No More Massive Tomes of Rules

[Maggan]

This plays into the most powerful killer feature of RPGs, tactical infinity.

Thanks for that link, that went straight into the category of "things to bookmark because it was an awesome read".

 

[Celebrim]

Or the opposite. Not having every action codified might free up the imagination and let players act freely.

When we played a lot of D&D4, we ran into that exact situation where players would be sitting there staring at the character sheet trying to find the action that achieved a result, instead of just saying what they wanted to do.

There has been a flurry of discussion that I'll have to get to at a later point, but as a quick response to this one point, the phrasing I focused on reading the initial post was: "No More Massive Tomes of Rules...There is no reason that 5E (or any other edition for that matter) can't be presented in a concise, complete, robust form like Dragonbane."

Turns out based on the frustrated response to my questions is that Dragonborn is neither complete nor robust, but rather it just doesn't have to do everything. What it sets out to do well it probably does well, though I admit absolutely no knowledge of the game. And that's fine, but that means that there is a reason why RPGs have massive chunky tomes like the 7e Call of Cthulhu "Keeper's Guide" (what a beauty) and/or extended interacting rule sets across multiple books like Pendragon 5e or Mongoose Traveller 2e.

 

[Swanosaurus]

Turns out based on the frustrated response to my questions is that Dragonborn is neither complete nor robust, but rather it just doesn't have to do everything. What it sets out to do well it probably does well, though I admit absolutely no knowledge of the game.

It's probably a difference in what you're used to, and I admit that I haven't played a whole lot of Dragonbane yet, but I can'tsee why I shouldn't be able to do with it everything that I might be doing with any edition of 5e. It can represent most of its ancestries (and new ones should be easy to build), and it's magic system doesn't come with as many spells as D&Ds (and, which is one of my few beefs with DB, a lot of them are "improved versions" of lower-powered spells), but DB is actually better at representing a greater number of different types of magic wielders simply by not boxing them in that much.
I don't know, maybe there's stuff people do with D&D that I just don't know of ...

 

[Arilyn]

For me, spells having a light touch as regards to rules is fantastic. It lets magic feel magical and really frees up player creativity. I dislike spells that dictate exactly what the magic can and cannot do, exact distances, how its cast, etc. I love having casters say, "Hey, can I tweak this spell in order to try this thing?" We've had some really cool things occur that probably would have been quashed or not even attempted in a typical 5e game, for example.

 

[Maggan]

It can represent most of its ancestries (and new ones should be easy to build), and it's magic system doesn't come with as many spells as D&Ds

Sidenote, Free League are working on a book on magic for Dragobane. Nothing is known about it yet, but they've mentioned it in conversations at cons.

 

[Swanosaurus]

Sidenote, Free League are working on a book on magic for Dragobane. Nothing is known about it yet, but they've mentioned it in conversations at cons.

That's awesome! (though it probably means we'll end up well beyond 100 pages ...).

 

[Grendel_Khan]

What the rules are silent on, players will typically not attempt to do because they simply won't think about it or think it is possible. And what the rules are silent on, game masters will typically not design for because they simply won't think about it or if they do won't think of it as possible.

Wildly incorrect in my experience, and apparently the experience of nearly everyone else still engaging with you in this thread. This only makes sense if GMs and players lack any imagination or creativity, and also assumes that both GMs and players read the rules in equal detail, and become sputtering, malfunctioning androids flailing around the room whenever a situation isn't mechanically supported by 10 pages of rules.

You can say what you prefer, but it doesn't make sense to generalize the way you are given the constant and varied pushback you're seeing here.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Yeah. It's a super weird take. I vastly prefer the lighter touch on rules specifically because that's what the hobby was like back in the '80s when I started. Or at least the games I started with. Those blank places in the rules were wonderful and fantastic. Just like blank places on a map. They let us explore and discover and create. To use our own ideas and what worked for our table. Those blank spots are the draw. That's where the mystery and fun is hiding.

I just have to note that if everyone felt that way about it, most of the 80's rules output from, well, practically everyone wouldn't look the way it did. I want to be functioning as a game designer because I want to, not because I have to.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Exactly so. The referee needs to know the rules, the players don't.

This inevitably leads to either having to constantly check with the GM whether something is a practical idea, or finding out the hard way. If I want to do X and think its a reasonable idea, I don't want to find out its a bad one after I'm committed to it, thanks.

 

[HaroldTheHobbit]

As a handout to starting players, sure. But suppose you are a keeper that wants to set a scenario during the Chaco War and you want period accurate and realistic weapons for both sides, up to and including things like a Vickers tank. With your two page supplement as your only guideline, you are going to be going to wikipedia and then doing your best to translate the information you find there into rules hoping that your knowledge of guns is enough that you are making reasonable rules. This process will take you hours of your time. If some professional has done this work for you, you just flip to the appropriate page in the weapons tome and you spend your time actually writing your scenario rather than doing research and rules smithing.

And note, "just use wikipedia" is itself a very modern solution. In the past this required dozens of hours of research in college and public libraries.

I doubt it's only starting keepers that aim for a loose simulation of an era rather than an exact period replica to the most minute detail. When I've GMed CoC I just do what I always do, make sh*t up, and my players had fun as usual without complaining about, say, that a walnut rifle stock on a brand didn't arrive until two years later irl. Unless I play with history majors or antique collectors, I do fine with a couple of pages of gear. And if I play with history buffs and antique experts, then I probably have to read more pages for prep no matter what system. Unless they chill and just aim for a fun game experience of course.