Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Those poor farmers!
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 6482114" data-attributes="member: 4937"><p>I completely agree. Speed of resolution is always - regardless of what the rule is intended to do - a major factor in evaluating whether it is a good rule.</p><p></p><p>But it's not the only factor.</p><p></p><p>Some other factors:</p><p></p><p>a) Does the rule have a purpose? If the rule offers insufficient reward for the cost of performing the task, no PC will ever do it (except perhaps the few times necessary to see that it doesn't offer a reward). If you print a rule that is specifically designed to discourage someone from doing something, that's probably a bad rule. If you print a rule for something that isn't important to the game, its a bad rule. Conversely, printing a rule suggests that it is important to the game.</p><p>b) Is the rule balanced? This is the opposite of the first point. If the rule offers too much reward for the risk, then a player with the aesthetic motive of play of 'winning' will be motivated to only make that 'play' - and so will both break the game and be bored and feel its the games fault. And frankly, he will be right. So often I see apologists for rules saying, "So what if the game is unbalanced. Just don't play that way.", and these people just don't get it.</p><p>c) Is the rule sufficiently associated with the thing it abstracts? Every rule is an abstraction of a more complex reality, but if rule doesn't associate with the imagined reality it loses its power to create believable narrative. It's something of a matter of taste how strong the association needs to be, but it needs to be there at least a little. In the case of rules for combat simulation, at the minimum it needs to make the character that is more skilled at combat more likely to win the combat (rather than counter-intuitively less likely). In the case of an economic simulation, I'd expect the same sort of concept to be present - the more skillful you are supposed to be at the task having economic value, the more likely you are to turn a profit. So for example, if I own a tavern and my character has proficiency in Craft (Brewing), Craft (Cooking), Perform, Knowledge (Math and Ledgers) or whatever the system provides for, then I would expect to turn profits more consistently than a character that was inept at these things. The more level of detail, the more different inputs might be accounted for, but even minimal inputs only require about a sentence of reference and calling out a bit of minimal DM judgment.</p><p></p><p>One additional point can be made by highlighting a sentence in your above quote: "In my mind, the downtime activity rules are there so you can handwave away whole categories of endeavors that don't require in-character interaction between the PCs and the DM and are mostly outside the story."</p><p></p><p>You are exactly right. And because you are exactly right, the same rule should work as well for PCs and it does for NPCs - not because the rule intends to create a simulation of the world or needs to or any other straw man argument people keep throwing up - but because if NPC activities pretty much exactly fall into the category of things that can be handwaved, don't involve interaction between the PC and the DM, and are mostly outside the story. If the rule doesn't work for NPCs in this situation, you can be pretty much assured it doesn't work for PCs either. And any rule that would work for NPCs in this situation, would work for PCs with only the minimum amount of adjustment depending on how much rules were shared between them. In 5e case, with regard to economic activities, the answer is sufficiently close to 'all of them' that the rules could be insensible to the difference.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>You keep saying that sort of thing as a defense of the rule. I'm baffled, because from my perspective you keep damning the rule.</p><p></p><p>In the DMG, one doesn't necessarily expect to find something as complicated as the stronghold rules in Pathfinder's campaign guide. But to the extent one expects them to show up at all, it's reasonable to expect that they should have the same design intentions as the rules in the Pathfinder campaign guide.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 6482114, member: 4937"] I completely agree. Speed of resolution is always - regardless of what the rule is intended to do - a major factor in evaluating whether it is a good rule. But it's not the only factor. Some other factors: a) Does the rule have a purpose? If the rule offers insufficient reward for the cost of performing the task, no PC will ever do it (except perhaps the few times necessary to see that it doesn't offer a reward). If you print a rule that is specifically designed to discourage someone from doing something, that's probably a bad rule. If you print a rule for something that isn't important to the game, its a bad rule. Conversely, printing a rule suggests that it is important to the game. b) Is the rule balanced? This is the opposite of the first point. If the rule offers too much reward for the risk, then a player with the aesthetic motive of play of 'winning' will be motivated to only make that 'play' - and so will both break the game and be bored and feel its the games fault. And frankly, he will be right. So often I see apologists for rules saying, "So what if the game is unbalanced. Just don't play that way.", and these people just don't get it. c) Is the rule sufficiently associated with the thing it abstracts? Every rule is an abstraction of a more complex reality, but if rule doesn't associate with the imagined reality it loses its power to create believable narrative. It's something of a matter of taste how strong the association needs to be, but it needs to be there at least a little. In the case of rules for combat simulation, at the minimum it needs to make the character that is more skilled at combat more likely to win the combat (rather than counter-intuitively less likely). In the case of an economic simulation, I'd expect the same sort of concept to be present - the more skillful you are supposed to be at the task having economic value, the more likely you are to turn a profit. So for example, if I own a tavern and my character has proficiency in Craft (Brewing), Craft (Cooking), Perform, Knowledge (Math and Ledgers) or whatever the system provides for, then I would expect to turn profits more consistently than a character that was inept at these things. The more level of detail, the more different inputs might be accounted for, but even minimal inputs only require about a sentence of reference and calling out a bit of minimal DM judgment. One additional point can be made by highlighting a sentence in your above quote: "In my mind, the downtime activity rules are there so you can handwave away whole categories of endeavors that don't require in-character interaction between the PCs and the DM and are mostly outside the story." You are exactly right. And because you are exactly right, the same rule should work as well for PCs and it does for NPCs - not because the rule intends to create a simulation of the world or needs to or any other straw man argument people keep throwing up - but because if NPC activities pretty much exactly fall into the category of things that can be handwaved, don't involve interaction between the PC and the DM, and are mostly outside the story. If the rule doesn't work for NPCs in this situation, you can be pretty much assured it doesn't work for PCs either. And any rule that would work for NPCs in this situation, would work for PCs with only the minimum amount of adjustment depending on how much rules were shared between them. In 5e case, with regard to economic activities, the answer is sufficiently close to 'all of them' that the rules could be insensible to the difference. You keep saying that sort of thing as a defense of the rule. I'm baffled, because from my perspective you keep damning the rule. In the DMG, one doesn't necessarily expect to find something as complicated as the stronghold rules in Pathfinder's campaign guide. But to the extent one expects them to show up at all, it's reasonable to expect that they should have the same design intentions as the rules in the Pathfinder campaign guide. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Those poor farmers!
Top