D&D General Rules, Rulings and Second Order Design: D&D and AD&D Examined

[Snarf Zagyg]

I definitely agree on the pendulum swing between desire for more rules and desire for less. I see this both in my own wants as a gamer over time and in my own design. It is like you get saturated with more rules or more thorough and intrusive systems, and desire a return to simplicity, but the simplicity can wear thin after a time and you want greater rules clarity. For me this has been a constant thing that you could almost set to a clock. I find it especially so with D&D. For example I recall 3E really feeling like this answer, bur getting burned out on the complexity and suddenly finding the white box, with all its lack of clarity but room for imagination around things like spell descriptions enthralling. I could point to a similar experience with D&D and basic. I also find in design I tend to make my lightest games following the heavier ones. It is like there is an inbuilt need to strip things down to the basics after a while.

Yes, exactly! Although I would recommend at least 10,000 more words and at least one more admonition from Mama Snarf to make the same point.

More often than not in the RPG sphere (and in other areas in real life), people start with a simple concept. Over time, as situations arise, that simple concept doesn't seem to cover all the situations you want it to, and you begin to add additional rules, because rules do have additional salutary benefits- they provide a shared framework for the participants. They can give you the default approaches to common issues. They can offload some cognitive stress from the "decider" (whether that's a single decider or a collaborative exercise) by implementing a "best practice" that will always be used. And so on.

Eventually, however, the accumulation of all of those additional rules leads you to question the purpose of them at all, and to want to go back to the simplicity you started with. And the cycle begins anew. While this isn't true for everyone or everything all the time, it certainly seems to be an oft-repeated cycle that we've seen in this area.

 

[jmartkdr2]

So, on this, I think we just have a fundamental disagreement. I am, for lack of a better term, simply not interested in the "good rules" v. "bad rules" divide, and don't think it's actually germane to the topic.

Think of it in two steps.
1. Should there be a rule?
2. Is the rule a good rule?

The problem with this process is: if the rule is a bad rule, maybe you shouldn't have it. You can't always tell until you actually play with the rule.

Which is why we are where we are with stealth: it's basically impossible to write clear rules that will work in all cases, so the designers of 5e decided to basically not write rules so much as a framework for rulings and let it happen at the second-order level.

Finally, I think it would be interesting if someone (but not me, because PLEASE!) wanted to explore the issue of how game designers use first-order design (the rules or the formal design of the game system) to solve the actual design problem that they are designing for- the second-order design issue, which is to say, the experiential game that emerges as an indirect outcome from the rules.

This is where levels of detail can make a difference - sometimes a "rule" in the book is really just a framework for rulings, which means you can kind of predict how it will play out because it'll be a skill check, and those can only get used so many ways.

Framing is what you're talking about here, and the way the book is written can doo a lot of it, often unintentionally (I'm looking at you, 20 pages of gun rules in a game ostensibly about vampire politics).

"What is framing in ttrpgs?" is another thread, though.

 

[MGibster]

Let me tell you a tale of second design and a game called Battletech! In the late 80s, a friend of mine introduced me to the wonderful world of Battletech. For those of you who are unfamiliar, Battletech as a science fiction game set about 1,200 years into a future where mankind has reached the stars and wars are waged by giant robots piloted by trained warriors. It's all kinds of awesome. So in one game, my friend shows me the laserbomb! It was a bomb whose interior was a mirrored finish that reflected some sort of energy that bounced around inside until broken open upon impact whereupon it would wipe out everything within 25 maps. Not hexes, but maps! Wow! And then there were the "smoked" mechs. These were mechs that were hard to spot because of a special dark paint used on them that made them difficult to target.

Once I got my hands on the boxed set I quickly realized none of those things were in the game. He just made it up and ran with it. Suddenly the game felt a bit different, but better. His laserbomb and "smoked" mechs were stupid. Nobody tell me I can't get a Krensky Fried Chicken or an UrbanBurger though.

 

[Oofta]

Put me down solidly in the "don't make more rules than you need" camp. I think it's one of the reasons 5E has seen such unexpected runaway success. As the interview stated in the OP, no game is going to be a realistic simulation. Fireball spells don't exist, so it doesn't matter how we implement them. Hit points are another great example. There is no possible way we're ever going to simulate every aspect of even a boxing match, much less a generic system that covers every type of damage possible. Yet, combat at least emulates the feel of an action movie fight scene. It's a terrible system, just better or at least not any worse than some of the other systems out there. You're always going to have trade-offs.

