Rules, Rules, Rules (Legends & Lore)

[frankthedm]

Of course, there's a question that hasn't been asked: if we're at a level when most PCs can fly,

I think that the mistake of PCs being assumed to have access to flight at some point of progress is on its way out of D&D game design. PCs will probably be able to get flying carpets and winged mounts, but it won't be as ludicrously common as flight was the dark days of PRCs and point buy power systems disguised as magic items. The game won't morph into Superpowers & Spandex* at a given level range unless the GM takes the game in that direction.

*cunningly disguised as mithral chain shirts.

 

[Incenjucar]

I think that the mistake of PCs being assumed to have access to flight at some point of progress is on its way out of D&D game design. PCs will probably be able to get flying carpets and winged mounts, but it won't be as ludicrously common as flight was the dark days of PRCs and point buy power systems disguised as magic items. The game won't morph into Superpowers & Spandex* at a given level range unless the GM takes the game in that direction.

*cunningly disguised as mithral chain shirts.

There are now two PC races that can fly all day long. One of them can fly while killing things.

 

[keterys]

Level 15 broom of flying is fly at-will, only takes a -2 attack to get.

Level 12 Eagle's Flight lets the group fly all day long, though not in combat so much.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I'm really leaning towards 'radically different.' Especially with regards to skills. 4e skill system was better than 3e's, which was better than 2e's non-weapon proficiencies, but none of them have really been /good/.

It occurs to me that climbing doesn't need to be a skill, at all. A 'Treacherous Climb' could be a hazzard. You try to move through it, it attacks your FORT to slow or immobilize you or your REF to make you fall or something like that. Same goes for swimming, jumping, etc... Getting clues from an informant? Permission from a noble? Obstacle. Sneaking past a monster? Trap. Any adventuring use of a skill could probably be modeled as challenge of some sort easily tailored or cusomized to the party, rather than a hard-coded simulation mechanic that could end up too easy or too hard too often.

 

[Riastlin]

I thought this was one of the better L&L articles to date. I do agree with the notion that the more detailed the rules are, the less wiggle room the DM has for making judgment calls. Its not so much that the designers are saying "Hey DM's, you can't change our rules!" Rather its the growing numbers of rules lawyers who are saying "Hey DM, according to page 137 of this book here, the DC is 10, not 15!"

A lot of this comes from the social contract that is implicit at the table. The rules are there to give a basis for the group as to what to expect. The DM expects the players to choose only those powers and feats that actually exist as oppose to making their own. At the same time, the players expect the DM to use the RAW. Now, certainly, the DM is free to house rule. However, it is again generally expected that if the DM is going to house rule, she will tell the group about said house rules in advance, otherwise, its presumed that the DM is using the RAW.

As for the auto increase in skill modifiers, I'm actually fine with it. As [MENTION=22424]delericho[/MENTION] says, part of progressing up the tiers (or character levels in general) is seeing how much things change for you. In other words, a PC who had difficulty climbing a wall at 1st level, will feel pretty accomplished when she returns to that same wall at level 15 and breezes up it.

Now I confess that the notion of "Swinging my sword makes me more knowledgeable about the various religions" doesn't make a whole lot of sense. However, I have also always thought that while its generally the encounters that grant XP to the PCs, there was far more to their lives than what actually comes up at the game table. Maybe that trek through the woods that was summarized in about 10 seconds not only lasted 3 days, but allowed the PCs to get to know their mounts better, thus making them better at riding them. In addition, maybe part of the two week journey from one city to another allowed the party to rest on the shore of a lake and they all went for a swim, etc. In other words, there are just way too many things that go on in a person's life than can be summarized in a 4 hour gaming session. That doesn't mean those "unimportant" activities didn't enable the PC to get better at something though.

As for how does the barbarian become so knowledgeable in history, or how does the fighter learn so many details of the various religions? Well, the easiest explanation is that during their travels over the last several years, they actually picked up a little bit on what the cleric and wizard kept talking about around the camp fire each night. They still are not nearly as knowledgeable as their party mates, but some of it is going to stick over the years.

 

[Gortle]

@Gizella : I have to disagree about the primary ability of acrobatics. The primary ability is to stunt--Acrobatics and Athletics are by far the primary stunt skills, letting you make up and pull off death defying feats in and out of combat.

