Rules as Law vs. Rules as Guidelines

[Lanefan]

• I drop the Vancian Magic from D&D whenever I can usually opting for a Spell Points system

Side question: what has your in-play experience been like with spell points?

I used spell points in D&D for well over 20 years and while they work fine at low levels they get completely out of hand at higher levels, particularly in a system where characters don't have to pre-memorize spells each morning (a mechanic I've come to rather loathe over time).

And so, for my current campaign I went back to slots; but using similar mechanics to the 3e Sorcerer (i.e. if you know the spell and have a slot left of its level, then cast away; but no up- or down-casting: the slot used must match the level of spell being cast). It's better, but I still need to tweak downwards the number of slots they can amass at higher levels.

 

[Lanefan]

Does "you" here refer to GMs, players, or both?

Not the person you asked, but in my case based on the examples given it'd be just the GM; as those examples are all system kitbashes and thus the sort of thing that's done during the design/prep phase before - and maybe long before - play even begins.

Once a campaign starts it's probably a bit late to be kitbashing the system that campaign is using.

 

[Maxperson]

Does "you" here refer to GMs, players, or both?

I guess it would depend on the system used. For D&D, it will typically be the DM only.

 

[clearstream]

I guess it would depend on the system used. For D&D, it will typically be the DM only.

The question and your answer here points out the misnomer in the thread title. The doubt is not whether folk follow rules, but which rules they follow.

 

[Maxperson]

The question and your answer here points out the misnomer in the thread title. The doubt is not whether folk follow rules, but which rules they follow.

Right, which is why I said for D&D it's "typically" the DM. If rules are guidelines, and they always are, they could house rule D&D to allow players to change rules.

 

[Thomas Shey]

The question and your answer here points out the misnomer in the thread title. The doubt is not whether folk follow rules, but which rules they follow.

Well, and how offhand they are about ignoring them and who gets to decide. Its not like its hard to get the following situation: GM: "We're going to not do this the way the rules say; it'll be better"; Player A: "I disagree"; Players B-F: [sit mum].

 

[Darth Solo]

Side question: what has your in-play experience been like with spell points?

I used spell points in D&D for well over 20 years and while they work fine at low levels they get completely out of hand at higher levels, particularly in a system where characters don't have to pre-memorize spells each morning (a mechanic I've come to rather loathe over time).

And so, for my current campaign I went back to slots; but using similar mechanics to the 3e Sorcerer (i.e. if you know the spell and have a slot left of its level, then cast away; but no up- or down-casting: the slot used must match the level of spell being cast). It's better, but I still need to tweak downwards the number of slots they can amass at higher levels.

The "you" I referred to was the GROUP: I like player buy-in when rules get changed (we go as RAW as they like).

On spell points, I give mages points equal to their INT and spells cost them the level of the used spell +1. Points refresh with rest. Never had a problem as I've been lucky with players agreeable to the change.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Well, if the group has total buy in, that's effectively just creating houserules or having a group that's comfortable with ad-hoc rules. It might end up being a mistake in individual cases (because no one understands the implications of the rules change), but its not a problem as such.

 

[Maxperson]

The "you" I referred to was the GROUP: I like player buy-in when rules get changed (we go as RAW as they like).

On spell points, I give mages points equal to their INT and spells cost them the level of the used spell +1. Points refresh with rest. Never had a problem as I've been lucky with players agreeable to the change.

So a 1st level wizard with an 18 int and a 20th level wizard with an 18 int can both cast 9 1st level spells and are then out of power?

 

[Lanefan]

On spell points, I give mages points equal to their INT and spells cost them the level of the used spell +1. Points refresh with rest. Never had a problem as I've been lucky with players agreeable to the change.

So their spell points don't increase as they level up, then? That's an interesting wrinkle.

 

[Maxperson]

So their spell points don't increase as they level up, then? That's an interesting wrinkle.

Yeah. If a level 20 wizard only has 18 spell points per day and an 8th level spell uses up half, that's waaaaay too limiting in my opinion. Maybe I'm just misunderstanding what he is saying, though.

 

[Bacon Bits]

Side question: what has your in-play experience been like with spell points?

I used spell points in D&D for well over 20 years and while they work fine at low levels they get completely out of hand at higher levels, particularly in a system where characters don't have to pre-memorize spells each morning (a mechanic I've come to rather loathe over time).

Not who you asked, but I'll say that my experience matches yours.

