New Legends and Lore: The Rules

[AbdulAlhazred]

Maybe one day. I have a policy of not spending money on books for games I'm not going to run...



Ah, the 1st Edition DMG. I have actually been reading the 1st Edition books for the first time this year, and finished the DMG last weekend. And I was shocked at how poor it actually is - badly organised, full of tedious minutae in many places, quite confusing at times (I read the initiative rules three times, and still don't understand them), and so on... (Which is probably heretical, I know... )

Not heretical at all. Now you know why many of us old time D&Ders think 4e is darn good! Read the 1e PHB sometime as well. In a way it is a great book, and in a way it will make your eyes roll, lol. (and of course if you were to read the original 1974 'beige box' D&D your head would probably actually explode).

However, where the 1st Ed DMG excels is in the appendices, with all that material on building dungeons, stocking dungeons... and the little flavour bits, such as the dungeon trappings, the medicinal uses for herbs, the inspirational reading...

There are a lot of little parts of the 1e DMG that are really useful. I still use it as a reference source for oddball things. It had a lot of great lists and some useful little niche subsystems. Mostly what it lacked was a sort of 'unity', it was a lot of little articles on this and that. Gary was more of a detail guy and less of a big picture guy, at least in writing style. The tone of the game OTOH is quite consistent. I really haven't run into any other writers quite like him.

The 2nd Edition DMG is a sad joke. Fortunately, they went some way towards fixing that with the "Campaign Sourcebook and Catacomb Guide". Even so, I don't think they ever actually explained how to build an adventure.

I seem to remember the 2e DMG/PHB as rather bland in tone compared to the style of 1e. It was a better organized book and the rules were more comprehensible than 1e, but the actual writing just never grabbed me at all. It didn't help that the physical quality of the books was to put it politely utter garbage. My 1st printing 1e DMG and PHB are still in fine shape and could survive another 10 years of heavy use. The 2e books spines broke on maybe the 4th day. So maybe that colored my opinion of 2e a bit.

The 3e DMG contains much of the solid stuff from the 1st Ed DMG, and is considerably better organised. Sadly, it spends so much time on dungeon trappings and the like that it's really dull. Plus, it doesn't actually say much about running the game - that wouldn't come until the DMG2.

So, yeah, the 4e DMG1 doesn't actually fare too badly in the comparison.

It's missing two key things:

1) An in-depth, step-by-step tutorial for building the first adventure.

2) An in-depth, step-by-step tutorial for running the first adventure.

The material is there, but it's spread out, and buried in a 224-page book. If you give that to a kid looking to start running games, he'll respond "TL;DR", and just wing it. And then, when it all goes horribly wrong, he'll give up and play WoW instead.

Perhaps. I'm not sure. I remember being thrilled to get the 1e DMG at that age. Honestly I didn't stop to take the time to actually READ it, lol. At least not right away. In some ways the 'snippet' style that it used was good because you could find the little paragraph article on just what you wanted and each one was highly focused. The 4e DMG OTOH (and honestly all post-Gygax RPG material I read) seems vastly more verbose, but more plain readable. I think I'm so far from being a beginner I can't even measure things on that scale anymore.

I would advocate splitting the DMG into two sections. The main section should provide the two tutorials right at the start (with Kobold Hall or equivalent used as the example for the first tutorial, then presented in full immediately thereafter), then continuing with an ongoing tutorial for the DM on continuing the adventures, building a short campaign, then a longer campaign, the basics of a setting, and so on.

The second section, the appendices, should provide all the crunch. Put it all together at the back of the book, so the experienced DM can ignore the tutorials and still find what he needs easily. That's if we need to have the crunch at all.

Oh, I think there is some crunch in there that does certainly belong. Monster design guidelines and such. The crunchy crunch.

No doubt. I come from a family of educators (while being the rebel of the family; I went into software engineering), so I have fairly strong opinions on how training materials should be presented. And, IMO, the DMG1 very definitely should be training materials.



That does sound really quite good. Maybe I will pick up a copy...

There definitely should be a book that explains things in an educational way, and it should be the first one that a potential DM gets hold of, so 'DMG' is probably the best name for it. I think DMG2 feels a bit like a hybrid between the old 1e DMG and the 4e DMG. Lots of pretty focused little articles, but focused and organized more in the 4e style.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Because the way you run D&D isn't the way I run D&D. In my RPG group we have six different GMs, of whom four have experience running D&D in various incarnations. All four visions of the game are vastly different.

Hell, my current campaign is very distinctly different from my previous campaign, despite using exactly the same system (including most of the same house rules), the same DM, most of the same players...

This is why broad appeal is needed(note in previous post I was arguing against the heavy customization mearls wrote about but in favor of making d&d more in the middle of the spectrum. I happen to like focused games very much but d&d is only going to lose players as it becomes more focused because its always been tge general go-to game for everyone. If it wants to keep that position it has to appeal to a briad eange of gamers.

