Pang of nostalgia for "light" stat blocks

[Akrasia]

Any situation that isn't completely covered in the ruleset and which requires adjudication results in an "entirely new" rule.

Let me get this straight: everytime I apply a general rule to a specific situation I'm creating an 'entirely new rule'?

Sorry, but I disagree.

Either that, or you're using the word 'rule' in a way that deviates markedly from standard English usage.

(Btw, your analogy with species is misleading, as species mark out discrete natural entities, whereas rules guide practice.)

If you use d20 + +modifiers - -modfiers to make a new rule, you're not using the actual rules because you're the one deciding what modifiers to apply—another person may reasonably decide different modifiers apply— but under no circumstance is the rules deciding what happens. You may decide the player gets X bonus and I decide he wouldn't. Since there's only a guideline for the procedure in making up new rules, we're ad hoccing and both of us will have a correct answer if our respective parties accept our ruling. You're not using the rules, you're designing the rules.

What if the rules say: 'use d20 + + modifiers - -modifiers in situations of type Y, and assign the modifiers based on your specification of the situation'. Then I am following the rules -- not 'designing' a new rule -- when I resolve that action in that way.

The fact that two different GMs might assign somewhat different modifiers to a specific situation does not mean that they are using different rules (anymore than two judges assigning somewhat different sentences for a criminal offense means that they are creating two new laws). Rather, they are using the same rule, but are relying on somewhat different assumptions about the relevant modifiers.

You do realize that this is just as arbitrary as saying "You have an X% chance to succeed" because both situations can take cause and effect, situation and chance to create an equally valid outcome? Both are ad hoc solutions.

Sorry, but I don't understand this.

The only thing the d20 version is is better game design for a d20 game because it follows the trending pattern. It is, still, however, ad hoc because two people given the same situation could easily come up with a different % chance of success that two people could both see as a reasonable outcome.

Hence, ad hoc. A non ad hoc solution would give the same results every time. An ad hoc solution may give the same results, but it also may not.

joe b.

So d20/3e is also an 'ad hoc' system? So much for Psion's preference for d20/3e because it doesn't suffer from the weakness of rampant 'ad hoccing'.

I guess everything is an 'ad hoc' system by your lights.

If so, you've both rendered the term meaningless, and redefined it in a way that differs significantly from the way in which it is understood by most parties to this discussion.

 

[Wil]

Hence, ad hoc. A non ad hoc solution would give the same results every time. An ad hoc solution may give the same results, but it also may not.

joe b.

Exactly...hence, if I need to get the id and username from a database, I can issue this query:

select id, last_name
from users

someone else might do:

select *
from users

Both get the same information, it's just the first way returns only the information I want and the second way returns everything.

And even more telling database analogy is when using aggregates (like grouping, counts, etc) - in some cases, issuing the query one way will return different results than issuing it the other way, even if logically you'd think the results would be the same.

Of course, it's probably very understandable that I game the way I do (with "light" stat blocks and a lot of ad-hoc rulings) because I work with databases and most of my work is ad-hoc queries to troubleshoot data issues. I'm a huge advocate of "make the ruling and look it up later" - and sometimes I like my ruling so much that I use that instead of the official rule.

 

[Akrasia]

Err..I'm not sure that I agree with how ad-hoc is being bantered about - the general usage that I'm aware of is when you are doing something based on the current situation and the results may not be applicable to any other situation. ...


So, using this as a guideline, every time you make a ruling that is not covered explicitly by the rules (and I mean, word for word by the rules) it would be ad-hoc. This is not bad in any way, nor does it indicate that a game is "incomplete" (unless the ad-hoc rulings are a direct result of lack of rules or poorly designed rules)...

I think I agree with this, and if people are using 'ad hoc' to mean the application of general rules to specific cases, then I have no problem with it.

However, it does strike me as a somewhat strange way to use the term, as judges apply general laws to specific cases all the time, and yet we would not describe the practice of making such legal judgements 'ad hoc'.

Indeed, IME the term has generally been applied to cases in which people are making specific rulings in the absence or rules or laws (general or specific).

 

[Wil]

Let me get this straight: everytime I apply a general rule to a specific situation I'm creating an 'entirely new rule'?

No, but you're creating an ad-hoc ruling. What makes it ad-hoc isn't that the general rule is being applied to a specific situation, it's that someone else might apply the general rule differently.

To use my continuing database example, once I put my users query into a stored procedure to be used in a website to handle logins, the query ceases to be ad-hoc. The reason why is that the website will now execute the stored procedure and the query will be executed the same way everytime.

