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

[Oofta]

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).

Depends on the situation. Does the attacker have a chance to remain unseen and depends on many possibilities, a few of which I listed.

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.

The book would probably triple in size if you didn't reference other pieces every time some rule is mentioned. I can't imagine how confusing it would be if you had to look at the stealth rules to find how cover works. Yes, you do have to have a basic grasp of the rules in order to play the game.

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.

Passive perception is literally the average of all those active perception checks. Is that alert guard paying attention to the hall? Of course. Over the course of several minutes or hours those active checks are going to average out to be ... wait for it ... their passive perception. You use active perception when something unusual happens, some even that changes the norm. I don't think it's a difficult concept.

 

[DEFCON 1]

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.

@Oofta made most of my points for me so I won't rehash too deeply. I agree with you that a bit of rules consolidation would be fine and helpful... but I'd say right up until the point where the same rule chunks got repeated two or more times in the same rulebook just so that they appear in the various "appropriate" places. At some point we have to compare consolidation to the loss of word count. Stealth as both a skill and an Action in combat means you either need to write all about it in both places, or describe it in one and then reference back to it in the other so we aren't just saying the same thing twice (even if they apply to to both sections.) Personally... at a certain point I don't think it's asking too much of a DM to look at two places in the book for one set of information just so we can save on repetitive word count. That otherwise seems like a waste of space to me.

As far as the other things you pointed out... I mean I myself take what the book gives us as it stands and feel fine making my rulings on when the sneakers can get noticed. I don't find additional rules to be any more worthwhile than what we currently have. And the same with passive versus active perception-- I have my interpretation (my "ruling") of what the current rules say, and thus I personally don't see a need for more rules. But that's just me and I'm no one they need to cater to any more than anyone else. And I also don't discount the opinions of other folks such as yourself who feel like the first-order design should be more involved, and were WotC to do it, I wouldn't get upset at them for choosing to. But I just think the point is that I believe there ARE enough first-order rules in stealth for everyone to be able to make a second-order ruling at their table. They certainly will be less likely to be consistent across multiple tables-- the fewer the first-order rules, the wider the range of second-order rulings get made-- but if a person isn't concerned about how other people play their games, then "consistency" doesn't really matter.

But I would agree though that if someone for instance is a player and they are continually playing at different tables and changing those tables up all the time (because they play short campaigns online a lot for instance)... then needing to continually re-learn every table's second-order rulings could become a pain. I don't disagree with that. But at that point the question just them becomes whether those players are enough of a majority for whom WotC would choose to aim their decisions towards. And that's something only WotC can decide for themselves.

 

[Oofta]

When it comes to table consistency, I've played with quite a few DMs over the years. The differences in rules implementation have all been incredibly minor. The biggest changes are house rules, which by definition aren't constrained by the rules of the game.

The things that I really notice, that really make a difference, is the direction, style, creativity, theme and tone of the DM and the group. Things that have little or nothing to do with the details of rules implementation make more difference than minor rulings. Every table playing differently is primarily influenced by all the people at the table, what they enjoy.

 

[Stalker0]

@Oofta made most of my points for me so I won't rehash too deeply. I agree with you that a bit of rules consolidation would be fine and helpful... but I'd say right up until the point where the same rule chunks got repeated two or more times in the same rulebook just so that they appear in the various "appropriate" places. At some point we have to compare consolidation to the loss of word count. Stealth as both a skill and an Action in combat means you either need to write all about it in both places, or describe it in one and then reference back to it in the other so we aren't just saying the same thing twice (even if they apply to to both sections.) Personally... at a certain point I don't think it's asking too much of a DM to look at two places in the book for one set of information just so we can save on repetitive word count. That otherwise seems like a waste of space to me.

As far as the other things you pointed out... I mean I myself take what the book gives us as it stands and feel fine making my rulings on when the sneakers can get noticed. I don't find additional rules to be any more worthwhile than what we currently have. And the same with passive versus active perception-- I have my interpretation (my "ruling") of what the current rules say, and thus I personally don't see a need for more rules. But that's just me and I'm no one they need to cater to any more than anyone else. And I also don't discount the opinions of other folks such as yourself who feel like the first-order design should be more involved, and were WotC to do it, I wouldn't get upset at them for choosing to. But I just think the point is that I believe there ARE enough first-order rules in stealth for everyone to be able to make a second-order ruling at their table. They certainly will be less likely to be consistent across multiple tables-- the fewer the first-order rules, the wider the range of second-order rulings get made-- but if a person isn't concerned about how other people play their games, then "consistency" doesn't really matter.

