D&D (2024) Survey Launch | Player's Handbook Playtest 5 | Unearthed Arcana | D&D

[Justice and Rule]

And was nested in my misunderstanding of what you wanted when you declared you wanted the dragon to have to line up their attacks. Look, I'm sorry you proposed things in a way that made me think you were making a different proposal, but I tried very hard to keep that "you are making a different combat system" contained to that idea of wind-up attacks that take an entire turn to use. It had nothing to do with the movement rules.

Also, again, saying that someone is being hysterical IS a personal attack.

Okay, but you also cited it. And no, this one of all the others I think is absolutely an attack on your argument. It was a gross overstatement and I don't feel bad about calling it hysterical.

I'm not creating strawmen. At worst, I misunderstood a single part of the argument, which I've already acknowledged and sought clarity on.

Also, again, a commentary of "you are crying/whining" is STILL a personal attack.

That was within the same post and while I can understand this a bit more as a personal attack, I still find it as largely commenting the overstatement of things.

A slippery slope argument is one that takes the presented argument, and extrapolates it out to absurdity. Like "Requiring students to wear uniforms will cause an economic depression, because then they won't buy clothing, and clothing stores will close, which will put people out of work.." and on and on.

At worst, my points could be a whataboutism, but my entire point STOPS after one step. There is no slope. It stops with the question "why change only flight?" And sure, you can say that the reason to stop with flight is because you want to change flight, but when asked why you want to change flight the answers you gave revealed goals that, to me, don't actually require changing flight.

No, I disagree. It comes off as a slippery slope because of your initially comments and continually pushing things further and further ("Why not this? Why not this?"). It is not just a whataboutism, but rather that it feels like you are continually pushing down a road to where it feeds into the idea that that you felt I was trying to modify the whole system, which fed into how that looked ("Why not this" --> "You're basically changing the whole system!". These are not direct quotes but trying to hit the tenor of what it seemed like you were talking about).

And all your indignation at me questioning you and pointing out things like that different types of movement between land-based creatures aren't modeled comes across to me as "sit down, shut up, and accept my rule changes are unambiguously good and have no flaws". I've offered alternatives even, to demonstrate how some of what you want could be achieved with only monster design. Because I do agree with your end goal, as I understand it. I just think your method is flawed and causes more burden on the GM than is necessary or desirable.

My indignation was not a "sit-down, shut up and accept my rule changes" as much as frustration at constantly being questioned as to why this or that and feeling like my intentions were being misinterpreted. I am fully willing to talk about other ideas and concepts, but that did not feel like the argument.

And at this point, I'm just not interested with reengaging on the subject, so I'll leave all talk of "flight" at that.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I am firmly in the "the more the DM has to decide, the more the designers have failed" camp.

Yeah I’m quite firmly on the opposite side. The rules should leave plenty of room for interpretation, IMO.

 

[James Gasik]

The problem with leaving things open to interpretation is that the DM is not a game designer; if they were, they would be running their own game. When called upon to make rulings on the fly for things that are ambiguous, edge cases, or things that the rules simply do not cover, a DM has to consider quite a few things, including, but not limited to:

*Designer intent (which must be guessed at).
*Creating imbalance.
*Minimizing challenges.
*Setting precedents you may come to regret later.
*Narrative consequences.

Typically, I've seen DM's be very conservative with on the spot rulings, often requiring difficult ability checks and making the end result literally not worth the effort, not because they are horrible player-hating monsters, but because they are afraid of the consequences.

A classic example is the newbie DM who gets talked into allowing a called shot that turns the tide of a battle, then suddenly the players are always making called shots, so the enemies start doing it, and everything escalates into a chaotic mess where hit points become irrelevant.

A properly designed system shouldn't be ambiguous; it should present clear methods to resolve actions, and the designers should be very transparent and clear about WHY the rules are written the way they are, then offer guidance to say "but instead, you could do this other thing" if you don't care for the rules as written; in other words, giving the DM the benefit of your experience in game design, rather than leave them stumbling around in the dark.

