D&D (2024) Let's talk about the Rules Glossary in the PHB

Reynard

aka Ian Eller
Supporter
I just now purchased and started reading the 2024 PHB, so I am sure I missed this discussion the first time around.

I do not like the Rules Glossary. It is disjointed, requires a bunch of page flipping, and doesn't even make sense in its own context. I think it would have been fine if it had been an addendum to the rules, but by not bothering to explain the rules in the specific sections of the book, and instead constantly pointing the reader at the Glossary, the book fails to be a useful and usable handbook on how to play.

An example of how the Glossary itself fails is the Influence action entry: the rules for the action aren't even completely in the entry; you still have to look up multiple terms elsewhere in the glossary.

I am sure someone is going to say that this is a better way and education/learning specialists were consulted, etc. I don't see how. It is a mess.

As a related aside: the combat example in that section is woefully undercooked.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

An example of how the Glossary itself fails is the Influence action entry: the rules for the action aren't even completely in the entry; you still have to look up multiple terms elsewhere in the glossary.
Influence is a social mechanic. Rules people don’t seem to like those no matter how good the glossary may or may not be.

One of the many reasons I don’t read rule books. 😉
 


That is not a reasonable excuse.
It’s not an excuse. It’s an observation.
If I worked for the publisher I’d have to come up with an excuse.

When we don’t like things ie social mechanics; we’re predisposed to having negative views of their presentation.

I think the influence entry is fine. Any social interaction is going to be positive, negative or neutral. Since in a million years I wouldn’t look up this information I have no problem with it.

Now if I looked up the entry for broccoli; since I can’t stand broccoli no matter what the entry looked like I’d find fault with it.

Selection bias. Now I’m sure everyone will tell me I’m wrong. Again, selection bias. My opinion differs from yours so mine must have something wrong with it.

It’s just an opinion. It’s an abstract game. You can’t quantify all the rules nor can everyone quantify their opinions of all the rules. Do the best with what you’ve got and focus on having actual fun.
 

It’s not an excuse. It’s an observation.
If I worked for the publisher I’d have to come up with an excuse.

When we don’t like things ie social mechanics; we’re predisposed to having negative views of their presentation.

I think the influence entry is fine. Any social interaction is going to be positive, negative or neutral. Since in a million years I wouldn’t look up this information I have no problem with it.

Now if I looked up the entry for broccoli; since I can’t stand broccoli no matter what the entry looked like I’d find fault with it.

Selection bias. Now I’m sure everyone will tell me I’m wrong. Again, selection bias. My opinion differs from yours so mine must have something wrong with it.

It’s just an opinion. It’s an abstract game. You can’t quantify all the rules nor can everyone quantify their opinions of all the rules. Do the best with what you’ve got and focus on having actual fun.
I honestly have no idea what you are trying to say here. You seem to be suggesting that I found fault with the Influence rules because I don't like social mechanics. that is, of course, completely bass ackwards. I LIKE social rules, that's why I looked them up. I did not liek their presentation because the information was spread around and disjointed.

You seem to be saying that you don't like those rules so you would never look them up, so whatever form they are in is just fine because it doesn't affect you. That may be the most myopic nonsense I have ever read on EN World.
 

I honestly have no idea what you are trying to say here. You seem to be suggesting that I found fault with the Influence rules because I don't like social mechanics. that is, of course, completely bass ackwards. I LIKE social rules, that's why I looked them up. I did not liek their presentation because the information was spread around and disjointed.

You seem to be saying that you don't like those rules so you would never look them up, so whatever form they are in is just fine because it doesn't affect you. That may be the most myopic nonsense I have ever read on EN World.
I have no problem with the entry. I would never need it; but since you pointed it out now I know it’s there. You educated me and for that I thank you.

My conclusion is that I have no problem with the entry.
 


I just now purchased and started reading the 2024 PHB, so I am sure I missed this discussion the first time around.

I do not like the Rules Glossary. It is disjointed, requires a bunch of page flipping, and doesn't even make sense in its own context. I think it would have been fine if it had been an addendum to the rules, but by not bothering to explain the rules in the specific sections of the book, and instead constantly pointing the reader at the Glossary, the book fails to be a useful and usable handbook on how to play.

An example of how the Glossary itself fails is the Influence action entry: the rules for the action aren't even completely in the entry; you still have to look up multiple terms elsewhere in the glossary.

I am sure someone is going to say that this is a better way and education/learning specialists were consulted, etc. I don't see how. It is a mess.

As a related aside: the combat example in that section is woefully undercooked.
What I have noticed is that while it can weaken the textual reading flow, it's really useful in play to have most of the keywords in its own appendix. I can find the Influence rules or the rules for exhaustion rather quickly compared to 2014. I guess its a tradeoff.

I would note that if viewed on D&D Beyond (where hyperlinking/hovering can pull up the appropriate rule without leaving the original text) it's a far superior experience. But getting used to the footnote style of reading the paper PHB takes some getting use to.
 

I find it to be one of the best changes in the PHB. One of the most useful sections in any PHB to date. Oh how I wanted this in 2014.

What I have noticed is that while it can weaken the textual reading flow, it's really useful in play to have most of the keywords in its own appendix. I can find the Influence rules or the rules for exhaustion rather quickly compared to 2014. I guess its a tradeoff.

I would note that if viewed on D&D Beyond (where hyperlinking/hovering can pull up the appropriate rule without leaving the original text) it's a far superior experience. But getting used to the footnote style of reading the paper PHB takes some getting use to.

I legitimately think they could have had it both ways: explaining the rules in the sections where those rules are relevant, AND having a Rules Glossary that distills those things down for easy reference.

Also -- and this is just a personal pet peeve -- I HATE that the conditions are spread throughout the Glossary instead of just listed all together.
 

I feel like the key thing to understand here is that the Rules Glossary was conceived with D&D Beyond in mind. It is extremely useful there because every glossary term is a link to another term, and you can mouse over it to make a brief definition pop-up.

That doesn't make it any less frustrating for you obviously, but I'd wager that's the reason it's written the way it is.
 

Trending content

Remove ads

Top