Then we have the more nebulous areas whether that's social interactions or things like stealth. For the former, I don't want concrete influence points, reputation or any kind of tracking numbers at all. At least not officially. If I'm playing, I don't want to be thinking in terms of "This will give me 10 influence points for this alliance which makes me trusted." As a DM I want more flexibility and want to do things based on what makes the most sense logically given the agendas and motivations of the parties involved.

When it comes to stealth, I want guidelines and suggestions instead of rules. The situations where stealth apply are so varied that rules either over-simplify things or make assumptions that are frequently illogical. This is an area I know they struggled with coming up with the rules for 5E. I remember an interview with Crawford about how he had worked out concrete rules for stealth that would have taken an entire page. But they realized (correctly, I think) that no set of rules could ever be comprehensive. It's always going to be up to the DM whether you can hide or not, whether they've set up a scenario where stealth is even possible.

I think the parts of the game that are left up to the GM is just as important as what parts of the game have hard-coded rules. If i want to play a board game I'll play a board game. If I want to play a more locked-down edition of D&D that is more likely to look similar from one table to the next I'll look at 3 or 4E. There's never going to be a perfect balance between the specificity of rules that we need, what works for one person won't work for another, but for the most part the balance they struck in 5E works for me.

 

[Neonchameleon]

And yet, it isn't! One can argue that it's subjective (as are most things in design!) but I can tell you something....

If I didn't have fun when I played an RPG, I'm unlikely to play it again. It's not like I'm getting paid to do it. It's why we differentiate work and, um, fun.

So I would probably put fun as pretty much the top priority.

Now, if you have a different priority when playing, like pain, then that's cool. I'm not here to kink shame! But most people, when spending free time playing recreational games, are trying to have fun!

But that doesn't tell you diddly-squat about what to do. Hence why it is useless as a design goal. Because it doesn't actually tell you anything about what to do. At absolute best, it only tells you whether you've succeeded in what you intended to do. At worst, it literally doesn't tell you anything, and you're left completely mystified why the thing you attempted didn't work (or, sometimes, did work!)

Designing/playing for fun is like cooking for taste. It tells me that other factors such as texture, health, speed, and presentation on the plate are secondary. But the key thing about "designing for fun" is the same as "cooking for taste"; what different people find fun is different, just as what different people find tastes good is different. If cooking for one or two of my friends I'm breaking out the jalapenos, or possibly even the ghost chillis that I can barely stand - while I'm not unsealing the ghost chilli pot with some of my other friends in the same room. And likewise when "designing for fun" (or for any other purpose) I try to use something like the Magic: the Gathering psychographic profiles (although in reality mine are all named after people I've GM'd for).

And one of the real strengths of designing for a class based game (and why I dislike "level buy multiclassing") is that I can design different classes to different profiles. (On a tangent this was one of 4e's mistakes; too few profiles). I've currently two players who will take every option they can for more randomness and two who never take the random options because in both cases that's because that's what they find fun. So I'm making optional gambling mechanics - and some of the class options have more randomness than others. And some want simplicity others tactics. So classes let me do both.

 

[MichaelSomething]

Like how Kite Man makes chili? When he was with Poison Ivy, he made it without meat cause Ivy didn't like eating meat. For his next girlfriend, he removed onions from his recipe cause she didn't like onions.

Maybe we should all be more like Kite Man.

Designing/playing for fun is like cooking for taste. It tells me that other factors such as texture, health, speed, and presentation on the plate are secondary. But the key thing about "designing for fun" is the same as "cooking for taste"; what different people find fun is different, just as what different people find tastes good is different. If cooking for one or two of my friends I'm breaking out the jalapenos, or possibly even the ghost chillis that I can barely stand - while I'm not unsealing the ghost chilli pot with some of my other friends in the same room. And likewise when "designing for fun" (or for any other purpose) I try to use something like the Magic: the Gathering psychographic profiles (although in reality mine are all named after people I've GM'd for).

