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
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
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="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 8112506" data-attributes="member: 82106"><p>Of course the rules are only support Umbran. Let me point out, my experience with D&D started with reading three mysterious little brown books in 1975...</p><p>D&D, any RPG really, can, and probably should, be looked upon as a set of tools and guidelines. HOWEVER, that being said, modern RPGs have largely been successful by providing a definite platform, a set of rules which provides an answer to each participant at the level of "how do we handle this situation?" Now, exactly what that covers may vary from game-to-game, but I think my point is that, there is a viewpoint, shared by a large segment of the RPG industry, that it is ENABLING to give a general rule which is clear and applicable to all situations (obviously it may have situational variations, etc. depending on the game). </p><p></p><p>So, where Gygax propounded rules SYSTEMS as toolkits, most modern RPGs propound PROCESS as a toolkit, which the rules simply enact and support. Take Dungeon World as an example. There is no variation in its mechanics at all. Everything follows the "make a move, resolve the move, GM responds with hard or soft move in response" cycle. Every move involves the same toss of dice. The available moves are situational, and the outcomes vary depending on the nature and purpose of that move, but the core rule is very simple and basic. The problem is, if a rule system doesn't do that, if all the different parts don't speak the same language, or make music in harmony, then the focus of the players and GM shifts back to this sort of Gygaxian tension of GM as 'school master' and players as 'unruly children' where the GM's 'job' becomes to reign in the players attempts to 'achieve victory' through interpreting the rules in their favor. Even if this is not a major thrust of play, it muddies the waters in terms of the narrative sort of process that is being aimed at.</p><p></p><p>I didn't find the analysis of [USER=6777737]@Bacon Bits[/USER] terribly compelling because it doesn't seem to be cognizant of this. They are analyzing (at least 4e) as if the goal was some sort of perfect rules coverage, which is of course a unicorn. That wasn't the goal. Instead if you read it as a Story Game (which it certainly at least partly is) then you come to understand the rules, things like keywords, etc. more in terms that would make sense in a game like Dungeon World. That is, system as platform upon which story is writ. It cannot be biased or incomplete, because it forms the agreement upon which that process happens, the paper so to speak. It is at least best if that paper is robust and provides some pretty strong process for any situation. Hence the existence of powers, skills, skill challenges, keywords. </p><p></p><p>Seen in that sense, 5e presents some difficulties, because it puts impediments in place in terms of treating the system as a known quantity. Really, I don't think this is something that cannot be dealt with, in the sense that it has a pretty universal basic mechanic, but you do have to go back and resurrect the 4e SC system, or provide something else in its place. In my own game there is no longer such a thing as a 'check', there are only 'challenges', and in that context checks can exist as tests to evolve the situation and determine objectively if the PCs moved towards or away from achieving their immediate goal. That clarifies the agenda, because 4e certainly wasn't totally clear on that, and I am pretty sure half of WotC's game designers didn't 'grok' the system and made the same analytical error as Bacon Bits does.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="AbdulAlhazred, post: 8112506, member: 82106"] Of course the rules are only support Umbran. Let me point out, my experience with D&D started with reading three mysterious little brown books in 1975... D&D, any RPG really, can, and probably should, be looked upon as a set of tools and guidelines. HOWEVER, that being said, modern RPGs have largely been successful by providing a definite platform, a set of rules which provides an answer to each participant at the level of "how do we handle this situation?" Now, exactly what that covers may vary from game-to-game, but I think my point is that, there is a viewpoint, shared by a large segment of the RPG industry, that it is ENABLING to give a general rule which is clear and applicable to all situations (obviously it may have situational variations, etc. depending on the game). So, where Gygax propounded rules SYSTEMS as toolkits, most modern RPGs propound PROCESS as a toolkit, which the rules simply enact and support. Take Dungeon World as an example. There is no variation in its mechanics at all. Everything follows the "make a move, resolve the move, GM responds with hard or soft move in response" cycle. Every move involves the same toss of dice. The available moves are situational, and the outcomes vary depending on the nature and purpose of that move, but the core rule is very simple and basic. The problem is, if a rule system doesn't do that, if all the different parts don't speak the same language, or make music in harmony, then the focus of the players and GM shifts back to this sort of Gygaxian tension of GM as 'school master' and players as 'unruly children' where the GM's 'job' becomes to reign in the players attempts to 'achieve victory' through interpreting the rules in their favor. Even if this is not a major thrust of play, it muddies the waters in terms of the narrative sort of process that is being aimed at. I didn't find the analysis of [USER=6777737]@Bacon Bits[/USER] terribly compelling because it doesn't seem to be cognizant of this. They are analyzing (at least 4e) as if the goal was some sort of perfect rules coverage, which is of course a unicorn. That wasn't the goal. Instead if you read it as a Story Game (which it certainly at least partly is) then you come to understand the rules, things like keywords, etc. more in terms that would make sense in a game like Dungeon World. That is, system as platform upon which story is writ. It cannot be biased or incomplete, because it forms the agreement upon which that process happens, the paper so to speak. It is at least best if that paper is robust and provides some pretty strong process for any situation. Hence the existence of powers, skills, skill challenges, keywords. Seen in that sense, 5e presents some difficulties, because it puts impediments in place in terms of treating the system as a known quantity. Really, I don't think this is something that cannot be dealt with, in the sense that it has a pretty universal basic mechanic, but you do have to go back and resurrect the 4e SC system, or provide something else in its place. In my own game there is no longer such a thing as a 'check', there are only 'challenges', and in that context checks can exist as tests to evolve the situation and determine objectively if the PCs moved towards or away from achieving their immediate goal. That clarifies the agenda, because 4e certainly wasn't totally clear on that, and I am pretty sure half of WotC's game designers didn't 'grok' the system and made the same analytical error as Bacon Bits does. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
"Hot" take: Aesthetically-pleasing rules are highly overvalued
Top