D&D General FKR: How Fewer Rules Can Make D&D Better
- Thread starter Snarf Zagyg
- Start date
DarkCrisis
Spreading holiday cheer.
I love how people thnk 5E is somehow less complicated. It's still complicated just in a different fashion.
Reading AD&D 1E once I looked past all the chaff was such a simple system (yeah yeah charts for attacks). Need a skill check? Would you race/class know that? If so make a check against the most relatable stat. EASY!
There are so many OSR's out there that just make it "easier".
Yeah you won't have subclasses. And 400 species to play as. And all that crunch you DONT NEED.
Heck, the old Rules Cyclopedia is so EASY and it's still D&D.
And now, Shadowdark. 5th ed with a splash of old school and all the fat trimmed off. Perfection.
Reading AD&D 1E once I looked past all the chaff was such a simple system (yeah yeah charts for attacks). Need a skill check? Would you race/class know that? If so make a check against the most relatable stat. EASY!
There are so many OSR's out there that just make it "easier".
Yeah you won't have subclasses. And 400 species to play as. And all that crunch you DONT NEED.
Heck, the old Rules Cyclopedia is so EASY and it's still D&D.
And now, Shadowdark. 5th ed with a splash of old school and all the fat trimmed off. Perfection.
fluffybunbunkittens
Hero
I think that rules should make the GM's life easier, because when they have proper rules support, they don't have to decide absolutely everything themselves.
(this can be as simple as random tables to inspire them, to PbtA games that evoke/force a certain mood/genre through their limited selection of player moves - a vampire game with five different ways to socialize is a different game from one where Dominate is the only social move is different from one where your only moves are Trenchcoat and Katana)
So, while I do think that DnD should be a lot more like many OSR games (not the ones who just copy-paste everything from the 70s and call it a day)... I hate freeform stuff and it doesn't help DnD. It just keeps the responsibility of handling everything on the GM, who has plenty to do without the extra hassle of wondering just how seductive their player is being.
(this can be as simple as random tables to inspire them, to PbtA games that evoke/force a certain mood/genre through their limited selection of player moves - a vampire game with five different ways to socialize is a different game from one where Dominate is the only social move is different from one where your only moves are Trenchcoat and Katana)
So, while I do think that DnD should be a lot more like many OSR games (not the ones who just copy-paste everything from the 70s and call it a day)... I hate freeform stuff and it doesn't help DnD. It just keeps the responsibility of handling everything on the GM, who has plenty to do without the extra hassle of wondering just how seductive their player is being.
Last edited:
payn
I don't believe in the no-win scenario
I've never really liked the hybrid nature in D&D myself. Often, the folks that care about a consistent rule set seem to be ok that it hits the combat pillar, and less so the exploration one. It's nearly non-existent in social pillar, which they also seem ok with. The more you mess with this formula, the more it seems to bother some folks. Also, I know folks in more narrative FKR inspired games fandom that get put off by attempts to add more rules consistency to those games.5e makes lots of things in running the game very optional. A DM can easily keep rules mostly for combat and resolve all other stuff free form.
Under the rules of 5e a DM may call for a skill roll. Or not.
DMG page 236:
Dice are neutral arbiters. They can determine the outcome of an action without assigning any motivation to the DM and without playing favorites. The extent to which you use them is entirely up to you.
. . .
Some DMs rely on die rolls for almost everything. When a character attempts a task, the DM calls for a check a picks a DC.
. . .
One approach is to use dice as rarely as possible. Some DMs use them only during combat, and determine success or failure as they like in other situations.
So, I guess its about finding the right balance, and I don't think adding more to D&D will do it for me. Some folks love this kind of thing, others lean in one particular direction. We all know how changing D&D goes online as well
Mod Note:
Sometimes, you might think you’re correct in thinking something, but the community will judge you wrong for saying it, or how you said it. This is one of those times.
In the interests of civility, perhaps less confrontational rhetoric is needed. Or even holding one’s tongue.
I've played some minimal rule RPGs but for me they only really work as one shots or short term popcorn light games. It's fun for those, but I like long term campaigns.
I think D&D 5E hits a decent balance for me. Not as cumbersome rules for everything like 3.5 or PF and definitely more coherent than chainmail rules (Playing a Hobbit? Cool, you're a thief!)
I understand minimal rules work better in some cases but I find that not being too worried about rule details during the game works too. Or at least that's my excuse.
I think D&D 5E hits a decent balance for me. Not as cumbersome rules for everything like 3.5 or PF and definitely more coherent than chainmail rules (Playing a Hobbit? Cool, you're a thief!)