And one of the real strengths of designing for a class based game (and why I dislike "level buy multiclassing") is that I can design different classes to different profiles. (On a tangent this was one of 4e's mistakes; too few profiles). I've currently two players who will take every option they can for more randomness and two who never take the random options because in both cases that's because that's what they find fun. So I'm making optional gambling mechanics - and some of the class options have more randomness than others. And some want simplicity others tactics. So classes let me do both.

 

[tomBitonti]

We do have to respect that Board Games live in a different space. By their nature, board games are meant to be limited experiences, they prescribe a preset list of actions, with the expectation that the players follow the rules to the letter.

Take Gloomhaven for example, one of the most popular boardgames in recent years (and commonly called the "Dnd of board game"). I have played Gloomhaven, being a board game addict myself. I love the mechanics of the game, I appreciate some of its intricacies, and I think for players that have never played dnd or its equivalent, its a neat "stepping stone" into that world.

But personally I would never play Gloomhaven over dnd. When you are used to a more imagination based freeform game for your roleplaying, going to a completely codified constraint game is very.....well.....constraining.

Upon reading the first paragraph I was ironically drawn to thinking about a recent review, by the good folks at shutupandsitdown of Frosthaven, the successor to Gloomhaven. A point that I was drawn to was that Gloomhaven has a lot of rules holes. Enough that in a typical game some player decisions must be made to fill in a missing case. The comparison lamented that Frosthaven had filled in these rules gaps, to the detriment of the game.

it seems that while not typical, board games can be less than fully specified.

Another example is Mah Jong, with its myriad scoring variations. Or Poker, or even Bridge, with its bidding variations.

My take away is that a lot of games, including both board games and role playing, do well by having a solid shared core, plus a space that is to be filled by local variation. Then, a game should be neither be over specified (have too many rules) nor should it be under specified (have too few rules).

As a corollary, a game design should be aware of what aspects of play should be well defined and what aspects of play should be left unspecified — in the core rules.

TomB

 

[MGibster]

There is no possible way we're ever going to simulate every aspect of even a boxing match, much less a generic system that covers every type of damage possible. Yet, combat at least emulates the feel of an action movie fight scene. It's a terrible system, just better or at least not any worse than some of the other systems out there. You're always going to have trade-offs.

And for me, this is the meat of it. What are we trying to accomplish with these particular set of rules? The Gumshoe system used for games like Mutant City Blues and Trail of Cthulhu are designed for a different type of game than you will find with whatever the D&D system is called. I tend to judge a game based on what the authors' were trying to accomplish. Even if I don't like a game, if it provides the kind of game experience it's supposed to deliver then it's a good game. (Broadly speaking, let's not bring in certain games.) To keep up with the culinary theme, I don't like meatloaf. But if you make a meatloaf that's moist, holds together well, and tastes good (for a meatloaf), then you've made a good meatloaf.

 

[Krachek]

And of course some tables will ignore that rule (as is the nature of dnd), but I think those areas are ones that really should get some solid codification.

And there are a number of these:

• Stealth
• Finding Traps
• The group having to get over a large chasm
• The group searching a room for treasure and secret doors.
• The group chasing after someone

etc

We may add some dozen of parameters and clarifications to handle those situations, the expected result will be the same, most of the time we want the party to succeed.

Overall we get fooled by simple trick. Want to give the illusion of accuracy and realism, ask to roll 2 separated checks for a task.
But once you ask more than 4 rolls, the players catch the trick and feel more to be in front of a bureaucratic process.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

And for me, this is the meat of it. What are we trying to accomplish with these particular set of rules? The Gumshoe system used for games like Mutant City Blues and Trail of Cthulhu are designed for a different type of game than you will find with whatever the D&D system is called. I tend to judge a game based on what the authors' were trying to accomplish. Even if I don't like a game, if it provides the kind of game experience it's supposed to deliver then it's a good game. (Broadly speaking, let's not bring in certain games.) To keep up with the culinary theme, I don't like meatloaf. But if you make a meatloaf that's moist, holds together well, and tastes good (for a meatloaf), then you've made a good meatloaf.

Well, but see you have to understand that there are only three eating agendas.

There are those that like Spicy Foods.
There that like umami-rich, meaty, Neutral foods.
And there are those that like Gooey sweet foods.

