New Legends and Lore: The Rules

[rogueattorney]

I'm with Skip in a few places. Like here:


I think this is very true, and brings up some of the problems with "mother may I" gameplay and pure DM judgement calls. As a DM, I don't want to HAVE to make a thousand judgement calls. I want to be able to roll the dice and have the system tell me what happens. I don't want to have to decide if my NPCs are for fighting or for talking or recruiting as allies. I want to be able to do all of that with them, whenever I need to.

I agree with you and Williams to a point. The players need to have a general idea of the odds when making a decision.

But instead of wanting the system to take care of things, I take absolute pains to make sure players (especially new ones) have an idea of the mechanics involved in their decisions, especially in areas in which I as DM have a lot of leeway to decide the odds. I make extra sure that I'm receptive to player input on how to make these kinds of decisions.

To a large extent kibitzing with my players is a great deal of the fun I have in DMing. I want them to come up with crazy crap not covered in the rules and have to figure out what to do with it. And I get that way more often when playing something like B/X D&D than something like 3.x e.

The Williams quote seems to be operating on the assumption that if a player doesn't know how something is going to work either he won't ask the DM or the DM won't tell him.

 

[delericho]

But, for me, that's not what the tight rules are for. They are for enabling the challenge - for making the "crossword" work. They are part of the communication that ensures that all of the players (including the GM) have a common vision of how the game setting works. The characters have lived in this world all of their lives; to suggest that the way the world works should be mysterious to them seems curious and unlikely, to me.

I agree. In my experience, tight rules can allow an otherwise poor DM (but not truly bad) to run a game at an acceptable quality - follow the guidelines and it will work. Once the DM has reached that level, he at least has a platform from which to hone his skills and hopefully advance.

Tight rules, if followed slavishly, will also cause an otherwise good DM to run a game that is merely acceptable... but then, if the DM is actually good, he'll know when and where to move away from the guidelines for best effect. So that should be fine.

Tight rules will do absolutely nothing for the truly bad DM - he'll just ignore any and all guidelines. The only way this can work is if the game simply doesn't allow deviation from the preset structures... in which case you're as well just playing a boardgame - the DM is redundant. (Or, in other words, if your DM is truly bad, get a new DM!)

So, my preference would be for the game to have fairly tight rules in the first set of core books (or Starter Set, or whatever), with a discussion near the end of the DM section on "advanced DMing techniques" where it talks about rules-as-guidelines, house ruling, and judgement calls. Then, produce an "Advanced Dungeon Master's Guide" that enables DMs to take the next step - it starts "You've been running the game for a while, and everyone's having fun. But you can't help but feel there's scope for something more, something greater..." That book should then discuss modifying the rules in detail, dealing with problem players, avoiding common DM pitfalls (and how to correct problems if and when they crop up). And it should also talk at some length about storytelling, characterisation, plot arcs (and when not to use them), and so on.

Basically, provide the poor -> average step first in the form of tight rules, then provide help to move from average -> good while at the same time loosening off those rules.

(To move from good -> excellent... well, that just takes time and practice. And lots of stealing of good ideas from other DMs. )

 

[Balesir]

So, my preference would be for the game to have fairly tight rules in the first set of core books (or Starter Set, or whatever), with a discussion near the end of the DM section on "advanced DMing techniques" where it talks about rules-as-guidelines, house ruling, and judgement calls. Then, produce an "Advanced Dungeon Master's Guide" that enables DMs to take the next step - it starts "You've been running the game for a while, and everyone's having fun. But you can't help but feel there's scope for something more, something greater..."

Yes... and no.

I really don't think those techniques are actually "better" - they are just different. They are better for achieving a different end point.

There is a pervasive idea that there exists some sort of "ultimate" roleplaying paradigm; that there is some 'perfect' game style that every group should either play or, if inexperienced or otherwise handicapped, aspire to. I think this is bunk.

Every game has a set of rules it proceeds according to. These rules may be written down or they may not be. They may include arcane, randomiser-related mechanisms for determining the outcome of game-world physics or they may simply consist of a set of aesthetics and principles in someone's head. They may define what "playing pieces" in the game may do or they may define who has authority to describe what has happened in the game world at a particular time. The rules used for roleplaying are almost infinitely variable, and they all cater excellently to a specific desired outcome. The process of agreeing what that outcome should be, and ensuring that the selected de-facto rules support that outcome, is a deep and complex social interaction that may even have group-specific rules of its own.

Selecting a published ruleset is an important shortcut beginning to this social, aim-selecting aspect of roleplaying, I think. Players that understand the rules proposed will get a fairly good idea of the type of game to expect if those rules are selected.

