Mearls' Legends and Lore: Miniatures Madness

[Balesir]

This is probably the case. My comment goes deeper than: "Do we have a rule for cover or not?"

It extends to all rules (rulings) the DM will make over the course of a game session, the crumbling wall/normal wall scenario is simply an example of how this ideology can be distilled into one judgment call.

Or, in other words, the DM must make judgment calls, so give her the tools to do that and quit worrying about concrete rulings to very specific instances "This wall is crumbling vs. non-crumbling".

I can envisage a tiny subset of games for which total GM control might be a desirable thing, but for the vast majority of cases making everything we do a collective and collaborative exercise is a vastly superior proposition, in my view.

I will admit that I went through a phase a while back where I became convinced that I (as GM) needed to totally control the game and the success or failure of it was entirely down to me and so I should be accorded complete authority. But I got over it.

 

[P1NBACK]

I can envisage a tiny subset of games for which total GM control might be a desirable thing, but for the vast majority of cases making everything we do a collective and collaborative exercise is a vastly superior proposition, in my view.

I will admit that I went through a phase a while back where I became convinced that I (as GM) needed to totally control the game and the success or failure of it was entirely down to me and so I should be accorded complete authority. But I got over it.

Clearly, I'm not making myself understood.

I am not talking about total GM control.

I'm talking about giving GMs tools for making judgment calls, which is going to happen in the game period, no matter how concrete your rules are so long as players have the option of making impact on the fiction.

There's a difference.

For example, in 4E, we have DMG page 42. Unfortunately, in my experience, that bit is often overlooked. This kind of GM rules should be the foundation, not the exception.

 

[Balesir]

Clearly, I'm not making myself understood.

I am not talking about total GM control.

It seems to me that you are, because of what you say in this post. The overriding 'rule' should be that the GM gets to make the rules as s/he goes along...

I'm talking about giving GMs tools for making judgment calls, which is going to happen in the game period, no matter how concrete your rules are so long as players have the option of making impact on the fiction.

Sure, judgement calls are going to be needed at a few points in any game. But (a) I think it is much preferable to have clear, commonly understood rules that apply to the majority of cases without the need of such judgement, and (b) why should such judgement be reserved to the GM alone?

There's a difference.

If there is, I'm still not seeing it. If you suggested that the players (including the GM) should agree the parameters collectively by discussion around the 'tools' given in the game rules, I might see your point, but apparently that authority rests only with the GM - hence "total GM control".

For example, in 4E, we have DMG page 42. Unfortunately, in my experience, that bit is often overlooked. This kind of GM rules should be the foundation, not the exception.

If this is what you want, then I am happy for you to pursue it (though good luck getting players!), but for me the 4E rules have it absolutely right. The "default" should be the main body of the rules, so that all players may understand them (and, thus, how the world works). Judgement should be reserved for those (inevitable) cases where the rules are lacking.

 

[P1NBACK]

It seems to me that you are, because of what you say in this post. The overriding 'rule' should be that the GM gets to make the rules as s/he goes along...

No. The GM makes judgment calls (rulings) based on the rules in the book. It's not "as you go along, make up".

It is: this rulebook provides sound rules for the GM to make judgment calls as needed during the game.

Sure, judgement calls are going to be needed at a few points in any game. But (a) I think it is much preferable to have clear, commonly understood rules that apply to the majority of cases without the need of such judgement, and (b) why should such judgement be reserved to the GM alone?

It's not reserved for the GM alone. However, I've found that having a single GM (instead of multiply GMs or GM-type authority divvied among the players) to be a more appealing method of gameplay.

However, the GM never has full authority in any case. As we sit down to play, we're allowing the GM to make judgment calls and if the GM abuses the rules to provide unfair and dickish rulings, then as adults we can remove that authority (by finding a new GM).

Secondly, just because you are giving the GM tools to make judgment calls and rulings instead of hard and fast concrete examples of rules (wall vs. cover), doesn't mean those rules can't be clear and commonly understood by all the players at the table.

If there is, I'm still not seeing it. If you suggested that the players (including the GM) should agree the parameters collectively by discussion around the 'tools' given in the game rules, I might see your point, but apparently that authority rests only with the GM - hence "total GM control".

