L&L: The 2nd one this week (DM Packet)

[Kzach]

I think [MENTION=83293]nnms[/MENTION] poses a very interesting question - How well does the 'rulings not rules' approach sit within a set of robust rules? - and I'm definitely not anti-5e.

Out of context maybe he does or doesn't, the point is that every post of his is essentially criticising 5e. His user title used to be anti-5e as is his current one. There comes a point when you notice someone being consistently and persistently negative about something that you begin to question their motives.

I have criticisms of 5e as well, but I also have positive feedback to give. If I only had negative things to say and was so against an edition that doesn't even exist yet that I'd change my user title several times to reflect that, then I'd avoid posting to the forums about it.

Do you ever see me ragging on Pathfinder?

 

[nnms]

Another 18 months of testing and tweaking really ought to be enough time to give you what you're looking for, I wouldn't be too pessimistic already!

I guess I'm still waiting for the stuff they talked about in their preview articles. Which is modularity that would allow multiple groups to get something different out of the game. Given the goal of uniting the editions, the fact that they didn't lead with that makes me wonder if they've done any real work on it yet.

I'm not entirely sure you're right - as Hautamaki says, there's time for stuff to happen - but I think what you say is plausible, and in any event the broader point you make about design and badly-designed punting-to-the-GM is a good one.

If anyone still thinks rules don't matter and that a GM can make any game work any way, then 4E should show them otherwise. 4E was excellently focused on producing a type of play and is a pretty clear demonstration that rules impact the play that is produced (even if I've played the game enough to now be sick of it).

If "modularity" ends up only being covered by a 90s style Rule 0, then I think a lot of people will be sorely disappointed.

Why do you continue to post when you're so obviously and blatantly against 5e. Everything you post is negative and puts down everything that comes out about 5e. Don't like it? Nobody is forcing you to read everything about it.

And thankful you can't force me to be quiet about it either. Do you have anything to say about rulings vs rules combined with a rules light framework like 0E vs rulings vs rules combiend with an extensive framework with ability checks, skills, traits, etc.,.?

If the end result is the same, and if the playstyle ends up being identical, does it really matter if it is due to a detailed, complex base of rules, a very loose set of guidelines, or something in between the two extremes??

If the rules produce the play and people are getting together for a game, they can all say "let's use the combat maneuvers module. And the extended background one. And how about the fate bound heroes one?" whereas if it's all just guidelines for the DM to enforce in a rulings vs rules format, I think we'll end up back at the place where different people will be coming to the table wanting different things and not all getting the same thing out of their games that they'd want to.

I think clear rules modularity can help form group concensus rapidly and efficiently whereas I've read enough horror stories about "the GM just makes it all work."

I also know that there are tons and tons of players out there that expect that when you sit down to play a game, you play the game and not set the rules aside as needed. It may be an approach contrary to what some ultra empowered DM proponents want, but I think it's out there. I think 3.x catered to it quite a bit.

A desired type of play is what 4E was all about. Leaving the DM some room to fine tune things means the game has a better chance of supporting multiple types of play.

Can't the multiple styles of play be better supported with rules modules that actually produce that type of play when they are used than hoping the GM rules the right thing at the right time?

I think [MENTION=83293]nnms[/MENTION] poses a very interesting question - How well does the 'rulings not rules' approach sit within a set of robust rules? - and I'm definitely not anti-5e.

I would like 5E to be all that they talked about in the time leading up to the playtest. Every article released makes me more and more doubtful that they can actually unite the editions, though. Now I get the impression they're more interested in creating sort of a 2.5E and hoping it just appeals to everyone.

I can see how, if play is heavily gamist, which 4e often is, the players may not like this approach, at least if the quick DC is higher than the DC in the rules. But, imo, 4e restricts its gamism to combat, leaving other aspects of the game fairly freeform, much like B/X, or OD&D, so I think it would work for most people.

Some players like the idea that things will be resolve in a way that everyone agrees to and see one person setting that aside as a form of unfairness.