But I would agree though that if someone for instance is a player and they are continually playing at different tables and changing those tables up all the time (because they play short campaigns online a lot for instance)... then needing to continually re-learn every table's second-order rulings could become a pain. I don't disagree with that. But at that point the question just them becomes whether those players are enough of a majority for whom WotC would choose to aim their decisions towards. And that's something only WotC can decide for themselves.

Ultimately this is the slippery slope I agree. I don’t want to go back to a 3e mindset myself.

For me where to draw the line is to look at the “core experiences” of dnd, the things that almost every table seems to deal with, and deal with commonly. That’s where I want to see the bulk of the rules weight focused on.

I personally don’t mind if weird item X is vague and rules lite. I don’t need rules for every way a player might use their attack action to poke a tree, etc

But i do think you can come up with top 20 “common dnd scenarios” that the majority of tables play with, and create good rules that handle the majority of common player actions within that scenario. That doesn’t eliminate dnd rulings, but it does reduce them. For most everything else, by all means focus on rulings and keep it rules lite.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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



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?"

It would be really really awesome if both you and @Oofta would stop (a) putting words in my mouth and (b) gleefully attacking a CR 0 Straw Golem rather than the things I actually said.

So, to reiterate:

Fun doesn't tell you what you need to do differently to make the game work. It only tells you whether it worked. This applies whether you're a designer or a GM or whatever else.

That doesn't mean fun is irrelevant. It's incredibly important! But you cannot design for it. You can only design, and then test to see if it works to produce fun. If it does, great (though it's always nice to know why, you don't technically need to.) If it doesn't, you need to find out why it doesn't work, in at least SOME way, so you have even the faintest clue what to do about it. Hence the "Constructive Criticism" thread, where a dozen different GMs have explicitly said some variation of, "I wish my players would actually give me feedback instead of just saying 'it was fun' and nothing more."

"Fun" as a design goal is like "wealth" as a retirement goal or "flavor" as a cooking goal or "action" as a directing goal or "drama" as a writing goal or "efficiency" in an engineering goal, etc., etc., ad nauseam. That is, yes absolutely these things are what we want to have happen. No one, literally not anyone, is questioning that--it would be foolish to do so. Instead, what I am saying is, "fun" doesn't get you from point A to point B. It doesn't tell you what is wrong; only that it is wrong. It's like a plumber whose only standard is whether the water pressure and drainage are good (things that, yes, you really do want!) But if all you ever do is ask, "Is the water pressure good?"/"does it drain?" you'll be unable to diagnose the actual issue, and you'll be constantly running wild goose chases trying to fix it.

Again, I am ABSOLUTELY NOT saying the incredibly obviously stupid thing, "Design games that are less fun!" I am saying that if you simply make "fun" your ONLY goal, you'll usually get worse results. By sweeping away all the other things, you'll end up making games that are less fun than if you'd cared about those other things. Because--as is the case in an enormous swathe of human endeavor--it turns out that the path you take to get to that destination can actually matter just as much--not more, but not less either--as the destination itself. Method matters.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Ultimately this is the slippery slope I agree. I don’t want to go back to a 3e mindset myself.

For me where to draw the line is to look at the “core experiences” of dnd, the things that almost every table seems to deal with, and deal with commonly. That’s where I want to see the bulk of the rules weight focused on.

I personally don’t mind if weird item X is vague and rules lite. I don’t need rules for every way a player might use their attack action to poke a tree, etc

But i do think you can come up with top 20 “common dnd scenarios” that the majority of tables play with, and create good rules that handle the majority of common player actions within that scenario. That doesn’t eliminate dnd rulings, but it does reduce them. For most everything else, by all means focus on rulings and keep it rules lite.

Exactly! This is exactly what I am talking about when I say that focusing on "fun" alone leads to worse results. Because if you focus on "fun" alone and ignore all other considerations, you'll never do what Stalker0 describes here. You'll never sit down and say, "Okay, so, what are the biggest things people do? What's common about the experiences players have? How are we serving--or not serving--those interests? In what ways can we adjust our offerings, so those common things are consistently handled very well?"

