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

[Helpful NPC Thom]

Highly disagree. publishing a rpg is as easy as offering PDFs and POD copies. Drivethru or Lulu will print it and ship it and collect the money. The creator doesn't have to do anything.

Would you care to post your own RPG?

 

[pemerton]

Thankfully my point that I am trying to make is not dependent on pemerton's relationship to either "canon" or "official."

This is true! But I did intend my account of my own relationship to those things to illustrate a more general point - that I don't think "canon" and "official" are necessary to have a common language to discuss RPGing. As I tried to bring out in my discussion with @Chaosmancer, shared knowledge of published materials tends to do that job.

It's many years since I spent any time there, but a RPG site that I think illustrated this point was the ICE site. There is practically no such thing as "official" Rolemaster, given that historically the publication model is mostly the offering of optional rules modules. And even when it comes to settings, there have been enough reprints and do-overs that "canon" doesn't have that much purchase.

I think the function of "canon" and "official" in D&D culture is more closely connected to notions of identity and authenticity than to possibilities of successful communication.

 

[Chaosmancer]

This is true! But I did intend my account of my own relationship to those things to illustrate a more general point - that I don't think "canon" and "official" are necessary to have a common language to discuss RPGing. As I tried to bring out in my discussion with @Chaosmancer, shared knowledge of published materials tends to do that job.

It's many years since I spent any time there, but a RPG site that I think illustrated this point was the ICE site. There is practically no such thing as "official" Rolemaster, given that historically the publication model is mostly the offering of optional rules modules. And even when it comes to settings, there have been enough reprints and do-overs that "canon" doesn't have that much purchase.

I think the function of "canon" and "official" in D&D culture is more closely connected to notions of identity and authenticity than to possibilities of successful communication.

I agree that the ideas of more closely connected to identity and authenticity. But, unlike Rolemaster, DnD and most RPGs have publication models that are more... static? Most RPGs have a single book of rules, then supplements. DnD has the Core Three. The official material is easily recognizable and generally where most people start learning about the system. And that becomes the basis for the language that then gets used in supplemental materials, be they 3rd party or not.

Edit: To put a bit of a fine point on it. Nothing created for 3.5 makes sense in the context of 4e, without trying to convert it. And even between 3.5 and 5e, there is a lot that doesn't translate well. You generally can't pick up something made for a different edition and just run it as written, because it isn't using the same "language" or expectations.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I agree that the ideas of more closely connected to identity and authenticity. But, unlike Rolemaster, DnD and most RPGs have publication models that are more... static? Most RPGs have a single book of rules, then supplements. DnD has the Core Three. The official material is easily recognizable and generally where most people start learning about the system. And that becomes the basis for the language that then gets used in supplemental materials, be they 3rd party or not.

Edit: To put a bit of a fine point on it. Nothing created for 3.5 makes sense in the context of 4e, without trying to convert it. And even between 3.5 and 5e, there is a lot that doesn't translate well. You generally can't pick up something made for a different edition and just run it as written, because it isn't using the same "language" or expectations.

This is all true, and fair, but I think that there is a fundamental distinction between talking about RPGs (such as we are doing here), and playing RPGs.

It's perfectly possible to play an RPG without having a shared language that requires discussion on a forum. Moreover, I think the entire point of many rules-light systems is to concentrate on playing, instead of those extraneous discussion.

Again, I think too many of these conversations come from a position of one-upmanship; the need to defend (or attack) a mode of play. But it shouldn't be that way! There are advantages to systems that rely on more rules, and advantages to systems that rely on less. I think that many people who play for long periods of time likely experience both, and enjoy both at different times.

Personally, I think it was fascinating that we have an OSR-offshoot (Worlds Not Rules, or FKR) that is looking back not just at rules-lite, but at purely minimalist rulesets. But the beauty of the hobby is that it can, and should, support a multiplicity of play options.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Chaosium was just house ruled DnD with a percentile skill system and is one of the most successful game companies out there. The concept of a roleplaying game took an incredibly talented and created person to discover, but once revealed even 11 year olds get the game and run it.

As someone who was around for RuneQuest's advent, was involved in playtesting it, and ran it for years, the idea that it was just houseruled D&D is ludicrous. About the only thing the games have in common is some overlapping attribute names and a vague scale.

I suspect strongly you're conflating the RQ design with Steve Perrin's (at one time) well known D&D conventions, but they only have the kind of passing relationship you're liable to get with any common designs by the same person.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I think that is one reason why I have heard so often from game designers nowadays that game designers shouldn't just run the game they created, but also play the games and have other people run them as well as other tables and groups. You don't necessarily know how much of an RPG is the system or the designer/GM who is doing the heavy sustain work.

Its one reason I think a lot of problems with published games is inadequate (and to be fair, its difficult and expensive to do this right) playtesting and usually nonexistent blindtesting. Even having people with associated groups running the game is no substitute, as they may have a similar game culture and set of expectations that won't translate to a random purchaser of the game.

 

[Mannahnin]

I suspect strongly you're conflating the RQ design with Steve Perrin's (at one time) well known D&D conventions, but they only have the kind of passing relationship you're liable to get with any common designs by the same person.

My impression was that the Conventions (which WERE D&D house rules) were one of the foundational texts for design of the RQ combat system. Which makes sense.

That being said, of course RQ is a lot more than some combat rules.

 

[Thomas Shey]

My impression was that the Conventions (which WERE D&D house rules) were one of the foundational texts for design of the RQ combat system. Which makes sense.

That being said, of course RQ is a lot more than some combat rules.

I had Steve's Conventions back in the day, and any relationship to at least the final published RQ is, as I said, more a sign that a designer with certain ideas will have those ideas express in multiple designs most likely. But any relationship is--well, let's just say its pretty thin at best. If RQ could be called a set of D&D houserules, you could apply that to a rather large number of games no one would ever confused with D&D.

 

[Chaosmancer]

This is all true, and fair, but I think that there is a fundamental distinction between talking about RPGs (such as we are doing here), and playing RPGs.

It's perfectly possible to play an RPG without having a shared language that requires discussion on a forum. Moreover, I think the entire point of many rules-light systems is to concentrate on playing, instead of those extraneous discussion.

Again, I think too many of these conversations come from a position of one-upmanship; the need to defend (or attack) a mode of play. But it shouldn't be that way! There are advantages to systems that rely on more rules, and advantages to systems that rely on less. I think that many people who play for long periods of time likely experience both, and enjoy both at different times.

Personally, I think it was fascinating that we have an OSR-offshoot (Worlds Not Rules, or FKR) that is looking back not just at rules-lite, but at purely minimalist rulesets. But the beauty of the hobby is that it can, and should, support a multiplicity of play options.

I never said nor implied anything differently. This was about the use of such rules as a language for discussion, it had nothing to do with playing the game itself.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Its one reason I think a lot of problems with published games is inadequate (and to be fair, its difficult and expensive to do this right) playtesting and usually nonexistent blindtesting. Even having people with associated groups running the game is no substitute, as they may have a similar game culture and set of expectations that won't translate to a random purchaser of the game.

To put a more specific point on this, I own a game I have never played (was never able to get a group) called OVA. In reading the rules I saw one or two abilities that could be heavily exploited to make insanely powerful characters. The game had a forum, and I went there to make sure I hadn't misunderstood the abilities.

The designer told me they were aware, but didn't consider a problem because we could just ask players not to exploit the rules for their own gain.

Very different gaming culture compared to what I'm used to here.