Now, I know what you're thinking. Snarf, I happen to like Korean Spicy Chicken! Well, you're wrong. You can only cook for ONE agenda. If you're cooking for more than one eating agenda, you're cooking it wrong. You might say that you like it, but I have just proven that you don't.

Q. To the E. To the D.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Which is why we are where we are with stealth: it's basically impossible to write clear rules that will work in all cases, so the designers of 5e decided to basically not write rules so much as a framework for rulings and let it happen at the second-order level.

I have believed this precise thing regarding stealth since the beginning. And in fact, with exception of combat, this is how the designers I suspect want/wish all of D&D to go-- building 'first-order' frameworks or foundations for game rules so that all players have a baseline from which to build from... but all the heavy-lifting of rule systems would come from the 'second-order'-- the players themselves, generating applicable rulings in the moment to cover what it is they are doing. Because only they know what they actually want and need to accomplish with their goals in D&D in terms of layering their "storytelling" in and amongst the "game".

The thing that I've been hammering away at to everyone here on the boards for years is the idea that in D&D... "creating stories" is more important than the "board game". The actual game rules do not matter if the story of what the characters do is good. So whether there is a lot of rules, or few rules, or indeed even no rules... however it is we generate and create what our characters do, how they behave, and what adventures they go on is what make us play D&D (or any roleplaying game) instead of just playing standard board games (the games that are entirely 'first-order' rules-based.)

Now of course me being that reductive about it just tends to piss everyone off more often than not... but so be it.

Dungeons & Dragons grew out of a "board game" (IE miniature wargaming) by adding in the ability to create original characters, stories and narrative. People determined that while playing the miniatures combat game was fun, they wanted MORE. They wanted to create a character, and run a character, and see where this character went, and find out what this character did. And all of this... this "storytelling" (or "roleplaying" as it were)... was not something you could not create strictly with game rules. You needed to use your own imagination and create these things on your own apart from the game rules. You had to decide to turn left at the dungeon fork and then pull the lever you saw on the wall... there was no die roll or rule in a book to force you or tell you to do that.

Now the miniatures combat game rules could facilitate this "storytelling" by giving us a first-order foundation of possible actions we could take and from which our stories could build on top of... but they couldn't tell us everything. And even today with skills, and feats and this and that... they are there again as merely a foundation of ideas that we players can start with, but which we will have to build upon ourselves to encompass all the possible ideas we will think of to do. And because it is impossible to have 'first-order' rules for all those things... we HAVE to move to 'second-order' rulings to cover the gaps. And how successful we are with the second-order rulings depends on how solid the first-order foundation is.

So the question becomes... how many 'first-order' rules are necessary to give us a strong and solid foundation from which we can generate our own 'second-order' rulings that accomplish the storytelling we want? In the case of stealth for example... since almost every single table ends up wanting the stories that come out of sneaking around to be different than almost any other... WotC decided that the more basic and narrow a 'first-order' foundation was ... allowed every table more room to expand our 'second-order' ruling to actually reach the narrative and storytelling results we were looking for. More rules only serves those tables for whom those rules actually work... everybody else has to tear down those rules first before then re-building them in the way they want the rules to go. And this lesson can be taken across the board with every rule in the game.

The only reason to have more 'first-order' rules would be to widen the foundation from which people could build more and different 'second-order' rulings in order to create more and different stories for their characters. And how necessary those are really comes down to how comfortable and how willing people are to make those 'second-order' rulings. If they aren't comfortable doing it... they want more 'first-order' rules to do it for them instead. But at some point... a game of nothing but 'first-order' rules IS just a board game and not a roleplaying game at all.

 

[Oofta]

We may add some dozen of parameters and clarifications to handle those situations, the expected result will be the same, most of the time we want the party to succeed.

Overall we get fooled by simple trick. Want to give the illusion of accuracy and realism, ask to roll 2 separated checks for a task.
But once you ask more than 4 rolls, the players catch the trick and feel more to be in front of a bureaucratic process.

When we get into this discussion I always think of the DC for climb walls chart we had back in 3.x. The chart gave you the DC required to climb, from 5 for a knotted rope to 25 to an overhang with handholds. Along with modifiers, of course. It gave you the illusion of specificity but in reality? In reality as a DM I would look at the chart, decide what I wanted the difficulty to be and then decided what type of wall needed to be climbed and what, if any, modifiers I could add to get the target DC that I wanted.

