D&D 5E The Multiverse is back....

[Mr Fixit]

It's worth pointing out that one of the design goals of 5E core rulebooks, as stated by Mearls (I think it was him), is to make them enjoyable to read even if you have no intention to play. A lot of people buy books and never even use them. Beautiful bestiaries full of fluff are much more appealing to this category of buyers.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I guess if you rule that all elves are 3' tall, have white beards, live in the arctic regions and have proficiency in making toys, you're going to have some confused players. That said, I fail to see how adding 3-5 more printed alternatives will fix anything.

DM: You enter the room and see a small, scaled humanoid; a kobold!
Player 1: Kobolds! They love traps. Everyone watch out for pits and triplines.
Player 2: Eh, I thought they worshiped dragons and raised wyrmlings. Be wary of dragon breath ambushes!
Player 3: Really? I thought they were homicidal manics that charge into combat in swarms! Fall back lest you get mobbed!
DM: Actually guys, none of those things are true. In my game...

Net effect is the same, save now the PCs have to guess which variant of cannon you are using if you even do use it.

Actually, the design idea of Multiple True Ways means that rather than three completely different assumptions, you have three players who don't have as many automatic assumptions.

I mean, it can't be true that kobolds are, for instance, dog-faced rat-men with stone-age technology AND scaled, reptilian, dragon-people who engineer complex traps. So if the MM provides both, and a kobold pops up in your game, the natural question for someone who knows the lore is, "what kind of kobold is it?" Which is exactly the right reaction, a question, a request for the DM to provide information.

A lazy DM can just pick one, or roll for it. A DM with a bit more time to spend might say, "It's a third type of kobold, unique to my world. Your characters know that they are a race of slaves who treat everything taller than them as if it was a god. They look like the reptilian ones."

In a game with One True Way, the Lore Master's reaction to a kobold popping up in the game is, "Okay, kobolds, here's my strategy for dealing with this little dragon-worshipping mass-attacking trap-monger." Which works fine if that is indeed what the DM has planned, but otherwise, you've gotta claw back from the conclusion that the Lore Master lept to.

 

[DMZ2112]

It's worth pointing out that one of the design goals of 5E core rulebooks, as stated by Mearls (I think it was him), is to make them enjoyable to read even if you have no intention to play.

This guy. This guy said it without getting angry. Thank you, Mr. Fixit, that was much better than mine.

 

[pemerton]

It's worth pointing out that one of the design goals of 5E core rulebooks, as stated by Mearls (I think it was him), is to make them enjoyable to read even if you have no intention to play. A lot of people buy books and never even use them. Beautiful bestiaries full of fluff are much more appealing to this category of buyers.

I think this is true.

From the point of view of RPG design, though, I think it is a pity - in my experience RPG books written with the intention of facilitating play are more helpful for that purpose than those written primarily for the purpose of enjoyable reading by non-users.

 

[Mouseferatu]

I think this is true.

From the point of view of RPG design, though, I think it is a pity - in my experience RPG books written with the intention of facilitating play are more helpful for that purpose than those written primarily for the purpose of enjoyable reading by non-users.

Whereas I've had the opposite experience. AFAIAC, an RPG book that doesn't also have decent story/flavor material in it is a text book, and can--if care isn't taken--lead to less flavorful games.

Obviously, there needs to be a baseline of usability as a reference book; that's the entire point of having a rulebook. But I think 5e meets that baseline--overall, at least, if not in a few very specific cases. But then, I think every edition of D&D has met the usability baseline.

But an RPG book that doesn't inspire character or story ideas with the material presented within has failed, IMO. I'd rather rules that are largely clear in a book that's fun/inspiring to read than rules that are almost entirely clear in a book that's too dry.

 

[pemerton]

Whereas I've had the opposite experience. AFAIAC, an RPG book that doesn't also have decent story/flavor material in it is a text book, and can--if care isn't taken--lead to less flavorful games.

What examples do you have in mind?

I'd rather rules that are largely clear in a book that's fun/inspiring to read than rules that are almost entirely clear in a book that's too dry.

I think that maybe I wasn't clear.

I think an RPG book should absolutely be inspiring to read. But not in the way that, for instance, LotR is inspiring to read. My favourite RPG books are Luke Crane's Burning Wheel books - they are written as manuals for play, and they absolutely inspire me to play. I remember reading the 4e MM, and seeing all these creatures that I wanted to use in my game, and envisaging how they would play out.