If the group wants a slightly different game than that primarily supported by the rules selected, there is nothing very wrong with modifying or "drifting" those rules to match what they really want more accurately. There is a danger, however, that those with strong desires for a different game agenda than that primarily supported by the sselected system will, after accepting the original game proposal, set out to 'drift' the game more to their desired agenda without transparency or reference to the rest of the group. It's a sort of "bait-and-switch" - especially if the GM is the one drifting the game.

I perceive fiat decisions, houserules and creative rules "interpretations" as mainly signs that the RPG system as written does not perfectly match someone's desire for style or focus of play. This may be perfectly OK - the whole group may want a game that is "kinda like game X but with more elements of whimsy/GM aesthetic/player aesthetic/whatever". Or it may be that a subset of the group want something different from the rest of the group and are trying to "drag" things more to what they want to play. Giving more power to the GM in this milieu may either work out well - if they successfully gauge the desires of the group and drift towards that - or badly - if they either gauge poorly or ignore the desires of the group as a whole. The pitfalls in this - especially if the group is split in its desires - are manifold.

Gauging a group's real desires is incredibly tricky business (ask any politician!) and will often lead to a "best compromise" that actually doesn't meet anyone's desires perfectly. This is why I prefer published systems to be clear what they set out to support, and to do it well. At least, that way, all those joining the game should have a reasonably clear picture of what "class" of game they are joining. Games that try to attract everyone will often, I think, store up problems, as "competing" sub-groups try to "drift" the game their way. I saw this a good deal in earlier editions of D&D.

 

[delericho]

I really don't think those techniques are actually "better" - they are just different. They are better for achieving a different end point.

There is a pervasive idea that there exists some sort of "ultimate" roleplaying paradigm; that there is some 'perfect' game style that every group should either play or, if inexperienced or otherwise handicapped, aspire to.

I didn't mean to imply that there was "one true way". There are certainly many ways to become a 'good' DM. And it is also quite right that the DMG provide a set of guidelines that will enable the newbie to start DMing, and to run a game competently.

But if the DM never moves beyond the guidelines offered in the 4e DMG, all they can ever be is 'competent'. Although there are many ways to become 'good', simply robotically following the guidelines offered is not one of them. Most DMs will eventually seek to move beyond this point (or they and their groups will lose interest and drift away), and at the moment they are largely unsupported in doing so.

If the group wants a slightly different game than that primarily supported by the rules selected, there is nothing very wrong with modifying or "drifting" those rules to match what they really want more accurately. There is a danger, however, that those with strong desires for a different game agenda than that primarily supported by the sselected system will, after accepting the original game proposal, set out to 'drift' the game more to their desired agenda without transparency or reference to the rest of the group. It's a sort of "bait-and-switch" - especially if the GM is the one drifting the game.

Thing is, they do that anyway. That's just the same issue as the "killer DM", or other such behaviours - you can't write rules to prevent people being jerks.

But you can make DMs aware of the different styles, equip them to achieve them, and also advise them to communicate with their group about whether this is something that actually should be done. Also, you can warn DMs that some players may themselves try to 'drift' the game, and how to deal with that situation.

At the moment, this is all largely unsupported. I know how to do it, I daresay you know how to do it, but does a DM who came in with the 4e DMG and for whom that's all he knows?

I perceive fiat decisions, houserules and creative rules "interpretations" as mainly signs that the RPG system as written does not perfectly match someone's desire for style or focus of play.

No system as written will ever perfectly match the styles of everyone at the table; all will need some adaptation to really sing. Worse still, people's preferred styles will drift over time. Far better to support the group in adapting the game (and evolving it as necessary), rather than sticking with "here's what our game does, and nothing else."

Bear in mind that if D&D had never looked into other styles, there would be no Dark Sun, no Spelljammer, no Ravenloft, no Eberron... oh, and no 4e.

Giving more power to the GM in this milieu may either work out well - if they successfully gauge the desires of the group and drift towards that - or badly - if they either gauge poorly or ignore the desires of the group as a whole. The pitfalls in this - especially if the group is split in its desires - are manifold.

That's why you start with the baseline, to get DMs to 'competent', before trying to take them on to 'good'. Then open your 'advanced' book with "The Importance of Communication", "Dealing with Problem Players", and "How to Avoid Sucking as a DM". Then start empowering them.

