D&D 5E Legend Lore says 'story not rules' (3/4)

[Bedrockgames]

IMO, prior rulesets have put either too much emphasis on a good gaming experience relying on a "competent" GM (AD&D), or too much emphasis on the set of rules (3.x). Both those things are harder to find and balance than they sound.

I think this is just a preference issue. For me the game is more enjoyable when the mechanics aren't built around the "bad GM" issue. I haven't had a problem finding a competent GM. Or maybe my outlook at the table is just different and I am not bothered as much by certain calls. I don't know.

I guess you've had the rare pleasure of never having to play with a "bad DM". Count yourself fortunate. I think putting everything in the DM's hands CAN work, I just think it's much more likely that it won't.

I have played with one or two. Most of my experiences with GMs haven't been bad. For me this isn't a problem I need the game to solve. I am much happier with a set of rules that assume a competent GM.

You often frame your arguments in just that way though; implying that it is, for you and "a lot of players" the only way to True Immersion.

It being immersive for me and a lot of others doesn't exclude it being counter immersive for you and others. It is true, the game being believable really helps me immerse and I know it helps many others. But I also know some people find a narrative approach more immersive. I am not saying my way is objectively more immersive. Not at all.

 

[Sunseeker]

I have played with one or two. Most of my experiences with GMs haven't been bad. For me this isn't a problem I need the game to solve. I am much happier with a set of rules that assume a competent GM.

The problem I have with such systems is that it allows for lazy design. Designers don't have to be specific, detailed, or accurate in their work because this sort of mentality allows them to say "Oh we'll just let them DM decide." Which fractures more than it facilitates, no two tables ever play the same even with the same rules, people are constantly looking for a game that's run "to their liking" because there's no standardization. If we want a new game that brings people together, we CANNOT have a system that relies on "table rulings" as the primary way to move the game forward.

We all need to be on the same page, reading the same words, playing the same system.

That's not to say that modularity can't bring variance, but assuming a DDN "Basic" game with Basic-only material, every table doing this should have roughly the same readings of the rules. Experiences may differ due to different adventures, party composition, focuses and playstyles, but players could, in general, all tell that everyone else is playing the same game they are.

If we don't do this, when experiences are shared, people will naturally gravitate towards more "generous" rulings and create friction at the table by seeming to posess an "entitlement" mentality, which is really just the player presenting their own opinion of how something could work. We then end up with a system that doesn't just assume a competent DM, it assumes a controlling DM. Which in turn creates a situation where the players have no right to present their opinion and the DM's word is law.

Which I think makes for a pretty poor system.

 

[Bedrockgames]

The problem I have with such systems is that it allows for lazy design. Designers don't have to be specific, detailed, or accurate in their work because this sort of mentality allows them to say "Oh we'll just let them DM decide." Which fractures more than it facilitates, no two tables ever play the same even with the same rules, people are constantly looking for a game that's run "to their liking" because there's no standardization. If we want a new game that brings people together, we CANNOT have a system that relies on "table rulings" as the primary way to move the game forward.
.

I dont think it is a question of one approach being better than the other. They are just different. I find it a lot easier these days to run a game using a light rules sytem that doesnt worry so much over a lot fo the specifics and leaves it for the GM to assign things like difficulty ratings, etc. Games like savage worlds and dr who do a pretty good job of this in my book and they are certainly not lazy design (i think they are well thought out games). 3.5 is an excellent example of the opposite, where the skills and system are all pretty thoroughly explored so there is less variance from table to table. I can play that too and enjoy it. I make somehwat light games and it isnt because I view it as a shortcut to design, it is because I am designing games fot a particular style ofplay at the table.

Bt this conversaion is getting a bit abstract and it is possible I dont know exactly what you mean. Can you give some examples of what you mean by this? (i am not going to challenege their validity, I just want to make sure I am hearing you correctly).

 

[bogmad]

If we don't do this, when experiences are shared, people will naturally gravitate towards more "generous" rulings and create friction at the table by seeming to posess an "entitlement" mentality, which is really just the player presenting their own opinion of how something could work. We then end up with a system that doesn't just assume a competent DM, it assumes a controlling DM. Which in turn creates a situation where the players have no right to present their opinion and the DM's word is law.

Which I think makes for a pretty poor system.

I don't think a "players-have-no-rights" or controlling DM situation is doomed to happen with a flexible basic system based on DM rulings. As far as rules for preventing DM abuse, it's not about player entitlement or DM entitlement. I think you only really need one rule. I've found Wheaton's Law compatible with EVERY system I've ever played or even heard of.
"Don't be a dick" should probably be in both the DMG and the players guide.

