Legends and Lore - Nod To Realism

[Nemesis Destiny]

You're confusing the difference between what the standard rules are and what the rules allow individual DMs to do in addition to the standard.

Yeah, I have to say, I agree here. There needs to be a bog-standard tournament rule for every option that is clear as day and easy to adjudicate.

So far, the best example I have seen of this while still allowing for flexibility is in 2e, where rules are indicated in shaded text and specified that they are for tournament use, or optional, or whatnot.

A hypothetical 5e could expand on this idea by including entries for "simplified rule," a middle ground "standard" rule, and an advanced, more in-depth "simulation" rule.

The core book could pick a default, probably either the middle ground or the simple rule, then include the others in supplements, just to keep bloat down. If they could manage to pack it all into one book, so much the better.

So that way, in a given organized play situation, you could spell out that you're using "tournament" and "simplified", or "optionals x, y, z" and "simulation".

You could even mix and match on a per-rule basis for home play. This may be what they were getting at in these columns with respect to complexity dials.

 

[D'karr]

You're confusing the difference between what the standard rules are and what the rules allow individual DMs to do in addition to the standard.

I think that you're discounting the amazingly large influence the DM has on the game, specially in "tournament play".

At GenCon this past year I was discussing this exact "conundrum" with some guys over breakfast. At one time in organized play the pendulum had swung in the direction of a DM as simply a judge, and rules adjudicator, he is not the guy actually running a game at that table, he is the computer AI that in rote parses rules and the adventure. This was done for the "mythical" goal of standardization. Well, with the release of the new organized play campaign that pendulum swung back to the original purpose of a DM, to be a Dungeon Master and provide the most fun at that particular table.

Unfortunately some of the worst Organized Play DMs are the ones that are stuck on the idea that they are judges.

If you have a wonderful experience at an Organized Play table, thank that DM. If you have a lousy experience at that table, thank that DM.

Table play is almost entirely regulated by the DM, and instead of producing more rules the game should be geared to help that DM become better at his role.

 

[D'karr]

But my suggestion empowers DMs and players to use their imagination to handle it. You don't agree that it's good to word the rules to empower the group to feel that this is true?

I misread your initial post. I agree inasmuch as these things are provided as additional optional guidelines. As soon as they become the "standard" the box starts to narrow beyond a point I appreciate in the game.

 

[Tovec]

No, I do not. What makes sense to me in a game and a narrative might not make sense to you. And the other way around. Why not let a ruleset leave some way to let the players and the Dm decide narratively what they assume to be a plausible way of how a power might work?

That isn't really what the system currently allows, any more than any other edition did. Reflavouring should be changing the fireball to be a burst of fire-fairies that burn everything in their path. Not a DM's choice if that burst of fire damages paper.
Put another way, I wouldn't mind seeing limitations (assuming they follow the power's text) that an unconscious person doesn't benefit from the warlord's cry. I can still choose to "dm's fiat" or ignore the rule but limitations are good to understand what the rule is intended to do and what it isn't. It is good to understand what the rule excels at and what fails to provide. That is totally different from what the others are describing, I'm still not sure if you see things their way.

Really? I have spent the last one and a half years in a group that took too much time to read through pages and pages of 3e spells to find out what a spell did, what special rules in which book governed which situation, etc. That took a lot of time and in the end bored me to death because we did not tell a story. We just read books.
Now, I understand that this is a problem in one very specific group. But I have not encountered this problem in 4E games because the rules give a lot of power to the players to narrate the game.

Narration of the game has always existed, but limitations are good too, instead of reskinning something beyond what was intended. If something doesn't work then Rule 0 it. That hasn't changed in any edition. 3e provided a firmer framework on how things, in the game world, should act. 4e went in the opposite direction, in favour of balanced mechanic, saying that you get to make up whatever you want. They go so far as to say DM's CAN allow paper to burn in that fiery burst spell, not saying that paper does burn but that DM's can choose to allow it. Either way, the DM can say if it does but I don't understand why a logical explanation in the form of a rule is so feared in this regard.

What you are trying to say is (I guess) that the rules should cover all situations and cater to all tastes of simulation for everybody. Well, as this thread makes clear, tastes differ and sometimes differ a lot.
So I prefer a ruleset that allows for some narrative to fill in the blanks and actually leave that power to the players and the GM.

No, that's not really what I'm trying to say. I'm trying to say the rules should cover how an effect works, then when people have differing tastes they can feel free to use them and ignore or follow the rules as much as they want. I think my game should give me all the tools, as well as the rationale of how they got there, for the situation. I think that 3e excelled at this and 4e is ignores it entirely.

That is because Magic the Gathering is a different game. It is nor a RPG. It works differently. I do know why you are bringing this up, though. At least I think I know. Do you really think that 4E and MtG are similar?