My view, though, is that RPG books that are written to be read by people who aren't looking to be inspired to play are a problem. In rulebooks, it leads to the substitution of narrative description of things ("Kobolds are tricky") for advice on framing and action resolution ("Here's how you can resolve an attempt by kobolds to trick the PCs in your game"). In modules, it leads to the author narrating a story (I think many D&D modules of the past 20+ years suffer from this) rather than presenting material for the GM to use to run an adventure ("Here's how you might frame this situation, hooking it into the ongoing concerns of your game, and adjudicating the players' attempts to engage with it via their PCs").

These books substitute, for facilitation of running a game that will enable the participants to generate a shared fiction and perhaps a story, the telling of a story. For me, if I want to be told a story I will turn to a novel or a film. I want my RPG books to show me, and show me how to use, techniques for RPGing.

 

[Desdichado]

I guess if you rule that all elves are 3' tall, have white beards, live in the arctic regions and have proficiency in making toys, you're going to have some confused players. That said, I fail to see how adding 3-5 more printed alternatives will fix anything.

DM: You enter the room and see a small, scaled humanoid; a kobold!
Player 1: Kobolds! They love traps. Everyone watch out for pits and triplines.
Player 2: Eh, I thought they worshiped dragons and raised wyrmlings. Be wary of dragon breath ambushes!
Player 3: Really? I thought they were homicidal manics that charge into combat in swarms! Fall back lest you get mobbed!
DM: Actually guys, none of those things are true. In my game...

Net effect is the same, save now the PCs have to guess which variant of cannon you are using if you even do use it.

There are two solutions; one on each side of the screen, that would fix that.

1) Describe the creature; don't label it.
DM: You see a small, scaled humanoid with a long muzzle full of teeth and a thin tail.
Player 1: What is it?
DM: ... A small scaled humanoid with a long muzzle full of teeth and a thin tail.

2) And on the player's side, don't metagame.

 

[Desdichado]

What examples do you have in mind?

My favorite monster book as a good example of adding meaningful flavor that is both a joy to read and also provides a number of useful potential narrative hooks to involve them in your game are the Monsternomicon books by Privateer Press for 3.5 Iron Kingdoms. I don't run Iron Kingdoms, nor would I be likely to, but I still consider both books essential to just about any d20 (or similar enough system) that I'd ever run. And, like I said, even if you're not actually going to use it, the two volumes of it are among the few gaming books that are worth it just to read. That puts them, IMO, on a relatively short list.

 

[Remathilis]

There are two solutions; one on each side of the screen, that would fix that.

1) Describe the creature; don't label it.
DM: You see a small, scaled humanoid with a long muzzle full of teeth and a thin tail.
Player 1: What is it?
DM: ... A small scaled humanoid with a long muzzle full of teeth and a thin tail.

While that's DM 101, any player playing for a while will recognize that as a kobold* and begin the cycle there...

Which can be alleviated by never describing the monster the same way twice, but how many ways can you describe a "kobold"? The wheel can only be re-invented so many times before it ends up a square.

2) And on the player's side, don't metagame.

There's a fine line between "metagaming" and "paying attention."

I wager most adventurers will have heard of monsters like kobolds (which are common and low-power) and know some common traits for them. Any adventurer worth level 2 is going remember something like kobold = traps or kobold = wyrmlings. That's not metagaming. Metagaming would be more like. "Kobolds. They only have 5 hp, so I will run up and have a bunch surround me since I have a high AC, and then the wizard can cast sleep on me since there is no way I can be affected by it without all the kobolds being affected first."

To be honest, I like when my players remember campaign details like kobolds = wyrmlings on their own without relying on me feeding them everything with Knowledge checks. Then again, I've had players who check to see what immunities a daemon has and then turns around and uses acid arrow three rounds later. >_<

 

[Neonchameleon]

There are two solutions; one on each side of the screen, that would fix that.

1) Describe the creature; don't label it.
DM: You see a small, scaled humanoid with a long muzzle full of teeth and a thin tail.
Player 1: What is it?
DM: ... A small scaled humanoid with a long muzzle full of teeth and a thin tail.

2) And on the player's side, don't metagame.

I'd call both of these problems unless the setting was intentionally one where the PCs have little knowledge of the world they supposedly grew up in.