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
"Hot" take: Aesthetically-pleasing rules are highly overvalued
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="Bacon Bits" data-source="post: 8111889" data-attributes="member: 6777737"><p>More than that, the MTG rules are <em>comprehensive</em>. They completely explain every conceivable interaction between every possible set of cards with every possible set of abilities. And when they don't, they have to create a new rule for it. <em>Everything</em> in Magic is predefined and codified before it ever goes to print.</p><p></p><p>D&D doesn't do that. D&D tells you to invent your own stuff and make it up as you go along.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I think this is the core of it from an aesthetics standpoint, but I can think of two other reasons.</p><p></p><p>First, I also think they were tired of players saying that fluff wasn't mechanics and was therefore not a rule. "No," they're saying. "The fluff is just as important as mechanics and just as mutable as mechanics. There's nothing wrong with changing the fluff <em>or</em> the mechanics."</p><p></p><p>Second, I think it's founded in the idea that it's <em>impossible</em> to create a set of rules that completely explain every conceivable interaction in an RPG. I think 3e, 3.5e, and 4e all tried it and they all failed either as comprehensive rules sets or as playable games because you're essentially forced to write a physics engine in RPG rules. It's just not reasonable.</p><p></p><p>5e chooses to use natural language because it's trying to tell you that <em>it doesn't matter</em> as long as you're consistent. And it doesn't matter if you're consistent as long as you've got a good rationale. And however you want to play, <em>it's fine</em>. The rules are <em>not</em> a recipe where you input players on one side and output fun on the other. The rules aren't there to restrict what is possible like in MTG or Risk or Warhammer 40K. The rules are there to give you an explanation of theory and method with general recommendations for how things work. It's a framework, not a program.</p><p></p><p>It's like the difference between having plans and diagrams for one table and a book entitled <em>How to Build Tables</em>. You follow the plans as closely as you can because you're trying to recreate a specific thing with specific dimensions. You read a book on table construction and you expect to learn what you need to know to plan and create a table of any design. D&D rules are the latter.</p><p></p><p>TLDR; You're supposed to grok the rules, not follow them like a blueprint.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Stealth and hiding rules. Those rules are basically, "You can hide when it's reasonable that you are able to hide." And then there's Halfling's Naturally Stealthy and Wood Elves' Mask of the Wild(?) ability that say, "You can hide in these conditions." So now it's not clear if you should be able to hide when the DM says it's not reasonable because there are abilities that appear to explicitly let you hide when it's otherwise not reasonable for anyone else. And what happens when you keep hiding in the same spot? Is that still unreasonable? Based on the number of people who complain about it or ask Sage Advice about it, it feels really cheesy for Halfling Rogues to be able to do this to a lot of tables.</p><p></p><p>Like I don't think it was even explicitly clear that this really was an intentional design until the Class Variants UA (and presumably forthcoming in Tasha's) included the Aim action for Rogues.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Bacon Bits, post: 8111889, member: 6777737"] More than that, the MTG rules are [I]comprehensive[/I]. They completely explain every conceivable interaction between every possible set of cards with every possible set of abilities. And when they don't, they have to create a new rule for it. [I]Everything[/I] in Magic is predefined and codified before it ever goes to print. D&D doesn't do that. D&D tells you to invent your own stuff and make it up as you go along. I think this is the core of it from an aesthetics standpoint, but I can think of two other reasons. First, I also think they were tired of players saying that fluff wasn't mechanics and was therefore not a rule. "No," they're saying. "The fluff is just as important as mechanics and just as mutable as mechanics. There's nothing wrong with changing the fluff [I]or[/I] the mechanics." Second, I think it's founded in the idea that it's [I]impossible[/I] to create a set of rules that completely explain every conceivable interaction in an RPG. I think 3e, 3.5e, and 4e all tried it and they all failed either as comprehensive rules sets or as playable games because you're essentially forced to write a physics engine in RPG rules. It's just not reasonable. 5e chooses to use natural language because it's trying to tell you that [I]it doesn't matter[/I] as long as you're consistent. And it doesn't matter if you're consistent as long as you've got a good rationale. And however you want to play, [I]it's fine[/I]. The rules are [I]not[/I] a recipe where you input players on one side and output fun on the other. The rules aren't there to restrict what is possible like in MTG or Risk or Warhammer 40K. The rules are there to give you an explanation of theory and method with general recommendations for how things work. It's a framework, not a program. It's like the difference between having plans and diagrams for one table and a book entitled [I]How to Build Tables[/I]. You follow the plans as closely as you can because you're trying to recreate a specific thing with specific dimensions. You read a book on table construction and you expect to learn what you need to know to plan and create a table of any design. D&D rules are the latter. TLDR; You're supposed to grok the rules, not follow them like a blueprint. Stealth and hiding rules. Those rules are basically, "You can hide when it's reasonable that you are able to hide." And then there's Halfling's Naturally Stealthy and Wood Elves' Mask of the Wild(?) ability that say, "You can hide in these conditions." So now it's not clear if you should be able to hide when the DM says it's not reasonable because there are abilities that appear to explicitly let you hide when it's otherwise not reasonable for anyone else. And what happens when you keep hiding in the same spot? Is that still unreasonable? Based on the number of people who complain about it or ask Sage Advice about it, it feels really cheesy for Halfling Rogues to be able to do this to a lot of tables. Like I don't think it was even explicitly clear that this really was an intentional design until the Class Variants UA (and presumably forthcoming in Tasha's) included the Aim action for Rogues. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
"Hot" take: Aesthetically-pleasing rules are highly overvalued
Top