Despite the fact that those questions are not about fun*, answering them (which requires collecting information and analyzing it!) will very frequently lead to results that are more fun.

*They're about things like frequency (how often do players do X?), effectiveness (do the rules actually work for their intended purpose?), breadth (do the rules cover most things it would be nice to have a consistent answer for?), simplicity (have we used the least restrictive means to achieve our ends?), etc. Things which are not "fun" in and of themselves, and which often (e.g. frequency) have no particular relation to "fun" directly. And yet finding the right way to frame these questions, and then poring over the answers and using those answers as the reason for changing your design, is essential for designing a better product.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

That doesn't mean fun is irrelevant. It's incredibly important! But you cannot design for it. You can only design, and then test to see if it works to produce fun.

There are days when I have to wonder if people actually read what they wrote. Within two sentences, no less!

Despite your repeated disavowals of the idea and your unconsummat'd desire to argue with us, you're just reiterating the same point. The design goal (what you are designing for) is fun.

Just like when you're cooking, you're cooking to make something taste good.

Now, you can break down that in different ways. You can analyze it in discrete parts, if you want. Some people will use different vocabulary than others. But it doesn't change the end goal.

Just like if you go to a fancy wine tastin'.

EzekielRaiden: The tart tannins in this bold Tempranillo pave the way for dried fig and dill, culminating in a long steady finish that’s full of tobacco and cedar.

Snarf: It tastes good.

EzekielRaiden: Yes, that's what I said.

Now, there might be constraints on design (cost, etc.). There are subjective preferences (what is fun for you might not be fun for everyone- or you might like Riesling and I might think white wine is the devil's pondy urine). But I'm not entirely sure why you feel the need to interject your dislike of fun on a regular and repeated basis. But so noted!

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

But i do think you can come up with top 20 “common dnd scenarios” that the majority of tables play with, and create good rules that handle the majority of common player actions within that scenario.

Most Common Scenario 1: The table needs to get pizza.

Rule: Pick of toppings goes in order of who contributes the most money for the pizza. But no pineapple. Because we have standards.

 

[MichaelSomething]

I won't stand idley by while you attempt to bring a second "Tryanny of Fun" upon us!

Keep track of spell components!
Have PCs die from disease!
Write up stats for commoners!
Make PCs interact with every town guard!
Race as Class!
Resource Management!

There are days when I have to wonder if people actually read what they wrote. Within two sentences, no less!

Despite your repeated disavowals of the idea and your unconsummat'd desire to argue with us, you're just reiterating the same point. The design goal (what you are designing for) is fun.

Just like when you're cooking, you're cooking to make something taste good.

Now, you can break down that in different ways. You can analyze it in discrete parts, if you want. Some people will use different vocabulary than others. But it doesn't change the end goal.

Just like if you go to a fancy wine tastin'.

EzekielRaiden: The tart tannins in this bold Tempranillo pave the way for dried fig and dill, culminating in a long steady finish that’s full of tobacco and cedar.

Snarf: It tastes good.

EzekielRaiden: Yes, that's what I said.

Now, there might be constraints on design (cost, etc.). There are subjective preferences (what is fun for you might not be fun for everyone- or you might like Riesling and I might think white wine is the devil's pondy urine). But I'm not entirely sure why you feel the need to interject your dislike of fun on a regular and repeated basis. But so noted!

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I won't stand idley by while you attempt to bring a second "Tryanny of Fun" upon us!

Keep track of spell components!
Have PCs die from disease!
Write up stats for commoners!
Make PCs interact with every town guard!
Race as Class!
Resource Management!

The masochistic player says, "Hurt me! Hurt me!"


The sadistic DM smiles, and replies .... "No."

 

[Clint_L]

I generally find that 5e has a good balance of rules and freedom, possibly getting close to optimal as far as a D&D chassis goes. To me, it feels like how I thought D&D should play back when I first started and all the inconsistencies and nitpicky details in AD&D bugged me, even though I loved the game. In practice, this means that there is more weight given to "second-order design," so that the game feels cooperative - the DM and players are working together. That said, I really want to try Dungeon World, because having read the rules it potentially offers an even more satisfying balance of shared storytelling.