A lot of specific rules just give you the illusion of realism and simulation.

 

[Stalker0]

I have believed this precise thing regarding stealth since the beginning. And in fact, with exception of combat, this is how the designers I suspect want/wish all of D&D to go-- building 'first-order' frameworks or foundations for game rules so that all players have a baseline from which to build from... but all the heavy-lifting of rule systems would come from the 'second-order'-- the players themselves, generating applicable rulings in the moment to cover what it is they are doing. Because only they know what they actually want and need to accomplish with their goals in D&D in terms of layering their "storytelling" in and amongst the "game".

The thing that I've been hammering away at to everyone here on the boards for years is the idea that in D&D... "creating stories" is more important than the "board game". The actual game rules do not matter if the story of what the characters do is good. So whether there is a lot of rules, or few rules, or indeed even no rules... however it is we generate and create what our characters do, how they behave, and what adventures they go on is what make us play D&D (or any roleplaying game) instead of just playing standard board games (the games that are entirely 'first-order' rules-based.)

Now of course me being that reductive about it just tends to piss everyone off more often than not... but so be it.

Dungeons & Dragons grew out of a "board game" (IE miniature wargaming) by adding in the ability to create original characters, stories and narrative. People determined that while playing the miniatures combat game was fun, they wanted MORE. They wanted to create a character, and run a character, and see where this character went, and find out what this character did. And all of this... this "storytelling" (or "roleplaying" as it were)... was not something you could not create strictly with game rules. You needed to use your own imagination and create these things on your own apart from the game rules. You had to decide to turn left at the dungeon fork and then pull the lever you saw on the wall... there was no die roll or rule in a book to force you or tell you to do that.

Now the miniatures combat game rules could facilitate this "storytelling" by giving us a first-order foundation of possible actions we could take and from which our stories could build on top of... but they couldn't tell us everything. And even today with skills, and feats and this and that... they are there again as merely a foundation of ideas that we players can start with, but which we will have to build upon ourselves to encompass all the possible ideas we will think of to do. And because it is impossible to have 'first-order' rules for all those things... we HAVE to move to 'second-order' rulings to cover the gaps. And how successful we are with the second-order rulings depends on how solid the first-order foundation is.

So the question becomes... how many 'first-order' rules are necessary to give us a strong and solid foundation from which we can generate our own 'second-order' rulings that accomplish the storytelling we want? In the case of stealth for example... since almost every single table ends up wanting the stories that come out of sneaking around to be different than almost any other... WotC decided that the more basic and narrow a 'first-order' foundation was ... allowed every table more room to expand our 'second-order' ruling to actually reach the narrative and storytelling results we were looking for. More rules only serves those tables for whom those rules actually work... everybody else has to tear down those rules first before then re-building them in the way they want the rules to go. And this lesson can be taken across the board with every rule in the game.

The only reason to have more 'first-order' rules would be to widen the foundation from which people could build more and different 'second-order' rulings in order to create more and different stories for their characters. And how necessary those are really comes down to how comfortable and how willing people are to make those 'second-order' rulings. If they aren't comfortable doing it... they want more 'first-order' rules to do it for them instead. But at some point... a game of nothing but 'first-order' rules IS just a board game and not a roleplaying game at all.

I’m going to disagree here a bit on stealth. Sure there are going to be niche scenarios for stealth not covered in the rules, but rules wise there is a lot of improvements that can be made to stealth with just a few simple improvements:

1) consolidate the rules. Right now you have to look in like 4 different places to actually get all the rules for stealth. Putting them in a single place would already improve things markedly.

2) clarify when stealth is broken in the action economy. The common example is the assassin moving out of the shadows to dagger their target, which by the book seems to not work…but there is ambiguity as to exactly when stealth is broken. And then from there I’m ok if a lot of crazy player ideas I have to rule on how they break stealth, just tell me WHEN they break stealth.

3) active “guards” are a very common obstacle for stealth players in virtually all tables. Do they just use passive perception or do they roll active checks periodically because they are more “actively watching”?

Just those three things would go a long way to making stealth better. I don’t need every little nuance covered, but the things i mentioned above Happen very very often at many many tables. No reason we can’t tighten the rules on these kinds of things.