I understand minimal rules work better in some cases but I find that not being too worried about rule details during the game works too. Or at least that's my excuse.
Aldarc
Legend
I'll admit that I am somewhat underwhelmed by this essay. Despite the essay's title and so much written here, there is so little written that actually or effectively argues how either FKR or fewer rules can make D&D better. It reads like there should be an additional section (if not two) between Section (3) and the Conclusion (4) that actually talks about applying FKR to D&D or ways to make D&D a lighter game in practical ways. But as is, it feels like there's a weird disconnected jump from talking about FKR to the conclusion.
EzekielRaiden
Follower of the Way
I will say, it's nice to hear a description of FKR that doesn't come across as "everyone can like what they like (but our way is just better.)" This is, I think, the first time I've heard anyone give an example of something FKR doesn't do well, which is useful.
More important for me personally, however, was this:
And it's worth noting, despite being a big fan of PbtA, I had feelings much like this--it didn't scratch my itch for "gaminess"-feeling. As I once described to a friend, while the first true game of Dungeon World I ever played was one of my favorite campaigns, combats became mechanically uninteresting very quickly, to the point that I explicitly said "I could write a flowchart that would be able to handle pretty much any combat, ever." Thematically, they were almost always super important and impactful! Mechanically they were very simplistic. I wasn't bored with the story. I was bored with the gameplay. And some of the other players even picked up on that. So--yes, I completely agree that that is one of the reasons I tend to be skeptical of FKR claims, since it's pretty obvious that they would be even less supportive of "gaminess"-feeling than the rock-bottom amount PbtA supports.
But there's another bit, from one of your cited references, that bears discussion:
What the above says is, "Because a rule exists, that rule is the only way to achieve <whatever the rule does.>" And to me, that's a patently foolish way to play...well, anything, apart from board games. Doesn't matter what RPG you're playing. All the existence of a rule tells you is, "this is one established way to do <whatever the rule does.>" You cannot reason from the presence of a rule to the idea that that excludes other ways of doing something. You can't even reason from the absence of a rule to say that something can't be done. The one, and only, thing reason entitles you to conclude is that there is at least one way to do that particular thing.
Because guess what? I would, 110%, support my players trying to rehabilitate an abused panther mount and cobble together armor for it from the bashed-up remnants of their fallen foes' armor. I literally couldn't care less whether there is a rule already established for that sort of thing. Now, if said rule exists, perhaps that's the easy way to do it, and the party will have to be a bit more clever or patient first, or expend other resources, or take risks that that rule wouldn't require. That's how you respect the rules that exist, while not doing the draconian (and trivially stupid...) "because you didn't train in Animal Handling, the cool thing you want to do is impossible."
Good rules provide you with good established ways to do a lot of things people are already going to want to do, and in a way that will be reliably both entertaining and challenging. They don't rob you of your creativity and agency like some kind of bureaucratic self-appointed hall monitor tattling to the teacher. They support you, for doing many, many things that are commonly done. And they give you good baselines for applying your own judgment, in all the uncommon things that are, collectively, quite frequent.
Another bit I find particularly telling (emphasis in original):
The above quote, by comparison, sounds...almost exactly like how I run DW, and how all three of my much-loved 4e DMs ran 4e D&D, and how both of the 13th Age DMs I've had ran 13A, and how I would run 4e if I was running it today.
More important for me personally, however, was this:
Which seems, to me, to indicate that FKR...isn't really trying to be a game anymore. It's trying to be something else--something very like a game, something with a lot in common with what "game" means, but not actually a game. Otherwise, it would have that almost-ineffable " 'gaminess' feeling," as you put it. Or, as I would put it, FKR actively, and almost completely, excludes Score & Achievement as a game-(design-)purpose, choosing to focus almost exclusively on Groundedness & Simulation, with just the lightest, faintest dusting of Conceit & Emulation to secure the appropriate setting context (hence references to things like Asimov's Foundation and Empire.)
And it's worth noting, despite being a big fan of PbtA, I had feelings much like this--it didn't scratch my itch for "gaminess"-feeling. As I once described to a friend, while the first true game of Dungeon World I ever played was one of my favorite campaigns, combats became mechanically uninteresting very quickly, to the point that I explicitly said "I could write a flowchart that would be able to handle pretty much any combat, ever." Thematically, they were almost always super important and impactful! Mechanically they were very simplistic. I wasn't bored with the story. I was bored with the gameplay. And some of the other players even picked up on that. So--yes, I completely agree that that is one of the reasons I tend to be skeptical of FKR claims, since it's pretty obvious that they would be even less supportive of "gaminess"-feeling than the rock-bottom amount PbtA supports.
