D&D General D&D's Evolution: Rulings, Rules, and "System Matters"

[The-Magic-Sword]

The Cthulhu Dark pdf is available here:

http://catchyourhare.com/files/Cthulhu%20Dark.pdf

You might find it interesting.

*I should note that this is the lite and free version of the full game.

Ill check it out when i get the chance, thank you.

 

[hawkeyefan]

In addition, giving the referee active goals that depart from neutrality (or placing rules upon the referee that force decision making in certain directions) is certainly an interesting distinction.

So the idea of a neutral GM comes up a lot, and it’s one that always sticks out to me. I’ve very rarely felt it was all that necessary nor all that common.

When you use the term here, in what context do you mean? Neutral to what?

I ask because in kriegspiel games, there were opposing participants, so a neutral ref makes sense. But carrying over that idea to RPGs seems…less direct? Less one for one or like for like? Not sure what word I’m looking for here, but I hope I’m being clear.

 

[Chaosmancer]

The OP:

This isn't meant as a slam on any particular approach, or even advocacy for any approach. But I am putting out the topic in case people find it interesting!

Two posts above this one:

….so, you do understand that discussion of something isn’t the same as advocacy, right?

How about in my reply to you earlier:

I think that if you drop your preconceptions about a desired outcome of this discussion- in other words, if you assume it is a discussion and not a debate...

So I will make this abundantly clear; there are three things that really annoy me:
1. People who continue to argue with me when I've repeatedly tried to tell them to stop.
2. People who cannot seem to understand that discussing something isn't advocacy for that thing.
3. Bards.

Since you refuse to get the hint, I will make this very clear: the only thing keeping you from the trifecta right now is a lyre.

Is that clear enough for you?

I understand your intention isn't advocacy. However, also from the OP

So a question might obviously arise- if it was all so simple, if it was all just some FK "rulings not rules" with a neutral referee, why do we see the explosion of rules? Why do we see Gygax, at the beginning of 1e, insist that the standardized rules are to be followed? I am sure others might have their own reasons and speculations, but I would put it simply- money. There is very little commercial return in telling people, "Make up stuff. Then a referee will tell you if it's okay. Maybe roll some dice." On the other hand ... selling rules? And more rules? There ... there you get into the serious money.


You can say you aren't advocating for one style over the other, but if you see no benefit in rules and see the existence of increasing rules as only being because the game designers wish to make a profit, then you are making a very strong statement against a game run by rules. If you truly believe that the reason rules have increased beyond "Make up stuff. Then a referee will tell you if it's okay. Maybe roll some dice." is only because of profit, then you are saying that people who use a different approach are being mislead about the value they see in rules.

Which is why I am trying to act as a bit of an advocate for a level of rules. There is a value in them, but you have not engaged in discussing the other side and the value of rules at all. Or if you have, I have completely missed it, and I apologize for missing you addressing both sides of the discussion. But you can't only discuss the value of a ruleless system, because such a system also has downsides, and those downsides are addressed by a system with robust rules. I think the best way forward is a balanced approach. And I'm going to push back against the idea that rules are negative to the game experience.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

So the idea of a neutral GM comes up a lot, and it’s one that always sticks out to me. I’ve very rarely felt it was all that necessary nor all that common.

When you use the term here, in what context do you mean? Neutral to what?

I ask because in kriegspiel games, there were opposing participants, so a neutral ref makes sense. But carrying over that idea to RPGs seems…less direct? Less one for one or like for like? Not sure what word I’m looking for here, but I hope I’m being clear.

Neutral between the entities that they're emulating (the world, the monsters, whatever) and the entities they aren't emulating (the players and their characters) in other words, the GM is playing the orcs, but isn't cheating in their favor, and in theory they may kind of want the players to win, they aren't cheating in the player's favor either, so the simulation is unbiased by a desired outcome, but instead plays to its logical conclusions based off the actions of both entities.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I don't think silliness has anything to do with it. Prince Valiant is relatively light-hearted but not in any sense a silly game - but in the context of typical dice pools from 4 to 10+ dice, morale bonuses can add +1 or +2 dice.

