Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Does RAW have a place in 5e?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6394143" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>For me, this is a huge ask. There are other RPGs that don't impose this level of detailed technical management on the GM, and I don't see it as a virtue of D&D that it does so (if it does).</p><p></p><p></p><p>I don't agree with Dausuul's characterisation of 4e - I think it leaves a lot to GM judgement - but otherwise I strongly agree with these posts.</p><p></p><p>A related issue that I have noticed in the 5e rules that I have read is a tendency to mix rules with a wargame-style precision (eg under these circumstances, you get +X AC, or you get advantage on attacks) with natural-language descriptors, which to me at least sends mixed messages: the conditional modifiers are important enough to specify to very high levels of precision, but not so important that we need precision on when they apply.</p><p></p><p>Part of the issue here is that every spell in D&D (except 4e) is its own little package of action resolution, combining natural language descriptors with wargame-style mathematical mechanics. And the designers, certainly compared to some other RPGs, give very minimal meta-commentary on what some of these spells are for. So is Contagion meant to be a "strategic"-level curse, or is it meant to be a tactical bombshell? It is almost inconceivable that the designers didn't have one or the other of these options in mind, but they tend to be somewhat coy about it.</p><p></p><p>I don't think this is a place where saying "it is up to the GM" is the appropriate response. They decided that spell X uses d6 and spell Y uses d8 for a reason; they didn't just tell the GM to choose between d4s and d12s as the mood takes him/her. If Contagion is then meant to operate in the same mechanical space as those other spells, it makes no sense not to give similarly detailed advice on how it works.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I like these posts, although I think that what Sadrik says is not true for all versions of D&D - for instance, classic D&D didn't have many moving parts at all for non-combat, non-social resolution.</p><p></p><p>When talking about rules-as-written, GM interpretation etc I think it is helpful to be clear, and realistic, about how the game plays, or at least how the designers envisage it playing. If they put in lots of little crunchy bits, presumably they expect those to be used. But what does <em>using</em> them consist in?</p><p></p><p>D&D has always had at least moderately intricate PC build rules (including the equipment rules as part of the PC build rules), and players are expected to make choices in relation to these rules. So there is, I think, an implicit expectation that it matters if a player spends money for better armour for his/her PC, or chooses a longer or shorter weapon (in versions of the game with weapon length), or chooses a weapon with a higher or lower damage die (in versions of the game with variable weapon damage). A GM who just ignores those rules is undermining those aspects of the game. Everything else being equal , this is probably not the best way to play D&D. (There are other RPGs out there which don't have equipment rules, or don't place so much emphasis on other aspects of PC build like spell load-out.)</p><p></p><p>Where I think the game has changed over the years is in respect of action resolution. Action resolution, both inside combat and even moreso outside of combat, is a much bigger part of the game now than it was 40 years ago. More of a player's build resources are devoted to action resolution than used to be the case. (And, conversely, exploration is less a part of the game than it once was.) GMs are expected to provide consistent adjudication on player action declarations as a key function of the game. A good DMG will give GMs advice on how this can be done, what the different approaches are. For instance, here are 3 possibilities: the GM describes the fictional situation first, then imposes appropriate DCs (this is probably the 1st ed AD&D default); the GM decides what would make a good DC, and then describes the fictional situation in an appropriate way (this is probably the 4e default); the GM describes he fictional situation first and then adjudicates the d20 roll based on what is "good for the story" without worrying about any correspondence between the DC and the fiction (at least in my experience this was often the 2nd ed AD&D default).</p><p></p><p>How rules are handled varies across these (and other) approaches. Rather than insisting in the abstract on "RAW" or "rules as interpreted/applied", I think it is more helpful for the game advice to call out the different approaches, talk about some of their pros and cons, and what sorts of impact on play and player attitudes they might have. For instance, a GM who adopts the third approach above might be better suited to players who build their PCs to "express a story" about the character, rather than players who build their PCs to generate resources that they can then deploy to increase their chances of success in action resolution.</p><p></p><p></p><p>For a lot of players, D&D is obviously adversarial - just look at the current "death and consequences" thread, for instance. For a significant number of D&Ders (I can't say whether or not they are a majority, but they're clearly not a tiny minority), one of the most important jobs of the players is to deploy the resources they obtain from build plus "clever play" to overcome the challenges (often but not always NPCs and monsters) which the GM has thought up and is playing as the PCs' opponents.</p><p></p><p>In that sort of play, eking out every scrap of advantage is completely rational. If you read old play reports (say in Dragon magazine), it seems to me that this was exactly how Gygax and other earlier players approached the game. That's why, in Gygaxian D&D and AD&D, regulating what equipment and spells the players gained access to was such an important part of the GM's job (because these build elements were the main resources for players).</p><p></p><p>The complication for more modern versions of the game is that build elements have become more complex, and less obviously subject to GM control because no longer acquired primarily through PC actions in the fiction but rather as part of generic PC build rules (eg feats, skills, class features), but the game still gives no reason for many players not to try and eke out every bonus.</p><p></p><p>Hopefully the DMG will have a good discussion of this issue too, and the range of options. For instance, if the players throttle back will the GM compensate by fudging? This is one well-known approach, though obviously not one that appeals to everyone. Or will the GM play the opposition at full bore, letting the dice fall where they may, but use "fail-forward" techniques to reassure the players that more relaxed or even sub-optimal choices on their part don't have to be game-ending? In my view, a good book of GMing advice will cover these and other possible approaches, changing the focus from "RAW vs RAI" to "What do we want to get out of this game, and by way of what techniques, and what does that mean for our approach to the rules?"