Michael Morris
First Post
My current project, a book entitled Role & Rule, is an unusual supplement that provides guidelines for GM's and players to use when applying the rules. The book roughly divides into two halves as it's title implies - the first half deals purely with roles and the second with rules designed to help players and GM's achieve their goals by either simplifying the system or making it (gasp) more complex.
Rules: It's Really a Question of How Many.
Too many rules can break down any game. The more rules, the steeper the learning curve of the game. This applies equally to all games in the RPG genre and outside of it.
Too few rules and the game loses its tactical and strategic elements if those rules do not creatively interplay (see below).
Some people like a game that is has few rules and hence needs to have finer points "fudged." 1e was this way when questions such as skills got raised. Storyteller is this way when questions in combat get raised. As a rule of thumb, a game that focuses on action focuses it's ruleset on combat. A game that focuses on character development focuses its ruleset on skills. D20 is one of the few games that gives a good cover on both (though admittedly combat gets more attention than skills), and this is what I believe has helped it win a wide base of support by giving it the flexiablity to switch either way as is required by the campaign at hand.
How many rules and which ones are needed are a function of the group. Our tastes differ. There is nothing wrong with this - it is perfectly natural.
D20: Rules, Rules, More Rules...
I believe that d20 is one of the most flexiable systems to date in its ability to remain relatively simple or to evolve to mind-boggling complexity. Unforunately, to date most books have focused on giving you more and more rules without any real guidelines concerning their application. It becomes far too easy in d20 for a group to overconsume the available rules and hence bog down their game. I intend to write a great deal into Role & Rule about this subject - one that is becomming ever more critical to the d20 GM and group. The discipline of choosing rules (i.e. why are you choosing them, what do you hope to gain, do the players want this etc.) is one no rule system has ever needed as badly as d20.
Creative Interplay
Rules can set limits - this is true. They can also create new horizons through what I like to call "creative interplay." If the component rules of a system combine and recombine well than even a simple ruleset can lead to intriguing and complicated play. Look at the game of Chess for the premiere example of this. The rules of chess are so simple they can be typed on one page. But the interplay of those rules is so rich in it's complexity that 300 years after the last "edition" of the rules was accepted the game is still filled with bewildering complexity.
D20 has far more creative interplay than any prior RPG period. However, taking advantage of this facet of the game to its fullest does require the sort of discipline that tends restrain the "free-form" approach. Neither approach is better than the other but they are - to some degree - mutually exclusive.
Player's encounter a kobold. In 2e the GM may have added classes or abilities to said kobold ex tempoire to keep the players on their toes even though the rules make no specific allowance for this (you have to make them up if you even bother to think about it). In 3e the same kobold could have any one of a dozen templates or classes attatched - sure it looks like a kobold, but if it's a half-fiend with 6 levels of fighter even an 9th level character might get a little concerned. Does it take longer to set this up? Certainly, but the rules also remind you to consider options and abilities you may have overlooked ex tempoire.
Players might be aware of the rules you use to do this to said kobold, but there is almost no way that they can prepare themselves for every conceivable combination of the ruleset of d20. Simply memorizing all the resultant variations is as formidable a task in d20 as memorizing all the lines of a typical chess opening.
Slight change of subject: Although unspoken, one of the considerations in the design of 3e was computer games. Computers can NOT follow the ex tempoire approach. However, they do facilitate the latter "creative interchange" approach very well. 2e only has so many combinations possible before you have to invent new rules to fill in the gaps. d20 core - not even considering the expansions - has thousands of ways to combine and recombine the rules. The former is akin to playing checkers. The latter is like playing chess. Both can be a lot of fun, but within the constraints of the rules as given a lot more is possible in the former.
Working within a ruleset is a rewarding form of creativity in its own right. Many of the spells on the Dusk website merely play with the rules. Under 2e most of them would require much larger text blocks to explain and some of them (like Quick ) couldn't exist at all. The Dusk setting's use of the colors of magic concept is totally impossible under 2e because the system would require the mammoth task of combining the 2e spell lists. With the spells all on the same list a creative door was opened for me. In general, I've found far more doors opened than closed. While it is true I can combine spell lists and make up rules for my setting - this type of prerequisite work adds up very quickly - and since it is a non-standard offshoot it must be taught to all new players which is a very bothersome task in its own right.