The first problem with spell points is that spell levels aren't linear, but spell point costs almost always are. Really, you want 1st-level spells to cost ~3, 2nd-level spells to cost ~5, and 3rd-level spells to cost ~12. But 4th level spells aren't really that much better than 3rd level spells. 4th level spells really are just another set of 3rd level spells for the most part. As you progress on, the spells are increasingly explicitly designed to be limited by how many you can ever cast in a day. And then you get to 6th level spells and they're supposed to be really potent as the original highest spell level... but they aren't? 5th and 6th level spells feel markedly better than 3rd and 4th level spells, but they're basically equal to each other. Then you get to 7th-level and higher and the list is just almost entirely crazy stuff. Sure, some of it is just modified fireballs, but the good stuff that really draws people in really should be magic items or quest rewards or unique rituals.

Really, I think to make spell points work you need to throw out spell level entirely. Each spell should have it's own costs, maybe even with it's own means to limit recasts. At that point, you should probably throw out the whole magic system entirely and bring in something completely different. Maybe something skill-based, or dice-pool based.

 

[clearstream]

Right, which is why I said for D&D it's "typically" the DM. If rules are guidelines, and they always are, they could house rule D&D to allow players to change rules.

What I'm proposing is that if rules really are guidelines, then they cannot be replaced by other rules.

Suppose that as a player I am following rule A. We have a house rule that allows me to change rule A to rule B. Very well, but now I am following rule B.

In order for rules to be guidelines in the most interesting and meaningful sense (from my perspective, and quite possibly not interesting to others!), guidelines should be something other than rules. Upthread I suggested that the thread's intent seemed mostly about attitudes toward rules. I think folk are using guidelines to identify one such attitude, but so far what that seems to have come down to are norms about which rules are followed, not anything about how those rules are followed.

@Thomas Shey similarly I see the question of who gets to decide which rules are followed as also failing to make good on the thread title. The question of which rules are in play is separate from the question of what it means to say that a rule is a guideline.

 

[Thomas Shey]

@Thomas Shey similarly I see the question of who gets to decide which rules are followed as also failing to make good on the thread title. The question of which rules are in play is separate from the question of what it means to say that a rule is a guideline.

I don't think you can disconnect it as long as you accept that rules are not, in 100% of all cases, set in stone forever and ever. If they're guidelines for only the GM, then in practice they aren't even that; they're just suggestions. If they're guidelines for the group (i.e. they're only changed collectively) there is much more inertia involved in not following them, and thus they actually mean something beyond "I decided I'd stick with it this time). Similarly, if the GM and only the GM is allowed to change rules at his judgment, they're only rules for the players.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Not who you asked, but I'll say that my experience matches yours.

The first problem with spell points is that spell levels aren't linear, but spell point costs almost always are. Really, you want 1st-level spells to cost ~3, 2nd-level spells to cost ~5, and 3rd-level spells to cost ~12. But 4th level spells aren't really that much better than 3rd level spells. 4th level spells really are just another set of 3rd level spells for the most part. As you progress on, the spells are increasingly explicitly designed to be limited by how many you can ever cast in a day. And then you get to 6th level spells and they're supposed to be really potent as the original highest spell level... but they aren't? 5th and 6th level spells feel markedly better than 3rd and 4th level spells, but they're basically equal to each other. Then you get to 7th-level and higher and the list is just almost entirely crazy stuff. Sure, some of it is just modified fireballs, but the good stuff that really draws people in really should be magic items or quest rewards or unique rituals.

Really, I think to make spell points work you need to throw out spell level entirely. Each spell should have it's own costs, maybe even with it's own means to limit recasts. At that point, you should probably throw out the whole magic system entirely and bring in something completely different. Maybe something skill-based, or dice-pool based.

That's really the issue, isn't it? That the D&D spell system is not coherent. Spell levelling is largely arbitrary, and even within a level there's winners and losers. As such any attempt to make the whole process look less, well, odd trips over the fact there will be unintended consequences.

I'll tell you the truth; if D&D hadn't been the first fantasy game out the gate, and you wrote it up now, people would look at the magic system and conclude the designers were incompetent.

 

[Lanefan]

Not who you asked, but I'll say that my experience matches yours.

The first problem with spell points is that spell levels aren't linear, but spell point costs almost always are. Really, you want 1st-level spells to cost ~3, 2nd-level spells to cost ~5, and 3rd-level spells to cost ~12. But 4th level spells aren't really that much better than 3rd level spells. 4th level spells really are just another set of 3rd level spells for the most part.

To some extent that depends on which class of caster you're looking at. Ideally, the same mechanic applies to all caster classes (I don't count Bards as casters).

For spell costs I always used a j-curving or fibonacci-like sequence where 1st cost 1, 2nd cost 2, 3rd cost 3, 4th cost 5, 5th cost 8, and so forth.

