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

[I'm A Banana]

By making the labels separate from the actual language construct you can eliminate a good deal of these issues. You can also take the time to use the examples to show how it works as a "free descriptor" system.

Yeah, but then you get all jargon-y and weird fast.

To me, a better idea is to say, "Knocking something prone means knocking it down," and if you try this on an ooze, the rules are basically like, "Well, DM, what do YOU think happens?"

A DM who wants more instruction can make or adapt a rule ("Oozes cannot be knocked prone!" or "Oozes can be knocked 'prone' just fine, it's not literal."), and that doesn't scuttle the game.

A DM who is more freewheeling might make up whatever makes the story more interesting on the spot ("Your leg sweep doesn't knock the gelatinous cube prone, but it does knock the thing about 5 feet from where it was. Go ahead and slide it.").

Either way, all the rules say is that knocking something prone means knocking it over. This action creates an effect in the story. What effect it has in mechanics in cases when it's not obvious is why we have DMs.

 

[D'karr]

Yeah, but then you get all jargon-y and weird fast.

To me, a better idea is to say, "Knocking something prone means knocking it down," and if you try this on an ooze, the rules are basically like, "Well, DM, what do YOU think happens?"

A DM who wants more instruction can make or adapt a rule ("Oozes cannot be knocked prone!" or "Oozes can be knocked 'prone' just fine, it's not literal."), and that doesn't scuttle the game.

A DM who is more freewheeling might make up whatever makes the story more interesting on the spot ("Your leg sweep doesn't knock the gelatinous cube prone, but it does knock the thing about 5 feet from where it was. Go ahead and slide it.").

Either way, all the rules say is that knocking something prone means knocking it over. This action creates an effect in the story. What effect it has in mechanics in cases when it's not obvious is why we have DMs.

If it were only so easy then why all the threads about oozes, and snakes being knocked prone. The "prone" condition has 3 basic effects. It takes a move action to get out of it. It imposes a -2 to attacks. And anyone "prone" grants combat advantage.

If it is so easy, and I agree that it is, to simply say "DM make your own judgment" of when it applies, then why all the arguments and vitriol about oozes being knocked prone? The game already gives the DM adjudication power as part of the written rules. So what is the problem at that point? Obviously there is a disconnect from what the books say the DM should do, and what people argue. The problem is that a lot of people concentrate on the RAW, instead of the RAI or the DM adjudication of the "rules". It don't see that going away.

So rules that don't confuse the issue with "spoken language" labels diminish that issue, and don't have to be "jargony" at all. None of the labels that I posted are in anyway more jargony than all of the jargon the game has anyway. Look at every edition of D&D and tell me that there is not some heavy jargon there already. Clear explanations, and examples of the conditions can then simplify that jargon by making it usable within the game.

 

[Aenghus]

A DM who wants more instruction can make or adapt a rule ("Oozes cannot be knocked prone!" or "Oozes can be knocked 'prone' just fine, it's not literal."), and that doesn't scuttle the game.

.

One reason it's an issue is the following chain of events (which I have observed happening in various games over the years). I'm talking about combat heavy games, but most D&D games I'm personally aware of are fall into this category, and it's possible to be sidelined in any sort of game(though less likely to kil a PC in a low combat game).

A player invests limited resources in his PCs learning how to perform a certain action, for instance knocking monsters prone. The referee says "fine".

Then in play it turns out that most of the monsters the PC encounters are immune to being knocked prone. This means the resources the player invested in his PC to knock monsters prone would have been better spent on something else more effective. In extreme cases (e.g. illusionists vs monsters immune to illusion, enchanters vs monsters immune to enchantment, rogues vs monsters immune to sneak attack) the PC can become a drain on the party rather than an asset.

And to the player, it looks like the referee knew the PC would not be a good match for his campaign and allowed it anyway. Or didn't know the system well enough to foresee the problem. Or decided on adventures without regard to the PCs he had.

The very occasional sidelining of a PC may be tolerable, IMO, but a lot of adventures feature the same monster types again and again, with similar resistances and immunities.

For me, the continued accidental or deliberate nerfing of my PC definitely does scuttle the game for me. I see rules which risk this happening accidentally (e.g. referee with poor system mastery) as flawed rules.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Banes? Somewhat appropriate for my own game, since it's going to have a strong spirit realm/fetishes feel to a lot of the boons.

