New Legends and Lore: The Rules

[Anselyn]

But again, there's a difference between a magazine intended for reading and then disposal, and a sourcebook that is intended for ongoing use.

(Although, actually, that raises another oddity about RPGs: Dragon and Dungeon mag weren't ever really just mags - by striving always to provide stuff that could be kept and used at a later date, they were often more like mini-sourcebooks published every month. Not really relevant to the topic at hand, but it just strikes me as odd.)

I haven't disposed of any of those magazines. What makes you think that magazines are for reading and disposing of?

I did finally get rid 50 odd copies of Empire when I moved house but my first instinct has always been to keep magazines - especially ones (for HiFi/movies/games) that review things or give tutorials on something.

But re Dragon/Dungeon - yes - they feel more like a learned journal for the archive in some ways.

 

[delericho]

I haven't disposed of any of those magazines. What makes you think that magazines are for reading and disposing of?

Topicality of content.

The White Dwarfs I still have are filled with previews of upcoming minis that are long since out of print (indeed, in materials that aren't used any more), games that are long since out of print, convention reports from more than a decade ago, battle reports for a game that has moved on three editions...

Technology magazines have some short-term usefulness, but a comparitive review is only really useful if you're in the market to buy now - in six months the technology has moved on so the review is of little use.

Movie magazines tend to have previews of upcoming films, or interviews with actors/directors/writers heavily slanted to talking about their upcoming films. All of which looks somewhat ridiculous once you have the film itself on Blu-ray sitting on your shelf.

And so it goes. These things tend to have precious little reuse value. They get kept, but largely because of a hoarder's instinct.

Dragon and Dungeon were rather different. (As were some other gamer mags.) In addition to the previews and the reviews, they also included material that would be of later use - a bunch of new feats, adventures, how-to guides for building campaigns...

(Okay, they weren't alone - DIY mags, for example, probably have that same ongoing utility. But taking a quick scan of the magazines in my local shop, they did seem very much in the minority.)

 

[SabreCat]

I love what I'm hearing with Mearls's further thoughts about complexity dials. The stuff about negotiations, alliances, and NPC-vs-PC coercion make me hopeful for seeing a D&D-style Duel of Wits in some upcoming product.

I hate the continued enshrinement of Rule 0. It's such a poisonous, needless thing. No, the rules can't "force" the DM to play fair... any more than they can "force" the players to do so. But a game in which "the DM can just put Tiamat in the next room of the dungeon and slaughter the characters whenever he or she wishes"--in what way is that a good thing? Why not make such a dick move be against the rules? (Funny thing is, the structure for doing so is in 4e already, though it backpedals at the last moment by making encounter budgets guidelines rather than rules.)

"Why try to legislate some of the DM’s power while leaving huge, gaping holes elsewhere?" Why indeed, Mike? Why not close the huge gaping holes too, eh?

 

[P1NBACK]

But a game in which "the DM can just put Tiamat in the next room of the dungeon and slaughter the characters whenever he or she wishes"--in what way is that a good thing?

It's a good thing because it leaves the world full of possibilities.

But, seriously, is your game run by a 10 year old?

 

[Anselyn]

Why not make such a dick move be against the rules? (Funny thing is, the structure for doing so is in 4e already, though it backpedals at the last moment by making encounter budgets guidelines rather than rules.)

"Why try to legislate some of the DM’s power while leaving huge, gaping holes elsewhere?" Why indeed, Mike? Why not close the huge gaping holes too, eh?

All games require a social contract between the players on how to play. MM properly points out that this is the rulebook for soccer - but even then there's common custom-and-practice about how you actually play (e.g. passing the ball back to the oppostion if they kicked it out to stop play after an injury.)

I think Rule 0 is a consensual statement of where the agreement is to make a TTRPG a TTRPG instead of a board game that has everything by the rulebook or a set of agreed variants.

And ... even if the rules codified the ideas you may have on, for example, encounter levels then there will be another area where GM judgment is reuired. What's the DC for this vault across a chasm, (upwards, in a wind, through a flock of ravens, onto an icy ledge)? You can never have a rule in the book for every sitution that may occur in a game. For those decisions, the GM decides - or reaches an agreement from a quick discussion woth the players. However, again you're back to a social agreement (with one set of players, given their gaming history and probably how the adventure arc is working out too).

Summary: You can't make a rule for everything; agree on how to make decisions for your game.

and by the looks of it - agree the subset of D&D rules that are included in the game for D&D /5e

 

[DEFCON 1]

Why not make such a dick move be against the rules?

Because you then have to write down a long laundry list of things to be "against the rules". How the heck are WotC supposed to regulate that? What events really ARE "dick moves", and what are actually interesting and intriguing encounters?

What if the next room over has a magical font that grants the players 3 wishes, but each time they use a wish, someone they don't know dies? Is that a "dick move"? And how does WotC put that down on paper are something DMs aren't allowed to do? "DMs aren't allowed to create moral dilemmas for the PCs, because the PCs might screw things up!"

The best WotC can do is say "The DM is free to do anything he wants in the game... but should really consider just doing things that the entire group would consider to be fun."

 

[the Jester]

I hate the continued enshrinement of Rule 0. It's such a poisonous, needless thing.

Only if you have a poisonous and- dare I say it?- needless dm.

 

[P1NBACK]

I like Apocalypse World's take:

"I’m not out to get you. If I were, you could just pack it in right now, right? I’d just be like “there’s an earthquake. You all take 10-harm and die. The end.” No, I’m here to find out what’s going to happen. Same as you!"

To prevent DMs being dicks, you just need to A) have a game that assumes you won't be a dick, and B) find players to play with that aren't dicks.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I don't think you can productively have, "Stop the DM from being a jerk," rules. But there is a place for, "Help the DM not accidently be a jerk," rules. Once you state it like that, it is pretty clear that such rules are "training wheels" in some ways, should be truly optional, and most importantly, clearly called out as both optional and why. These are the kind of rules that, once you've mastered why they are there, you really don't need them anymore. But you might need help getting to that mastery, both for general game mastering, and because of nuances in a particular system. The 3E monster CR rating edges into this, and the 4E monster XP budget is even closer.

However, if someone wants to call these kind of things, "mechanical or technical advice" instead of rules, I guess I can see that.

On the bigger picture, I'm also fairly certain that dials are tough to do. Burning Wheel doesn't really have them. In a melee combat, you can use Bloody Versus, or you can use the Fight! system. In ranged, you can use Bloody Versus, or you can use Range and Cover. Binary choices, not dials. People have complained about that very point, wanting something in the middle.

A workable dial probably has to have a structure around it that doesn't change. So you can't make everything a dial. An elevator can safely and efficiently dial to any floor precisely because that is all it does. Burning Wheel is a system that could add rules and systems to dial combat, because the framework around combat already works for two binary choices that are on the extreme ends of what a dial could encompass.

Presumably, in D&D, one of the unchanging structural elements that would allow dials in combat, social, etc. would be character-based. That is, your fighter can have a "Cleave" option. It might work in a more complicated fashion if you dial up combat, but if he has that option, he still has it no matter where the dial goes. That's tougher, of course, for options like "Cleave" than it is for things like Strength or Dexterity or Reflex defense or hit points.

 

[SabreCat]

Sounds like my feelings on Rule 0 would be more appropriate to a blog post than a forum, so I'll take that elsewhere.

I will correct one mistaken assumption I'm hearing in the replies to my post, though: I am the DM a good chunk of the time. I dislike Rule 0 from either side of the screen.