 

[Akrasia]

No, but you're creating an ad-hoc ruling. What makes it ad-hoc isn't that the general rule is being applied to a specific situation, it's that someone else might apply the general rule differently.

To use my continuing database example, once I put my users query into a stored procedure to be used in a website to handle logins, the query ceases to be ad-hoc. The reason why is that the website will now execute the stored procedure and the query will be executed the same way everytime.

I think it's clear that there are at least 2 different understandings of the term 'ad hoc' floating around here, which probably reflects the different professional backgrounds of the people using the term in question.

Perhaps there is no point in continuing to beat this particular dead horse, but by this understanding of 'ad hoc' I fail to see what the original dispute was about, or why a rules heavy game like 3e necessarily reduces the scope for 'ad hoc' rulings.

 

[Wil]

I think it's clear that there are at least 2 different understandings of the term 'ad hoc' floating around here, which probably reflects the different professional backgrounds of the people using the term in question.

Yeah and I think that even within (for instance) my profession it goes both ways. In other words ad-hoc is either when the same results may be arrived at two different ways or when the method for getting results is not standardized and may only work under one set of specific circumstances

Perhaps there is no point in continuing to beat this particular dead horse, but by this understanding of 'ad hoc' I fail to see what the original dispute was about, or why a rules heavy game like 3e necessarily reduces the scope for 'ad hoc' rulings.

I think it has something to do with the "more rules means more variables" argument, that somehow 3e requires less ad-hoc rulings because there are more options in the rules, which leads to needing to record more stats for NPCs. Which doesn't particularly apply to those who are able (and more than willing) to append feats, skills, whatever to NPCs during gameplay to adjust for faults during the NPC creation process.

 

[MerricB]

Rules, by design, encourage certain conduct while excluding other conduct as a result (it's unavoidable, really). Look at things such as memorization-based spell casting or the Cleric class - by design these two design decisions specifically limit options, not open them up. For example, if I want to create a mage whose ability to cast magic is skill-based, a fighter whose sword mastery is skill-based, or a Cleric who doesn't cast spells, I have to ignore the rules or break them (i.e., house-rule them).

Indeed.

However, consider this: 3e has many more rules covering character classes than 1e. 3e also allows a wider range of characters within the rules.

The assumption that fewer rules = more options is not, in fact, true. It *can* be true, but it isn't a set relationship.

Take this RPG ruleset:

* The player can describe any action. The player then flips a coin. On a heads, the action succeeds. On a tails, the action fails.

That is a complete ruleset. It limits options not at all - although not everything will succeed! I'd also hate to use it.

Why are there rules for D&D? It is to allow the resolution of challenges. The earliest form of the game had the challenges mainly being "defeat the monster in combat". As the game has gone on, ways of overcoming further challenges have been added. Things like "pick the lock and remove the trap" (added in Supplement I: Greyhawk with the introduction of the thief).

The methods of overcoming challenges have also grown. In oD&D, there's a very limited set of methods - three classes, and a small list of spells. By AD&D, there were ten classes and a much larger list of spells.

The addition of spells and special abilities grows the stat-block. In AD&D you might have a monster immune to fire; in 3e, you could have a monster immune to fire and resist 10 acid and electricity.

In theory, you could add a new type of damage, "mistletoe" damage, and include immunities to it. It gets counterproductive after a while, however. That people prefer a smaller set of variables is not surprising.

Cheers!

 

[MerricB]

I think it has something to do with the "more rules means more variables" argument, that somehow 3e requires less ad-hoc rulings because there are more options in the rules, which leads to needing to record more stats for NPCs. Which doesn't particularly apply to those who are able (and more than willing) to append feats, skills, whatever to NPCs during gameplay to adjust for faults during the NPC creation process.

You have "Variety of approach" creating longer statblocks. This is where you have in one system fire damage and frost damage, and in another system fire, frost, acid and sonic damage. When you have monsters that must account for resistances to these, obviously the second system can require more space.

You also have "Completeness" creating longer statblocks. In AD&D, there is no mechanism for determining whether a monster can open a stuck door; in 3E, there is, and that information (the Strength score) is included in the stat block.

You have "Standardisation" creating shorter statblocks in adventure text. e.g. "Goblins (8) see MM". However, NPCs do not have such a standard in 3.5e.

Cheers!

 

[jgbrowning]

Let me get this straight: everytime I apply a general rule to a specific situation I'm creating an 'entirely new rule'?

Sorry, but I disagree.