However, one thing I note is that 5e is still a pretty granular game when it comes to combat. In fact, the rules are easily detailed enough that it can still be played much like OD&D: as a miniatures-based war-game. I rather think that 5e intentionally went back to more of an OD&D philosophy in that regard, striving to free up DM and player cooperative storytelling outside of combat while keeping tactical play quite tightly constrained. I'm a miniatures and terrain enthusiast, so for me this is a huge plus (I am resisting the urge to post a photo of the battle map from our last game).

For me, the D&D rules scratch three itches, in fact:

1. They are constrained enough to run a skirmish-level wargame - first order.
2. They are open-ended enough to work decently with cooperative roleplay (though I think other systems are better) - second order.
3. They are enjoyable to read and play around with in their own right - ???

I don't think there has been much discussion yet of 3, but I strongly feel that for a certain type of gamer, like me, there is huge enjoyment in just reading rules and thinking about the game. Maybe rolling up different characters, or imagining the kinds of stories I could run. I don't think this falls into either the first or second order category, but is rather a marriage of an aesthetic and logical experience. And enjoyment of rules for their own sake is widespread - who here has not backed a Kickstarter or bought a rule book mostly just to read through and perhaps find inspiration, even knowing full well that you might not ever play the game?

 

[DEFCON 1]

Despite your repeated disavowals of the idea and your unconsummat'd desire to argue with us, you're just reiterating the same point. The design goal (what you are designing for) is fun.

Just like when you're cooking, you're cooking to make something taste good.

Now, you can break down that in different ways. You can analyze it in discrete parts, if you want. Some people will use different vocabulary than others. But it doesn't change the end goal.

No, see I actually understand what @EzekielRaiden is coming from here and why they are butting up against you. Because you and they are not seeing the same scenario the same way or parsing the language the same way.

To use your example of food... a chef isn't cooking "tastes good". That's not a thing. Rather what they doing is cooking a steak. THAT is their end state. That is their end goal-- to cook a steak. And everything they are doing is to cook that steak. Now the hoped-for result of cooking that steak is for it to "taste good". And all the bits and bobs they add to their recipe go towards their cooked steak tasting good. No one disagrees with that. But before you can get to "tastes good" step in the process you need to decide on what it is you are actually cooking first, and then work towards it tasting good. You can't have "tastes good" until you have "steak".

That's where you both are butting heads. You appear to me to be skipping the part of deciding on the thing and going straight to the "fun"-- the "tastes good". But Ezekiel isn't doing that because "fun" in and of itself isn't a thing-- it's not an object-- that you can put in these books. Instead, "fun" is the result that comes from a thing-- a rule. We have to put in the rules first and then have or make those rules be fun. From their perspective in the conversation, one can't have the fun until you make the rules.

You both are ending up at the same result... a game and game rules and a rulebook that is fun to play. But they are just suggesting you need to stop at the "making the rules" step first and then the fun can come out of it.

 

[Aldarc]

Exactly! This is exactly what I am talking about when I say that focusing on "fun" alone leads to worse results. Because if you focus on "fun" alone and ignore all other considerations, you'll never do what Stalker0 describes here. You'll never sit down and say, "Okay, so, what are the biggest things people do? What's common about the experiences players have? How are we serving--or not serving--those interests? In what ways can we adjust our offerings, so those common things are consistently handled very well?"

Despite the fact that those questions are not about fun*, answering them (which requires collecting information and analyzing it!) will very frequently lead to results that are more fun.

*They're about things like frequency (how often do players do X?), effectiveness (do the rules actually work for their intended purpose?), breadth (do the rules cover most things it would be nice to have a consistent answer for?), simplicity (have we used the least restrictive means to achieve our ends?), etc. Things which are not "fun" in and of themselves, and which often (e.g. frequency) have no particular relation to "fun" directly. And yet finding the right way to frame these questions, and then poring over the answers and using those answers as the reason for changing your design, is essential for designing a better product.

I agree. B/X is considered a pretty light game by WotC standards of D&D. It embraces rulings, Rule 0, GM empowerment, and the like. However, B/X and a number of its OSR-adjacent clones/derivatives actually have pretty tight rules when it comes to the primary forms of play: i.e., dungeon-crawling adventure. The games provide rules that reinforce and cultivate that desired core experience, particularly around the common set of experiences.

