Mearls' Legends and Lore: Miniatures Madness

[LostSoul]

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?

I disagree with (a). I think it is preferable to have clear, commonly understood rules that require judgement. Rules that require judgement ensure that each decision point is going to be coloured by the creativity and aesthetic tastes of the players in the group.

The answer to (b) is the Czege Principle: "creating your own adversity and its resolution is boring." When you can define elements of the game world it can raise issues - are you advocating for your character, or attempting to maintain the consistency of the game world? You can't do both. Here's an interesting blog post on the subject: The pitfalls of narrative technique in rpg play Game Design is about Structure

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Mike Mearls was not the "head designer" of the core 4E system.

I believe that was Rob Heinsoo.

From my 4E PHB1:

D&D® 4th Edition Design Team
Rob Heinsoo, Andy Collins, James Wyatt

D&D 4th Edition Final Development Strike Team
Bill Slavicsek, Mike Mearls, James Wyatt

Player’s Handbook Design
Rob Heinsoo, Andy Collins, James Wyatt

Player’s Handbook Development
Andy Collins, Mike Mearls, Stephen Radney-MacFarland,
Peter Schaefer, Stephen Schubert

Mearls is head of D&D R&D. That's pretty much the head design guy. I'm not talking about who was in charge 3-4 years ago, I'm talking about NOW. You know, the guy that is in charge of what happens from now on... What the design philosophy of people whom you may notice are largely gone is or was doesn't matter much at this point. Obviously Bill Slavicsek is still around, most of the others in your list are not.

 

[P1NBACK]

Mearls is head of D&D R&D. That's pretty much the head design guy. I'm not talking about who was in charge 3-4 years ago, I'm talking about NOW. You know, the guy that is in charge of what happens from now on...

Wait a minute... Just a second ago you were railing against Mearls because his article published NOW doesn't line up with the principles of the game set forth 3-4 years ago.

...

Wtf?

What the design philosophy of people whom you may notice are largely gone is or was doesn't matter much at this point.

It most certainly does, considering we're still playing that game.

Or, in other words, you're criticizing Mike Mearls for his ideas of how D&D should be designed going forward because he's the lead designer currently of a game that was designed by people before him, nearly 3-4 years ago that don't match up with his ideas...

Gimme a break, dude.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I disagree with (a). I think it is preferable to have clear, commonly understood rules that require judgement. Rules that require judgement ensure that each decision point is going to be coloured by the creativity and aesthetic tastes of the players in the group.

The answer to (b) is the Czege Principle: "creating your own adversity and its resolution is boring." When you can define elements of the game world it can raise issues - are you advocating for your character, or attempting to maintain the consistency of the game world? You can't do both. Here's an interesting blog post on the subject: The pitfalls of narrative technique in rpg play Game Design is about Structure

Yeah, well, Czege's 'principle' is no principle at all. A principle is something which is universally applicable and elucidates or arises from some deeper structural or conceptual level. All Czege is doing is stating a preference. It is no more a principle than that the players in my game like to play dwarves.

Personally I just think that your insistence that somehow having vague and ill-defined rules adds something to the game is just wrong. Systematic rules are simply another arrow in the DM's quiver. They allow the narrative to focus on what is actually important. Instead of it being necessary for the players to bargain over when and if they have cover they simply know the answer in 95% of all situations. They can STILL ask. The DM can STILL provide every bit of 'color' he could before. In fact by making a situation exceptional he can bring focus onto that unique element of the game at that time.

The problem with vague rules is one of two things happens. Either a player uses the vagueness assertively by maintaining each situation should be favorable to him, or the player lacks that assertiveness and simply ignores said game element entirely. In either case when it becomes really significant the game has to pause while the DM justifies his ruling.

I can't tell you how many friggin times we had to have the perpetual AD&D argument about whether or not the rogue had some shadows to hide in and when or if he was able to backstab. UGH! This was particularly egregious because it was a key character mechanical class benefit which the player was going to rely on fairly heavily. These kinds of things NEED to have unambiguous mechanics, otherwise you either have endless attempts at abuse or players that simply won't be bothered to use that benefit at all.