Yup, sounds good.

 

[I'm A Banana]

If it is so easy, and I agree that it is, to simply say "DM make your own judgment" of when it applies, then why all the arguments and vitriol about oozes being knocked prone?

Because 4e uses the word in a way that doesn't match with the natural use of the word. The rules don't match what you expect when you use the word outside of the context of the game.

The game already gives the DM adjudication power as part of the written rules. So what is the problem at that point?

Words have meaning independent of their use as game terms.

So rules that don't confuse the issue with "spoken language" labels diminish that issue, and don't have to be "jargony" at all.

I basically agree here, but I think you're looking at it backwards. Rather than change "prone" to a word that means something more in line with the mechanics, I think it would be smarter to change "prone" to be a mechanical effect that is in line with the way the language is used.

The reason is because the word conjures a mental image -- it's an imagination aid. It has a clear meaning in the fiction. Words that are more specific to those effects aren't always as natural.

 

[Cybit]

Maybe. But a system can do a better or worse job of ameliorating these potential conflicts, in virtue of the way it distributes mechanical authority and resources among the participants.

One of the PCs in my game is a ranger-cleric Battlefield Archer. So it's come up!

Understood, but I feel as if while the game mechanics can help or ameliorate such things, that the core issue will eventually rear itself at some point or another. So, I believe that ultimately, the group will have to deal with it, and it is a bigger issue than the rules.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

For me, the continued accidental or deliberate nerfing of my PC definitely does scuttle the game for me. I see rules which risk this happening accidentally (e.g. referee with poor system mastery) as flawed rules.

This is always a potential hazard. OTOH there is much to be gained by facilitating more flexible use of conditions. I'm still not sure what the perfect answer is for a 4e-type system. I like the generality and power of keyword states. There does need to be some way to create an understanding that narrative explanations and additional effects are always possible/expected. I think maybe making the standard just Advantage/Disadvantage and then moving the rest of it to "this is narrative, but here's what Restrained normally does/represents" is about as good as it gets.

So for instance you hit someone with Entangle, its effect is Restrained, and the narrative is "vines entwine the target, it can't move!" Restrained can be worded pretty much like it is in 4e, it has an effect on movement, etc, but ALL such conditions force disadvantage on the target, and maybe advantage against it (this can be situational but at least you always get one). The upshot being even if a target is say a water elemental and it just isn't held back by vines (as per the DM) there is still some significant mechanical effect. Sure, your power may be SOMEWHAT nerfed against a water elemental, but it isn't useless. I'd also note that power based mechanics always made it quite hard for a character to be heavily nerfed overall. Even if you make all undead immune to backstab/SA a 4e rogue still has many tricks. He'll be less good, but not worthless. Its still a problem if you use it TOO much, but in my proposal you are still getting some nice bennies.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Because 4e uses the word in a way that doesn't match with the natural use of the word. The rules don't match what you expect when you use the word outside of the context of the game.



Words have meaning independent of their use as game terms.


I basically agree here, but I think you're looking at it backwards. Rather than change "prone" to a word that means something more in line with the mechanics, I think it would be smarter to change "prone" to be a mechanical effect that is in line with the way the language is used.

The reason is because the word conjures a mental image -- it's an imagination aid. It has a clear meaning in the fiction. Words that are more specific to those effects aren't always as natural.

I guess I don't understand how you could "change 'prone' to be a mechanical effect that is in line with the way the language is used." Prone describes what happens when a creature is off its feet, sure. That's what it does. How would you change it?

 

[Bedrockgames]

I guess I don't understand how you could "change 'prone' to be a mechanical effect that is in line with the way the language is used." Prone describes what happens when a creature is off its feet, sure. That's what it does. How would you change it?

Prone describes being flat on the ground, on your belly. It cam also describe lying flat on the ground, but I think because prone position is such a specific thing, it could be a bit confusing for what it has encompassed in D&D. But frankly, not able to think of a better word off the top of my head.

 

[TwoSix]

Prone describes being flat on the ground, on your belly. It cam also describe lying flat on the ground, but I think because prone position is such a specific thing, it could be a bit confusing for what it has encompassed in D&D. But frankly, not able to think of a better word off the top of my head.

We would obviously be better off with "prone" and "supine" as separate conditions.