 

[Jhaelen]

If we're talking evolution, then any step away from flexibility, and thus the ability to adapt, is a step in the wrong direction.

Really? I'm not an expert about the topic of evolution but doesn't evolution inevitably lead to diversification?

The farther you move away from protozoa, the more complex and the less adaptable species become. Species don't develop to become more flexible, they adapt to thrive in a particular environment. If the environment changes too rapidly or too radically, species that adapted 'too well' die out; but in evolutionary terms that's a setback!

What you'd like to do is to reverse evolution, i.e. turn 4e back into the monocellular organism that was OD&D.

There is a very large group of players who simply will not play 4e, just as there is a very large who will not play Pathfinder. And that is not a good thing.

Unsurprisingly, I disagree. Diversification is good!
It's monocultures that are bad. If everyone played D&D (or Pathfinder) and nothing else - now that would be terrible! Without competition D&D would stagnate and die out.

Imho, the only reason D&D hasn't gone the way of the dodo is that new editions of D&D have adopted successful survival strategies from other rpg systems (and games in general). D&D continues to evolve because the environment keeps changing, if it didn't it would become extinct.

Part of this process means that D&D is no longer the baseline for everything. These days it's just the first system among equals. No single species can be the best at everything and neither can D&D. It's survivability depends on finding (or creating!) a (sufficiently large) niche to thrive in, despite competitors being better suited to other niches.

 

[delericho]

Really? I'm not an expert about the topic of evolution but doesn't evolution inevitably lead to diversification?

Indeed. Diversification followed by the inevitable extinction of most variants. The ones that survive long-term are generally the ones that retain the ability to adapt.

What you'd like to do is to reverse evolution, i.e. turn 4e back into the monocellular organism that was OD&D.

Not really. Basically, I just want to be able to tell the stories that I have in mind, without having to force my players to learn a custom system each time, or having to force myself to adopt the nightmare option-bloat of 4e coupled with a playstyle that just does nothing for me.

It's survivability depends on finding (or creating!) a (sufficiently large) niche to thrive in, despite competitors being better suited to other niches.

But that's the key problem. Because of being owned by Hasbro, D&D requires a large niche just to survive. But RPGs themselves pretty much are that niche - adapting to a niche within that niche is madness!

 

[Balesir]

I see. It probably is a definitional issue, then. When I say I was an "Advanced DMG" to talk about handling different styles, it is the differences between, say Spelljammer and Dark Sun that I mean, not the differences between D&D and Universalis. But also the differences between "tending towards complexity" and "tending towards simplicity", or "no RP" and "heavy RP".

Right - whereas I'm mainly talking about the "focus" of those playing in more-or-less the sense developed on The Forge RPG theory site. What matters for me is what, in broad-brush terms, the players (including the GM, if there is one) are concentrating on excelling at during actual play. Differences here genrally generate strong advantages with specific system features, if they are to be supported well. System features that support an "agenda" well, on the other hand, typically can be adapted for a wide range of genres and "flavours" within the core "agenda".

4e doesn't meet my needs. Not at all. Therefore, there's a very long list of things that I believe could be improved, including some of the fundamental assumptions of the system.

Reading your posts, I get a general impression that what you play is strongly slanted towards "simulationism", by which I mean a focus of exploration and players "experiencing" the setting, character or situation. I may well be wrong - without actually participating in a game session it's almost impossible to be sure - but that's the way it sounds.

If that is so, then 4E will not be a good system for you, it's true. As an aside, you might read Monstro D.Whale's blogs on the WotC site for some insight into how a guy previously into "confused sim-ism" 'clicked' about how he could enjoy 4E for part of his gaming pleasure.

If I play Sim these days, to be honest, I avoid any edition of D&D. A combination of hit points, levels relating to capability directly and various odd abstractions (armour class, to pick one) make D&D a poor vehicle for immersive, setting explorative or situational explorative play, in my view. I would choose maybe Burning Wheel, HârnMaster, Traveller or The Riddle of Steel, in preference. Or GURPS or HERO, maybe.

But, then, I am lucky enough to have players that have been trained over the years to accept experimentation with different systems and they will play (almost) anything!

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Imho, trying to regain the flexibility of old will result in losing focus. The end result would be a serious step back in the game's evolution.

I'm more or less in agreement with a lot of the drift of your argument, but not here. I don't think game design works that way, in practice. That is, the evolution analogy is pertinent, but off in some key ways.

Namely, good design in things like games is a lot like good design in software, in practice. People take their best crack at some part of it. They reuse some other stuff so that they don't have to take their best crack at it. They put it altogether. Some of it works great; some not so much. In a new version, repeat the process--often with different designers who bring their own vision.

Flexibility versus focus is a key area where this happens. The first cut of something new, if it is any good, is nearly always focused. The designer has a relatively narrow view, inevitably, compared to the full audience. So the design is focused. Then people use it. In the next version, they start to incorporate some of that feedback. (People try to replicate this with Beta testing, but Beta testing never catches everything.) Then the goal becomes to retain the essential part of the focus while making it as flexible as it can be.