Nothing is lost by having additional tools available to the DM, like a simple mechanical way to determine cover in most situations. My players are MUCH more likely to use all of their interesting class abilities etc in 4e than they ever were before. I have lost nothing and gained much.

 

[MrMyth]

Well, the whole system is built on a rules concept and style of implementation that the man just spent an entire column disparaging. Yes, it was cast in the form of an exposition but it was QUITE clear which side the author was on. The very fact that the head designer of the game would open up that debate says all that really needs to be said. It isn't exactly taken entirely in isolation either. He's made a number of other statements in the same general vein. You can interpret it differently of course but I clearly see that we have a guy in charge of the design of 4e who has come around to a point of view that is fundamentally at odds with the design of the product he is in charge of, so yeah, I'll stick to what I said before. I predict this will lead to a shakeup before too long as well. It isn't a tenable situation.

I disagree with what you said on basically every count.

But just to start at the beginning - the very fact that you read his column as disparaging towards anything, as opposed to a very reasonable discussion of the advantages and disadvantages to different approaches to the system, is hard for me to even wrap my head around.

 

[P1NBACK]

Personally I just think that your insistence that somehow having vague and ill-defined rules adds something to the game is just wrong. Systematic rules are simply another arrow in the DM's quiver. They allow the narrative to focus on what is actually important. Instead of it being necessary for the players to bargain over when and if they have cover they simply know the answer in 95% of all situations. They can STILL ask. The DM can STILL provide every bit of 'color' he could before. In fact by making a situation exceptional he can bring focus onto that unique element of the game at that time.

The problem with vague rules is one of two things happens. Either a player uses the vagueness assertively by maintaining each situation should be favorable to him, or the player lacks that assertiveness and simply ignores said game element entirely. In either case when it becomes really significant the game has to pause while the DM justifies his ruling.

Your problem is you think "DM Judgment" = "Vague Rules".

Go read Apocalypse World. It relies heavily on GM judgment and has very specific rules for when the GM talks, what they say, and how they make judgments.

 

[Ryujin]

Vague rules or specific rules, I see nothing that stops a DM from simply saying something like, "This area is under heavy influence from The Far Realm. Walls may LOOK solid but, as they are wavering in and out of your reality, they only provide basic cover."

 

[LostSoul]

Somehow I feel as though we've been down this road before...

Yeah, well, Czege's 'principle' is no principle at all. A principle is something which is universally applicable and elucidates or arises from some deeper structural or conceptual level. All Czege is doing is stating a preference. It is no more a principle than that the players in my game like to play dwarves.

Eero's blog does a better job of explaining it than I ever could. All I can add is that it makes sense to me.

Personally I just think that your insistence that somehow having vague and ill-defined rules adds something to the game is just wrong. Systematic rules are simply another arrow in the DM's quiver.

I would agree with you! I don't think vague and ill-defined rules add much to the game (though in some instances they do, but I think in ways that don't have much to deal with this topic). I think clear and well-defined rules that require judgement are good. Hmm... let's just say I prefer them.

My hack relies heavily on clear rules that require judgement; a quick example is the rule that the DM adds a +2 modifier to a character's roll per tactical or situational advantage. I think that's pretty clear and well-defined. I could be wrong. It might be that the social dynamic of our group is what keeps arguments from breaking out, the players from abusing the rule, or me (the DM) from having to constantly justify my rulings.

That might be an interesting way to take this discussion - how much does the social dynamic influence the acceptance of DM rulings?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Somehow I feel as though we've been down this road before...

lol, perhaps

I would agree with you! I don't think vague and ill-defined rules add much to the game (though in some instances they do, but I think in ways that don't have much to deal with this topic). I think clear and well-defined rules that require judgement are good. Hmm... let's just say I prefer them.

