Legends and Lore - The Temperature of the Rules

[pemerton]

it has long been the case that the DM is expected to house rule the system, to make changes, and to making rulings - some of which may be contrary to RAW.

I think the essential question could be reframed like so...

Which of the following is true:
1) a rule describes what can/will happen in-game (regardless of context)
2) a rule describes what is likely to happen in-game (in an average context)

<snip>

With rpgs, it's often #1 (definitely with tactical play and rules lawyers) but others often prefer #2 and view the rules as a guideline. It also varies depending on the rule, of course.

Monte gave the example of a rule that: open door = move action. Let's say that there's a heavy stone door and the DM wants that it takes a full round to open.

If the group subscribes to view #1, then the DM needs to break the rule at the risk of arguments ("Yeah, yeah, I know the rule says 1 move action to open a door, but in this case, I rule that it takes 1 round"), or the system needs an extra rule at the risk of increased complexity ("exception: stone doors take a full round to open").

However, if the group subscribes to view #2, then there is no need to break the rule or add an extra rule. The average door is likely to take 1 move action to open, but this heavy stone door is not average. The important thing is to try to be consistent -- that's why I would consider this to the mature/advanced version of D&D.

I think that LurkAway gets this right - it's not about making rulings that break the rules, it's about the rules being written in such a way that contextually-appropriate rulings from the GM are expected, and count as an implimentation of, rather than a departure from, the rules.

The other thing that is needed is advice to GMs on how to communicate rulings to the players, in the course of play. For example, if a door is going to take a standard action to open because of its size/weight, and this should be obvious by simple inspection (eg it's a massive stone door), then the GM should be advised to communicate this early on in the piece - in particular, well before a player gets hosed in combat because s/he assumed that the door provided an escape option that would require only a minor action to activtate, only to be told by the GM that a standard action is what's required.

What is also needed, in my view, is advice on what the appropriate stakes should be for trying to (for example) reduce the action cost to open a massive stone door. Page 42, and the improvisation suggestions in the Essentials skill entries, give a few ideas about this, but there's plenty of scope for more detailed and wide-ranging advice for both GMs and players.

 

[delericho]

I mean, Burning Wheel doesn't have any statement like the one you suggest. Suppose a BW GM suggests some changes to certain game elements nevertheless (to my eye, there are a few spells and weapons that are mechanically a little overpowered, and could be toned down to the benefit of balance). Do you think the absence of the text you suggest is going to lead to more grief than 3E GMs would get in similar circumstances, despite the presence of that text in the 3E PHB?

This is a case where the sheer weight of rules in D&D works against it. Because the rules cover so many things explicitly, and indeed simply because there are so many of them, there is an expectation amongst players that "this is how it is". Thus, there is more resistance to DMs changing, or indeed simply going beyond, the RAW. Heck, witness the backlash over the Roper encounter in "Forge of Fury" - and that despite the RAW clearly stating that there should be the occasional overwhelming encounter and there being a sidebar to precisely that effect in the module!

Burning Wheel doesn't have the same weight of rules, so I wouldn't expect players to put so much stock in playing by the RAW, and so I wouldn't expect nearly the backlash.

(Plus, for better or worse, D&D is the gateway game for a great many people. That means that the average D&D player is almost certainly less experienced than the average Burning Wheel player, and that greater experience is likely to lead to a greater acceptance of house rules just being the way of things. The trade-off for that strength is that BW has a far smaller player pool.)

So, no, I wouldn't expect that sort of backlash in BW. But I strongly suspect that any backlashes 3e DMs faced would have been worse had "Rule 0" not been included in the text.

 

[LurkAway]

Heck, witness the backlash over the Roper encounter in "Forge of Fury" - and that despite the RAW clearly stating that there should be the occasional overwhelming encounter and there being a sidebar to precisely that effect in the module!

That might be a case of adventure design being locked into a certain convention, and then the audience becoming overly accustomed to the standard spoonfed formula. Like watching happy Hollywood ending for many years and then getting upset when you get a twist bad ending. I think it's unfortunate that the conclusion of the roper incident was that "WotC never made that "mistake" again."

If the RAW was "opening a door is usually a move action in an average scenario" but every single D&D supplement and every adventure and every DDI article assumes that every door in every dungeon is opened with a move action, then that becomes the de facto standard.

It would be very, very important for 5E adventures and supplements to fully live up to the intended nature of the 5E core rules.

 

[delericho]

That might be a case of adventure design being locked into a certain convention, and then the audience becoming overly accustomed to the standard spoonfed formula.

I would agree... but it was the second 3e adventure published!

(Note, in case of nitpick: That excludes third-party materials, Dungeon magazine, and the WotC website. )

I think it's unfortunate that the conclusion of the roper incident was that "WotC never made that "mistake" again."

Indeed. Most unfortunate.

If the RAW was "opening a door is usually a move action in an average scenario" but every single D&D supplement and every adventure and every DDI article assumes that every door in every dungeon is opened with a move action, then that becomes the de facto standard.