Of course, in the wrong hands, you can lose the focus too much. It is definitely a risk. But I don't think it is one that any designer can entirely avoid, if they want to refine a good design into a great one.

All that said, there is also room for designing specifically for flexibility. The key there is not trying to make everything flexible--doomed to failure even more so than being all things to all people. Rather, find the things that vast swaths in practice want to be flexible, and design them that way--anchored on a less flexible, more focused structure.

 

[Jhaelen]

Basically, I just want to be able to tell the stories that I have in mind, without having to force my players to learn a custom system each time

Fair enough, I can relate to this. But if that's the case why don't you just stop looking at new editions and continue playing the edition that worked best for you?

Myself, I enjoy learning and trying out new systems. I've bought dozens of rpg systems just because I enjoy reading and analyzing them. I also try to play at least two different systems at all times, because for me different systems scratch different itches.

Just like I'm not always in the mood to play chess or poker when meeting for an evening of board games or card games, I'm not always in the mood to play D&D since there are so many other great alternatives available.

I enjoy variety and I am always open to try something new, and I really hope it'll stay that way for a long time

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Fair enough, I can relate to this. But if that's the case why don't you just stop looking at new editions and continue playing the edition that worked best for you?

Myself, I enjoy learning and trying out new systems. I've bought dozens of rpg systems just because I enjoy reading and analyzing them. I also try to play at least two different systems at all times, because for me different systems scratch different itches.

Just like I'm not always in the mood to play chess or poker when meeting for an evening of board games or card games, I'm not always in the mood to play D&D since there are so many other great alternatives available.

I enjoy variety and I am always open to try something new, and I really hope it'll stay that way for a long time

It seems fair to say that there are factors in 4e that make it less suitable to some people. If it can BETTER accommodate more people without seriously impeding existing player's use of the game, then it makes sense to do it. While I tend to think most objections are really centered on "things changed, make it like (insert favorite edition here)" clearly the emphasis of the game could shift or broaden a bit and fix some people's issues.

D&D really is a pretty 'middle of the road' kind of game. It always has had broad appeal and never strayed excessively in any one direction. It was never trying to be a hard core tactical combat game, a story telling game with lots of personality mechanics, nor a super gritty system, etc. I'd say it is still pretty squarely in that same zone, but it is equally true that tactical play has grown to occupy more of the system's resources. Other aspects haven't LOST anything particularly, but if the tactical combat can function equally well with less resource consumption I think that would increase the number of people interested in playing it.

Note that personally I'm not really buying Mike's 'modes of play for everyone' concept. I don't think that will work, but the mode that it does support can be a little broader and more balanced.

 

[Gryph]

Maybe one day. I have a policy of not spending money on books for games I'm not going to run...



Ah, the 1st Edition DMG. I have actually been reading the 1st Edition books for the first time this year, and finished the DMG last weekend. And I was shocked at how poor it actually is - badly organised, full of tedious minutae in many places, quite confusing at times (I read the initiative rules three times, and still don't understand them), and so on... (Which is probably heretical, I know... )

However, where the 1st Ed DMG excels is in the appendices, with all that material on building dungeons, stocking dungeons... and the little flavour bits, such as the dungeon trappings, the medicinal uses for herbs, the inspirational reading...

-snip-


It's missing two key things:

1) An in-depth, step-by-step tutorial for building the first adventure.

2) An in-depth, step-by-step tutorial for running the first adventure.

The material is there, but it's spread out, and buried in a 224-page book. If you give that to a kid looking to start running games, he'll respond "TL;DR", and just wing it. And then, when it all goes horribly wrong, he'll give up and play WoW instead.



I would advocate splitting the DMG into two sections. The main section should provide the two tutorials right at the start (with Kobold Hall or equivalent used as the example for the first tutorial, then presented in full immediately thereafter), then continuing with an ongoing tutorial for the DM on continuing the adventures, building a short campaign, then a longer campaign, the basics of a setting, and so on.

The second section, the appendices, should provide all the crunch. Put it all together at the back of the book, so the experienced DM can ignore the tutorials and still find what he needs easily. That's if we need to have the crunch at all.



No doubt. I come from a family of educators (while being the rebel of the family; I went into software engineering), so I have fairly strong opinions on how training materials should be presented. And, IMO, the DMG1 very definitely should be training materials.



That does sound really quite good. Maybe I will pick up a copy...

I recently re-read the 1st ed. DMG for this time in a couple of decades. I think your analysis is pretty spot on.

The one thing that I still appreciated (to your point about the 4ed. DMG) was the extended example of play. I think it runs 6 full 2 column pages and is an outstanding guide to the exploration style of play that was so typical for 1e.

I think that kind of extended example along with the nuts and bolts tutorials is really missing from the more recent editions.