I think they are similar in the fact they are produced by the same company. I think they are similar in the way they are both games with clear design goals as far as construction of said rules.

I think they are dissimilar in that they are different kinds of games. I think, that in the fact they are being produced by the same company, they are dissimilar if one explicitly says a rule works a certain way and the other says a rule works a certain way but the DM has the option of changing it.

For this specific argument, it comes down to:
3e - fireball causes flammable stuff to burn (if unattended)
4e - fireball targets creatures, the DM CAN also allow it to target flammable stuff, and they can do so each time it comes up, no rule needed - just reflavour

In 3e we almost never had it actually catch stuff on fire, it was a common choice and houserule instituted in our games that the "sets stuff on fire" effect wasn't activated by fireballs. But it was in the rules and not flavour of the text. It was our choice to ignore the rule, it wasn't up the DM to decide that this time it burns stuff and another time it doesn't. It worked on way or it worked another, it didn't change each time for fun.
This is what I meant earlier when I said, "If I liked it, I'd use it and if I didn't I wouldn't."

I misread your initial post. I agree inasmuch as these things are provided as additional optional guidelines. As soon as they become the "standard" the box starts to narrow beyond a point I appreciate in the game.

So, you dislike the game when it starts to give you standard (based on Nemesis Destiny above) middle of the road mechanics? I can certainly see why you would prefer to argue that the 4e rulings are better when you get to make up whatever flavour text you want.

In 4e I wouldn't have minded seeing a modular system with a solid CORE ruleset and several optional subset expansions. The problem is that this is nowhere near what we ended up with. We got 16 different books with 16 mildly different (reflavoured?) things in them, which provide a balanced approach to combat.

 

[Greg K]

It's an interesting argument given the Monte Cook quotes on your signature.

Not at all.
1. There are many things that I don't like being told by designers (e.g., wealth by level, free multi-classing as default) or being included in core D&D books (a default pantheon (except in an appendix), tanglefoot bags, sunrods, halfling riding dogs, spiked chains, etc.)

2. As someone that house ruled the hell out of 3e (and prior editions), I put there to show that designers can have issues with things that they design so RAW should not be held as the end all be all and encourage house ruling.

Yet, despite the above, I recognize the importance of RAW as providing a common framework for discussing the game away from individual tables.

 

[Mark CMG]

Good food for thought, both of you, and thanks for acknowledging my point and both building on it and taking it seriously. I appreciate it. I'll incorporate much of what you have both posted into my future understanding of the topic. Sadly, I have XPed you both too recently to allow me to do so again right away. If you wonder why I am XPing you seemingly randomly in the near future, remember these posts.

Yeah, I have to say, I agree here. There needs to be a bog-standard tournament rule for every option that is clear as day and easy to adjudicate.

So far, the best example I have seen of this while still allowing for flexibility is in 2e, where rules are indicated in shaded text and specified that they are for tournament use, or optional, or whatnot.

A hypothetical 5e could expand on this idea by including entries for "simplified rule," a middle ground "standard" rule, and an advanced, more in-depth "simulation" rule.

The core book could pick a default, probably either the middle ground or the simple rule, then include the others in supplements, just to keep bloat down. If they could manage to pack it all into one book, so much the better.

So that way, in a given organized play situation, you could spell out that you're using "tournament" and "simplified", or "optionals x, y, z" and "simulation".

You could even mix and match on a per-rule basis for home play. This may be what they were getting at in these columns with respect to complexity dials.

I think that you're discounting the amazingly large influence the DM has on the game, specially in "tournament play".

At GenCon this past year I was discussing this exact "conundrum" with some guys over breakfast. At one time in organized play the pendulum had swung in the direction of a DM as simply a judge, and rules adjudicator, he is not the guy actually running a game at that table, he is the computer AI that in rote parses rules and the adventure. This was done for the "mythical" goal of standardization. Well, with the release of the new organized play campaign that pendulum swung back to the original purpose of a DM, to be a Dungeon Master and provide the most fun at that particular table.

Unfortunately some of the worst Organized Play DMs are the ones that are stuck on the idea that they are judges.

If you have a wonderful experience at an Organized Play table, thank that DM. If you have a lousy experience at that table, thank that DM.

Table play is almost entirely regulated by the DM, and instead of producing more rules the game should be geared to help that DM become better at his role.

 

[D'karr]

So, you dislike the game when it starts to give you standard (based on Nemesis Destiny above) middle of the road mechanics? I can certainly see why you would prefer to argue that the 4e rulings are better when you get to make up whatever flavour text you want.

No, I dislike the game when its rules start to encroach. Middle of the road is usually fine, it's absolutes that I don't prefer.

For example in the case of fireball I have no problem if the rule says that the effect "may" set ablaze flammable objects, or if the "rules" for fire effects adds it as a an optional guideline.

