Legends and Lore: more guidelines then rules

[TerraDave]

Lame analogy but it does seem to have a point. That has been repeated a few times, but still, I think I saw a point to this.

Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Article (The Temperature of the Rules)

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Actually I don´t like his writing style... but this time I totally agree with the Idea that guidelines for the DM to make good and consistent decisions is better than shoehorn everything into certain actions...

On the other hand, i liked the elegance of 3rd edition:

taking 10, rolling and taking 20 on different tasks allowed for a nice guideline, how long it took to do something:

Difficult lock: 20 needed to open it -> 2 minutes
moderate: between 10 and 20 needed -> about one minute, sometimes faster
easy lock: take 10 is enough: 6 seconds

You could easily built upon those guidelines!
The skill check variants mike mearls (or was it Cook) presented in an earlier article would actually be useful to create better guidelines.
(And maybe rolling to do something will become the exception instead of the rule once again)

 

[TerraDave]

I agree, and pretty much agree with the thrust of the article.

But, back to his writing style...he is actually a pretty good writer, which makes these columns disappointing. But they clearly feel the need to approach things in a sort of round about, consultative way...which gives you this kind of writing.

 

[Riastlin]

I like the idea of really simplifying the rules elements (i.e. providing DMs with the framework they need with which to make consistent rulings) rather than just having everything spelled out. Of course, I am also primarily a DM. At least one of my players would throw a fit if this were done. He doesn't do it to be a problem, or even consciously I think, but he's the type who will always, every time, read every single rule, power, feat, etc. in such a way as to make it most favorable to him. For him, its definitely much better to have things spelled out plainly in the rules rather than merely setting up guidelines for the DM. If I can say "No, that doesn't work, look at page 247." he's fine with it. If I say "No, that's now how I'd rule it" though he'll not be satisfied.

In the end, its just another one of those cases of different strokes for different folks. For the hobby as a whole, I'm not sure which is better. Simplified rules make for a nice entry way for new players as its not nearly as daunting to look at the piles of books containing rules, but a system like this might also be a bit more intimidating to DMs. As it stands now, if I know there's a decent chance the party will go swimming in the next session, I can look up those rules ahead of time to refresh my memory and then be good to go (same applies to any situation really).

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

I like the idea of really simplifying the rules elements (i.e. providing DMs with the framework they need with which to make consistent rulings) rather than just having everything spelled out. Of course, I am also primarily a DM. At least one of my players would throw a fit if this were done. He doesn't do it to be a problem, or even consciously I think, but he's the type who will always, every time, read every single rule, power, feat, etc. in such a way as to make it most favorable to him. For him, its definitely much better to have things spelled out plainly in the rules rather than merely setting up guidelines for the DM. If I can say "No, that doesn't work, look at page 247." he's fine with it. If I say "No, that's now how I'd rule it" though he'll not be satisfied.

In the end, its just another one of those cases of different strokes for different folks. For the hobby as a whole, I'm not sure which is better. Simplified rules make for a nice entry way for new players as its not nearly as daunting to look at the piles of books containing rules, but a system like this might also be a bit more intimidating to DMs. As it stands now, if I know there's a decent chance the party will go swimming in the next session, I can look up those rules ahead of time to refresh my memory and then be good to go (same applies to any situation really).

This example illustrates how Mike Mearls' approach to this particular double-edged sword can be better. Present a usable middle ground as a default, then give you the tools to tinker with things to your heart's content.

I'm sure though that there are other examples that would paint Monte Cook's 'here are all the dials and switches, adjust to suit' approach look more favourable. I might even prefer that, because I like to tinker. That said, I generally seem to prefer "Mearlsian" design.

I think it's probably more helpful to growing the game and making it accessible to have an established default, then allowing tweaks, and conversely more helpful to keeping interest with veterans and wooing back players who've lapsed to other systems to take 'here are all your options' approach.

 

[Quickleaf]

I felt this article missed the mark. The answer to the question Monte poses ("is DM adjudication plan A or plan B?") is obviously "it depends on the group and the DM."

What I was more interested with was this statement:

If you give a concrete rule for most every situation, the game becomes easier to DM insofar as you rarely have to make a decision or create a ruling on the fly (which can be difficult). If the rule is printed in a book, it's easier to assume that it's balanced and consistent, and players are less likely to question it. On the other hand, if you take the time instead to teach DMs how to make fair, intelligent, and consistent decisions and rulings on the fly, you make it easier to DM because there's less referring to the rules in the books. Nothing makes a game move faster than a DM who is empowered and able to make wise rulings whenever situations arise.

IMO too often D&D rules are presented without sufficient explanation; this is endemic to 4e but not exclusive to it. I've had enough instances on both sides of the screen that I no longer assume printed material is balanced and consistent just because it's in print. Often print material lacks cohesion or playtesting with other rules.

To pick a small example out of many: minion demons with variable resistance as a free action (i.e. it does nothing). Why? Because variable resistance rules changed after minion demons were printed.

What Monte calls "teaching DMs to make fair, intelligent, and consistent rulings" strikes me as a call to justify what's printed based on underlying principles; this would allow homebrew material/rules decisions to remain comparable to printed material (not to mention printed material to each other). I don't know if that kind of underlying system can be designed to facilitate improisatjonal play in D&D, but it reminds me of when folks on the Net were clamoring for WotC to release 4e power design guidelines.

 

[TerraDave]

[MENTION=20323]Quickleaf[/MENTION] off topic but...you made me look it up. From the DDI entry, I think the minion could still use it as a free action to basically void an attack that doesn't do enough damage. So, if say the Mane is hit with a cold attack that does less then 10 damage, it can ignore that attack or any other whimpy cold attacks that hit it.

EDIT: OK I just saw the thread on this...they make free actions non-interrupts, as there are too many, but then it gimps this power. Now this is on topic...the DM should make the call, and the call is obvious, even if they haven't errated variable resistance to note that it is an interrupt.

 

[Quickleaf]

[MENTION=22260]TerraDave[/MENTION]
I think that thread alone illustrates that it's not obvious. I'd agree with your interpretation of the rules' intent, but there are other interpretations... Disregard the power? Maybe it only applies if the minion has been granted temporary hit points or is returned from death by a more powerful demon? Or is it intended to be like the Borg where the rest of the demon horde adapts to the death of one?

What I *think* Monte Cook suggests is a framework to interpret what "variable resistance" means independent of the action economy rules. AFAIK (I don't have Demonomicon) 4e lacks a description of what variable resistance is meant to model and what it looks like. That's what the article seemed to hint at...whether it be a rules guideline about variable resistance specifically, resistance in general, demons, or something even broader.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

bennie1saldana
has no status.

Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 7
Novice (Lvl 1)

Reported.

 

[Walking Dad]

...

IMO too often D&D rules are presented without sufficient explanation; this is endemic to 4e but not exclusive to it. I've had enough instances on both sides of the screen that I no longer assume printed material is balanced and consistent just because it's in print. Often print material lacks cohesion or playtesting with other rules.

To pick a small example out of many: minion demons with variable resistance as a free action (i.e. it does nothing). Why? Because variable resistance rules changed after minion demons were printed.

...

Aren't this two different points?

One is the lack of errata for old creatures that are affected by rules change/clarification (many early monster still use the outdated high HP low damage formula).

The other is unbalanced printed material... for those I find much more examples in 3.5 (Divine Metamagic ) and before.

I would also argue the balancing in the earlier editions, MC's often described golden age.