Either that, or you're using the word 'rule' in a way that deviates markedly from standard English usage.

(Btw, your analogy with species is misleading, as species mark out discrete natural entities, whereas rules guide practice.)

Two different uses of the word rule, I believe, is the confusion. Using a "rule1" to create a "rule2." There's a difference between rule1 and rule2.

What if the rules say: 'use d20 + + modifiers - -modifiers in situations of type Y, and assign the modifiers based on your specification of the situation'. Then I am following the rules -- not 'designing' a new rule -- when I resolve that action in that way.

You're using a rule1 to design a rule2.

The "rules of a game" are almost always only rule2s. Only in an open-ended game where there can never be enough rule2s to cover every possible situation, rule1s are used to provide a judge a guideline in how to make up an entirely new rule2.

For example chess is only composed of rule2s. However, if you wanted to change how the pieces moved in a someone consistant way from person to person, you could create a set of rule1s (design guidlines) that would make creating new ways pieces can move easier. And if you made your design guidelines good enough, you may make the %chance of two people producing the same result greater as opposed to lesser. That's good design.

The fact that two different GMs might assign somewhat different modifiers to a specific situation does not mean that they are using different rules (anymore than two judges assigning somewhat different sentences for a criminal offense means that they are creating two new laws). Rather, they are using the same rule, but are relying on somewhat different assumptions about the relevant modifiers.

If the results are different, the rule2s are defacto different. If you give a +4 and I only give a +2 and that difference causes one player to succeed while the other fails....

the rules are different.

Because the assumptions are integral to the creation of a rule. If the assumptions aren't the same, you're in the design phase of rule creation.

Sorry, but I don't understand this.

Just because you follow rule1 to create a rule2, that rule2 isn't necessisarily any better than a ruling that doesn't follow rule1.

No matter how you decided to use rule1 to design rule2 all your really doing is taking modifiers that will result in a %probablity of success/failure of an action. I can just cut to the chase and decide what %of success I want to occur and then roll d100 for the result.

The only difference between what I did and you have done is that you have followed the rule1 design principles of the game to create your rule2 while I looked at what expected % of success/failure I thought was appropriate (just like you did, but in adifferent manner).

Your method is better design for the d20 system, but it's still ad hoc rules creation.

Rule1 exists to help those GMs who feel like they cannot come up with good %chances of success failure based upon situations not actually covered by rule2. It also exists to try and make ad hoc rulings more similiar from GM to GM as not all situations can be covered in the rules2.

So d20/3e is also an 'ad hoc' system? So much for Psion's preference for d20/3e because it doesn't suffer from the weakness of rampant 'ad hoccing'.

The important thing here is rampant. The fewer situations where adjudication differs between one GM and another GM means the fewer weakness of the system as designed. However, the design may not cover what you want covered, and then, unsurpisingly you have to ad hoc (improvise) the system to make it do what you want it to do and what is hasn't been explictly designed to do. And if the system has been designed to provide guidelines for ad hoccing, that system is better than one which offers no guidelines.

If so, you've both rendered the term meaningless, and redefined it in a way that differs significantly from the way in which it is understood by most parties to this discussion.

I think once you understand rules as only rule2s and use the words "design guidlines" for what you've been calling rule1s everything becomes clear.

Because that's what the "rule" of d20 +modifiers is: not a "rule, but a "design guideline" to help you create a rule2 that is similiar in execution to the other real rule2s of the game.

You've been given the power to design the rule2s of the game as you go and they gave you some guidelines to hopefully make your game more enjoyable. The guidline isn't a rule, it's a design principle. And it's a design principle that has limitations as well because some situations will require different guidelines than d20+ modifiers "rule" you're referring to to adjudicate success/failure ratios. (ie. if you ever want to make the difference between success and failure anything less than 5%, you cannot use d20+ modifiers "rule")

joe b.

 

[Akrasia]

...
I think once you understand rules as only rule2s and use the words "design guidlines" for what you've been calling rule1s everything becomes clear....

Yes, that does make things clearer, thanks. It seems that the disagreement here has largely proceeded from differences in the use of words. No doubt (early) Wittgenstein would be amused.

... And if the system has been designed to provide guidelines for ad hoccing, that system is better than one which offers no guidelines...

What I understood 'ad hoccing' to involve was precisely coming up with rules in a system that had no (or inadequate) 'guidelines'.

If ad hoccing is simply the application of 'design guidelines' to specific cases, them I'm all in favour of it, and don't understand how anyone could view it as a problem.