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

[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.