Don't get me wrong. I don't mean to side with either side of this argument, though I do agree with Bedrockgames notion that rules modules pleasing to both sides isn't that crazy a notion to entertain.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Yes. It is a very simple and handy mechanics, but it only has one setting. Its totally defined by conditions under which it is granted or not.

Well, you talk about this more below, but I don't see why MHRP couldn't for example do something similar to 4e. You'd have a more defined set of character options probably, but that depends on how close you wanted to get to the same experience. It could certainly be tooled up to do an FRPG that had the power range of 4e (IE quite capable but still mundane -> totally super powered immortals).

The trick, which hopefully players learn quickly, in such games is to make the descriptors more refined rather than cover them with "keyword" terms like we are used to in WotC-era D&D. So, an MHRP version of Entangle would place "tangled up in vines" on its target, rather than a "restrained" condition. In particular, conditions/effects that are big "on/off" switches (like "unconscious") usually have specific rules to restrict them. This has advantages and disadvantages, but mostly advantages, IME. For example, if you're "restrained" you are subject to whatever movement restrictions the game evinces to that condition, regardless of its source. However, if you are "tangled up in vines" then your opponents might use that to restrict your movement, hinder your attacks, or even try to drag or trip you by grabbing the vines you trail. The mechanics are then much more evocative of the actual fiction. On the other hand, as you note, they are somewhat dependent on the players' collective creativity. IME, its much harder to get experienced D&D players to think beyond keywords than it is to get new players to use such systems.

No argument that some folks just can't stand the fluidity of it all. I wouldn't say you need flavor text per se, but expectations around the table should be clear. The big problem here, is that while 4e has not-quite-freeform descriptors, you need system permission to use them (through having a power or whatnot.) Since 4e doesn't want to screw people, it makes that merely flavorful and applies them regardless. Thus giving the narrative headache of the "prone" Ooze, so that Captain Tripper doesn't suddenly feel useless. Systems that use freeform descriptors generally don't restrict which or what ones you have access to, other than through narrative sense.

Well, it seems to me, sticking within basically a d20-ish framework, that you could steal Advantage/Disadvantage from DDN and use that as your basic consequence. Then a power would impose this consequence, and also a SPECIFIC narrative consequence, the enemy is entangled by vines, your character can make mighty leaps on his transformed frog legs, etc. You could then have more major consequences potentially if you needed them, damage, ongoing disadvantage, greater narrative constraints, etc. You could add in a step up capability as well, so you could gain advantage using an action/power to amp it up, but failure would be worse and success might be complicated, etc. Now you don't need conditions like 'restrained' or 'unconscious', HOWEVER, you may still want to have those keywords and use them as you see fit. There's no reason why 10 different powers need to repeat the text for unconscious. It just needs to be made clear that these are not a list of all the possible narrative states that exist, just ones that work for many situations. Of course you lose the ability to do things like errata Dazed or add a "you cannot be dazed" ED feature, etc. There are trade offs there. Maybe the conditions could be voided of mechanical impact and simply be keywords. Entangled by vines "restrains" the target, but they might have a way to avoid being restrained, like going out of phase or whatever.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I sort of agree this where things turn. The problem is if the rules support player agency over setting fidelty, that will bother groups who want setting fidelty. If you o things the opposite way, the you have the reverse problem. I can assure you, just as it bothers you when the GM makes a judgment against your character based on what he thinks would plausibly occur, it bother me when the GM lets you do something because it is genre appropriate or dramatic, but flies against what I regard as plausible. I think this is a genuine style divide and the best solution is to acknowledge that and come up with mechanical options that allow both sides to get what they want without imposing it on the other. I think where they made a mistke last time, was favoring one approach. It would be a mistake to do that again (even if they favor my style). Clearly this matters a lot to players and I think most of these debates over 4E ave involved lots of discussions and arguments over genre, believability, story versus setting etc. it really seems to be at the heart of a lot of the division. Probably wise for them to explore.

Well, then it is a mistake they have CLEARLY made with DDN. My fear though is that it will simply support one side poorly and the other side almost not at all. That is the nature of attempted compromise in most designs.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Well, then it is a mistake they have CLEARLY made with DDN. My fear though is that it will simply support one side poorly and the other side almost not at all. That is the nature of attempted compromise in most designs.

Well, I am still optimistic as we haven't seen the entire system or the modular options yet (until I see those, I wont really be able to say one way or the other how well they did). If they produce three core books, and with those books you can play something like 4E, 3E or something like AD&D, then I would say they are not favoring one approach. You may have a simple basic game that, but as long as there are those advanced books to give me what I want, I won't view it as a problem if the basic book doesn't address my style. The jury is still out of course. If they release the core books, and they don't contain a viable way to arrive at something the 4E crowd is after, then yes they would have repeated the same mistake I feel they made when 4E was released.