Something that we see almost time and time again in well-regarded OSR games - e.g., B/X, OSE, Knave, Shadowdark, Stars Without Number, etc. - are clear, well-defined procedures of play, whether that is for dungeon/wilderness exploration, sandbox play, or whatever else. While there are rulings and the like, the game design and play procedures are an important part of driving play forwards and cultivating the game experience towards what OSR folks regard as "fun." Not everyone in the OSR community (and/or communities) shares the same sense of fun, but there is clearly some overlap in the play principles and design philosophy of "philosophic OSR" or "NuSR" when it comes to designing the sort of tabletop games that this community finds fun.

No, see I actually understand what @EzekielRaiden is coming from here and why they are butting up against you. Because you and they are not seeing the same scenario the same way or parsing the language the same way.

To use your example of food... a chef isn't cooking "tastes good". That's not a thing. Rather what they doing is cooking a steak. THAT is their end state. That is their end goal-- to cook a steak. And everything they are doing is to cook that steak. Now the hoped-for result of cooking that steak is for it to "taste good". And all the bits and bobs they add to their recipe go towards their cooked steak tasting good. No one disagrees with that. But before you can get to "tastes good" step in the process you need to decide on what it is you are actually cooking first, and then work towards it tasting good. You can't have "tastes good" until you have "steak".

That's where you both are butting heads. You appear to me to be skipping the part of deciding on the thing and going straight to the "fun"-- the "tastes good". But Ezekiel isn't doing that because "fun" in and of itself isn't a thing-- it's not an object-- that you can put in these books. Instead, "fun" is the result that comes from a thing-- a rule. We have to put in the rules first and then have or make those rules be fun. From their perspective in the conversation, one can't have the fun until you make the rules.

You both are ending up at the same result... a game and game rules and a rulebook that is fun to play. But they are just suggesting you need to stop at the "making the rules" step first and then the fun can come out of it.

This. Full stop!

I think that it would be absurd for any company to design a video or board game simply on the basis of "fun" without first going through the laborious process of deciding what sort of play experiences that they want their game to produce. Elden Ring, Stardew Valley, and League of Legends are all meant to be "fun," but their design aims are radically different in what they (and respective their core audiences) consider fun and what sort of cultivated play experiences these games are designed for.

 

[Oofta]

No, see I actually understand what @EzekielRaiden is coming from here and why they are butting up against you. Because you and they are not seeing the same scenario the same way or parsing the language the same way.

To use your example of food... a chef isn't cooking "tastes good". That's not a thing. Rather what they doing is cooking a steak. THAT is their end state. That is their end goal-- to cook a steak. And everything they are doing is to cook that steak. Now the hoped-for result of cooking that steak is for it to "taste good". And all the bits and bobs they add to their recipe go towards their cooked steak tasting good. No one disagrees with that. But before you can get to "tastes good" step in the process you need to decide on what it is you are actually cooking first, and then work towards it tasting good. You can't have "tastes good" until you have "steak".

That's where you both are butting heads. You appear to me to be skipping the part of deciding on the thing and going straight to the "fun"-- the "tastes good". But Ezekiel isn't doing that because "fun" in and of itself isn't a thing-- it's not an object-- that you can put in these books. Instead, "fun" is the result that comes from a thing-- a rule. We have to put in the rules first and then have or make those rules be fun. From their perspective in the conversation, one can't have the fun until you make the rules.

You both are ending up at the same result... a game and game rules and a rulebook that is fun to play. But they are just suggesting you need to stop at the "making the rules" step first and then the fun can come out of it.

But the goal is still a good tasting steak. You can't just say "They should focus on using [insert some process]" because that's a meaningless statement. The problem that I see is that we're trying to discuss what mix of hard and soft rules we should use and how you judge the result. To me, you judge it by the result, is it fun. I don't care if you use a tenderloin from a Kobe Wagyu carefully seasoned and cooked over old growth redwood charcoal, I only care if the steak tastes good.

It's the same thing here. The end result is the only thing that matters despite protestations that somehow designing something fun is somehow ends up with worse results. Because "focusing on 'fun' alone leads to worse results" to me just sound like code for "don't include rules I don't like". If you don't like how something was done, if you don't care for the level your steak was cooked to (personally I'm not fond of rare meat, my brother-in-law likes it practically raw), then just state your preference. Because ultimately what you're judging is the end result, did you have fun playing the game.

How is focusing on making a game fun ending up with worse results? It's an oxymoron.

