventually play it well.

The only problem here is the "meant to". Try:

"But there's no reason to deny that having a set of rules and game system can help players learn to play the game and eventually play it well."

No argument there at all. You might even take the "can" out, and it would still be unobjectionable. But a set of game rules is "meant" to do a lot more than this. In fact, this is really a pretty minor part of what it does. Learning the rules is fundamental to learning the game not because the rules are some sort of tutorial, but because the rules are fundamental to the game itself. If the rules you know aren't describing how the game works right now, then those aren't really the rules of the game.

 

[Cyberen]

I think what [MENTION=7006]DEFCON 1[/MENTION] is trying to say is pretty clear when one thinks of the earlier editions of the game, where the rules were actually a collection of props and rulings a beginner DM was expected to follow to learn the ropes, then adapt and modify to make the game its own. New rulesets (namely 3.x and 4e) use a fundamental "game engine" supposed to be universal, hence the miscommunication.

 

[DEFCON 1]

So, again, the point of learning the rules is so that you can break them. Why? If the rules need changing, surely they need changing for everyone?

So, again, there is some (secret?) reason why only beginners should feel bound to follow the rules. Others should write their own rules - this is, apparently, somehow superior. Why?

There is no 'should' here. That's the main point. I'm not saying nor believe the game is saying players should do anything in terms of houseruling the game.

But guess what? People DO houserule the game. And you know this. Why do they do it? Beats me. But I'm not going to deny that it happens.

And beginners don't NEED to follow the rules (like it's some kind of requirement)... they do it because it tends to be the best way to learn. And I'm pretty sure you know this too.

I'm not going to argue with you about what all the different facets of what rules are and what they're meant for. Or what "percentage" are tutorial or not tutorial or whatever. I don't care. Wasn't my point. You decided that you didn't like me saying formal rules help teach players to play and went off about it. Which is fine... knock yourself out. Doesn't change my point though.