Burning Wheel is (by default) neither light-hearted nor silly, but when I play my knight of a holy order I'm more likely to encounter a member of my family than a random stranger, because I have a +1D affiliation with my family which is a direct bonus die to my Circles checks (which by default are on 3 dice).

The way, as a player, I know what is possible is by having a good knowledge of how obstacles are set and how my dice pool is built.

Maybe silly isn't the right word, but I've encountered a few fictional worlds built on the idea that tropes are physical laws, and I find them more whimisical and fun than anything else. To me, that is them being a bit silly (not that that is bad) compared to more serious worlds.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

So the idea of a neutral GM comes up a lot, and it’s one that always sticks out to me. I’ve very rarely felt it was all that necessary nor all that common.

When you use the term here, in what context do you mean? Neutral to what?

I ask because in kriegspiel games, there were opposing participants, so a neutral ref makes sense. But carrying over that idea to RPGs seems…less direct? Less one for one or like for like? Not sure what word I’m looking for here, but I hope I’m being clear.

So the idea of a neutral referee (GM, DM, whatever) when it comes to TTRPGs, and more specifically to FKR, is a little nuanced.

I think that @The-Magic-Sword captured an important part of the essence with the following statement:
Neutral between the entities that they're emulating (the world, the monsters, whatever) and the entities they aren't emulating (the players and their characters)...

That said, imagine you have two referees, both running narrative heavy games-
A is a neutral referee.
B is a "fan of the players" referee.

In both cases, I think that there will likely be certain choices made that help advance the narrative; but in the case of A, there will be no "thumb on the scale" for the players- the referee will attempt to say yes with actions that are consistent with the fiction, negotiate risk and uncertainty, and say no to those actions inconsistent to the fiction. This is a different position (IMO) than B, who would be looking to not just advance narratives, but to do so in ways that likely feature the players in certain aspects.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I understand your intention isn't advocacy. However, also from the OP

So a question might obviously arise- if it was all so simple, if it was all just some FK "rulings not rules" with a neutral referee, why do we see the explosion of rules? Why do we see Gygax, at the beginning of 1e, insist that the standardized rules are to be followed? I am sure others might have their own reasons and speculations, but I would put it simply- money. There is very little commercial return in telling people, "Make up stuff. Then a referee will tell you if it's okay. Maybe roll some dice." On the other hand ... selling rules? And more rules? There ... there you get into the serious money.

That is a specific reference to Gygax's evolution of thought from OD&D (when he was adamant that rules were malleable, and to be discarded at will) to his statements regarding 1e. There is a well-documented shift (which Rob Kuntz brought up recently) with his statements.

Not a general statement. A specific about Gygax and D&D.

To the extent that you understood that differently, it isn't meant that way.

Finally, you seem very invested in rules. Good for you! There is nothing wrong with that. If rules didn't have value, we wouldn't have them. The only thing worse than too few rules, is too many rules. Or vice versa? One of those!

The trouble is understanding what "too many" and "too few" are- which are stubborn values that are notoriously resistant to a universal solution.

 

[MarkB]

So the idea of a neutral GM comes up a lot, and it’s one that always sticks out to me. I’ve very rarely felt it was all that necessary nor all that common.

When you use the term here, in what context do you mean? Neutral to what?

I ask because in kriegspiel games, there were opposing participants, so a neutral ref makes sense. But carrying over that idea to RPGs seems…less direct? Less one for one or like for like? Not sure what word I’m looking for here, but I hope I’m being clear.

There's still an element of neutrality between players even if they're on the same side, because in these games the DM is practically the only interface between them and the narrative, moreso than in rules-heavy games. A DM who favours one player, even unconsciously, may tend to adjudicate their actions as being effective and successful more often than those of other players.