 

[Baron Opal II]

But the goal is still a good tasting steak. You can't just say "They should focus on using [insert some process]" because that's a meaningless statement.

No, it is quite meaningful.

1. Obtain the cut of meat desired.
2. Sear over high heat for 2-3 minutes on each side.
3. Grill over low heat for 10 minutes, reaching an internal temperature of 125-130 degrees.

This leads to an excellently cooked medium-rare steak.

Now, it can be further seasoned with salt, black pepper, and garlic. It can be seared with a butter glaze. It can be served with mushrooms and/or onions. It can be paired with a merlot or cabernet franc. There are several modifications that can be done according to taste, but there is a core process that leads at least most of the way to the goal. You don't make a steak that "tastes good", you make a properly prepared steak which ends up "tasting good" to many / most people which can thereafter be fine tuned to individual tastes.

 

[Oofta]

No, it is quite meaningful.

1. Obtain the cut of meat desired.
2. Sear over high heat for 2-3 minutes on each side.
3. Grill over low heat for 10 minutes, reaching an internal temperature of 125-130 degrees.

This leads to an excellently cooked medium-rare steak.

Now, it can be further seasoned with salt, black pepper, and garlic. It can be seared with a butter glaze. It can be served with mushrooms and/or onions. It can be paired with a merlot or cabernet franc. There are several modifications that can be done according to taste, but there is a core process that leads at least most of the way to the goal. You don't make a steak that "tastes good", you make a properly prepared steak which ends up "tasting good" to many / most people which can thereafter be fine tuned to individual tastes.

The phrase used is "focusing on 'fun' alone leads to worse results". I think that bupkiss. What else are you supposed to focus on? When you're cooking a steak you're focusing on making the best tasting steak possible. Want to discuss how to make the game more enjoyable for the majority of people? Fine. We'll continue the conversation.

But the only reason I can see to use phrases like this is to basically say that the current design approach is bad. So how about this. How about we talk about the concepts in the OP? Talk about where we need hard and soft rules? Because the other stuff? It's just making up nonsense to distract from actually discussing how you achieve the goal of making the game fun.

 

[overgeeked]

The phrase used is "focusing on 'fun' alone leads to worse results". I think that bupkiss. What else are you supposed to focus on? When you're cooking a steak you're focusing on making the best tasting steak possible. Want to discuss how to make the game more enjoyable for the majority of people? Fine. We'll continue the conversation.

But the only reason I can see to use phrases like this is to basically say that the current design approach is bad. So how about this. How about we talk about the concepts in the OP? Talk about where we need hard and soft rules? Because the other stuff? It's just making up nonsense to distract from actually discussing how you achieve the goal of making the game fun.

Something that might be helpful or might not. It’s often useful to disconnect the process from the result. We can have a certain amount of control over the process but we have no real control over the end result. Like working hard to get a promotion at work. You control the working hard (the process) but you don’t control whether you get the promotion (the end result).

First order design is the process. Second order design is the result.

This applies to both the game designers and the referee at the table. The designer controls the design but not the table having fun. The referee controls the game (to a certain degree), but they don’t control whether the players have fun. The referee can certainly influence the players having fun but they don’t have control over it. You know Doug loves combat, but if he’s having a terrible week he’s not going to have fun in this epic fight you designed. In a horror game you can be as scary as you want as the referee but if the players don’t buy in they’re not going to feel scared.

To me, focusing on the fun is backwards. It’s focusing on the part you have no real control over. Focus on the process. Run the best game you can, play to your strengths as a referee, keep learning etc, but in the end whether the players have fun or not isn’t up to you. Nothing will make someone have fun in a game or style they don’t enjoy. If they hate hexcrawls even the best hexcrawl of all time will be boring to them.

 

[jmartkdr2]

But the goal is still a good tasting steak. You can't just say "They should focus on using [insert some process]" because that's a meaningless statement. The problem that I see is that we're trying to discuss what mix of hard and soft rules we should use and how you judge the result. To me, you judge it by the result, is it fun. I don't care if you use a tenderloin from a Kobe Wagyu carefully seasoned and cooked over old growth redwood charcoal, I only care if the steak tastes good.