Rulings not rules would not, imo sit easily with 3e as the rules set tries to be very thorough. It's totally the wrong set of rules, imho, for a freewheeling GM.

So does 5E go after the Pathfinder market share with this approach?

5E actually already has a fair bit of 3.x's thoroughness. The sections in skills about how far you jump, how far you climb and the like are still there, but moved into the movement section.

Old schoolers would say that the rules of OD&D and 1e are robust, because they are easy to houserule without breaking. Some might say that's because those rules were a mess to begin with, and can't be made any more disordered than they already are. You can't knock down a castle that's already in ruins type of thing. But that would be a separate argument, I think.

I'm going to cede to them at this point that whatever they like about an older edition is a good thing and not try to fight an old vs new fight. I like OSR games even if I don't like the DM setting rules aside at whim. Probably because they don't have to set the rules aside, but make judgements on situations the rules don't cover.

Rulings not rules - covers the situations the rules do not and leaves lots of space for such interpretation.

Rulings not rules + lots of rules = broken expectations, 90s Rule 0 play and frustration for people who don't make a lot of effort to get on the same page right away.

 

[nnms]

Out of context maybe he does or doesn't, the point is that every post of his is essentially criticising 5e. His user title used to be anti-5e as is his current one. There comes a point when you notice someone being consistently and persistently negative about something that you begin to question their motives.

I see so much potential in a game like the one Mearls talked about when 5E was announced. I'd like to see some of that potential realized.

As for my status, I think it's accurate. I think the industry and hobby is probably healthier with 3 or 4 main games rather than one with 90%+ of the market.

I have criticisms of 5e as well, but I also have positive feedback to give. If I only had negative things to say and was so against an edition that doesn't even exist yet that I'd change my user title several times to reflect that, then I'd avoid posting to the forums about it.

Glad you're paying attention.

I had lots of positive feed back for the articles that talked about 5E before the playtest packet was released. I'm still waiting for them to do what they talked about. Unfortunately since then, further articles, tweets, etc., are pointing towards them concentrating on other goals.

It's not negative to have someone going "how does DM Rulings vs Rules fit in with the whole rules modularity thing you touted?" Cause, It sort of doesn't. The "use modules of rules to get the play you want" is largely incompatible with "set aside rules and make rulings to get the play you want."

Do you ever see me ragging on Pathfinder?

Is this a Pathfinder playtest?

 

[shamsael]

The reason rulings not rules approach works with 0D&D is that there simply are not rules for the situations that might come up in play, so the job of assessing them and deciding the outcome is put into one person's hands.

Games with complete rules covering what the game is about generally don't need the approach. Given that 5E has a pretty robust rules framework, I'd say that this approach is nothing more than a common refrain in games from the 90s that it's the GM's job to make the game work by ignoring the rules rather than designing rules to support a desired type of play.

On the other hand, an rpg system that provided a comprehensive list of suggested rulings for every imaginable situation is just as good as one that provides a comprehensive list of hard rules.

The only difference being that hte first system reminds the players that the DM is in control in the system while the second is better for more of a tournament style game where things are expected to always go by the book.

 

[nnms]

On the other hand, an rpg system that provided a comprehensive list of suggested rulings for every imaginable situation is just as good as one that provides a comprehensive list of hard rules.

Isn't the only difference between suggested rulings for everything and rules for everything is a Rule 0 paragraph that says the DM can do whatever the DM wants?

The only difference being that hte first system reminds the players that the DM is in control in the system while the second is better for more of a tournament style game where things are expected to always go by the book.

Everyone at the table following the rules of the game isn't a new concept. It's been around for as long as chess or mancala. Actually I'm willing to be Senet players agreed to the rules in advance and that was 5600 years ago.

The reason rulings not rules exists in RPGs is because OD&D simply did not have rules for everything and thus put the final decision making power in one person's hands.

When you take that approach (final decision making power in one person's hands) and then combine it with a more comprehensive rules system, you get Rule 0 problems like in the 1990s.

Many, many games have had lots of rules and had a paragraph saying they were just suggestions. That doesn't mean the players don't think it's unfair when they get bait-and-switched and the game they sat down to play ends up not being what they agreed to play.