</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 6394143, member: 42582"] For me, this is a huge ask. There are other RPGs that don't impose this level of detailed technical management on the GM, and I don't see it as a virtue of D&D that it does so (if it does). I don't agree with Dausuul's characterisation of 4e - I think it leaves a lot to GM judgement - but otherwise I strongly agree with these posts. A related issue that I have noticed in the 5e rules that I have read is a tendency to mix rules with a wargame-style precision (eg under these circumstances, you get +X AC, or you get advantage on attacks) with natural-language descriptors, which to me at least sends mixed messages: the conditional modifiers are important enough to specify to very high levels of precision, but not so important that we need precision on when they apply. Part of the issue here is that every spell in D&D (except 4e) is its own little package of action resolution, combining natural language descriptors with wargame-style mathematical mechanics. And the designers, certainly compared to some other RPGs, give very minimal meta-commentary on what some of these spells are for. So is Contagion meant to be a "strategic"-level curse, or is it meant to be a tactical bombshell? It is almost inconceivable that the designers didn't have one or the other of these options in mind, but they tend to be somewhat coy about it. I don't think this is a place where saying "it is up to the GM" is the appropriate response. They decided that spell X uses d6 and spell Y uses d8 for a reason; they didn't just tell the GM to choose between d4s and d12s as the mood takes him/her. If Contagion is then meant to operate in the same mechanical space as those other spells, it makes no sense not to give similarly detailed advice on how it works. I like these posts, although I think that what Sadrik says is not true for all versions of D&D - for instance, classic D&D didn't have many moving parts at all for non-combat, non-social resolution. When talking about rules-as-written, GM interpretation etc I think it is helpful to be clear, and realistic, about how the game plays, or at least how the designers envisage it playing. If they put in lots of little crunchy bits, presumably they expect those to be used. But what does [I]using[/I] them consist in? D&D has always had at least moderately intricate PC build rules (including the equipment rules as part of the PC build rules), and players are expected to make choices in relation to these rules. So there is, I think, an implicit expectation that it matters if a player spends money for better armour for his/her PC, or chooses a longer or shorter weapon (in versions of the game with weapon length), or chooses a weapon with a higher or lower damage die (in versions of the game with variable weapon damage). A GM who just ignores those rules is undermining those aspects of the game. Everything else being equal , this is probably not the best way to play D&D. (There are other RPGs out there which don't have equipment rules, or don't place so much emphasis on other aspects of PC build like spell load-out.) Where I think the game has changed over the years is in respect of action resolution. Action resolution, both inside combat and even moreso outside of combat, is a much bigger part of the game now than it was 40 years ago. More of a player's build resources are devoted to action resolution than used to be the case. (And, conversely, exploration is less a part of the game than it once was.) GMs are expected to provide consistent adjudication on player action declarations as a key function of the game. A good DMG will give GMs advice on how this can be done, what the different approaches are. For instance, here are 3 possibilities: the GM describes the fictional situation first, then imposes appropriate DCs (this is probably the 1st ed AD&D default); the GM decides what would make a good DC, and then describes the fictional situation in an appropriate way (this is probably the 4e default); the GM describes he fictional situation first and then adjudicates the d20 roll based on what is "good for the story" without worrying about any correspondence between the DC and the fiction (at least in my experience this was often the 2nd ed AD&D default). How rules are handled varies across these (and other) approaches. Rather than insisting in the abstract on "RAW" or "rules as interpreted/applied", I think it is more helpful for the game advice to call out the different approaches, talk about some of their pros and cons, and what sorts of impact on play and player attitudes they might have. For instance, a GM who adopts the third approach above might be better suited to players who build their PCs to "express a story" about the character, rather than players who build their PCs to generate resources that they can then deploy to increase their chances of success in action resolution. For a lot of players, D&D is obviously adversarial - just look at the current "death and consequences" thread, for instance. For a significant number of D&Ders (I can't say whether or not they are a majority, but they're clearly not a tiny minority), one of the most important jobs of the players is to deploy the resources they obtain from build plus "clever play" to overcome the challenges (often but not always NPCs and monsters) which the GM has thought up and is playing as the PCs' opponents. In that sort of play, eking out every scrap of advantage is completely rational. If you read old play reports (say in Dragon magazine), it seems to me that this was exactly how Gygax and other earlier players approached the game. That's why, in Gygaxian D&D and AD&D, regulating what equipment and spells the players gained access to was such an important part of the GM's job (because these build elements were the main resources for players). The complication for more modern versions of the game is that build elements have become more complex, and less obviously subject to GM control because no longer acquired primarily through PC actions in the fiction but rather as part of generic PC build rules (eg feats, skills, class features), but the game still gives no reason for many players not to try and eke out every bonus. Hopefully the DMG will have a good discussion of this issue too, and the range of options. For instance, if the players throttle back will the GM compensate by fudging? This is one well-known approach, though obviously not one that appeals to everyone. Or will the GM play the opposition at full bore, letting the dice fall where they may, but use "fail-forward" techniques to reassure the players that more relaxed or even sub-optimal choices on their part don't have to be game-ending? In my view, a good book of GMing advice will cover these and other possible approaches, changing the focus from "RAW vs RAI" to "What do we want to get out of this game, and by way of what techniques, and what does that mean for our approach to the rules?" [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Does RAW have a place in 5e?
Top