I've always have had trouble with this as
a) the PC will mostly likely have movement powers that duplicate these maneuvers without the risk of a failure.
b) there are easier ways to get combat advantage if that was your goal. Especially for an essentials thief.
c) the difficulty level of these maneuvers scale with level. Why is it a higher number for a 10th level rogue to slide down a banister on a shield than it is for a 1st level rogue.

But while I'm fine with things as they are, I have to admit that the "everything gets better, yes, even that" effect of the half level bonus is really a solution in search of a problem. Because of the half level, everything you want to be a factor at higher levels has to be harder, stronger, more difficult, even when it doesn't make much sense. Sure, you can come up with an explanation for why the 30th level wizard is able to jump 2 squares without breathing hard; why the 30th level Barbarian is hugely knowledgable about history, nature, and arcana (which admitedly made sense for Conan, but I'd argue that ti's not true of -all- larger than life heroes), and so on.

But really, the reason is so that the difficulty tables will make sense. It should be possible for a wizard to make a level appropriate Stealth check that's simple enough or with enough help; it should be possible for the group to pass a difficult group Endurance check without everyone being trained in Endurance; it should be possible for any character to have a chance at passing a level appropriate moderate check. Remember the difficulty tables--the ones that were revised with the Essentials book so they'd be grouped around expected character difficulty, not the over-simplistic assumptions that there would never be greater than a 10 point skill gap? -That- is the best place to make sure that characters can succeed on level appropriate challenges. You don't -have- to have the half level bonus to all skills; you can just make sure the system scales character appropriate challenges. And you don't have to give everyone half level to make sure they can succeed on group checks and appropriate assisted checks; you just need rules that allow aids to grant a bigger bonus when it's a trained person assisting an untrained person (because that really makes sense).

Sure, higher level characters will be able to do otherwise impossible things. But that doesn't mean they all have to be able to do the -same- impossible things. If you preserve some levels of incapability from low levels; rather than having everyone going from being good at some things and terrible at others to being great at some things and only good at others, you end up with more character differentiation and a world that makes a little more sense. And the thing is, the nature of feats and powers is that the characters -will- be a lot more capable at 30th level than they were at 1st. The wizard will be able to charm people using suggestion and glib tongue; the warlock will be able to teleport, some characters will even be able to fly! But that doesn't mean they can't be bad at at least -some- things.

Yep there is definitely a systemic problem here.

 

[Ainamacar]

I thought this was one of the better L&L articles to date. I do agree with the notion that the more detailed the rules are, the less wiggle room the DM has for making judgment calls. Its not so much that the designers are saying "Hey DM's, you can't change our rules!" Rather its the growing numbers of rules lawyers who are saying "Hey DM, according to page 137 of this book here, the DC is 10, not 15!"

While it is easy to blame it on rules lawyers as such, I actually think there is something much more fundamental going on. Rules are essentially defaults, and defaults are psychologically powerful. Even when they are acknowledged as suggestions, we often don't act like it.

Therefore I think it is good practice in presenting rules to state a global rule 0, but to also affirm it specifically in various parts of the rules even though this is, strictly speaking, superfluous. In such places this resets the default from something apparently rote to explicit permission to adjust as necessary, and can change our understanding of designer intent with respect to that rule. It helps disarm rules lawyers (yay!), but more importantly for many people it helps disarm our own reticence.

As for how does the barbarian become so knowledgeable in history, or how does the fighter learn so many details of the various religions? Well, the easiest explanation is that during their travels over the last several years, they actually picked up a little bit on what the cleric and wizard kept talking about around the camp fire each night. They still are not nearly as knowledgeable as their party mates, but some of it is going to stick over the years.

The high variance of the d20 really hurts this interpretation, in my opinion. I prefer training to be a strong predictor of success, but that means the change in typical results (usually from a bonus) have to be significant compared to the variance of the d20, and doing so quickly leads to inflation beyond the original range of the die. The lack of degrees of success (say +/- 5) as a standard principle also hurts. So a 30th level 4e fighter of average starting dexterity played as unsubtly as they come has better stealth than a trained first level rogue. To me that represents more than a little learning here and there. It's not just that the characters are better at some things than we would expect based on what they actually accomplish during the game, it's that they can't be bad at the things we've established them to be bad at. The player could ignore it and treat it like a 0, but then we're not really talking about the (4e) rules anymore.