I think I've addressed this.

Let me put it this way: I am not for a "Rule 0". Instead, I'd rather give the GM clear instructions in order to make judgment calls during the game and the GM must abide by those instructions.

That's different than saying, "The GM has total control no matter what. He/she is the rule no matter what."

If this is what you want, then I am happy for you to pursue it (though good luck getting players!), but for me the 4E rules have it absolutely right. The "default" should be the main body of the rules, so that all players may understand them (and, thus, how the world works). Judgement should be reserved for those (inevitable) cases where the rules are lacking.

False.

There is always judgment calls. There is always a moment of judgment when applying those rules you so steadfastly hold to.

That's what I'm talking about.

The clear cut corner drawn on the grid that looks like a wall to you at the table. Well, it's only a perfectly formed wall in the fiction if the GM says so. Period. That's how 4E works right now.

The problem is, 4E doesn't provide the tools to marry those elements of the real world and the fiction as well as it should for a roleplaying game that relies on the grid/minis as much as it does.

If we're playing a boardgame where the fiction matters not, then I'm totally onboard with your ideas of how the rules should be written. And, sadly, it seems lots of people do play 4E like a boardgame.

But, Mike Mearls doesn't want to. And, I certainly don't want to. And, despite your alluding to me "not getting players", my players certainly don't want to.

 

[Prestidigitalis]

The article seemed to be geared towards DMs but it seems more a player issue with the dichotomy being less "DM ease" and more "player empowerment" vs. narrative immersion.

That's a pretty good summary of the article, but I think there is another facet which is either overlooked or just assumed to be understood: explicit rules remove a source of tension and contention between DM and players.

 

[Balesir]

Secondly, just because you are giving the GM tools to make judgment calls and rulings instead of hard and fast concrete examples of rules (wall vs. cover), doesn't mean those rules can't be clear and commonly understood by all the players at the table.

...

Let me put it this way: I am not for a "Rule 0". Instead, I'd rather give the GM clear instructions in order to make judgment calls during the game and the GM must abide by those instructions.

That's different than saying, "The GM has total control no matter what. He/she is the rule no matter what."

Yes, it is. You seem to be saying "there should be rules that the GM sticks to and the players can see and understand", in which case I really don't understand what point you are trying to make, at all.

False.

Please, let's not have "False!"/"Is not, too!"/"Yes, 'tis false!" silliness.

There is always judgment calls. There is always a moment of judgment when applying those rules you so steadfastly hold to.

So, the GM can use his or her judgement to apply the rules as written?? Why, in that case, does the GM need to be seen as the sole font of rules authority? If the GM doesn't do it, it doesn't count??

The clear cut corner drawn on the grid that looks like a wall to you at the table. Well, it's only a perfectly formed wall in the fiction if the GM says so. Period. That's how 4E works right now.

I agree. But I would note that, if the wall is not formed well enough to constitute 'blocking terrain' by the rules definition, it should be drawn differently (or, at the very minimum, pointed out specifically) from those that are. 4E has plenty of terrain describing terms to cover walls that aren't blocking terrain - just choose one (or even make a new one up) and mark/describe the wall that way. As long as the GM isn't drawing all walls the same and then playing "NIGYYSOB" because "that particular one actually doesn't block line of sight, ha, ha!", all is good.

The problem is, 4E doesn't provide the tools to marry those elements of the real world and the fiction as well as it should for a roleplaying game that relies on the grid/minis as much as it does.

If we're playing a boardgame where the fiction matters not, then I'm totally onboard with your ideas of how the rules should be written. And, sadly, it seems lots of people do play 4E like a boardgame.

The folks I play D&D 4E with also play a fair number of boardgames - our D&D play is nothing like them. Granted, it's different from previous editions of D&D we have played, too, but I count that mostly as a gain. Its purpose, focus and "dimension of fun" are, at least, clear and well supported. Previous editions have given some support to other types of fun, but have generally, as a result, been a rather confused and contentious muddle of half-formed concepts that have relied upon GM inspiration to achieve a satisfying experience out of. With 4E it helps if I'm competent, but I don't feel I need to reinvent aesthetics every run just to make the whole thing 'gel'.

