D&D General "Hot" take: Aesthetically-pleasing rules are highly overvalued

[Lanefan]

And I LOVE keywords for exactly the reason you dislike them! They provide an instant language, an idiom in which the mechanics of the game can speak.

Here's a very simple example. In the 1e DMG there is an item, Flametongue, a sword which burns. It gains a significant bonus against ... (LONG list of specific creatures) plus several general categories of creature. This list was of course obsolete, probably as soon as the game was published. It would have been vastly better to just have had a "vulnerable to fire" trait connected to a fire damage keyword. This is future-proof and it is abundantly clear what you mean. You can STILL have exceptions to this general rule, either by simply not specifying that THIS creature is vulnerable to fire, or by calling out the specific exception in its description.

If I'm looking up the Flametongue's abilities I want them all right there together, rather than to also then have to look up the specific creature that's getting hit with one to see if it's vulnerable or not. Put another way, even with your idea of 'vulnerable to fire' (which in itself is fine) I want as many of the exceptions as possible called out in the Flametongue write-up so I only have to look in one place.

And while future-proofing things is always a laudable goal, unfortunately there's no real way to do it here without strait-jacketing the design; and strait-jacketed design is exactly what I want to avoid.

 

[Campbell]

So generally the use case for keywords should be for governing how things like interact with each other. Keywords that do actual work should be kept to a minimum. Particularly in a game that is expected to get extended over time with rich interactions keywords let us do things like say an Attack of Oppurtunity (in PF2) is triggered by Manipulate actions so as the game is extended there's no need to go back to previous material to account for new stuff. Another PF2 example is how Mind Blank counteracts all detection effects. I do not have to address whether or not a new spell is affected by Mind Blank because the traits will tell me.

 

[Don Durito]

If I'm looking up the Flametongue's abilities I want them all right there together, rather than to also then have to look up the specific creature that's getting hit with one to see if it's vulnerable or not. Put another way, even with your idea of 'vulnerable to fire' (which in itself is fine) I want as many of the exceptions as possible called out in the Flametongue write-up so I only have to look in one place.

And while future-proofing things is always a laudable goal, unfortunately there's no real way to do it here without strait-jacketing the design; and strait-jacketed design is exactly what I want to avoid.

Symbaroum is a relatively simple game with an inordinate love of keywords.
This means that monster abilities are all keywords. So you have to have two pages open (or sometimes two books) just to see what a monster does. It's infuritating.

It even has a keyword for monster "Companions" at levels I, II, and III, and when you look it up you see that companions tells you how many of the monsters are usually found together.

And despite all the keywords, it doesn't actually avoid problems of interpretation because the writing is sloppy and the game insufficiently playtested.

Good clear communicative writing is what's really important.

 

[Lanefan]

Yeah, I don't personally feel this way at all, on any of these points. Player =/= character. Fundamentally the dichotomy between them is quite vast. A character wading into battle is entering a life-threatening situation filled with mayhem and uncertainty, the player is having chips and dip while rolling some dice with her buds and enjoying a beer.

But while noshing down on those chips and beer the player is (or certainly can be) also occupying the mind-space of the character wading in against a horde of Orcs, and deciding from that perspective what to do next.

Gamist constructs such as locked-in turn order fight against this, which is why I in turn fight against them.

I am quite sure though that 4e was no less open-ended than 0e, 1e, or 2e. Specific things were more thoroughly covered in rules, but only in the sense that the rules could be objectively applied to them without extrapolation or mechanical interpretation. If you did something novel, there was a rule which could be applied, allowing you to "play to see what happens" (a phrase from Dungeon World). That didn't limit what you could do. 4e and video games have nothing in common here. In 4e the GM can frame a scene, and the players will be able to reason about it in game-mechanical terms, but they will still have to solve it, may have limited information, will achieve different results based on what they are willing to risk/spend (IE do I burn a daily here or not) etc. Luck also plays a part, in the same way it does in other D&Ds as a way to 'stir the pot' so to speak.

Good point regarding luck: one ongoing trend across editions seems to have been to try and reduce luck's influence on proceedings; where to me the whole game is, at its core, about luck. The lucky ones survive, the others don't.

As for 4e and open-endedness, you're actually making my point for me in a way: you couldn't go outside the framework and just try stuff like you could in 0e-1e-2e; you were stuck within the rules no matter what, page 42 notwithstanding.