The reason I pick at stealth so strongly is a few reasons:

1) it’s a core stable of the game. Players ambushing monsters, monsters ambushing players…it’s as core to dnd as HP.

2) it’s very very powerful. Stealth has the pontential to bypass entire segments of a dungeon. Or in combat, the surprise round is literally the most powerful combat buff in the game. That kind of power is worth a bit more scrutiny.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

When we get into this discussion I always think of the DC for climb walls chart we had back in 3.x. The chart gave you the DC required to climb, from 5 for a knotted rope to 25 to an overhang with handholds. Along with modifiers, of course. It gave you the illusion of specificity but in reality? In reality as a DM I would look at the chart, decide what I wanted the difficulty to be and then decided what type of wall needed to be climbed and what, if any, modifiers I could add to get the target DC that I wanted.

A lot of specific rules just give you the illusion of realism and simulation.

Alright. What about tables actually designed to support that usage?

Because it seems to me that that would actually be a really good thing to have, not the absolute trash garbage you imply all such efforts must always be. "This is a table that tells you what should usually be an easy, medium, or hard check across various levels." Specialized characters will of course do well on hard checks and characters that completely dumped something will do poorly even on easy checks, but a table that provides a solid, functional baseline to work from should be exactly what the "I glance at it and figure something out" DM would want. That way, you don't have to go through years of internalizing what a "typically hard" check should be--the table does that for you. (Ideally, you would also want a table with damage amounts, so players are appropriately rewarded for their efforts to come up with a clever assault.)

Edit: And this is a great example of how "fun" is not useful as a game design guideline. "It isn't fun to use these tables" doesn't tell us anything, except that they are disliked. It gives zero information about what's going wrong or why, just that things are going wrong. "When I use these tables, I don't bother with the mass of details. I just pick something that sounds reasonable, even if I don't truly know that it is reasonable, and roll with it" does give us information. It tells us that effort put into intricacy, at least with this specific mechanic, is largely wasted; instead, effort should be put into making the table extremely efficient, both in terms of getting info to the DM (it should take mere seconds to find useful numbers) and in terms of applicability (specificity is less valuable than breadth; favor reasonable abstraction over lengthy precision, perhaps doing some tests to find out how many modifiers is "too many.")

 

[Oofta]

Alright. What about tables actually designed to support that usage?

Because it seems to me that that would actually be a really good thing to have, not the absolute trash garbage you imply all such efforts must always be. "This is a table that tells you what should usually be an easy, medium, or hard check across various levels." Specialized characters will of course do well on hard checks and characters that completely dumped something will do poorly even on easy checks, but a table that provides a solid, functional baseline to work from should be exactly what the "I glance at it and figure something out" DM would want. That way, you don't have to go through years of internalizing what a "typically hard" check should be--the table does that for you. (Ideally, you would also want a table with damage amounts, so players are appropriately rewarded for their efforts to come up with a clever assault.)

Edit: And this is a great example of how "fun" is not useful as a game design guideline. "It isn't fun to use these tables" doesn't tell us anything, except that they are disliked. It gives zero information about what's going wrong or why, just that things are going wrong. "When I use these tables, I don't bother with the mass of details. I just pick something that sounds reasonable, even if I don't truly know that it is reasonable, and roll with it" does give us information. It tells us that effort put into intricacy, at least with this specific mechanic, is largely wasted; instead, effort should be put into making the table extremely efficient, both in terms of getting info to the DM (it should take mere seconds to find useful numbers) and in terms of applicability (specificity is less valuable than breadth; favor reasonable abstraction over lengthy precision, perhaps doing some tests to find out how many modifiers is "too many.")

The tables added no real value, it just meant extra work for the DM. Because as soon as the DM described the wall they need to climb someone would immediately say "There's a table for that!" So as a DM I had to look up the table to get the target DC that I wanted. It just added extra cruft and overhead.

Spoiler: The climb chart from 3.5

As far as "fun being a goal" umm ... I disagree. That's kind of always going to be the goal for D&D. You aggregate the overall fun of the people playing, including new players, and the higher the fun quotient the better. That may not make it the right game for you specifically, but no product has ever been exactly the right thing for everyone. So maximizing fun for a broad target audience if that's the target strategy for your product is absolutely useful.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

"There's a table for that!"

To be fair, that was the first choice for Gygax's epitaph.