Clearly this aspect of 3/3.5 was closer to what I like, but it failed to keep the huge bonuses reined in. If I were designing a 30 level 4e-style game from scratch I might make skill training be +3/tier, but you get fewer skills per tier. Perhaps 1 fewer skill at each tier, creating a sort of pyramid, but with class skills (e.g. Arcana for a wizard) automatically increasing. Fewer skills in the stratosphere makes them more special, and permits more typical DCs to be in a range where even marginal training is very helpful.

I'd probably also remove ability score increases from the game, so in general a +5 bonus is the best PCs can get there. As an ad hoc rule of thumb I'd maybe want a hyper-specialized epic character's worst result to be equal to the best possible result of an average untrained individual, which is a DC range of 1-40. In that case there is an additional +6 that could come from magic items, buffs, what have you. Enough, anyway, to feel significant if they showed up. Finally, I would concentrate on mechanics that don't increase the absolute potential of the character. Roll twice keep highest, for example, moves the average result closer to a character's potential. I like that for things like skill focus.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I've always have had trouble with this as
a) the PC will mostly likely have movement powers that duplicate these maneuvers without the risk of a failure.

You mean like flying rather than breaking a fall with Acrobatics? Or gaining a climb or swim speed rather than using Athletics? /Maybe/ Some classes do get utilities like that, but they're usually encounter powers. You might sprout wings as a Scion of Arkhosia at 12th level and never need to Jump again - but you'll still need to escape from grabs, say - and you won't also be obviating a lot of other skills.

Of course, that's a weaker argument with the Pixie waiting in the wings (pi).

b) there are easier ways to get combat advantage if that was your goal. Especially for an essentials thief.

Not always. OK, yes, if you're a Theif, always.

c) the difficulty level of these maneuvers scale with level. Why is it a higher number for a 10th level rogue to slide down a banister on a shield than it is for a 1st level rogue.

False. If something is difficult for a 1st level character, the exact same task should be quite easy for a 10th level one. Perhaps trivial. It's rarely going to be the exact same task, though. The DC doesn't change because the character levels up, the DC changes because higher level characters face more difficult challenges.

 

[Jan van Leyden]

Think of how much impact something like the Wealth by Levels guidelines had on adventure design. Or the Racial Level Limits had on which races/classes got played. Just to pick two examples off the top of my head.

I'd say that adventure design is different from the way the game is played. For your second example one might put up a poll to find out to what degree this rules had been enforced. I actually have no idea, but my gut feeling is telling me that it was a very neglected rule.

A third example would be the difference in how xp is awarded between edition. That can have a huge impact on play styles.

So, yes, I think Mr. Cook is dead on when he says that the way the game is written will have an enormous impact on how the game is played.

This is definitely true, but we are talking about the topic of detailed vs. descriptive rules. I really don't think that game designers would have much success in enforcing the application of their rules.

 

[Jan van Leyden]

I think you're reading too much into it. Monte isn't on a stump here trying to tell DMs to stop making judgement calls, he's just recognizing that if you write a rule, people will use it. When most people look at a rule and think "No. Not in my game. In my game, we will do this differently." it's generally for a rule they really don't like. For instance, I might well be able to make some climbing rules that work way better for me and my group than the default ones do, but I never have. Why? Not because I thought I couldn't, but because the existing climbing rules were good enough. Not great, just good enough.

Hey, I don't accuse him of trying to tie me to the rules as written by some Famous Game Designer!

The dichotomy in his example is something like "enforce rulings by the DM" (example 1, no useful rules provided, so DIY) vs. "offer rulings to the DM" (example 2, rules provided for many occasions, you may read and use this). I can surely live with both versions and even prefer at least *some* rules for, say, climbing.

If I'd play with a DM who deviates from the "official" rules it becomes a matter of trust in her abilities to run a good game, regardless of the ratio of officialness of the game.

The cold shiver I mentioned in my post has been triggered by the my memories of TSR's an EGG's attempts to define an official version of AD&D complete with official dice, official character sheets and an official way to play the game. Seeing that WotC reaches out with their organized play (Lair Assault, Encounters) I fear that someone wants to re-visit this vision of (A)D&D.