Put another way: instead of the DM reining you in to a greater or lesser extent depending on numerous variables and being able to allow for circumstance, the rules consistently rein you in. For the player it's the same thing, only the latter is more predictable and thus less interesting.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

If I'm looking up the Flametongue's abilities I want them all right there together, rather than to also then have to look up the specific creature that's getting hit with one to see if it's vulnerable or not. Put another way, even with your idea of 'vulnerable to fire' (which in itself is fine) I want as many of the exceptions as possible called out in the Flametongue write-up so I only have to look in one place.

And while future-proofing things is always a laudable goal, unfortunately there's no real way to do it here without strait-jacketing the design; and strait-jacketed design is exactly what I want to avoid.

I heavily suspect the DM is already on that page in the MM, so how much 'burden' is this, really? What is straight-jacketed. In fact what you get is a sort of 'world logic' for cheap. The giant eagle has the 'avian' keyword. It is a being covered in feathers, and like all other such beings it is going to take extra fire damage, not just from the flametongue, but also from a fireball! AD&D doesn't even do that for you! The flametongue DOES call out 'avian creatures' or some such language, but there IS NO SUCH CATEGORY IN AD&D. Obviously the DM is expected to make a case-by-case ruling. Is a Vrock an avian creature? Who knows!! The player doesn't, so can he take one on? (a +4 attack bonus is going to weigh heavily in that equation, especially when the base bonus of the sword is +1 and demons are generally resistant to even lower level + weapons).
I'm just missing what the ADVANTAGE is here in 1e's approach. 4e handled this kind of thing really well, but in point of fact it did NOT overuse this technique. Few creatures have resistance/vulnerability to a damage type keyword for instance. They exist, but they're not super common. Keywords tend to be most important in terms of describing what sort of thing a creature/spell/whatever is, or in terms of visualizing its effects. I can see how a game could go crazy with keywording and make it counterproductive, but that seems a different sort of game-design issue to me. Anything can be done badly.

 

[cbwjm]

Not sure what it says in 1e, but in 2e flame tongue was essentially using key words. Made it pretty easy to determine which creatures were affected by which bonus. I might prefer the current version though which just deals additional fire damage and the targets either resist, are vulnerable to, or take normal damage to it.

Sword +1, flame tongue, +2 vs. regenerating creatures, +3 vs. cold-using, flammable, or avian creatures, +4 vs. undead:
This sheds light when its possessor speaks a command word or phrase. When activated, the flame tongue sword’s fire illuminates the area as brightly as a torch. The flame from this sword easily ignites oil, burns webs, or sets fire to paper, parchment, dry wood, etc. Cold-using creatures are those whose attack mode involves cold (ice toads, white dragons, winter wolves, yeti, etc.).

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

But while noshing down on those chips and beer the player is (or certainly can be) also occupying the mind-space of the character wading in against a horde of Orcs, and deciding from that perspective what to do next.

Gamist constructs such as locked-in turn order fight against this, which is why I in turn fight against them.

Good point regarding luck: one ongoing trend across editions seems to have been to try and reduce luck's influence on proceedings; where to me the whole game is, at its core, about luck. The lucky ones survive, the others don't.

As for 4e and open-endedness, you're actually making my point for me in a way: you couldn't go outside the framework and just try stuff like you could in 0e-1e-2e; you were stuck within the rules no matter what, page 42 notwithstanding.

Put another way: instead of the DM reining you in to a greater or lesser extent depending on numerous variables and being able to allow for circumstance, the rules consistently rein you in. For the player it's the same thing, only the latter is more predictable and thus less interesting.