It would be very, very important for 5E adventures and supplements to fully live up to the intended nature of the 5E core rules.

True on all counts.

 

[ExploderWizard]

The age old debate that never goes away.

This is a difficult subject to pin down largely because it deals with defining the rules of play for so many different group dynamics.

D&D was originally a kit with which a DM built a game for his/her group to enjoy. The mechanics were sparse, the intent being that most of the game, being one of imagination ,would come from the participants. The rules were very flexible and were intended to serve a relatively stable group over the course of campaign play for extended periods.

Today we have a lot more public play, and shorter spans of time to run campaigns (on average) and the rules have become more defined at least in part due to the need for the kind of uniformity that Gary was going for when he went about crafting AD&D. The goal of making D&D rules more standardized and suited to impromptu play was well intentioned but brought with it some unforseen consequences.

Too much codified RAW and the imaginative aspect of play gets relegated to a secondary role. Not enough codification of the rules and players become fearful of playing with DMs they do not know well. Its really tough if not impossible to construct a single set of rules to satisfy all the differences between the various types of group dynamics.

Perhaps different product lines that aim on different sides of this divide is the only answer.

 

[LurkAway]

I would agree... but it was the second 3e adventure published!

Aah...

Well.

I know they say that "customers are always right" but sometimes they need a good roper spanking.

Edit: Well, to be fair, the module could've advised the DM to use a weaker version of the roper, if the players didn't believe in running away, thus catering to both playstyles.

 

[Umbran]

Because the rules cover so many things explicitly, and indeed simply because there are so many of them, there is an expectation amongst players that "this is how it is". Thus, there is more resistance to DMs changing, or indeed simply going beyond, the RAW.

I think you may have that backwards, the tail wagging the dog, so to speak. It seems to me that there is an expectation that D&D should have a pretty rich and complex tactical combat system, and that's led the designers to write the rules for a rich and complex tactical system.

D&D originally came out of wargames, remember. There's always been a large segment of the market that has wanted aspects of that experience in their RPGs. I don't doubt that this expectation has only been enhanced by our collective exposure to other complex games that have rules over rulings - computer RPGs, for example, and highly popular tactical games like Magic: the Gathering.

We should not be surprised that the designers give the players what they want.

 

[Anselyn]

Today we have a lot more public play, and shorter spans of time to run campaigns (on average) and the rules have become more defined at least in part due to the need for the kind of uniformity that Gary was going for when he went about crafting AD&D. The goal of making D&D rules more standardized and suited to impromptu play was well intentioned but brought with it some unforseen consequences.

Yes. Consequences like the number of encounters completed has fallen more rapidly than the time available to play due to the decrease in the speed of play.

 

[delericho]

I think you may have that backwards, the tail wagging the dog, so to speak. It seems to me that there is an expectation that D&D should have a pretty rich and complex tactical combat system, and that's led the designers to write the rules for a rich and complex tactical system.

I cannot agree with this at all. With 3e (and now with 4e) I saw a very distinct shift in attitudes, and particularly a much greater emphasis on "RAW". In older editions it was just accepted that the DM would have a binder of house rules, and that the game would differ drastically from table to table. With 3e this ceased to be the case.

A lot of this was undoubtedly that 3e was a much tighter system where the older editions were, to put it mildly, a bit of a mess. There was always a sense that you had to house rule the game, simply to play the game at all. (I recently read the 1st Ed DMG. I read the Initiative rules carefully three times, and still couldn't make sense of them.)

Regardless of the reasons, though, the attitude shift was very noticable - and that despite Gygax's proclamations about there being one true way to play AD&D (as was) back in the 1st Ed days.

 

[Anselyn]

The basic problem remains that it all depends on the group and the "social contract", if you will.

A good group will negotiate around rules that get in the way of fun; a bad group will make the game hell for the DM and/or other players no matter what.

I remember someone saying, in a legal context, that contracts exist to make sure frends stay friends. In games, rules exist so that there is a contracted agreement on how to settle possible disputes about the outcome of events so players ans DMs remain friends. So, it's the moment when the DM has to switch from "yes", "yes-and", and "yes-but" to "I'm not sure let the rules mechanism decide" that is the real question.

The problem is that that moment when varies with group, gaming stlye and tradition.

Oh, and before as a RAW tactical-combat champion tells me that my "yes"s lead to just "Mother-May-I" play. Please tell me when you rolled using the rules to see if your character could successfully open the tavern door, walk to the bar, buy a drink and succesfully move his ploughman's lunch from plate to mouth. All DMs have a "yes you can do it zone".

Personally, I'd like new DMs to get the idea of the yes-list first and then the mechanism of negotiation second.

Addendum: It would be an interesting project to look at an historical set of "Examples of Play" and look in the example for the frequency of the exemplar Gm say YES, OK, No BUT or ROLL FOR ...

Have our play examples been constant over time or changed?