D&D General Does WotC use its own DMG rules?

[clearstream]

Well, it doesn't surprise me that would be the case with the modern version of D&D since its rarely seemed to be a priority in the past.

What counts as "coherent rules design" in the context of TTRPG?

 

[Thomas Shey]

What counts as "coherent rules design" in the context of TTRPG?

To be clear, this is my opinion and not non-controversial, its not putting in exceptions to your general rules without good reasons (the controversial part is that some people have what look to me like a ridiculously expansive sense of "good reasons" and have had in the D&D sphere since OD&D. Its not limited to that, but it seems to multiply entities in rules design to not good purpose in most cases).

 

[clearstream]

To be clear, this is my opinion and not non-controversial, its not putting in exceptions to your general rules without good reasons (the controversial part is that some people have what look to me like a ridiculously expansive sense of "good reasons" and have had in the D&D sphere since OD&D. Its not limited to that, but it seems to multiply entities in rules design to not good purpose in most cases).

Occam's Razor in the form of a game design principle! The catch is what you point to: the inevitable subjectivity in what folk will count "necessary"...

I should add that I see D&D as fairly coherent, seeing as it is built around a relatively small number of pillar mechanics. That's a robust approach that enables diversity. I agree it could be tighter/narrower were all the non-systematic narrative fiats found in features and spells culled... yet that would either make play rather sterile, or groups would want to exercise fiats like those anyway, but without the benefit of the playtesting that is usually invested in the pre-packaged versions.

I'm not incidentally saying here that I feel I have any robust definition of "coherent" in the context of TTRPG design to advocate for...

 

[Thomas Shey]

Occam's Razor in the form of a game design principle! The catch is what you point to: the inevitable subjectivity in what folk will count "necessary"...

Yes, but I set the bar high there, and since a lot of what people claim is necessary usually comes down to feels, I don't feel a need to respect all of them.

I should add that I see D&D as fairly coherent, seeing as it is built around a relatively small number of pillar mechanics. That's a robust approach that enables diversity. I agree it could be tighter/narrower were all the non-systematic narrative fiats found in features and spells culled... yet that would either make play rather sterile, or groups would want to exercise fiats like those anyway, but without the benefit of the playtesting that is usually invested in the pre-packaged versions.

There's ways to systemize those things that don't make play "sterile" in my view. The fact some others feel otherwise--well, see my post above.

I won't even make a comment about how 5e specifically does or doesn't do that; I'm not qualified. But I will say that all the versions I am familiar with have leaned in to pointless exceptions in general design, and unnecessary one-off elements from day one, so I have no reason to believe it'd be better here.

 

[clearstream]

Yes, but I set the bar high there, and since a lot of what people claim is necessary usually comes down to feels, I don't feel a need to respect all of them.

One motive for saying they are subjective is the voluntary and playful nature of games. There's no provable standard for what ought to be "necessary". Only considerations such as accessbility, expressiveness, and liability to procure agreement.

There's ways to systemize those things that don't make play "sterile" in my view. The fact some others feel otherwise--well, see my post above.

I won't even make a comment about how 5e specifically does or doesn't do that; I'm not qualified. But I will say that all the versions I am familiar with have leaned in to pointless exceptions in general design, and unnecessary one-off elements from day one, so I have no reason to believe it'd be better here.

Reading this, one thought I have is to refer to games like Baldur's Gate 3. If I understand your comments on designing from effects rather than exceptions, 5e spells that appear in Baldur's Gate 3 perforce fit "effects design." An aspect of spells that compels us to play 5e as a TTRPG are what I described as "non-systematic narrative fiats" which was a fancy way of saying that they endorse us to add to the conversation based on what we imagine.

The worry I characterised as "sterile" is about a game text that leaves no room for imagination: everything is spelled out. "Sterile" overstates my worry and makes it sound pejorative; presupposing the imagination to be what distinctly separates TTRPG from other games then it seems to me that we're bound to exceptions... "make it up" endorses a limitless number of them.

 

[Thomas Shey]

One motive for saying they are subjective is the voluntary and playful nature of games. There's no provable standard for what ought to be "necessary". Only considerations such as accessbility, expressiveness, and liability to procure agreement.

While the standard may not be provable, I think there's a penumbra of what can be reasonable purposes, and if someone is going to claim an exception is necessary, they ought to be able to explain why. If they can't, I'm back to saying I don't feel a need to respect that.

Reading this, one thought I have is to refer to games like Baldur's Gate 3. If I understand your comments on designing from effects rather than exceptions, 5e spells that appear in Baldur's Gate 3 perforce fit "effects design." An aspect of spells that compels us to play 5e as a TTRPG are what I described as "non-systematic narrative fiats" which was a fancy way of saying that they endorse us to add to the conversation based on what we imagine.

The worry I characterised as "sterile" is about a game text that leaves no room for imagination: everything is spelled out. "Sterile" overstates my worry and makes it sound pejorative; presupposing the imagination to be what distinctly separates TTRPG from other games then it seems to me that we're bound to exceptions... "make it up" endorses a limitless number of them.

The problem is that, again, I think this conflates "what can be done" with "what criteria is used to define how that's expressed." I don't actually find it at all credible that the later has to be infinite to do a credible job of the former.

 

[clearstream]

The problem is that, again, I think this conflates "what can be done" with "what criteria is used to define how that's expressed."

I like your point here, because to my reading it rightly calls attention to the semiotics of play. Components are symbolic, and those symbols form an expressive 'language' of play. This is another way in which ludonarrative differs from traditional narrative forms, which is that its core texts frequently define additional vocabulary... the language in which the story will be told (and thus, what sorts of stories can be told.)

 

[Thomas Shey]

I like your point here, because to my reading it rightly calls attention to the semiotics of play. Components are symbolic, and those symbols form an expressive 'language' of play. This is another way in which ludonarrative differs from traditional narrative forms, which is that its core texts frequently define additional vocabulary... the language in which the story will be told (and thus, what sorts of stories can be told.)

I'll give an example of what I'm talking about. I've previously avoided doing this in this thread because I really try to avoid the "if you just played a real game" narrative that sometimes comes up. To make it clear, its not the game system I have used for Fantasy most frequently in my gaming life (most of the ones I have have been the hybrids I reference earlier).

The Hero System is based on constructing a set of standard components that are used to represent various things. There are a bunch of tools for making exceptions to those basic components, but those tools themselves are standardized. While they can be sometimes put together in different ways to get the result you want, the result is not a black box that was pulled out of nowhere; where the components come from are visible in the book(s) involved.

Now, not everyone is going to be a fan of this approach on various grounds. The one I see most commonly (and have the least tolerance for) is that it makes "everything look samey". In terms of individuals' saying that, that may be true (but I cynically wonder if they hit those constructs without the machinery visible if they'd feel the same), but its again, giving a free pass to feels when the feels are clearly not universal (or Fantasy Hero wouldn't have existed for decades, even if the player base for it is a drop in the bucket compared to D&D (but then, that describes most games)). But you're never in a situation of "okay, we're going straight to whatever idiosyncratic mechanic for this spell/talent that you've never seen before or once in a blue moon". And on the whole, that's what D&D has done throughout most of its history.