My hack relies heavily on clear rules that require judgement; a quick example is the rule that the DM adds a +2 modifier to a character's roll per tactical or situational advantage. I think that's pretty clear and well-defined. I could be wrong. It might be that the social dynamic of our group is what keeps arguments from breaking out, the players from abusing the rule, or me (the DM) from having to constantly justify my rulings.

That might be an interesting way to take this discussion - how much does the social dynamic influence the acceptance of DM rulings?

I think some of it is semantics. I'd say a rule like the 4e cover determination rule is fairly precise. 2 players should be able to objectively reach the same conclusions based on using that rule. Of course nothing is perfect, but it is pretty clear cut. I haven't really read your rules, so I won't say I know one way or the other how precise they are, but 'a tactical or situational advantage' sounds to me like it covers a lot of ground where the determinations are in the hands of one of the participants and any 2 reasonable players using those rules might commonly disagree and the resolution of their disagreement will be subjective. The EFFECT of a situational advantage may well be precisely specified, but what constitutes one may not be (again I'm speculating in the absence of having read the material, so I could be missing something there).

I guess for me the interesting aspect of the RPG is how the players have their characters react to the situations they find themselves in, not how they interact with the rules. I'm fine with the wall being a wall and the effects of walls being pretty cut-and-dried. If the wall is an illusionary shadow wall, then that's a different thing from a stone wall. Sure the rules probably don't cover illusionary shadow walls, they can only give you the common cases. OTOH 4e isn't exactly bereft of advice on how to work with things outside of its definitions.

There's nothing wrong with different types of games either. Some games simply abstract things to a higher degree than others. A precise rule about how walls give cover would be worthless in a game where combat is abstract enough that it isn't a factor. I could imagine a set of rules that simply say you're a sneaky ambush fighter and you get a bonus to your defense whenever the scenario takes place in a location that is designated as appropriate for sneaking around. That could still be pretty precisely specified.

 

[LostSoul]

I haven't really read your rules, so I won't say I know one way or the other how precise they are, but 'a tactical or situational advantage' sounds to me like it covers a lot of ground where the determinations are in the hands of one of the participants and any 2 reasonable players using those rules might commonly disagree and the resolution of their disagreement will be subjective. The EFFECT of a situational advantage may well be precisely specified, but what constitutes one may not be (again I'm speculating in the absence of having read the material, so I could be missing something there).

I think you've got the gist of the rules. I think that I want that rule to be disagreed upon by two reasonable players.

I think what's important are the roles and authority of different players within the game. I spend a lot of text explaining how the DM's job is different from the player's job. Keeping on focus of social dynamics, I think that, in my hack, if you constantly disagree with the DM's rulings, you should find another DM. The vagueness of that rule - that it could reasonably apply (or not) in a lot of different situations - means that each DM has great freedom and responsibility to present a consistent game world. The text of my hack, explicity and over and over again, says that the DM should base his decisions on maintaining the consistency of the game world; I think that's what makes the rule clear instead of vague.

I tend to think of "reasonable" actions like the TV show Spartacus; other DMs might disagree and go with something much more realistic/gritty, and others might want more of a high-fantasy vibe. Since one of the DM's important (and explicit) jobs in my hack is to present a consistent world, I give the DM the freedom to do that. I think that's where the personal creativity - hmm, instead of creativity let's say personal spin on the setting - comes in.

(Eero does a good job of explaining why I put that responsibility on the shoulders of the DM alone; in my hack, I want to challenge the players, and I expect them to try and push the boundaries - but they must respect the DM's rulings, or else they are "cheating"/guilty of "misconduct"/showing poor sportsmanship. One of the player's jobs is to respect the DM's rulings.)

That's one side of things. The other side is that the vagueness of the rule allows the fiction to have an impact in resolution. I think that's important as well.

But! I'm not trying to say that this is the one true way. I wrote my hack to deliver a specific game experience, so I went with these kinds of rules. I can easily see how they would not work given other goals.