As far as "fun being a goal" umm ... I disagree. That's kind of always going to be the goal for D&D.

Yep. It's kind of weird to argue otherwise. "I'd like this version of D&D to be the least fun ever. How about we set that as the design goal?"

 

[Oofta]

I’m going to disagree here a bit on stealth. Sure there are going to be niche scenarios for stealth not covered in the rules, but rules wise there is a lot of improvements that can be made to stealth with just a few simple improvements:

1) consolidate the rules. Right now you have to look in like 4 different places to actually get all the rules for stealth. Putting them in a single place would already improve things markedly.

They have to consolidate rules a bit. I'm not sure what 4 places you're talking about, the rules on hiding are in a few paragraphs. I guess you could say you have to look at 2 places because of obscurement but you really have to work at it to make it as complex as you try to make it sound. Besides, if you don't have cross references, the book would be a mess.

2) clarify when stealth is broken in the action economy. The common example is the assassin moving out of the shadows to dagger their target, which by the book seems to not work…but there is ambiguity as to exactly when stealth is broken. And then from there I’m ok if a lot of crazy player ideas I have to rule on how they break stealth, just tell me WHEN they break stealth.

Up to the DM. Seriously ... this is not hard. Is the target distracted by that barbarian trying to smash his face in or are they staring at the exact spot the rogue is hiding? Did someone just cause an explosion or make a scene in order to distract the guard or is the guard alert, attentive and looking down a featureless, well-lit hallway?

Yeah, I know you aren't happy with that, but I greatly prefer it to the way 4E handled it - that an action didn't break hidden until the action was complete. So a rogue could come out of the shadows, move 30 feet and stab someone in the face even though the person being stabbed was intently watching for the rogue to come out? No thanks.

3) active “guards” are a very common obstacle for stealth players in virtually all tables. Do they just use passive perception or do they roll active checks periodically because they are more “actively watching”?

Do they have a reason to not use passive perception? You can't constantly be making "active" perception checks for hours on end, that's what passive perception is for. Active checks are for actively searching.

Just those three things would go a long way to making stealth better. I don’t need every little nuance covered, but the things i mentioned above Happen very very often at many many tables. No reason we can’t tighten the rules on these kinds of things.

The reason I pick at stealth so strongly is a few reasons:

1) it’s a core stable of the game. Players ambushing monsters, monsters ambushing players…it’s as core to dnd as HP.

2) it’s very very powerful. Stealth has the pontential to bypass entire segments of a dungeon. Or in combat, the surprise round is literally the most powerful combat buff in the game. That kind of power is worth a bit more scrutiny.

Which is also why it shouldn't be hard-coded into board game-like rules. I want complexity and flexibility. Besides, it's always going to be up to the DM whether or not the environment allows stealth. Unless you make hiding into invisibility you have to have something to hide behind, some obscurement or some distraction. But the combination of those things is nearly infinite and only limited by the imagination of the DM and players.

 

[Stalker0]

So a rogue could come out of the shadows, move 30 feet and stab someone in the face even though the person being stabbed was intently watching for the rogue to come out? No thanks.

Its not a question of whether I prefer one or the other, I just want that codified consistently.

Effectively should a rogue get to make a bow attack from stealth in that scenario, but the dagger rogue cannot? (its not a question of preference, I just want to know if the intention is to let snipping from hiding be effective but diving out of the shadows to stab someone is not....or is it intended that both could get the stealth shot).

 

[Stalker0]

They have to consolidate rules a bit. I'm not sure what 4 places you're talking about, the rules on hiding are in a few paragraphs. I guess you could say you have to look at 2 places because of obscurement but you really have to work at it to make it as complex as you try to make it sound. Besides, if you don't have cross references, the book would be a mess.

So just looking up the rules of stealth, I see the following, which is all needed to have a full picture of how stealth works in the game. I guess I underestimated when I said 4

1) The basic skill definition.

Stealth​

Make a Dexterity (Stealth) check when you attempt to conceal yourself from enemies, slink past guards, slip away without being noticed, or sneak up on someone without being seen or heard.

2) The actual hiding definition

HIDING

The DM decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding. When you try to hide, make a Dexterity (Stealth) check. Until you are discovered or you stop hiding, that check's total is contested by the Wisdom (Perception) check of any creature that actively searches for signs of your presence.