But if you feel compromise itself is not going to work, what is the solution?

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

What I am objecting to here, is being told there is something wrong with my preference (and I frankly have a hard time reading Nemesis Destiny's comments as anything but that).

Are you serious? Given what I have said, that takes some pretty willful misreading.

I am making an effort to understand what he likes in the game and what is important to him. So far it seems to be he wants genre fidelity and he wants mechanics give the players some power over the narrative (if I am wrong on that please correct me). I think that is doable. And I believe the best way to do it is to offer a complete book with a full range of options dedicated to that style (which is what I am also hoping to receive for my prefered style of play). What I would like is for my preference not to be dismissed or to be told I need a reality check when I explain what it is I want from the game. We can flame each other, or we can have a real conversation.

Yeah, wow. You're taking what I said and twisting it into a personal insult, which was not the intent. Why would you do this? Where did I say that YOU need a reality check? You keep putting words in my mouth. Are you trying to start a flame war?

Heck, I have even said I am hoping for some kind of cinematic book because there are times when I do want that (I may not want it in exactly the same way or style that Nemesis Destiny does but I am currently running a Wuxia campaign and would love there to be a version of D&D where I can tailor some options to make the genre conventions consistently play out in it).

The problem with putting things like that in a separate book, from my perspective, are twofold.

First, you have the issue where as a "module" it will just feel "tacked on" and not supportive of the playstyle from a fundamental level. We already have a system that does this, so why would I buy a book that does a less-good job of it? People seem to think that you can please 4e fans by throwing them a bone in the form of a "tactical" module and "they'll be happy," when this really only scratches the surface of what makes 4e a great system to its fans.

Second, by publishing it in a separate book, it silos the options into a convenient location that people can point to as a collection of "bad" things, not even to be considered. It sounds ridiculous, but mark me, if that's how it goes to print, then that will be a common outcome. I wouldn't even suggest it if we hadn't seen a lot of that happening in late period 3.x. Bo9S got a lot of flack and disregard from people who never even cracked its covers based on preconceptions alone. And this was not a small part of the community at the time. I'd know; I was one of them.

I think this is just a preference issue. For me the game is more enjoyable when the mechanics aren't built around the "bad GM" issue. I haven't had a problem finding a competent GM. Or maybe my outlook at the table is just different and I am not bothered as much by certain calls. I don't know.

I don't even see it as being built around the issue, at least, not for that express purpose. I think it's more a side-effect in that it makes bad GMing more difficult. Why shouldn't that be a goal of any ruleset? There are some smart minds on the project, surely they can come up with rules to satisfy that criteria as well.

I have played with one or two. Most of my experiences with GMs haven't been bad. For me this isn't a problem I need the game to solve. I am much happier with a set of rules that assume a competent GM.

Who hasn't played with a bad one at one time or another? Most of my early experiences were bad. Really bad. It's somewhat surprising that I even continued in the hobby, frankly. I can't be the only one, though we may never hear from the others, since they might have long since given up on the idea of playing an RPG.

I'd personally rather play a game that, rather than assume a competent GM, assumes that people want to play a competently designed ruleset that includes leeway for GM creativity, without as many of the traps that the bad GMs get caught on.

It being immersive for me and a lot of others doesn't exclude it being counter immersive for you and others. It is true, the game being believable really helps me immerse and I know it helps many others. But I also know some people find a narrative approach more immersive. I am not saying my way is objectively more immersive. Not at all.

Maybe I'm not being clear. Is there an actual reason why realism or world fidelity or whatever cannot ALSO be genre-appropriate?

 

[Bedrockgames]

Are you serious? Given what I have said, that takes some pretty willful misreading.

Yeah, wow. You're taking what I said and twisting it into a personal insult, which was not the intent. Why would you do this? Where did I say that YOU need a reality check? You keep putting words in my mouth. Are you trying to start a flame war?


?

This was my honest reading of what you wrote. If I misunderstood or mischaracterized your position, which it appears I have, then I retract and appologize.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Maybe I'm not being clear. Is there an actual reason why realism or world fidelity or whatever cannot ALSO be genre-appropriate?

they can at times align, but I think its really hard to have both occupy the same space. I may be narrow sighted here, but if the GM or the system is producing results based on what is good for the story or what is good for the genre, that is going to trump realism i believe. Neither one is better or worse but I do think they are different.