It always works fine for the highest-level spells you can cast, but by 10th character level when you've got maybe 30 or 40 spell points it means you can pretty much spam magic missile or cure light wounds all day.

As you progress on, the spells are increasingly explicitly designed to be limited by how many you can ever cast in a day. And then you get to 6th level spells and they're supposed to be really potent as the original highest spell level... but they aren't? 5th and 6th level spells feel markedly better than 3rd and 4th level spells, but they're basically equal to each other. Then you get to 7th-level and higher and the list is just almost entirely crazy stuff. Sure, some of it is just modified fireballs, but the good stuff that really draws people in really should be magic items or quest rewards or unique rituals.

Really, I think to make spell points work you need to throw out spell level entirely. Each spell should have it's own costs, maybe even with it's own means to limit recasts. At that point, you should probably throw out the whole magic system entirely and bring in something completely different. Maybe something skill-based, or dice-pool based.

That's mostly why I went back to slots, was to limit recasts. In that much, doing so has worked out quite well.

I'd rather not go to each spell having its own casting cost - bad enough they each have different casting times and other requirements.

 

[James Gasik]

The problem with making low level spells cheaper than high level spells in a spell point system quickly becomes that few low level spells make much of an impact at higher levels, especially in 5e, which wants you to use higher level slots to keep low level spells even remotely relevant in many cases.

And let's be honest, not all spells are created equally to begin with; there's always going to be some that should cost more/less than some arbitrary amount of points anyways.

I get the feeling that spell points creates as many problems as it solves. I'd rather dispense with spell slots as a daily resource and put spells on a cooldown based on their power level.

 

[bloodtide]

What I'm proposing is that if rules really are guidelines, then they cannot be replaced by other rules.

I think it needs to be said "what is a rule".

See, most people when they talk about a "rule" are talking about something like "Firefinger does 1d4 fire damage".

But not random text like "when gaining a level a player can choose a new spell from the arcane list ". That many players "interpret" as the player can pick ANY spell they want. A lot of DMs would see that as a guideline, not a rule.

Though this also opens the can of worms that EVERY word in the books is a FIRM RULE.

 

[clearstream]

I think it needs to be said "what is a rule".

For human interpreted/implemented TTRPGs, they're normative. Followed in view of the play thus constituted. When folk speak of rules as laws versus guidelines, they're simply commenting on and making choices about their normative authority.

The trickier question is the relationship between rules and meaning. I'm interested in applying the same questions to that. Is there any difference to meaning, between rules as laws and rules as guidelines?

See, most people when they talk about a "rule" are talking about something like "Firefinger does 1d4 fire damage".

But not random text like "when gaining a level a player can choose a new spell from the arcane list ". That many players "interpret" as the player can pick ANY spell they want. A lot of DMs would see that as a guideline, not a rule.

The first is constitutive and instances a game parameter. The second is phrased as regulatory but is probably constitutive: the ambiguity producing divergent interpretations. (Reading "can" as "must" helps see this.)

Though this also opens the can of worms that EVERY word in the books is a FIRM RULE.

So far as I can make out, every rule that is not ambiguous is a firm rule just so long as we put it in force for ourselves. What hasn't been discussed is the possibility that guidelines are rules with no definite meaning, or not-rules. What has been discussed is that guidelines are rules with lessened authority.

 

[Lanefan]

I think it needs to be said "what is a rule".

See, most people when they talk about a "rule" are talking about something like "Firefinger does 1d4 fire damage".

But not random text like "when gaining a level a player can choose a new spell from the arcane list ". That many players "interpret" as the player can pick ANY spell they want. A lot of DMs would see that as a guideline, not a rule.

Though this also opens the can of worms that EVERY word in the books is a FIRM RULE.

"Every word in the books is a firm rule" should be the default, really; and the books need to be clearer somehow in defining what is intended to be a hard rule (e.g. Firefinger damage) or a guideline. (EDIT to add: Thus, when I say rules-as-guidelines I mean more that rules are malleable and kitbashable into being other rules, not that rules are wishy-washy and unclear.)

As written, I too would interpret that spell-choosing piece to mean the player gets unfettered choice. To be a guideline it would have to be expanded to read something like "When gaining a level the caster gains a new spell*. This spell can be assigned by the DM, chosen by the player, rolled at random, or selected by whatever other means you find appropriate."

Here, the gaining of a new spell is a hard rule; the suggested assignment methods are guidelines.

* - should be an added clause "of the highest level that character can cast" or something similar; but it's not in the original example so I left it off here.