I like Swords & Wizardry. I'm playing a basic D&D game. I'm liking rulings not rules in those games because there is room for it. The DM is not overturning the game rules that we all agreed on, but making rulings about the situations outside of their scope.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Rulings not rules - covers the situations the rules do not and leaves lots of space for such interpretation.

Rulings not rules + lots of rules = broken expectations, 90s Rule 0 play and frustration for people who don't make a lot of effort to get on the same page right away.

What do you make of 1e's approach to secret doors -

You may use either of two methods to allow discovery of the mechanism which operates the portal:

1. You may designate probability by a linear curve, typically with a d6. Thus, a secret door is discovered 1 in 6 by any non-elf, 2 in 6 by elven or half-elven characters, each character being allowed to roll each turn in checking a 10' X 10' area. This also allows you to have some secret doors more difficult to discover, the linear curve being a d8 or d10.

2. You may have the discovery of the existence of the secret door enable player characters to attempt to operate it by actual manipulation, i.e. the players concerned give instructions as to how they will have their characters attempt to make it function: "Turn the wall sconce.", "Slide it left.", "Press the small protrusion, and see if it pivots.", "Pull the chain."

It is quite acceptable to have a mixture of methods of discovering the operation of secret door.​

- DMG, page 97


1e has a lot more rules than OD&D, so if it's true that rulings are less readily made by the DM when the rules cover more ground, then 1e should be significantly less amenable to rulings than OD&D.

However 1e also has the idea of the DMG being off limits to the players, which helps preserve the DM's authority to make rulings, or even just get the rules wrong, and not be questioned. In addition 1e has a strong culture of DM authority generally, which also helps empower him to make a ruling in the face of a rule.

I agree with you that there's something very wrong in presenting a set of rules to the players, as if they will be followed, and then not following them. It's, frankly, deceptive. But, 1e, as written actually doesn't present the rules to the players. Whether this is a good idea is another matter.

Also, there seems to be a tremendous amount of variation between rpgers as regards attitudes towards the status of the rules. Some regard the rules as sacrosanct*, others as inconsequential save for implying a world or genre, and many are in between. For many groups, although the rules are known, there does seem to be an understanding that they won't necessarily be followed.

*Then there are others for whom game-world is sacrosanct. Forgotten Realms canon-lawyers seem to be particularly common amongst this group.

 

[nnms]

What do you make of 1e's approach to secret doors -

You may use either of two methods to allow discovery of the mechanism which operates the portal:​

Both are very, very DM centric. I don't think either one creates any expectation on the players' side of things as far as what the rules are for finding secret doors. The 2nd option is straight up OD&D.

1e has a lot more rules than OD&D, so if it's true that rulings are less readily made by the DM when the rules cover more ground, then 1e should be significantly less amenable to rulings than OD&D.

Which was part of the point of the design of the game. Gygax talked a lot in Dragon about how the preponderance of house rules and home mods had led to there not really being one D&D, but many and AD&D would unify them again.

So I'm not surprised that one way of reducing house rules was to include more published ones.

However 1e also has the idea of the DMG being off limits to the players, which helps preserve the DM's authority to make rulings, or even just get the rules wrong, and not be questioned.

Yep. It stems from the old miniature wargaming tradition of a GM and possibly even double blind play. In the cases where the rules themselves are not accessible to the players at all, rulings that chuck out rules are pretty much indistinguishable from actual rules as the DM is acting as a black box.

I agree with you that there's something very wrong in presenting a set of rules to the players, as if they will be followed, and then not following them. It's, frankly, deceptive. But, 1e, as written actually doesn't present the rules to the players. Whether this is a good idea is another matter.

Excellent noticing of a distinction there. I highly doubt D&DN is going to move the rules into the DMG and prohibit non-DMs from reading them though.

Also, there seems to be a tremendous amount of variation between rpgers as regards attitudes towards the status of the rules. Some regard the rules as sacrosanct*, others as inconsequential save for implying a world or genre, and many are in between. For many groups, although the rules are known, there does seem to be an understanding that they won't necessarily be followed.

