Legends and Lore - Maintaining the Machine

[I'm A Banana]

Not all DMs find the same things tedious. Not all DMs find the same things hard. Some DMs can't deal with divination and teleportation. Other DMs have no problem with those, but can't make a dungeon for junk. Other DMs hate combat. Some DMs hate puzzles.

You can't categorically say that DMs need rules for attacks but no rules for how "fast" each action is. Some DMs say that drinking a potion takes a round. Some DMs say you can do it fast enough that it's not really an action.

I, as a DM, for instance, can't stand making hundreds of little judgement calls. I don't want to have to consider the ramifications of a decision I've made. I don't want to have to worry about the "balance" of letting them drink potions freely or not. I don't want to be asked for permission -- "can I shut this door and still attack on my turn?" is not something I want to have to make up my mind about.

I want the system to basically deal with these tedious little meaningless choices without me. I'd much rather worry about the villain's plot, the elves' architecture, the wacky voice I'm going to use for the idiot henchmen, whether or not Alicia is having fun with her thief, if it's time to order some pizza, etc.

I do not want to have to be involved with the mechanics on the micro level during game-play. I want them to do their job and get the heck out of the way of my four hours of fun pretending to be a magical gumdrop elf. The more allowances and permissions I have to grant, the more tedious and frustrating the entire affair is.

I want to run a game. In order to do that, I need a game engine. A game engine consisting almost entirely of "Do whatever you want!" is useless to me. Why did I spend $150 on your 3 books and read about 400 pages? To be told to do whatever I want? What I want to do is think about bigger things than action economy.

Now, it's important to me to be able to do what I want anyway. Regardless of what the rules say, if I find drinking a potion as a minor action is too much for my group for whatever reason, it is important that I can, if necessary, drill down to that rule, and change it, without suddenly breaking the game, and without endangering the confidence of my players.

I agree almost entirely with the central thrust of Monte's message, here. There are things DMs do better than rules, and making judgement calls for their own groups is certainly one of them. An ounce of guideline is worth a ton of rulespeak.

But what, exactly, the DM wants to make judgement calls about can't be mandated by the game. You can't say "Here's detailed rules for attack rolls, and here's us throwing up our hands at how long it takes to drink a potion, because that's up to you!" It is more useful to say "Here's basic rules for attack rolls and action economies, and here's how to change them, and what will happen if you do."

Because not everyone wants to play Amateur Game Designer when they're in a room with five other people once a week -- or every two weeks or every month. Not everyone wants to carefully consider the strengths and weaknesses of every monster available to present a coherent, balanced, and effectively challenging encounter for their current group, and select appropriate, class-specific weapons, armor, and defensive items, perhaps from a specific wishlist. Some people just want to roll on a random encounter chart (complete with a random treasure table) and get on with the bigger issues in the game.

I'm one of the latter folks, when I'm at the table (though I am one of the former folks in between sessions!).

 

[ExploderWizard]

While I sort of understood the meaning of the article, the presentation was not very complete or clear. It was less an article and more like a few random musings.

The one concept that has been implied but not actually brought up is the assumption of the capabilities of the typical player. Not gaming experience or rules knowledge, but the ability to think rationally, and cooperate socially well enough to enjoy a game session without constant bickering.

I had no trouble with these concepts as a 10 year old playing the sparsely ruled basic game. We used what rules there were and made up what was needed to fill the gaps.

Flash forward to WOTC 3E heavy RAW and suddenly, a codified rule is required for everything. Any use of judgement that conflicts with the RAW is regarded as " Mother may I ?" play. Being told how to play by an external source becomes not only tolerated but desired.

Have people really changed all that much? Can a game today actually sell without being filled with bloat that amounts to "don't be a tool" expressed in a thousand different forms throughout the whole thing?

 

[LurkAway]

Some DMs say that drinking a potion takes a round. Some DMs say you can do it fast enough that it's not really an action.

With a beer hat?

 

[Dausuul]

Here's another thing to consider: An ounce of flavor text is often worth a pound of rules crunch.

Consider the venerable fireball. What happens if you cast it into a barn full of hay? Writing up rules to address this question would be a formidable undertaking. You'd have to figure out what can and can't be set on fire, how fast the fire spreads, how much damage it does to the structure of the barn... those rules could go on for pages.

Or you can say, "This spell creates a tiny glowing bead that streaks to its destination and detonates in a 20-foot-radius burst of flame."

This does not state that you can use the spell to set a barn full of hay on fire, or to create a momentary burst of illumination, or to signal someone from miles away if you cast it straight up into a night sky. Yet all of these are implied by the flavor text. A player who reads that text does not have to ask the DM if she can do these things; it's clear that she can, even though no rule says so.

 

[Umbran]

I was all with Monte until he commented that perhaps the rules shouldn't handle the action economy and should instead handle the attacks themselves only.

But, that's not what he said. You seem to be taking his words farther than he did. You're the one who extended this to "action economy" and "only", not him.

He did say, "It can provide rules for common actions (attacking, casting a spell, and so forth), but the system can't provide concrete arbitration for every action."

I think he intends that middle ground, not an extreme: that the really common stuff can be in the rules, but the rules don't go beyond that. Moreover, that it should be understood and explicitly stated in the rules that actions beyond those common ones (opening a door being their previous example) are GM judgements.

It sounds to me like he's embraced the issue that faced Majikthise and Vroomfondel - the need for rigidly defined area of doubt and uncertainty

 

[Dausuul]

With a beer hat?

You say it as a joke, but when you think about it, beer hats are an eminently logical invention for warriors in a world with healing potions. (Obviously it wouldn't look like a beer hat; more likely a full-face helm with a potion tube inside the visor.)

This is one argument in favor of detailed timing rules, at least for stuff like potions. Specifying that drinking a potion is a minor action drastically reduces the incentive for PCs to invent the beer helm.

 

[LurkAway]

You say it as a joke, but when you think about it, beer hats are an eminently logical invention for warriors in a world with healing potions. (Obviously it wouldn't look like a beer hat; more likely a full-face helm with a potion tube inside the visor.)

That's not the kind of game I'd play.

This is one argument in favor of detailed timing rules, at least for stuff like potions. Specifying that drinking a potion is a minor action drastically reduces the incentive for PCs to invent the beer helm.

That's not the kind of game I'd play where players "threaten" to invent potion helmets in order to get potion drinking as a minor action.

 

[Balesir]

That's not the kind of game I'd play.

So, wait, you prefer not to have a game where characters act in a logical and inventive way - er - why?

I mean, there they are, about to go into a situation where their lives are at stake, and they decline to take some simple, practical steps to improve their chances of survival because "potion bottles were good enough for my old man (who never existed), so they're good enough for me!"

I understand the desire for gritty realism, but that just seems obtuse.

 

[Mercurius]

We envision potions of healing as being sort of like those little ginseng tubes; a PC could carry them in their belt and just pull a cork out and drink them really fast. Minor action - voila.

 

[Dausuul]

That's not the kind of game I'd play.

That's not the kind of game I'd play where players "threaten" to invent potion helmets in order to get potion drinking as a minor action.

Threaten nothing. A reasonable human being, going into a war zone and presented with healing potions, would invent potion helmets. It only seems silly to us because we don't live in a world with healing potions. Our real-world aesthetic sense is clashing with game-world logic.

Making potion drinking into a minor action allows the game designers to gloss over that clash, so we can have old-fashioned potions in bottles without having to stomp on player creativity.