But, Mike Mearls doesn't want to. And, I certainly don't want to. And, despite your alluding to me "not getting players", my players certainly don't want to.

I'm glad you and your group are having fun. For my part I just hope Mike Mearls doesn't turn a very focussed and "fit for purpose" game into as muddled and misleading a morass as, for example, 2nd Edition was.

 

[P1NBACK]

Right on. I think we've declared our ideas fairly well, despite lingering misunderstandings.

 

[delericho]

FWIW I agree that the 3.5 rules had (at least) one major flaw, but the 4E ones fix that and I find very good indeed for the majority of cases. And, yes, line of sight and cover lines work differently - LoS is blocked by touching obstructions, lines to determine cover aren't. That's the trick that makes the flaws with the 3.5 version go away.

I've just done a side-by-side comparison of the 3.5e and 4e PHBs, and the rules are exactly the same in both cases.

Horrible rules in both editions.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

False.

There is always judgment calls. There is always a moment of judgment when applying those rules you so steadfastly hold to.

That's what I'm talking about.

The clear cut corner drawn on the grid that looks like a wall to you at the table. Well, it's only a perfectly formed wall in the fiction if the GM says so. Period. That's how 4E works right now.

The problem is, 4E doesn't provide the tools to marry those elements of the real world and the fiction as well as it should for a roleplaying game that relies on the grid/minis as much as it does.

If we're playing a boardgame where the fiction matters not, then I'm totally onboard with your ideas of how the rules should be written. And, sadly, it seems lots of people do play 4E like a boardgame.

But, Mike Mearls doesn't want to. And, I certainly don't want to. And, despite your alluding to me "not getting players", my players certainly don't want to.

Yeah, I think you're wrong on that score. I think 4e DOES EXACTLY provide the tools to marry those elements. That is in fact what it does in spades. Things have standard definitions and when no other consideration overrides everyone knows what is meant and what the rule is. A wall that is blocking terrain does X. If it doesn't do X then IT ISN'T BLOCKING TERRAIN. Now, maybe the game doesn't provide a definition that is suitable to whatever the DM is trying to portray at that point, so he improvises. That's fine. If the other players don't like the way the rules were applied and don't feel that they support the fiction the way they would like then they SHOULD be able to speak up. If the DM is going to try to be authoritarian that isn't a game system issue at all.

The problem with a system that tries to work the way 3e's cover 'system' did or which just names some terms but never defines them like AD&D did is that you are always having to negotiate with the DM what it all means. It is all just either an endless time suck or everyone just assumes the DM knows what he's talking about since nobody else has a clear idea what is what unless they ask about every detail on the map.

The main reason that AD&D worked was really because it was such a BAD tactical game that it just didn't matter. Now, admittedly, 4e is a more tactical game, which some will or won't like, but GIVEN THAT IT IS its rules are formulated in an appropriate fashion.

 

[Dausuul]

I think there's a middle ground to be struck on questions of "hard rules" versus "DM judgement," and it's best achieved by stepping back a moment and asking, "What are the goals of this rule?"

For me, at least, the goals of most any rule are as follows:

• Create a working approximation of the fictional world
• in a way that keeps the DM and the players on the same page as to how the PCs' fictional actions will play out
• while creating interesting choices for players and DM
• and not bogging down the game.

There are, of course, tradeoffs to be made between these areas. In the case under discussion:

• The cover rules do pretty well at creating a working approximation of the fictional world. DM judgement may do better, but probably won't improve on it a huge amount.
• The cover rules do a somewhat better job of keeping the DM and players on the same page, but the question doesn't come up that much because
• Cover is seldom a decisive element tactically, so neither cover rules nor DM judgement do much to promote interesting choices.
• Cover rules slow down the game to a small but appreciable degree, compared to DM judgement.

As you may have guessed, I lean toward using DM judgement here. Because of the small tactical impact--cover is not that big a deal most of the time--I think making the system fast and responsive takes precedence over making it clear and predictable, and DM judgement is usually the fastest and most responsive option.

But I don't think there's a single good answer to "hard rules versus DM judgement." TSR-era D&D relied massively on DM judgement, while 3E and 4E have been obsessed with not relying on it at all. I'd like a system someplace in the middle.