Again though, you are supposing a sort of oppositional game play process where the players and GM's goals are at least partly in conflict with each other, such that the GM would try to 'reign in' players and part of his 'job' would be telling them they cannot do things. I don't play in that way, at all. It isn't my job to tell the players what their PCs can or cannot do. I can tell them what situation they are in, and I can present them with obstacles and resources which facilitate their exploration of their characters.
And the open-endedness isn't hypothetical. I made a point up-thread about Page 42, and about Skill Challenges. These were points I made for a reason, because in 4e at least, these are structured approaches to adjudicating open-ended situations (beyond just free-form narrative, which is always an option if everyone is cool with it, though if you go too far this way the 'game' aspect might be lost). Other games have similar 'channels'. There are a series of fairly open-ended moves in Dungeon World, such as 'discern realities' (and technically the soft and hard moves any PC move elicits are really limitless in potential). Going back to 4e, if the character attempts something that is beyond a simple application of a power/feat/action then, depending on the context, either Page 42 comes into play (generally used for things which are similar to a power and happen during combat or a similar situation), or a challenge exists. A challenge is simply a variety of an encounter, in essence, so it has a structured set of rules of its own, within which the PCs can pretty much try anything, including using their powers and such. It is really just a more generalized flavor of 'combat' in effect. It can even cover long periods of time, etc. if needed.
The SC is especially powerful, because it codifies the mechanical approach to the situation. The GM is allowed to determine a complexity level (really this is generally going to correspond to narrative weight) and from there everyone knows how many of what types of rolls are needed and how many advantages and hard checks may come into play. A player can thus reason about the degree to which a success at a given point will contribute to achieving the objective, and thus decide A) if it is a good idea, and B) if it is what his character would do.
The character would do side is related to the NARRATIVE, not to mechanics. So, does the narrative work if the PC decides to go all out and pay a big cost for success? Well, how does that story come out? If the character doesn't know she's in a conflict and needs to win, why would she do that? Sure, the player could insist, but the other participants are well within their rights to at least require an explanation. If the explanation is "a feeling comes over her that the stakes are high", well, what caused that? Now we're playing an interesting game! Something new is introduced (or the player decides maybe not to push the plot that way).
In order to assist in this kind of thing, and aim for a balance between players in this kind of input my own game (which started out being a lot like 4e) has resource expenditure for the PLAYER at this point. "OK, you can have a feeling come over Harriet, that will cost you a plot point." It just means the most 'forward' players don't get to drive everything all the time.

 

[Lanefan]

Again though, you are supposing a sort of oppositional game play process where the players and GM's goals are at least partly in conflict with each other, such that the GM would try to 'reign in' players and part of his 'job' would be telling them they cannot do things.

The main job of the players is to advocate for their characters. Naturally, a part of that advocacy sometimes involves pushing against the rules and-or trying things the game might not be set up to handle; whereupon it becomes the job of the DM to push back if required, either by enforcing rules already in place or making rulings that are - one hopes - consistent with what's already been established in play.

I don't play in that way, at all. It isn't my job to tell the players what their PCs can or cannot do.

In fact, backed up by the rules most (nearly all?) of the time, it's exactly your job to tell them what they can or can't do; because as the DM part of your role is that of referee-arbiter-rules_enforcer. Even something as simple as "at your level you only get one melee attack per round" holds no weight whatsoever unless and until you-as-DM approve and-or enforce it.

What you can't do is tell them what they can or can't try. Big difference; and it's my assertion that telling them what they can or can't try is much more a thing in 3e-4e-5e design than in 0e-1e-2e.

The SC is especially powerful, because it codifies the mechanical approach to the situation. The GM is allowed to determine a complexity level (really this is generally going to correspond to narrative weight) and from there everyone knows how many of what types of rolls are needed and how many advantages and hard checks may come into play. A player can thus reason about the degree to which a success at a given point will contribute to achieving the objective, and thus decide A) if it is a good idea, and B) if it is what his character would do.

My point in part is that this codification is a bug rather than a feature, as it gives the player (and thus the character) meta-game information that would otherwise be unknown in the fiction; which could lead to the player (and character) making different decisions than would otherwise be made.

The character would do side is related to the NARRATIVE, not to mechanics. So, does the narrative work if the PC decides to go all out and pay a big cost for success? Well, how does that story come out? If the character doesn't know she's in a conflict and needs to win, why would she do that? Sure, the player could insist, but the other participants are well within their rights to at least require an explanation. If the explanation is "a feeling comes over her that the stakes are high", well, what caused that? Now we're playing an interesting game! Something new is introduced (or the player decides maybe not to push the plot that way).
In order to assist in this kind of thing, and aim for a balance between players in this kind of input my own game (which started out being a lot like 4e) has resource expenditure for the PLAYER at this point. "OK, you can have a feeling come over Harriet, that will cost you a plot point." It just means the most 'forward' players don't get to drive everything all the time.

