Rule-Of-Three 2-7-12

[KidSnide]

For puzzles, if the players enjoy puzzles, then the players solve them. If they hate them then we do a Int or skill check. Fun trumps aesthetic concerns regarding system and concerns about "why is my barbarian good at logic?"

This is the key issue. If the players find some aspect of the game unpleasant (because their not good at it personally, because they don't think their characters could do it or for some other reason), then the rules should provide the ability to turn it into a character challenge. If the players find the aspect of the game fun (because they like puzzles or want to role-play out the interaction) the rules of the game should allow them to play it interactively. If the group likes a mixture of things depending on the player (or the player's mood), the game should allow some combination (maybe an interactive section and a large modifier).

What's fun for one group isn't always fun for another. The game needs to support groups spending time on what's fun for them and abstracting away the parts that aren't. What's played out and what's abstracted is going to differ on a table-by-table basis. D&DN is supposed to be a "big tent" game and it needs to support the range of preferences.

-KS

 

[Mattachine]

What's fun for one group isn't always fun for another. The game needs to support groups spending time on what's fun for them and abstracting away the parts that aren't. What's played out and what's abstracted is going to differ on a table-by-table basis. D&DN is supposed to be a "big tent" game and it needs to support the range of preferences.

-KS

This is what I was getting at. I was being too much of a devil's advocate--of course some groups are going to have a more Gygaxian style of play, with players solving the problems and with much of the interaction tests coming from player ability, rather than character traits. However, if the game is going to have rules for non-combat resolution of tasks, then it should make a good effort to support all of those tasks. Again the 4e DMG did this explicitly, whereas the 1e DMG (and many adventures) did the exact opposite. I don't want to return to the 1e model.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

I have to second the point made upthread, that if we disregard character stats for problem solving & rely on the player instead, then why do combat stats not get the same treatment?

At our table?

Everyone agrees that combat is a character challenge rather than a player challenge and that the game will be more fun if we roll dice rather than just make it up as we go.

On the other hand, everyone also agrees that puzzles are player challenges rather than character challenges and the game will be more fun if we make it up as we go rather than rolling dice.

What dd.stevenson said. Plus I would add the notion that the design of challenges is entirely in the hands of the DM. There's absolutely no reason why anyone would ever have to play under the style they dislike unless their DM has misread his players' preferences. I think the DMG can offer some good advice in this regard, but strict rules aren't completely necessary.

 

[Mattachine]

WI think the DMG can offer some good advice in this regard, but strict rules aren't completely necessary.

Right--no strict rules are necessary. Still, rules of some type should be provided, rules that relate to character stats. Likewise, advice can be given for DMs who want to go without specific rules and let players solve the problem (rather than the characters).

The 4e DMG very specifically does these things. I would like to see that carried forward in a new edition.

 

[The Shadow]

To those who want to play low-Int, low-Cha characters and then do all the puzzle-solving and character interaction anyway:

You can't have your cake and eat it.

Unless everyone at the table does the same thing, you are basically cheating.

Okay, this is just over the top. "The way you play is not only badwrongfun, it is morally wrong."

Admittedly, you left the out of 'everyone at the table does the same thing', but please, let's tone down the rhetoric a bit? If the people you play with don't think you're cheating (when it's something openly obvious like this), then you just aren't.

We've seen several excellent posts in this thread about how the thing you call 'cheating' can be pulled off and be fun for everyone involved.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Sure, the game has specific rules for die rolls in combat . . . doesn't the game have specific rules for die rolls out of combat, too?

Originally, no it didn't. If there was a roll involved it was because the DM thought there needed to be one in a particular situation.

Aside from that, players just played the game.

 

[Argyle King]

Originally, no it didn't. If there was a roll involved it was because the DM thought there needed to be one in a particular situation.

Aside from that, players just played the game.

I see the merit in that approach. I've always been curious as to how you'd measure certain things though. Like say a PC falls into water and is trying to swim faster enough to be able to pull himself onto land before a demonic shark bites his legs off. I'm sure there are better examples, but that's the one which comes to mind. Maybe a better example would be a party of PCs rowing a boat in hopes of getting to the other side before a competing group.

 

[Mattachine]

Originally, no it didn't. If there was a roll involved it was because the DM thought there needed to be one in a particular situation.

Aside from that, players just played the game.

Originally? Yes, I suppose--I learned to play in Blue Box. Still, even that iteration of the game had die rolls for searching and opening doors.

Die rolls have been used to govern many other non-combat situations from 1e onward.

 

[Niccodaemus]

Here's my blog response to the "Three Pillars" concept

Shatterworld: Behind the Scenes: Three Pillars of D&D

Some questions I ask:

So, what are they actually talking about when they mention these three pillars or aspects?

Can the game stand one one or two pillars at at time?

Is it possible to play the game using none of these pillars?

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Originally? Yes, I suppose--I learned to play in Blue Box. Still, even that iteration of the game had die rolls for searching and opening doors.

Die rolls have been used to govern many other non-combat situations from 1e onward.

The entire skill section was optional and not core rules in 1e. In 2e, non-weapon proficiencies were only supposed to be rolled against for extraordinary situations. For the most part it was "Do you have proficiency in Navigation? Ok, you find the way."

You'd only roll on your skills when it was a particularly difficult task or you needed to see how well you succeeded.

But there were no social skills of any kind other than maybe a "reaction roll".