Mearls on Balance in D&D

[phindar]

As I said above, I don't buy the notion that more comprehensive rules is somehow a protection from bad DMing.

Yes, but. What protection are no rules?

Putting it another way, which do enjoy more, outcomes or the process through which those outcomes are achieved?

I think you should probably enjoy the process since, you know, you're going to be doing it for awhile. But if the process by which you arrive at the outcome doesn't make any sense--if you don't believe it--there's no real satisfaction in what happens. (The rule in games in the rule of sketch comedy, If they buy the premise, they'll buy the joke.)

The more you simulate --emphasizing the character's skills-- the less enjoyment the players get from solving problems themselves.

This one I don't get. If I make a character that puts a bunch of points into Hide, hiding will be less satisfying than if I don't, and just tell the GM I'm hiding behind a barrel?

 

[Gentlegamer]

See, this is my problem. As a player, how would it even occur to me to do this? There's nothing in the rules to even remotely suggest that I could disguise myself (let alone disguise my halfling thief) as a young hill giant. Unless the DM specifically suggested it to the players, how would they know to do it?

This is exactly what I mean when I say that the more rules there are, the more players will conceptualize their in-game actions in reference to those rules.

They should "know to do it" by role-playing the situation. That's part of the skill-set of players that is independent of any ruleset. That sort of "free form" action taking is what sold me on RPGs years ago.

This is also why I believe "rules-lite" games actually provide more options.

 

[BryonD]

Yes. However, like I said before, it's a trade-off. The more you simulate --emphasizing the character's skills-- the less enjoyment the players get from solving problems themselves. Putting it another way, which do enjoy more, outcomes or the process through which those outcomes are achieved?

For me, playing RPG's is all about that process; the kind of inspired-yet-half-witted brainstorming sessions that produce plans like "I know, we'll disguise ourselves as giant midgets!"

"Solving problems" = make up any "half-witted" nonsensical "plan" and browbeat the DM into agreeing that it will work????

Fait accompli is the opposite of a process.

Without the rules setting a system that the problem works in, there is no real problem.

If I wanted a sensible game, I'd stick to chess.

Then why pay for any game material at all?
If you don't want sense, then by defintion you want nonsense.
I don't need any books or guidelines for that.
If somehow surreal absurdity and noncohesion is what you want, then for god's sake have fun at it. But clearly you must see that this is a very far tangent preference.

Yes. But how is that any different from a DM who sticks to the RAW?

meh, that is a total red herring.

I've encountered plenty of really bad gms who throw out one, two, or all the rules on their path to whichever form of bad gming they endulge.
I've yet to game with anyone who played absolute RAW in the first place. And even moreso, it is standard to the point of not worth mentioning that rules that are normally followed are briefly set aside when specific game circumstances make them a bad fit. Other than the completely understandable and tansient exception of a total newbie gm, the RAW slave is pretty much a myth.

There are great rules heavy gms and great rules light gms. There are crap rules heavy gms and crap rules light gms. But the supposed raw slave/bull in the china shop comparison does not hold up in reality.

 

[Glyfair]

As an aside, I recently revisited my Dragon Review thread and came upon my review of the issue that covered the tournament where the Giants series was ran here.

The relevant section:

"The Battle for Snurre's Hall - The Origins '78 D&D Tournament" gives a synopsis of the first two rounds of the tournament, and details of the last round by two members of the team that won the event. This was a West Virginia group who describes their style as "slash and hack with a large dose of planning and cunning tossed in to insure our escape." It should be noted the winners are listed and the group had 9 players.

Round one had the group assaulting a hill giant's stronghold, round two had them enter a frost giant's lair and the final round lead them to a hall of fire giants. Hmmm...this sounds somewhat familiar. Actually, it's noted by the editor (and DM of the second round) that they will be amazed at how much they missed when they read Glacial Rift of the Frost Giant Jarl. All three modules are "pimped" in this article, noting they cost $4.49 each (which is $13.72 in today's dollars) except for G3 which is $4.99 ($15.25).

 

[phindar]

This is exactly what I mean when I say that the more rules there are, the more players will conceptualize their in-game actions in reference to those rules.

They should "know to do it" by role-playing the situation. That's part of the skill-set of players that is independent of any ruleset. That sort of "free form" action taking is what sold me on RPGs years ago.

This is also why I believe "rules-lite" games actually provide more options.