It also goes far further into meta-game play than anything I'd ever want to be part of.

Maybe the PC is going all-out just for the hell of it - a rash moment has come over her. There doesn't need to be an explanation, the other participants have no 'right' to one (they have the right to ask, of course, but no right to get or expect an answer) and there might not even be a win-lose conflict present in that situation for all she knows. She just does what she does, pays the cost, and hopes for the best - and maybe she just threw away her life savings for nothing. ::shrug:: So be it.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

The main job of the players is to advocate for their characters. Naturally, a part of that advocacy sometimes involves pushing against the rules and-or trying things the game might not be set up to handle; whereupon it becomes the job of the DM to push back if required, either by enforcing rules already in place or making rulings that are - one hopes - consistent with what's already been established in play.

In fact, backed up by the rules most (nearly all?) of the time, it's exactly your job to tell them what they can or can't do; because as the DM part of your role is that of referee-arbiter-rules_enforcer. Even something as simple as "at your level you only get one melee attack per round" holds no weight whatsoever unless and until you-as-DM approve and-or enforce it.

What you can't do is tell them what they can or can't try. Big difference; and it's my assertion that telling them what they can or can't try is much more a thing in 3e-4e-5e design than in 0e-1e-2e.

My point in part is that this codification is a bug rather than a feature, as it gives the player (and thus the character) meta-game information that would otherwise be unknown in the fiction; which could lead to the player (and character) making different decisions than would otherwise be made.

It also goes far further into meta-game play than anything I'd ever want to be part of.

Maybe the PC is going all-out just for the hell of it - a rash moment has come over her. There doesn't need to be an explanation, the other participants have no 'right' to one (they have the right to ask, of course, but no right to get or expect an answer) and there might not even be a win-lose conflict present in that situation for all she knows. She just does what she does, pays the cost, and hopes for the best - and maybe she just threw away her life savings for nothing. ::shrug:: So be it.

Obviously we just see the role of GM (and players) somewhat differently.
And sure, the PC could just "do something rash", that's cool! Now we are learning that they behave rashly, at least sometimes. Hopefully that will become an interesting part of the PC's overall persona. Also it may land them in hot water in the immediate case, or perhaps just the opposite, and which it is can be down to a toss of dice.
I don't think it is WRONG to create an RPing situation which has a GM 'in charge' and a player who is purely in character. Sometimes that works, but it is probably not something that can be sustained IMHO anyway. Eventually you come 'out of character' in some fashion. If nothing else, then the limits and necessities of RPing in a practical sense appear. Other players need to participate, information will exist at the table which simply couldn't exist in character but can't practically speaking be filtered out, etc. Inevitably players make choices all the time for the sake of 'game play' as opposed to 'role play'. It just happens.
We just eventually came to the conclusion that mutual collaboration on the structure and direction of the narrative worked pretty well. Each participant has their unique part to play, but we allow for more than simply being in character. Other inputs factor in too.

 

[Lanefan]

Obviously we just see the role of GM (and players) somewhat differently.
And sure, the PC could just "do something rash", that's cool! Now we are learning that they behave rashly, at least sometimes. Hopefully that will become an interesting part of the PC's overall persona. Also it may land them in hot water in the immediate case, or perhaps just the opposite, and which it is can be down to a toss of dice.

Exactly. Thing is, it doesn't have to be explained in order to happen.

I don't think it is WRONG to create an RPing situation which has a GM 'in charge' and a player who is purely in character. Sometimes that works, but it is probably not something that can be sustained IMHO anyway.

36 years and counting...

Eventually you come 'out of character' in some fashion. If nothing else, then the limits and necessities of RPing in a practical sense appear. Other players need to participate, information will exist at the table which simply couldn't exist in character but can't practically speaking be filtered out, etc. Inevitably players make choices all the time for the sake of 'game play' as opposed to 'role play'. It just happens.

Yes it does, but the ideal is to minimize all of these where possible.

Doesn't help that players keep wanting to talk about food or politics or hockey, which is fine in moderation; but a few times ruling that whatever the player says the character also says* helps keep it from getting out of hand: all I have to do now is threaten to invoke that ruling and focus quickly returns to the game.

* - verbatim, no matter how ridiculous in the fiction. I once had a character ruin a party's stealth attempt by yammering on regarding something called a 'car'...