I have a problem when the rule starts giving me a laundry list of things it affects. Because if the rule is giving me a laundry list it, by definition, is making a determination of things that would be excluded. That type of "absolute" determination is better left on the hands of the DM, and players.

In addition, the more rules that there are to reference the longer it can take for a DM to make a ruling, because he might want to be sure of what the actual "rules" say. The rules should provide me, the DM, with a framework to make quick and mostly balanced/fair rulings/adjudications, not with a list of rules to check for compliance.

 

[Tovec]

No, I dislike the game when its rules start to encroach. Middle of the road is usually fine, it's absolutes that I don't prefer.

For example in the case of fireball I have no problem if the rule says that the effect "may" set ablaze flammable objects, or if the "rules" for fire effects adds it as a an optional guideline.

I have a problem when the rule starts giving me a laundry list of things it affects. Because if the rule is giving me a laundry list it, by definition, is making a determination of things that would be excluded. That type of "absolute" determination is better left on the hands of the DM, and players.

In addition, the more rules that there are to reference the longer it can take for a DM to make a ruling, because he might want to be sure of what the actual "rules" say. The rules should provide me, the DM, with a framework to make rulings/adjudications, not with a list of rules to check for compliance.

To the first, those rules are there if you are unfamiliar enough not to know what you are doing or if you want something other than a "I say so" rule of why something exists (in 3e). You are under no further obligation in 3e than in 4e to follow those rules or to go looking for them, they are an option. In 4e however these "optional" rules are for common things that have always been included or which make sense.

On this last note, I think we agree. But in many ways I feel 4e simply doesn't give me that ruling or framework at all. To me, it says "we came up with these rules because they are balanced. That is what you want, balance, right? If we didn't think of it, then it is your job to think of it and put it into your game." and that is a very sloppy, illogical, and inexact use of the rules.

 

[D'karr]

To the first, those rules are there if you are unfamiliar enough not to know what you are doing or if you want something other than a "I say so" rule of why something exists (in 3e). You are under no further obligation in 3e than in 4e to follow those rules or to go looking for them, they are an option. In 4e however these "optional" rules are for common things that have always been included or which make sense.

Intent and reality did not match up on that. I have quite a storied experience with 3.x, and yes I agree that the rules are optional. That is how I've always played it. The fact that we are having discussion of RAW right now leads me to believe that the optionality of those rules is not as sacrosanct as you intimate.

On this last note, I think we agree. But in many ways I feel 4e simply doesn't give me that ruling or framework at all. To me, it says "we came up with these rules because they are balanced. That is what you want, balance, right? If we didn't think of it, then it is your job to think of it and put it into your game." and that is a very sloppy, illogical, and inexact use of the rules.

Your and my experience running 4e obviously differ.

I've been running 4e games since DDXP of 2008 (Jan/Feb), in that time I've hardly had to go reference a rule. As a matter of fact since the DM screen came out I don't even have any books open at the table. Since every table that I would need to come up with a "balanced/fair" ruling is pretty much right there.

I ran 3.x games since it came out until January of 2011, I can hardly recount how many times I was "forced" to look up a rule. If you look at spell like abilities you'll see what I mean. Each of them references a spell, but how does that particular spell work? Running ad-hoc games with just a monster manual in front of me was an exercise in futility. So I reverted to simply making stuff up.

Yes it seems we agree on the optionality of rules, I want the game to keep that in mind when I'm running it, not to pay lip service to the concept.

 

[LurkAway]

I misread your initial post. I agree inasmuch as these things are provided as additional optional guidelines. As soon as they become the "standard" the box starts to narrow beyond a point I appreciate in the game.

Agreed. If I've learned anything on Enworld and Legends and Lore, it's that D&D isn't going back to a crunch-heavy RAW core in the foreseeable future.

So under a theoretical 4.5E or 5E "fire" keyword entry, I'd like to see:

Core/tactical/tournament play: For simplicity and game balance purposes [this is to be transparently open and honest like Rich Baker on Rule-of-Three about the function of the rules vs fiction], we suggest fire causes damage to creatures only. Fire may affect objects and catch fire as per DM discretion -- if so, players should receive cues in advance that using powers with fire keyword may have unexpected effects [so that the players are privy to what would be obvious to the PCs in-game ("Player: what? the papers are catching fire too? DM: Duh, you're in a library! Player: But fireballs never affected objects before?")].

Optional play: [guidelines and suggestions to handle above more systematically, in terms of story and game balance too]

Plus when you have slots open for optional gameplay like that, you've opened up a niche market for future supplements and/or 3rd party publishers to add extra layers of complexity.

I would also like to see some support for optional gameplay that nods to "realism", and not just adventure design that assumes that everyone is roleplaying the "for tactical game balance, we suggest..." play style.