Ryujin
Legend
Sure, he presented both sides of the argument, but then he stated which side of the argument he comes down on. I disagree with his preference, as it isn't mine
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Mearls' Legends and Lore: Miniatures Madness
- Thread starter Knightfall
- Start date
Sure, he presented both sides of the argument, but then he stated which side of the argument he comes down on. I disagree with his preference, as it isn't mine
UngeheuerLich
Legend
DM uses common sense. This rule alone would save us most discussions.
the Jester
Legend
Bingo.
One of the best elements of old-school gaming is the emphasis on rulings, not rules.
Grandpa
First Post
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.
Miniatures and grids are not easier for me as a DM because keeping enough rules in my head to parlay with a rules-lawyer is hard. I know I'm within my rights to bend the rules, but my desire to avoid doing so is because the rules empower players. Without concrete rules to adjudicate combat interactions, players are more subject to DM whim, and how much enjoyment they get out of it is strongly tied to how well the DM engages the players. A good DM will make players' ideas come to life and have interesting twists, and players will develop their character outside of play trusting that the DM will make those choices interesting. A bad DM, however, stifles both in-game and out-of-game creativity.
In my experience, concrete rules dull the negative effects of a bad DM and the positive effects of a good DM. With concrete rules, players can still explore, exploit, and get creative with the boundaries set by rules both in and out of combat, and this can be fun regardless of the quality of your DM. The negative consequence is that it's hard to avoid speaking purely in "the language of rules." Outside of combat where things are relatively rules-free, the players are more likely to attempt creative actions, but in combat -- despite how much the DM insists that "you can do anything" -- players are encouraged to use the rules for success, and use nothing but the strictly defined system of powers to determine each and every action. Bringing narrative immersion back into combat is possible, but requires even-greater commitment and skill on the part of both DM and players to add flavor via rules, or slip narrative into every crack of an otherwise rules-heavy enterprise.
For these reasons, if I could adjust anything in the core rules, it would first be to canonize the "Do Something Cool" mechanic used by several ENWorld DMs (example here, under "Powers"). Making it explicit that players can substitute a valued resource (e.g., Action Point + Healing Surge) to do something cool gives players an "official" way to test the adjudicating skills of their DM and encourages creativity, but lets them ignore this part of the game if it yields poor results. Second, I would love to see a DMG focused on the philosophy and construction of the core rules, with lots of hows and whys from the designers, and advice on bringing balanced flavor to life through rules. From the community here, one of my favorite examples of flavor in rules is RangerWickett's monster design in Lolth takes Rio de Janeiro.
I would wager that some groups that dislike modern D&D struggle with rules killing the creativity they otherwise experience. But I prefer 4E because I know that players have an interesting playground of rules to enjoy while I get comfortable with my skills as a (new) DM, and get better at bringing narrative to life.
Miniatures and grids are not easier for me as a DM because keeping enough rules in my head to parlay with a rules-lawyer is hard. I know I'm within my rights to bend the rules, but my desire to avoid doing so is because the rules empower players. Without concrete rules to adjudicate combat interactions, players are more subject to DM whim, and how much enjoyment they get out of it is strongly tied to how well the DM engages the players. A good DM will make players' ideas come to life and have interesting twists, and players will develop their character outside of play trusting that the DM will make those choices interesting. A bad DM, however, stifles both in-game and out-of-game creativity.
In my experience, concrete rules dull the negative effects of a bad DM and the positive effects of a good DM. With concrete rules, players can still explore, exploit, and get creative with the boundaries set by rules both in and out of combat, and this can be fun regardless of the quality of your DM. The negative consequence is that it's hard to avoid speaking purely in "the language of rules." Outside of combat where things are relatively rules-free, the players are more likely to attempt creative actions, but in combat -- despite how much the DM insists that "you can do anything" -- players are encouraged to use the rules for success, and use nothing but the strictly defined system of powers to determine each and every action. Bringing narrative immersion back into combat is possible, but requires even-greater commitment and skill on the part of both DM and players to add flavor via rules, or slip narrative into every crack of an otherwise rules-heavy enterprise.