It's the same thing here. The end result is the only thing that matters despite protestations that somehow designing something fun is somehow ends up with worse results. Because "focusing on 'fun' alone leads to worse results" to me just sound like code for "don't include rules I don't like". If you don't like how something was done, if you don't care for the level your steak was cooked to (personally I'm not fond of rare meat, my brother-in-law likes it practically raw), then just state your preference. Because ultimately what you're judging is the end result, did you have fun playing the game.

How is focusing on making a game fun ending up with worse results? It's an oxymoron.

I think the people arguing that fun is a poor goal would disagree with your analogy. You’ve already decided on steak, and a good-tasting steak is fairly well defined.

The equivalent to telling someone to “make a game that’s fun” is if you ask your spouse where they want to eat and they reply “somewhere good.” It’s not really new information.

If you’ve already decided to make a game about exploring mega dungeons, then you’ve already decided what kind of fun you want, and so focusing on that starts to be a worthwhile exercise.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I think focusing on fun is a perfectly fine way of thinking about things. It may lead to further conversations about what is meant by fun, but I think generally speaking, it means being aware whether everyone at the table is having a good time and being responsive to that (in design I think it can mean different things but noting whether people are enjoying themselves and having fun is very useful to observe in playtest in my opinion). Where it can go off the rails I think is when you try to artificially maintain a level of fun at all times in the game, not realizing you need the peaks and valleys for contrast. It can be like the loudness wars in music.

 

[Clint_L]

What we keep coming back to is that D&D wasn't ever designed as a cohesive game. I would argue that it still isn't; all WotC have done is take that lack of design and enshrine it as a feature, not a flaw...and I think they might be right! (The closest they got to a fully designed D&D game was 4e, and look what that got them).

When you look back at the early history of OD&D, there was HUGE debate about what the game even was, and how it should be played, so much so that every region had their own version of the game which they often considered just as valid as anything put out by Gygax. AD&D was an attempt to get control of the situation and the game (plus screw Arneson out of royalties) and so added a whole lot more design, but all it really did was bolt a whole bunch of different systems onto OD&D (which is what a judge found in rejecting TSR's claims that this was a whole new game).

So AD&D is certainly a more designed game than OD&D in terms of the amount of stuff that is covered...but not really in terms of the basic principles of the game. It was still basically a miniatures wargame with additional rules to add role-play in a really half-assed way, with an expectation that most of the practical design work would either be done by the DM and/or via a published adventure module. 5e remains basically a miniatures wargame with additional rules to cover role-play, though in a significantly less half-assed way.

As I mention above, this might sound like criticism, but I think the incompleteness of D&D (any edition) is more of a feature than a flaw. By de facto dumping a ton of design work onto the DM and players (mostly the DM) the game becomes empowering: when you run a D&D campaign, you are an author in a very real sense. This is powerful!

So I think this argument is really about DM authorship in D&D, and the degree to which we prefer it to be open or constrained. I think that DM authorship is expressed in three primary ways:

1. Encounter building
2. Adventure building (i.e. plotting)
3. World building

1. Encounter building is the most constrained. Obviously D&D5e allows the DM carte blanche to put the pieces together however they want, but ultimately there is an implicit contract with the players that the encounter will be fair within the context of the overall story that is being cooperatively generated (e.g. you don't have to fight a Tarrasque at level 1). And once the encounter actually happens, the rules step in hard and the DM's authorship becomes severely limited. Sure, rule 0 still exists but in most circumstances the DM and players are expected to abide by RAW. Some of us take this further by making all rolls in the open, even DM rolls, so that everyone is on an equal footing and the story will be determined by player choices, constrained by rules, and pure luck.

2. Adventure building is much more open. Not only does the DM have carte blanche to build story hooks any way they like, but players have considerable freedom to affect the direction of the story via their choices (and at some tables, like mine, by offering their own additions). This is where I like the rules to be relatively light. I do not want big lists of factors that might affect a skill check and by how much; I want to collaborate with my players so that the story we are creating feels right to us.

3. World building is almost completely unconstrained. Again, I like this, and I like that the "rules" of a D&D setting (e.g. the various planes, alignments, species descriptions, etc.) are increasingly framed as suggestions and options. In my campaign, Bahamut is arguably worse than Tiamat, and there's no one that can tell me I'm doing it wrong.

I think 5e is basically a fully realized OD&D. Which means that by some definitions, it remains kind of a "non-game." I think that is hyperbolic, but there is truth behind the hyperbole.