But there's another bit, from one of your cited references, that bears discussion:
See, this fundamentally conflicts with how I understand the rules of literally any game--any TTRPG I've ever played, or even merely read.
What the above says is, "Because a rule exists, that rule is the only way to achieve <whatever the rule does.>" And to me, that's a patently foolish way to play...well, anything, apart from board games. Doesn't matter what RPG you're playing. All the existence of a rule tells you is, "this is one established way to do <whatever the rule does.>" You cannot reason from the presence of a rule to the idea that that excludes other ways of doing something. You can't even reason from the absence of a rule to say that something can't be done. The one, and only, thing reason entitles you to conclude is that there is at least one way to do that particular thing.
Because guess what? I would, 110%, support my players trying to rehabilitate an abused panther mount and cobble together armor for it from the bashed-up remnants of their fallen foes' armor. I literally couldn't care less whether there is a rule already established for that sort of thing. Now, if said rule exists, perhaps that's the easy way to do it, and the party will have to be a bit more clever or patient first, or expend other resources, or take risks that that rule wouldn't require. That's how you respect the rules that exist, while not doing the draconian (and trivially stupid...) "because you didn't train in Animal Handling, the cool thing you want to do is impossible."
Good rules provide you with good established ways to do a lot of things people are already going to want to do, and in a way that will be reliably both entertaining and challenging. They don't rob you of your creativity and agency like some kind of bureaucratic self-appointed hall monitor tattling to the teacher. They support you, for doing many, many things that are commonly done. And they give you good baselines for applying your own judgment, in all the uncommon things that are, collectively, quite frequent.
Another bit I find particularly telling (emphasis in original):
This sounds genuinely nothing at all like how most people describe FKR and "rulings not rules" etc. to me. Like, almost emphatically the antithesis of how it's usually described. Because the usual description I get has communicated that the players need to fight tooth and nail for every bit of information, for every scrap of understanding. I see lots and lots of pejorative references to "handholding," for example, and to being strongly enthusiastic about players failing to learn stuff because sometimes that happens, them's the breaks, etc. And, perhaps most damning of all, the widespread and pervasive commitment to illusionism and quantum GMing in the minimalist gaming space: the world will change under their feet and actively prevent them from ever finding out, and whatever the GM intends for them to find/do/experience WILL be found/done/experienced, no matter what choices they make, the ogre is there whether they head south into the forest or north toward the plains.
The above quote, by comparison, sounds...almost exactly like how I run DW, and how all three of my much-loved 4e DMs ran 4e D&D, and how both of the 13th Age DMs I've had ran 13A, and how I would run 4e if I was running it today.
Last edited:
JAMUMU
actually dracula
Great thread.
We play 2nd ed AD&D using every book published for it as fluff, but the actual sessions are run using FKR principles. Roll high is good for some stuff, roll low is good for other things, and we don't use ability modifiers (though advantage dice are given if it makes sense). We feel that this actually harnesses the swinginess of the d20 and makes it the core mechanic.
We play 2nd ed AD&D using every book published for it as fluff, but the actual sessions are run using FKR principles. Roll high is good for some stuff, roll low is good for other things, and we don't use ability modifiers (though advantage dice are given if it makes sense). We feel that this actually harnesses the swinginess of the d20 and makes it the core mechanic.
When talking about roleplaying games there is number line that runs between the two ends of "board game" and "improv scene". And every RPG fits itself at a point between those two ends. Both involve creating a story... but each use a different method for resolving conflict when two or more options arise in said story. The improv side just involves the two active participants to mutually agree together on how the conflict resolves... the board game side uses a source outside the participants to decide-- whether that be a set of rules, the roll of a die, an impartial third-party judge or referee. And where a person's preferences fall on the number line is determined greatly by which method of resolution they prefer.
Board games have a much smaller number of possible resolutions based upon the constraints the rules (and be extension the dice) give the participants, but they also allow participants to work as hard and as best they can to "win" their side of the narrative conflict without having any fear of hurting the other active participant directly. The game is competition (by definition) but the competition is each player against the rules and whomever succeeds the most wins.