Ex Tempoire Play
Playing on the fly or "winging it" can be a lot of fun, though it perforce lacks a strategic element. Also, inventing new rules can be fun - but it can be a burdensome task in and of itself as I learned during the creation of Dusk II. This older version of my setting was designed to take advantage of the Player's Option system of rules. But before it could really work I had to overhaul a system which - while conceptionally elegant - was poorly carried out. Fully 2/3rds of the second edition of Dusk dealt with patching the Player's Option rules and not with the setting itself.
Then again, that all might be an example of a GM trying to make a system do what it really isn't designed to do.
D20 can be ran ex tempoire - in theory at least - but the players need to agree to it. Many won't like the idea because it shifts power away from them and to the GM. Let me explain.
Players and the Rules
All rules resolve game events - that's their job. It they can't the GM does it himself, but the outcome belongs to him - the players have little input and no control. Players can play the rules though by taking advantage of how they interact with each other (see above). The more rules, the more power (theoretically at least) the players have because the GM's ability to make ad hoc decisions against their characters is constrained (not eliminated - there's always rule 0. However, a GM who consistently breaks the rules to favor himself will find himself without players very quickly).
This can work both ways though. Templates and monsters with classes allow the GM to challenge players in ways they might not expect and sometimes to devestating effect. Still, many players like elaborate rule sets because of the control it affords their characters and to themselves. Conversely, some GM's like to cede as little power as possible to the players - and they are the ones most likely to find a rules heavy system like d20 distasteful.
This isn't a bad thing. Certain genre's do not lend themselves well to players having a lot of control. Horror games quickly fall into this category. Also, any game with a focus on a character's phsycological development is not well served with a boatload of rules.
Each group must choose the rules based on what they want to play - this is a key topic in my book and one I'm looking for input on.
The Advantage of Modular Systems
As I said earlier, much of d20's creativity lies in creative interchange. The actual rules of d20 are still relatively simple for an RPG - it's the add ons and how they interplay with each other that gives the game it's depth and complexity.
D20 is far more modular than any RPG ever has been. To see an example of a game anywhere near as modular as d20 you have to look at Magic: The Gathering.
Every card in Magic: The Gathering plays with the overall framework of the rules. Since Magic is played for money, it's rules are much more rigid than D20's need to be, but at the same time they have a certain fluidity brought on by the cards themselves and the fact that they rotate into and out of the tournament scene. Each card combines elements of the rules in it's own ways. To make things more interesting, the card interactions cannot be entirely predicted by anyone - as was witnessed by the combo winter accompanying the release of Urza's Saga.
D20 encourages a similar form of creativity through it's myriad of feats, though the prestige classes and spells help to. Each feat tweaks the character a certain way, and even within the core rules there are a lot of possible variants to play with. Add the extrenal products and the options can be dizzying. Also, unlike Magic, you can create even more feats et al leading to even more reactions.
While the GM has long been able to ad hoc abilities onto NPC's without worrying about play balance, now the player's have a mechanic for customizing their characters in much the same manner.
A Conclusion of Sorts
I'll close this ramble by saying that the game is what you make of it. Superiority of game systems in reality comes down to how closely those systems match personal temperments. D20 is adaptable enough to host a wide range of temperments, but even it cannot play host to everyone's tastes. This is why arguments about system superiority crop up, and also why other game systems continue to endure.
And now, a warning...
This long post was inspired by me reading a couple of threads closed earlier today by P-Kitty for the personal attacks they contained. To all concerned - I doubt very seriously that Kevin will close a third thread for personal attacks without also banning the persons responsible. It's a three strikes thing y' know.