For these reasons, if I could adjust anything in the core rules, it would first be to canonize the "Do Something Cool" mechanic used by several ENWorld DMs (example here, under "Powers"). Making it explicit that players can substitute a valued resource (e.g., Action Point + Healing Surge) to do something cool gives players an "official" way to test the adjudicating skills of their DM and encourages creativity, but lets them ignore this part of the game if it yields poor results. Second, I would love to see a DMG focused on the philosophy and construction of the core rules, with lots of hows and whys from the designers, and advice on bringing balanced flavor to life through rules. From the community here, one of my favorite examples of flavor in rules is RangerWickett's monster design in Lolth takes Rio de Janeiro.
I would wager that some groups that dislike modern D&D struggle with rules killing the creativity they otherwise experience. But I prefer 4E because I know that players have an interesting playground of rules to enjoy while I get comfortable with my skills as a (new) DM, and get better at bringing narrative to life.
Mercurius
Legend
Very interesting. One of the lead designers of 4E basically saying that he prefers the Old School approach to such rulings.
It is also interesting that he's asking for a vote - I can't help but wonder if this is a design question for 5E, to what degree to make the rules dependent upon the battlemap.
It is also interesting that he's asking for a vote - I can't help but wonder if this is a design question for 5E, to what degree to make the rules dependent upon the battlemap.
If I'm using a battle map I want as much info there for me and for my players. So a binary representation on cover or not cover is required. If it is superior or regular I might rule as a DM, while attempting to provide some distinction on the map. But it will still be clear there is cover to the target from square X on the map.
If I'm not using a battlemap then the players aren't required/expecting an all out tactical encounter and the level of cover can be fuzzier and is arbitrated by me.
If I'm not using a battlemap then the players aren't required/expecting an all out tactical encounter and the level of cover can be fuzzier and is arbitrated by me.
The Little Raven
First Post
DM uses common sense. This rule alone would save us most discussions.
If "Common Sense" were a Magic card, it would be a mythic rare.
Moot point.
As a DM, I can say that the corner of the wall you just moved behind for "cover" is crumbled in despite the bold lines I drew on the grid and doesn't provide the bonus you expected.
As the DM, it's your duty to describe the world and fill in those details on the fly. As a player, it's your job to ask questions that help the DM fill in those gaps. "Would that corner provide me cover?" "Only slightly, it's not a full wall, but a crumbling ruin of one..."
Therefore, the real problem here is not "rigid battlemat play" versus "loose DM rulings". The real problem is description vs. real world cues (battlemats, minis, etc...); and it's something 4E fails completely at.
If Mearls wants to design the perfect 5E, that uses real world cues to segue into the shared fiction, he's going to need to design rules that allow and inspire that.
Part of that is giving DMs guidelines to make rulings based on what is going on in the fiction and the real world.
This is the challenge 4E faces currently, as the combat rules (which use the real world cues the most) poorly translate into a vivid fictional situation that the "loose" rulings favor.
So, the question Mike needs to be asking himself is, "How can I utilize those real world cues to efficiently and effectively translate a vivid fictional situation?"
As a DM, I can say that the corner of the wall you just moved behind for "cover" is crumbled in despite the bold lines I drew on the grid and doesn't provide the bonus you expected.
As the DM, it's your duty to describe the world and fill in those details on the fly. As a player, it's your job to ask questions that help the DM fill in those gaps. "Would that corner provide me cover?" "Only slightly, it's not a full wall, but a crumbling ruin of one..."
Therefore, the real problem here is not "rigid battlemat play" versus "loose DM rulings". The real problem is description vs. real world cues (battlemats, minis, etc...); and it's something 4E fails completely at.
If Mearls wants to design the perfect 5E, that uses real world cues to segue into the shared fiction, he's going to need to design rules that allow and inspire that.
Part of that is giving DMs guidelines to make rulings based on what is going on in the fiction and the real world.
This is the challenge 4E faces currently, as the combat rules (which use the real world cues the most) poorly translate into a vivid fictional situation that the "loose" rulings favor.
So, the question Mike needs to be asking himself is, "How can I utilize those real world cues to efficiently and effectively translate a vivid fictional situation?"
Similar Threads
Pathfinder 2E
Pathfinder 2nd Edition Legacy Bundle on Humble Bundle