But, again, you're not actually giving DMs power that they didn't already have. To a very large extent, the DM already sets the tone and parameters for the game. The players have an impact, but not to the same extent, and often their santion is limited to the ability to walk out. So if the DM decides he's going to 'drift' the game in a particular way, he doesn't need the 'permission' from some book to do it. Thus is makes sense to provide guidelines to at least try to help him do it well, rather than just ignore it and pretend it doesn't happen.

Gauging a group's real desires is incredibly tricky business (ask any politician!) and will often lead to a "best compromise" that actually doesn't meet anyone's desires perfectly. This is why I prefer published systems to be clear what they set out to support, and to do it well. At least, that way, all those joining the game should have a reasonably clear picture of what "class" of game they are joining. Games that try to attract everyone will often, I think, store up problems, as "competing" sub-groups try to "drift" the game their way. I saw this a good deal in earlier editions of D&D.

In a perfect world, there would be games to cater to every playstyle, loads of players to go around, and everyone could just play the game they wanted. We don't live in that world. As it is, it is much easier to find players for 4e D&D (or perhaps Pathfinder) than for any other game, and it's also easier to find players willing to play D&D in a 'storyteller' style than it is to find them willing to play some other game tailored for that style - people are more flexible to changing style than they are to changing system.

So, if D&D is the baseline, then it really should be a broad church. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with them providing one book that provides support for these styles as an option. Otherwise, you're consigning it forevermore to be nothing other than "kill monsters, take their loot; repeat".

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I agree. In my experience, tight rules can allow an otherwise poor DM (but not truly bad) to run a game at an acceptable quality - follow the guidelines and it will work. Once the DM has reached that level, he at least has a platform from which to hone his skills and hopefully advance.

Tight rules, if followed slavishly, will also cause an otherwise good DM to run a game that is merely acceptable... but then, if the DM is actually good, he'll know when and where to move away from the guidelines for best effect. So that should be fine.

Tight rules will do absolutely nothing for the truly bad DM - he'll just ignore any and all guidelines. The only way this can work is if the game simply doesn't allow deviation from the preset structures... in which case you're as well just playing a boardgame - the DM is redundant. (Or, in other words, if your DM is truly bad, get a new DM!)

So, my preference would be for the game to have fairly tight rules in the first set of core books (or Starter Set, or whatever), with a discussion near the end of the DM section on "advanced DMing techniques" where it talks about rules-as-guidelines, house ruling, and judgement calls. Then, produce an "Advanced Dungeon Master's Guide" that enables DMs to take the next step - it starts "You've been running the game for a while, and everyone's having fun. But you can't help but feel there's scope for something more, something greater..." That book should then discuss modifying the rules in detail, dealing with problem players, avoiding common DM pitfalls (and how to correct problems if and when they crop up). And it should also talk at some length about storytelling, characterisation, plot arcs (and when not to use them), and so on.

Basically, provide the poor -> average step first in the form of tight rules, then provide help to move from average -> good while at the same time loosening off those rules.

(To move from good -> excellent... well, that just takes time and practice. And lots of stealing of good ideas from other DMs. )

It seems to me that the 4e DMGs REALLY do a nice job of a lot of this. I mean they really are excellent books. They don't tend to wax very theoretical, but every time I go back and look at what they do contain I am struck by how many significant points they do hit and how well they articulate a lot of these points, albeit in a fairly concrete way.

 

[delericho]

It seems to me that the 4e DMGs REALLY do a nice job of a lot of this. I mean they really are excellent books. They don't tend to wax very theoretical, but every time I go back and look at what they do contain I am struck by how many significant points they do hit and how well they articulate a lot of these points, albeit in a fairly concrete way.

I haven't read the DMG2, or any of the Essentials material, but the first DMG was... well, it was what it was.

It did a pretty decent job of getting a new DM up and running, and able to competently put together and run a game. Follow the guidelines and it would work, without necessarily being hugely inspired.

But that's it. Scratch the surface, and there was virtually nothing there. It certainly wasn't up to the hyperbolic claims that were made about it here - it certainly isn't the Best. DMG. Evar. as I saw claimed.

Oh, and it was shockingly verbose in doing so. The same material could probably have been presented in 100 pages, and not only would it not have lost anything it would actually have been better for it - less text means more likelihood that people would actually read it.

Still, it was fine for what it did. That's what the first DMG should do, and it's probably all that the first DMG should do.

Of course, the DMG2 may well have covered the other topics. But your statement that "they don't tend to wax theoretical" suggests otherwise. Many of the topics I would want covered (storytelling, characterisation, plotting, campaign arcs...) actually call out for being discussed in a theoretical manner. Sure, there's some concrete advice to give, but not too much. That's something that WotC have always been quite poor on, right from the absurdly crunch-heavy 3.0e DMG to now. Even the 3e DMG2, which was again hailed as genius, was actually quite poor compared with some of the core advice in some other games.