You can't hide from a creature that can see you clearly, and you give away your position if you make noise, such as shouting a warning or knocking over a vase. An invisible creature can always try to hide. Signs of its passage might still be noticed, and it does have to stay quiet.

In combat, most creatures stay alert for signs of danger all around, so if you come out of hiding and approach a creature, it usually sees you. However, under certain circumstances, the DM might allow you to stay hidden as you approach a creature that is distracted, allowing you to gain advantage on an attack roll before you are seen.

Passive Perception. When you hide, there's a chance someone will notice you even if they aren't searching. To determine whether such a creature notices you, the DM compares your Dexterity (Stealth) check with that creature's passive Wisdom (Perception) score, which equals 10 + the creature's Wisdom modifier, as well as any other bonuses or penalties. If the creature has advantage, add 5. For disadvantage, subtract 5. For example, if a 1st-level character (with a proficiency bonus of +2) has a Wisdom of 15 (a +2 modifier) and proficiency in Perception, he or she has a passive Wisdom (Perception) of 14.

What Can You See? One of the main factors in determining whether you can find a hidden creature or object is how well you can see in an area, which might be lightly or heavily obscured, as explained in chapter 8.

3) The definitions of obscurement


The most fundamental tasks of adventuring--noticing danger, finding hidden objects, hitting an enemy in combat, and targeting a spell, to name just a few--rely heavily on a character's ability to see. Darkness and other effects that obscure vision can prove a significant hindrance.

A given area might be lightly or heavily obscured. In a lightly obscured area, such as dim light, patchy fog, or moderate foliage, creatures have disadvantage on Wisdom (Perception) checks that rely on sight.

A heavily obscured area--such as darkness, opaque fog, or dense foliage--blocks vision entirely. A creature effectively suffers from the blinded condition when trying to see something in that area.

The presence or absence of light in an environment creates three categories of illumination: bright light, dim light, and darkness.

Bright light lets most creatures see normally. Even gloomy days provide bright light, as do torches, lanterns, fires, and other sources of illumination within a specific radius.

Dim light, also called shadows, creates a lightly obscured area. An area of dim light is usually a boundary between a source of bright light, such as a torch, and surrounding darkness. The soft light of twilight and dawn also counts as dim light. A particularly brilliant full moon might bathe the land in dim light.

Darkness creates a heavily obscured area. Characters face darkness outdoors at night (even most moonlit nights), within the confines of an unlit dungeon or a subterranean vault, or in an area of magical darkness.


4) Invisibility and stealth

Invisible​

• An invisible creature is impossible to see without the aid of magic or a special sense. For the purpose of hiding, the creature is heavily obscured. The creature’s location can be detected by any noise it makes or any tracks it leaves.
• Attack rolls against the creature have disadvantage, and the creature’s attack rolls have advantage.

5) Notes about perception and searching (which conflicts a bit with passive perception)

Perception​

Your Wisdom (Perception) check lets you spot, hear, or otherwise detect the presence of something. It measures your general awareness of your surroundings and the keenness of your senses. For example, you might try to hear a conversation through a closed door, eavesdrop under an open window, or hear monsters moving stealthily in the forest. Or you might try to spot things that are obscured or easy to miss, whether they are orcs lying in ambush on a road, thugs hiding in the shadows of an alley, or candlelight under a closed secret door.


6) Search Combat Action

Search​

When you take the Search action, you devote your attention to finding something. Depending on the nature of your search, the DM might have you make a Wisdom (Perception) check or an Intelligence (Investigation) check.

 

[Stalker0]

Do they have a reason to not use passive perception? You can't constantly be making "active" perception checks for hours on end, that's what passive perception is for. Active checks are for actively searching.

Ah but see that's where the ambiguity lies. Passive PErception is used by default of course, but there is nothing in the rules that says I can't be actively searching (in fact quite the opposite, there is a search action for this very purpose). So is an alert guard just using the search action continuously. Or is that considered too tiring? Is guard duty supposed to be passive perception?

I don't know! the rules don't say. Now again I don't expect the rules to cover every scenario under the sun, there are lots of nuance to stealth. But sneaking past the guard is stealth 101, it comes up all the times. so it would be nice to know if this scenario is meant to be passive perception, and active perception roll....both, etc.