I know someone is going to read this and say "but I've played games for years, I've designed my own games, I know what I'm doing". Before you continue on that line of thinking, please take a moment to consider that you are not everyone, and there are plenty of people who lack that confidence and experience, and a game should be written with everyone in mind, including the people who don't know what they're doing and could use structure and guidance.

 

[Incenjucar]

There is room for more freeform systems, but as a game designer and developer I don't want to play a system that makes me use those skills at the table outside of strictly narrative elements.

 

[fluffybunbunkittens]

Would you want something like what you are talking about to be dependent on a skills check or simply something you can "do" if you hit the prereqs?

I think a game like DnD could really use hard allowed rules like that, with no rolls required.

You have Athletics +10? You can always parkour up a 10ft wall as part of your movement.
You have Acrobatics +20? YOU ARE NEVER PRONE.

Because GMs go around letting people do miracles with cantrips, but don't allow skills to do even real-world achievable tasks.

 

[Incenjucar]

I'm a big fan of the idea of skill abilities in general.

 

[Emberashh]

I am firmly in the "the more the DM has to decide, the more the designers have failed" camp.

I would say this isn't entirely accurate, or rather is oversimplified, as this leads towards an end goal of the GM effectively just being the human cog that enables the game rather than a true participant in their own right. At that point, just bring on ChatGM and skip the rigmarole.

But it also comes down to defining what the GM is even for, and its not like we don't have games that resolved that question by simply excising the role entirely rather than trying to find a balance.

As a creative person (who runs with a group of creatives who all rotate as GM), there are some negatives to games that go out of their way to weigh in on every possible thing, and especially so when doing so doesn't come with any interesting mechanics or gameplay (or worse, with worse mechanics and worse gameplay) that make following a more rigid game worthwhile.

That was something I had to come to grips with when I started to overhaul Exploration for my 5e games, which became the basis for Exploration in my own game.

It was desirable to have something more codified and dependable as a system, but it had to be justified by its components not just being fun in their own right but flexible enough to allow for a more freeform experience.

Hence the decision to unify montages, point crawls, and hex crawls as one cohesive, fluid system that can both be used individually or in unison, the decision to codify and define different types of crawls with distinct (but interconnected) mechanics, and frame the entire thing in an intuitive time based on the tension pool, the inclusion of gathering and crafting as part of the gameplay loop, and a smattering of other things that dont just merely codify the system and make it less of a creative process to run, but at the same time make the game more fun.

Having more codified mechanics, procedures, and rules are not always bad, but one can go overboard with it if they're all designed without considering what they add to the games fun.

And particularly so when the system itself isn't set up to be modular. GURPs can get away with things being lackluster because most tables aren't going to be running the entire thing, and its actively encouraged that you pick and choose.

Something like Pathfinder, however, not so much.

 

[Incenjucar]

The actual discussion on rules vs. freeform is its own thread, I was just making my position clear. I have enough experience and a quick enough mind that I can design an elaborate system on the fly, but I don't want to. That's a preference position.

 

[Emberashh]

Because GMs go around letting people do miracles with cantrips, but don't allow skills to do even real-world achievable tasks.

People get too obsessed with niche protection. Letting skills do more not only encroaches on magic but, as mages have equal access, doesn't even serve as a useful addition.

In reality skills and magic should just be differring paths to the same conclusion, rather than differing paths to different conclusions.

And in 5e, this issue leads directly into the whole martial/caster disparity debate, as skills are not only underbaked but magic is severely overtuned at the same time.

But, this isn't quite the easy issue to resolve adequately, and I should know, as this was a big reason why I started writing my own game. You not only need to make skills much more substantive, but also nerf magic considerably, at least as far as utility is concerned.

Otherwise, you're left trying to jack up abilities to compensate and this just leads to gonzo situations where PCs only struggle in the world by the arbitrary needs of the game rather than any logical continuity between the game system and the game world.

 

[fluffybunbunkittens]

Letting skills do more not only encroaches on magic but, as mages have equal access, doesn't even serve as a useful addition.

For my next trick, I'm stating that mages shouldn't have access to skills.