 

[TerraDave]

He has now sketched out quite a bit of something...

And now that he is (more of) the boss, these take on added significance.

I agree its a new edition of D&D. Made now or latter, somehow "backward" compabtible or not, thats what he is noodling on.

I don't agree with MoCMG that it will be board gamey at the core. It seems kinda the opposite. A simple, B/X (but with a d20 mechanic) core game that could be played in a simple, abstracted way as B/X was, or in a more improvisational, make up a lot of stuff on the fly way, as B/X. For the rest of us (who just owned B/X but didn't play it much or long) you could add in various subsystems. Or maybe just sort of reference those for the core game.

But it is something.

 

[TerraDave]

I haven't read the DMG2, or any of the Essentials material, but the first DMG was... well, it was what it was.

It did a pretty decent job of getting a new DM up and running, and able to competently put together and run a game. Follow the guidelines and it would work, without necessarily being hugely inspired.

But that's it. Scratch the surface, and there was virtually nothing there. It certainly wasn't up to the hyperbolic claims that were made about it here - it certainly isn't the Best. DMG. Evar. as I saw claimed.

Oh, and it was shockingly verbose in doing so. The same material could probably have been presented in 100 pages, and not only would it not have lost anything it would actually have been better for it - less text means more likelihood that people would actually read it.

Still, it was fine for what it did. That's what the first DMG should do, and it's probably all that the first DMG should do.

...

Ya, I liked it, but it was sort of empty calories. I never look at it now. I use my 1E DMG more for reference. But then again, it is the 1E DMG.

I think a key flaw is this idea that the people who will DM now need that much basic advice. The DMG should also be a reference that even the most experienced DM can actually pick up and use once in a while.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I haven't read the DMG2, or any of the Essentials material, but the first DMG was... well, it was what it was.

It did a pretty decent job of getting a new DM up and running, and able to competently put together and run a game. Follow the guidelines and it would work, without necessarily being hugely inspired.

But that's it. Scratch the surface, and there was virtually nothing there. It certainly wasn't up to the hyperbolic claims that were made about it here - it certainly isn't the Best. DMG. Evar. as I saw claimed.

Oh, and it was shockingly verbose in doing so. The same material could probably have been presented in 100 pages, and not only would it not have lost anything it would actually have been better for it - less text means more likelihood that people would actually read it.

Still, it was fine for what it did. That's what the first DMG should do, and it's probably all that the first DMG should do.

Of course, the DMG2 may well have covered the other topics. But your statement that "they don't tend to wax theoretical" suggests otherwise. Many of the topics I would want covered (storytelling, characterisation, plotting, campaign arcs...) actually call out for being discussed in a theoretical manner. Sure, there's some concrete advice to give, but not too much. That's something that WotC have always been quite poor on, right from the absurdly crunch-heavy 3.0e DMG to now. Even the 3e DMG2, which was again hailed as genius, was actually quite poor compared with some of the core advice in some other games.

I think you really SHOULD read DMG2. When I say it doesn't 'get theoretical' what I mean is you aren't going to find deep discussions of game theoretical concepts there. OTOH it is quite good at 'rubber-meets-road'.

I think in terms of DMG1 we must be expecting different things. There were a LOT of good guidelines in DMG1. It wasn't a crunch-heavy book, but why should it be? Really, the PLAYERS should know the rules. A 1e style DMG honestly never made sense "Oh, the DM has all the tables and charts, you shouldn't know what your character actually needs to hit anything!" lul wut? So, yes, DMG1 is all talk. What else would it be? The writing is excellent and it covers a lot of value and I think it actually is quite an excellent Dungeon Master's GUIDE. In other words it is a textbook on the nuts-and-bolts of DMing 4e and a pretty good one.

For someone with an advanced understanding of how to DM it may not be all that revelatory and then you're quite right, you could have a 50 page book with nothing but the crunch and a few paragraphs of advice on how it is intended to be used and be done with it.

So, I think with DMG1 it is a matter of you're probably not the primary audience. I could see an argument for a DMG that is pure fluff and some other kind of 'Guide to adventure and world building' that was all the crunch.

DMG2 OTOH has a lot of pretty specific "here's how you can fix this problem" or "here's how you can approach doing this kind of thing".

 

[Bedrockgames]

Ii donnt think the solution for d&d is to be super customizable. The solution is to create an edition that appeals broadly to as many styles as possible but doesn't go too far in one direction.