I'm only posting this because I believe that it has some insights that haven't been posted before on it's parent threads - and it's taken me so long to type this and proof it that I would hope that tempers have cooled. That said, follow the rules people. I welcome any and all responses to this post. Polite discussion and debate are a good thing and welcomed on these forumns. Personal attacks are neither.
Rules: It's Really a Question of How Many.
Too many rules can break down any game. The more rules, the steeper the learning curve of the game. This applies equally to all games in the RPG genre and outside of it.
Too few rules and the game loses its tactical and strategic elements if those rules do not creatively interplay (see below).
Some people like a game that is has few rules and hence needs to have finer points "fudged." 1e was this way when questions such as skills got raised. Storyteller is this way when questions in combat get raised. As a rule of thumb, a game that focuses on action focuses it's ruleset on combat. A game that focuses on character development focuses its ruleset on skills. D20 is one of the few games that gives a good cover on both (though admittedly combat gets more attention than skills), and this is what I believe has helped it win a wide base of support by giving it the flexiablity to switch either way as is required by the campaign at hand.
How many rules and which ones are needed are a function of the group. Our tastes differ. There is nothing wrong with this - it is perfectly natural.
D20: Rules, Rules, More Rules...
I believe that d20 is one of the most flexiable systems to date in its ability to remain relatively simple or to evolve to mind-boggling complexity. Unforunately, to date most books have focused on giving you more and more rules without any real guidelines concerning their application. It becomes far too easy in d20 for a group to overconsume the available rules and hence bog down their game. I intend to write a great deal into Role & Rule about this subject - one that is becomming ever more critical to the d20 GM and group. The discipline of choosing rules (i.e. why are you choosing them, what do you hope to gain, do the players want this etc.) is one no rule system has ever needed as badly as d20.
Creative Interplay
Rules can set limits - this is true. They can also create new horizons through what I like to call "creative interplay." If the component rules of a system combine and recombine well than even a simple ruleset can lead to intriguing and complicated play. Look at the game of Chess for the premiere example of this. The rules of chess are so simple they can be typed on one page. But the interplay of those rules is so rich in it's complexity that 300 years after the last "edition" of the rules was accepted the game is still filled with bewildering complexity.
D20 has far more creative interplay than any prior RPG period. However, taking advantage of this facet of the game to its fullest does require the sort of discipline that tends restrain the "free-form" approach. Neither approach is better than the other but they are - to some degree - mutually exclusive.
Player's encounter a kobold. In 2e the GM may have added classes or abilities to said kobold ex tempoire to keep the players on their toes even though the rules make no specific allowance for this (you have to make them up if you even bother to think about it). In 3e the same kobold could have any one of a dozen templates or classes attatched - sure it looks like a kobold, but if it's a half-fiend with 6 levels of fighter even an 9th level character might get a little concerned. Does it take longer to set this up? Certainly, but the rules also remind you to consider options and abilities you may have overlooked ex tempoire.
Players might be aware of the rules you use to do this to said kobold, but there is almost no way that they can prepare themselves for every conceivable combination of the ruleset of d20. Simply memorizing all the resultant variations is as formidable a task in d20 as memorizing all the lines of a typical chess opening.
Slight change of subject: Although unspoken, one of the considerations in the design of 3e was computer games. Computers can NOT follow the ex tempoire approach. However, they do facilitate the latter "creative interchange" approach very well. 2e only has so many combinations possible before you have to invent new rules to fill in the gaps. d20 core - not even considering the expansions - has thousands of ways to combine and recombine the rules. The former is akin to playing checkers. The latter is like playing chess. Both can be a lot of fun, but within the constraints of the rules as given a lot more is possible in the former.
Working within a ruleset is a rewarding form of creativity in its own right. Many of the spells on the Dusk website merely play with the rules. Under 2e most of them would require much larger text blocks to explain and some of them (like Quick ) couldn't exist at all. The Dusk setting's use of the colors of magic concept is totally impossible under 2e because the system would require the mammoth task of combining the 2e spell lists. With the spells all on the same list a creative door was opened for me. In general, I've found far more doors opened than closed. While it is true I can combine spell lists and make up rules for my setting - this type of prerequisite work adds up very quickly - and since it is a non-standard offshoot it must be taught to all new players which is a very bothersome task in its own right.