Which means emphasizing rulings vs rules is pretty much designing the game for a subset of the market.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I agree with you that there's something very wrong in presenting a set of rules to the players, as if they will be followed, and then not following them. It's, frankly, deceptive. But, 1e, as written actually doesn't present the rules to the players. Whether this is a good idea is another matter.

Springboarding off of this comment ...

Part of the problem in the constrast between versions is that there are borders where "following" or "not following" have somewhat different meanings, and these borders shift across versons. Furthermore, in early D&D, the borders themselves are frequently obscured by the rules and the tendency of many players to learn the rules in play from a DM who may not be entirely following them.

Take something like the new version d20 + mod vs DC, potentially with or without advantage or disadvantage. The roll and formula is same as it has been for a long time. If the DM tells you to use 2d10 for the roll, that's flat changing the rules. If the rules told the DM to merely use whatever dice he felt like, that would be kind of odd (though even that could have its place as in your AD&D secret door check example). Likewise, the DM shouldn't be suddenly deciding that your +3 Str mod doesn't count to knock open a stuck door when asking for a Str check. And so on, being fairly consistent with the application of DCs and advantage/disadvantage. Moreover, if advantage or disadvantage is applied, it has a set meaning.

OTOH, we have the DM being instructed to sometimes not require a roll--or not allow one on an impossible task. If the roll is allowed, the DM may require a non-standard ability score to be used in the mod. The DM can apply situational mods and/or tweak the DC. The DM can decide to apply advantage or disadvantage, or not.

Even in the playtest, they have done a fairly decent job of suggesting where those borders are in this version. You can make the fighter use Wis or Cha mod instead of Str mod, apply disadvantage, and take more time to open some wacky magically stuck door that is all about strength of will. If you do that, the fighter gets his full Wis or Cha mod, and a success on both d20 rolls should open it. Mathematically, that may be the same as docking your Str mod a bit and applying another modifier, but in the game it is very different.

This clarity is entirely counter to the sometimes used method of "roll, and then I'll decide what happens that is most dramatic, fair, etc." Illusionism isn't the only reason to keep the players out of the rules, but keeping players out of the rules is important to the illusionism agenda.

 

[nnms]

In the cases where the rules themselves are not accessible to the players at all, rulings that chuck out rules are pretty much indistinguishable from actual rules as the DM is acting as a black box.

This conversation brought up a memory of a gaming buddy describing a campaign in which the entirety of the system was not accessible to the players.

I created a separate thread (and a poll) about black box GMing:

http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/324213-black-box-gming-would-you-play.html

I *highly* doubt Black Box GMing will be in any published part of D&D Next, so I put the thread in General discussion.

 

[pemerton]

Part of the problem in the constrast between versions is that there are borders where "following" or "not following" have somewhat different meanings

A different angle on this point.

Some RPG mechanics are meant to simulate processes within the gameworld - for example, weapon vs armour in AD&D, or jumping in 3E. Which gives rise to at least two possible attitudes towards those rules - either (i) they are seen as constitutive of the gameworld, in which case if the GM changes them s/he is "baiting and switching", or (ii) they are seen as attempts to model reality, in which case changes that bring them more into line with reality would generally be acceptable. I'm pretty sure that there are plenty of RPG groups in each of these camps.

Other RPG mechanics are not really meant, in the first instance, to simulate processes within the gameworld, but rather to drive play, support pacing, support theme, etc. (Which is not to say that, post hoc, an ingame account of what is going on can't be given.) An example of such a rule from classic D&D would be wandering monster rules. An example from 4e is the bundle of rules around unlocking and replenishing healing surges in and out of combat. If the GM is unilaterally changing these rules, s/he is changing the whole tone of the game. Whether this is acceptable or not depends, presumably, on what the group sees the overall purpose/logic of play as being.

The overall point: until the rationale of particular rules is understood, and the way they connect to the expectations/purposes of the play groups, it's hard to say anything very specific about "rules vs rulings".