Whereas in improv... a participant goes in knowing full well that while you are going to "win" some sides of the narrative conflict, other times you will voluntarily lose other ones. That is the entire point-- to give and take with your scene partner. Both of you agreeing to follow whatever resolution makes the most sense for the internal logic of whatever your scene has set up. And you HAVE to be okay with that. You HAVE to be willing to let your own ideas go-- to "lose"-- if your idea is not the best choice for the scene (towards whatever conclusion you are striving for). And this means that improv IS NOT competition.
Each player falls on this number line just like all games do, and in the best case scenario you will find a game that is at your same point on the line-- what best matches what you want. Or if the game does not... that you are willing and able to bang the rules into a shape yourself that brings it closer to you. And some games (like D&D) are exceedingly malleable in that regard. The big issue though is that because it is malleable... more people along the line think D&D can potentially work for them-- and they will spend huge amounts of time and effort banging away at the game to pull it towards wherever they are on the line... and spend huge amounts of time trying to convince the game's designers to help them out by getting the rules changed in such a way that it moves closer to them on their own. And if the designers don't do it... that's just "evidence" they feel that the designers are just lazy or don't know how to do it. Completely ignoring the idea though that their placement on the number line is just too far out of the way to warrant D&D being pulled that close to them, while leaving all the other people in the other direction behind. It's not that D&D CAN'T go to where they are on the line (due to laziness or incapability)... it's that the designer don't WANT to put D&D there. And at some point you just have to accept it.
The one advantage I think those of us at the "improv" end have over those on the "board game" when it comes to being satisfied with D&D is that we've been trained to "voluntarily lose" in all of these conflicts and be okay with it. So if I see the D&D game is not moving towards me, and includes rules or formats that are more "board game-like" than I think are really necessary (or even fun)... I am more readily able to just shrug my shoulders and accept it. That's just my nature in these things. I can't and won't win them all-- I do improv after all-- and so when I look at the rules of D&D, "it is what it is". But for those on the other end? Those for whom the competition is the point? Of course they will fight and work to get the game closer to what they prefer. That's their nature too. Bu the rest of us just hope that they aren't "poor sports" about it.
Board games have a much smaller number of possible resolutions based upon the constraints the rules (and be extension the dice) give the participants, but they also allow participants to work as hard and as best they can to "win" their side of the narrative conflict without having any fear of hurting the other active participant directly. The game is competition (by definition) but the competition is each player against the rules and whomever succeeds the most wins.
Whereas in improv... a participant goes in knowing full well that while you are going to "win" some sides of the narrative conflict, other times you will voluntarily lose other ones. That is the entire point-- to give and take with your scene partner. Both of you agreeing to follow whatever resolution makes the most sense for the internal logic of whatever your scene has set up. And you HAVE to be okay with that. You HAVE to be willing to let your own ideas go-- to "lose"-- if your idea is not the best choice for the scene (towards whatever conclusion you are striving for). And this means that improv IS NOT competition.
Each player falls on this number line just like all games do, and in the best case scenario you will find a game that is at your same point on the line-- what best matches what you want. Or if the game does not... that you are willing and able to bang the rules into a shape yourself that brings it closer to you. And some games (like D&D) are exceedingly malleable in that regard. The big issue though is that because it is malleable... more people along the line think D&D can potentially work for them-- and they will spend huge amounts of time and effort banging away at the game to pull it towards wherever they are on the line... and spend huge amounts of time trying to convince the game's designers to help them out by getting the rules changed in such a way that it moves closer to them on their own. And if the designers don't do it... that's just "evidence" they feel that the designers are just lazy or don't know how to do it. Completely ignoring the idea though that their placement on the number line is just too far out of the way to warrant D&D being pulled that close to them, while leaving all the other people in the other direction behind. It's not that D&D CAN'T go to where they are on the line (due to laziness or incapability)... it's that the designer don't WANT to put D&D there. And at some point you just have to accept it.
The one advantage I think those of us at the "improv" end have over those on the "board game" when it comes to being satisfied with D&D is that we've been trained to "voluntarily lose" in all of these conflicts and be okay with it. So if I see the D&D game is not moving towards me, and includes rules or formats that are more "board game-like" than I think are really necessary (or even fun)... I am more readily able to just shrug my shoulders and accept it. That's just my nature in these things. I can't and won't win them all-- I do improv after all-- and so when I look at the rules of D&D, "it is what it is". But for those on the other end? Those for whom the competition is the point? Of course they will fight and work to get the game closer to what they prefer. That's their nature too. Bu the rest of us just hope that they aren't "poor sports" about it.
Similar Threads
- Locked