It may not even be a matter of favour - the DM may simply know that player better, be more in-tune with them, and so grasp the ideas they're describing more readily.

When a player sees their proposed actions fail or go awry, when a similar set of actions described by another player worked out seamlessly, that's not going to feel very neutral.

That is a specific reference to Gygax's evolution of thought from OD&D (when he was adamant that rules were malleable, and to be discarded at will) to his statements regarding 1e. There is a well-documented shift (which Rob Kuntz brought up recently) with his statements.

Not a general statement. A specific about Gygax and D&D.

To the extent that you understood that differently, it isn't meant that way.

Finally, you seem very invested in rules. Good for you! There is nothing wrong with that. If rules didn't have value, we wouldn't have them. The only thing worse than too few rules, is too many rules. Or vice versa? One of those!

The trouble is understanding what "too many" and "too few" are- which are stubborn values that are notoriously resistant to a universal solution.

It's not just "too many" or "too few", it's whether the ones that are there are doing a good job of supporting the game you want to play. If a particular ruleset is hampering you, the solution isn't necessarily "fewer rules" - it may simply be "different rules".

 

[pemerton]

Maybe silly isn't the right word, but I've encountered a few fictional worlds built on the idea that tropes are physical laws, and I find them more whimisical and fun than anything else. To me, that is them being a bit silly (not that that is bad) compared to more serious worlds.

Sure, those would be silly worlds. But RPGs like Prince Valiant or HeroQuest revised that have player-side morale/emotion bonuses are not concerned with those sorts of worlds.

 

[Chaosmancer]

A COC-genre Freeform? If you mean, like a freeform RP based on the same milieu as Call of Cthulu, my experience would expect that to simply be the player pacing a portrayal of their character falling into insanity, with the other players prodding them if they don't seem to be effected by things they should be. Introducing a mechanic to decide when could be a good addition (and I think, that's when you're starting into get into something like Fizzy Bubbles, which is such a delightful case because it demonstrates a completely different lineage for what is essentially the convergent evolution of a TTRPG style system, unless people had way more TTRPG experience than they let on) but it would have been unusual back in the day. But to be clear, I'm talking of forum play-by-post fandom roleplaying, which is likely a bit different than what you're thinking of.

Interestingly though, this style of game matches the origin story for 'OC' or 'Neotrad' from the six cultures of play blog we've been talking about so much, so to my mind, understanding where the narrative drive comes from, and what mechanics are for from that line of thinking is actually a super interesting demonstration of how it really is its own animal and we're seeing that mentality play out in terms of the new players of 5e and their expectations for how the game should work. In my eyes, modular systems are the way to go, where the players of the game ARE playing freeform in the abstract, but are pulling in things that are useful to the kind of game they're playing as necessary, kinda like your COC mechanic lycnhpinning an otherwise freeform game.

To understand what I mean, the way we played 4e, was actually very roleplay heavy, because we (I, from my forum roleplaying days, and I could teach others) only needed the system for its combat simulator for the extensive combat scenes from the media we wanted to emulate and the tactical experience of that, simple action resolution to handle uncertainty if it comes up, and freeformed the narrative drama between encounters, giving our characters applications of powers the game system implied they have from what they took, but doesn't actually give us-- e.g. my swordmage could teleport every round of combat, but it required a marked target to attack someone other than me to do in am echanical context... but it made sense that in the fiction, my character could do a short range teleport every six seconds, and that made its way into my casual roleplaying, and into my animations for other powers, and so forth.

I think your point about modular systems is fairly spot on. I've often found myself looking for a rule system outside of the traditional rules, to take pieces from an adapt to the purposes I need to help support and scaffold the game we want to play.

In theory, we don't need the rule sets to do what we want anyways, but they can allow for deeper interactions and more nuanced decision making and play than just making things up on the fly.