I disagree, but I'm not against rules-lite games. (Though I can't say any edition of D&D really qualifies as "rules-lite", except for Original. The books have always been packed full of rules, and every group tends to find their way to using as many of them as they want.) I think that players can fall into either trap, not doing things because the rules don't cover it, or only doing what the rules do cover. But you can't blame a lack of player creativity on the rules they are using.

I'm not a big fan of heavy GM-fiat or "Mother May I" mechanics. I'd rather have rules that cover the situation (say like Bluff, or Disguise, if I'm going to solve a lot of problems using those skills), for pretty much the same reason that I think the combat rules work better than me describing how I would hit a giant, and the GM deciding how effective such an attack would be. The mechanic of the game shouldn't be solely dependent on my ability to "sell" anybody on how likely my chosen course of action is, even (or especially) if that's what I'm good at it. If for no other reason than its unfair to the player who isn't as persuasive as I.

I don't think having rules for things hinders the role-playing aspects of those things. If I'm playing a character with a Bluff skill, I'm going to roleplay that character differently than I would if he didn't have the skill-- much the same as I would play a 10 Int character differently than a 16 Int character. If bluffing is going to be a part of the game, I'd rather have the rules for it than it just be something that works only when the GM wants it to.

 

[hong]

Also, you'll notice that I mentioned above the disguise attempt was coupled with the use of 1) Magic (Enlarge Person, and 2) PC "stacking",

. . .

. . .

I think I'll just bring my frickin' lightsabers to the next session.

 

[hong]

At first blush, the "disguise ourselves as giants" thing seemed kind of silly, to me. However, I changed my mind about that, for the following reasons:

Bad Philotomy Jurament! Attempting to retroactively change one's mind about a decision that needs to be made on the spur of the moment!

 

[Piratecat]

This is exactly what I mean when I say that the more rules there are, the more players will conceptualize their in-game actions in reference to those rules.

I agree. Anyone can swing on a chandelier - until rules are put in that detail what's required, at which point only the characters who are qualified can swing on the chandelier.

Finding the balance between the two is, for me, where good DMing lives. The kind of DMs I prefer say "yes" a lot more than they say "no," even in a rules-heavy game.

 

[Ranes]

This is exactly what I mean when I say that the more rules there are, the more players will conceptualize their in-game actions in reference to those rules.

No argument.

They should "know to do it" by role-playing the situation. That's part of the skill-set of players that is independent of any ruleset.

There are as many - if not more - disadvantages to this than the alternative.

That sort of "free form" action taking is what sold me on RPGs years ago.

Freeform action and rules to determine how to manage freeform actions are not mutually incompatible. In fact, they can lend verisimilitude to a player's free choice of action. This is what sold me on RPGs many years ago.

This is also why I believe "rules-lite" games actually provide more options.

This is, in my opinion, delusional. When you look at any rules-light system (and I've been - and still am - a fan of several), that's the conclusion you tend to reach. Once you start playing the system extensively, you end up adjudicating (ie creating new rules) to accommodate that plentitude of scenarios not covered by your seductively light rules. Eventually, you end up with a rule set you have mostly written yourself. Along the way, you might have collected several rules others created that you realise may possibly save you time in the future. After a quarter of a century or so, you have something similar in size to 3.5 or you have new players or you have players that are used to - and do not mind - inconstant rulings.

 

[Mallus]

But if the process by which you arrive at the outcome doesn't make any sense--if you don't believe it--there's no real satisfaction in what happens.

Who said the process didn't make sense? All I did was characterize your typical PC "plan" as inspired yet half-witted, and I stand by that.

If I make a character that puts a bunch of points into Hide, hiding will be less satisfying than if I don't, and just tell the GM I'm hiding behind a barrel?

Suppose a player is allowed to use an INT check to determine if they solve a dragon's riddle. Whatever the outcome, it's certain that the player doesn't derive any enjoyment from the act of solving the riddle, because they don't actually solve it. Which is bad if they like riddles.

That's all I'm talking about re: processes and outcomes.

And even with hiding, I certainly enjoy 'telling the DM I'm hiding behind a barrel" more than just rolling a Hide check. In the same way I prefer to cook up my own lies when I try to bluff an NPC. I enjoy creating as many of the solutions as I can myself, and abstracting away only what really needs to be abstracted. Like all the hitting and the burning and such