Ex Tempoire Play
Playing on the fly or "winging it" can be a lot of fun, though it perforce lacks a strategic element. Also, inventing new rules can be fun - but it can be a burdensome task in and of itself as I learned during the creation of Dusk II. This older version of my setting was designed to take advantage of the Player's Option system of rules. But before it could really work I had to overhaul a system which - while conceptionally elegant - was poorly carried out. Fully 2/3rds of the second edition of Dusk dealt with patching the Player's Option rules and not with the setting itself.
Then again, that all might be an example of a GM trying to make a system do what it really isn't designed to do.
D20 can be ran ex tempoire - in theory at least - but the players need to agree to it. Many won't like the idea because it shifts power away from them and to the GM. Let me explain.
Players and the Rules
All rules resolve game events - that's their job. It they can't the GM does it himself, but the outcome belongs to him - the players have little input and no control. Players can play the rules though by taking advantage of how they interact with each other (see above). The more rules, the more power (theoretically at least) the players have because the GM's ability to make ad hoc decisions against their characters is constrained (not eliminated - there's always rule 0. However, a GM who consistently breaks the rules to favor himself will find himself without players very quickly).
This can work both ways though. Templates and monsters with classes allow the GM to challenge players in ways they might not expect and sometimes to devestating effect. Still, many players like elaborate rule sets because of the control it affords their characters and to themselves. Conversely, some GM's like to cede as little power as possible to the players - and they are the ones most likely to find a rules heavy system like d20 distasteful.
This isn't a bad thing. Certain genre's do not lend themselves well to players having a lot of control. Horror games quickly fall into this category. Also, any game with a focus on a character's phsycological development is not well served with a boatload of rules.
Each group must choose the rules based on what they want to play - this is a key topic in my book and one I'm looking for input on.
The Advantage of Modular Systems
As I said earlier, much of d20's creativity lies in creative interchange. The actual rules of d20 are still relatively simple for an RPG - it's the add ons and how they interplay with each other that gives the game it's depth and complexity.
D20 is far more modular than any RPG ever has been. To see an example of a game anywhere near as modular as d20 you have to look at Magic: The Gathering.
Every card in Magic: The Gathering plays with the overall framework of the rules. Since Magic is played for money, it's rules are much more rigid than D20's need to be, but at the same time they have a certain fluidity brought on by the cards themselves and the fact that they rotate into and out of the tournament scene. Each card combines elements of the rules in it's own ways. To make things more interesting, the card interactions cannot be entirely predicted by anyone - as was witnessed by the combo winter accompanying the release of Urza's Saga.
D20 encourages a similar form of creativity through it's myriad of feats, though the prestige classes and spells help to. Each feat tweaks the character a certain way, and even within the core rules there are a lot of possible variants to play with. Add the extrenal products and the options can be dizzying. Also, unlike Magic, you can create even more feats et al leading to even more reactions.
While the GM has long been able to ad hoc abilities onto NPC's without worrying about play balance, now the player's have a mechanic for customizing their characters in much the same manner.
A Conclusion of Sorts
I'll close this ramble by saying that the game is what you make of it. Superiority of game systems in reality comes down to how closely those systems match personal temperments. D20 is adaptable enough to host a wide range of temperments, but even it cannot play host to everyone's tastes. This is why arguments about system superiority crop up, and also why other game systems continue to endure.
And now, a warning...
This long post was inspired by me reading a couple of threads closed earlier today by P-Kitty for the personal attacks they contained. To all concerned - I doubt very seriously that Kevin will close a third thread for personal attacks without also banning the persons responsible. It's a three strikes thing y' know.
I'm only posting this because I believe that it has some insights that haven't been posted before on it's parent threads - and it's taken me so long to type this and proof it that I would hope that tempers have cooled. That said, follow the rules people. I welcome any and all responses to this post. Polite discussion and debate are a good thing and welcomed on these forumns. Personal attacks are neither.
Last edited:
