D&D General When does the system "work"?

[Thomas Shey]

I'm going to suggest there are two not directly related answers: the first is when the system produces the specific kind of results its designed to (which can be a wide or narrow set of results depending on the intent in design); the second is when it produces the results its users want. The latter is a much muddier question because some people are perfectly willing to pound nails with a wrench, while others don't want to have to fight with or work their way around the system they're using to get the results they want.

 

[Thomas Shey]

My broken arm is nodding in agreement.

Well, that can get into the whole issue of what degree you want to manage small increment effects or rare effects. People have broken their necks falling off stools, but it doesn't happen often. People often take some bruises taking a fall or are briefly stunned, but the former is usually below the resolution threshold of most systems, and a lot of systems either accidentally or deliberately (because it can produce some undesirable side effects) avoid stun effects as a routine result.

(But yeah, I'm at an age where I can routinely expect solid bruising from an uncontrolled fall, and depending on the surface, some lovely skin removal from my forearms).

 

[billd91]

I find the "3+CON" thing leans rather too much into the worst aspects of its various elements, being neither super intuitive nor particularly well-grounded (e.g. I would expect a low-Con Wizard with Athletics or Acrobatics training to be better at this task than a high-CON Warlock without said training, because endurance is heavily skill-based IRL.) It further doesn't really add much in the way of drama: either the hunters have more Dashes than the quarry does, and thus catches them, or the hunters don't, and thus the quarry escapes. The purpose of these rules, from a plain reading of the text, is to add a heightened sense of urgency and the thrill of the chase (aesthetic values, but expressed via testable mechanics). I don't think these rules achieve that goal well, and in fact are likely to get in the way of that goal.

But we know that’s not how skills generally work. They add to ability checks. Now, if you wanted to add the proficiency bonus to the Con check to avoid exhaustion, that might be a reasonable refinement of the system that still fits with how skills usually work.
But your comments are also posed as hyptheticals. Am I to infer you haven’t used them?

I....don't quite get how that's supposed to be "the system working as intended." The chase rules are meant to...y'know, be more active than just "are you running away fast enough?" But I consider the entire Exhaustion mechanic to be fundamentally badly designed, which then infects every other system it gets invoked into. The idea of exhaustion as a mechanic is great. The application in 5e is terrible.

Yes, system as intended. If the players don’t want to suffer the challenges of a chase (being tired after running and what that implies), they don’t have to participate and live with the consequences. That’s about right in my book. I don’t see a significant problem with the exhaustion mechanic - in fact, I rather like it. Moreover, the imposition of exhaustion here with the chase system goes away after a short rest. Hardly a terrible application.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I wasn't expecting that my perspective would require a retort, but okay. Also, I didn't realize that the OP was from the perspective of a game designer, so it makes sense that my answer (like many in this thread) wouldn't be useful to you.

I mean, it doesn't have to be. That's just how I've chosen to respond to it. I find the vast, vast, VAST majority of discussion about game design focuses on designers as auteurs, as purely artistic expressions with zero room for analysis or critique other than "was it enjoyable" (fun for gaming; aesthetically pleasing for films; etc.), which as noted is basically impossible to grapple with in an analytic way. You can't break down the experience of fun into smaller pieces, figure out how those pieces work, and then reassemble those pieces into a more effective whole--or, rather, doing so would at least require a psychology lab and a lot more money and time than I will ever possess.

I had viewed your reply as...well, more or less an, "Okay, but what about X?" If it was simply meant as a "that's cool, X is also relevant," then...alright. Not much to say on that front. As I've said, I don't find the "fun" analysis useful in the vast majority of cases, because badly-made or dull things can be "fun" in the right context, and well-made or exciting things can be un-fun in the wrong context. It's too sensitive to a host of issues, from personal to situational to contextual, such that all we can really say in the end is "if you like X, do that; if you don't, I'm sorry to hear that." We can't even argue from "I didn't have fun with X" to "then you should avoid X and pursue Y," because it will never even in principle be possible to identify what the person would have had fun with, nor whether they will have fun with Y in a new context that we cannot predict.

It is only by identifying the goals of the game, how well it meets those goals, and whether those goals match the interests of the player(s) that we can actually provide any constructive feedback to either the player or the designer.

Sure, I agree. If my group were playing a game that didn't provide a desireable experience for each participant most of the time, we'd be playing something else. Who wouldn't?

A very substantial number of people, based on how people advocate for certain things regarding game design. D&D has to be for them. (Note that this is not one single faction--it is vocal people from numerous distinct groups.) If it is not for them then it is a bad game. These folks are usually the ones most vehemently opposed to any kind of analysis of game design as a technology, despite the fact that that analysis would be incredibly useful for helping them find a game that actually does suit them.

Why assume that a system must be complex?

"When the outcome of an action isn't obvious from the fiction and the outcome would be interesting whether success or failure, make opposed 2d6 rolls, higher roll wins."

That's a complete game system. It's ultralight and gets out of the way. RPGs needn't be 500 page bricks with intricate rules. But the more complex a system, the more familiarity it requires to get out of the way.

"Complete" in a rather....scant definition of the term, wouldn't you say? "Complete" in the sense that it treats truly absolutely every situation precisely identically. Sure, it requires no familiarity--because it offers no specificity (which may or may not imply complexity). Such "systems on a business card" certainly function, but run into trouble whenever anyone feels there should be something special or different about any particular situation, which is one of the common criticisms of things like this (such as Fate, with its open-ended "aspect" system), that everything from slaying the god-emperor of the universe to telling a lie to a small child is resolved in exactly the same way.

But yes, if we're going to be that pedantic about it on a D&D subforum in a D&D General thread, any system of complexity comparable to any edition of D&D. So, "Doesn't that mean that a system of complexity comparable to any edition of D&D working is primarily a function of familiarity on the part of the players and DM? That would seem to indicate that it's impossible for a new system of complexity comparable to any edition of D&D to EVER be 'working.' That seems like a metric without much utility for games like D&D."

Even Dungeon World would run afoul of this proposed metric, and it's by far the lightest system I've ever played. (Too light, for my taste as a player. But as a DM it is nice to have such a straightforward system for my second campaign ever.)

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Forking this to its own separate post, as the previous got a bit long and this reply was added later:

But we know that’s not how skills generally work. They add to ability checks. Now, if you wanted to add the proficiency bonus to the Con check to avoid exhaustion, that might be a reasonable refinement of the system that still fits with how skills usually work.

I wasn't specifically calling for any particular bonus. I'm just saying that making it flat "the group with the highest CON wins" runs rather counter to the clear intent, which is to make a relatively flexible framework for any situation where you have hunter(s) and quarry, to provide mechanics for supporting and (ideally) enhancing the feel of the chase, the drama inherent in hounding or fleeing (or both). Due to the way Exhaustion works--the instant negatives it imposes on the very things you WANT to do as part of a chase (making checks and then, with two levels, running), it interacts in an anti-synergistic way without actually enhancing the drama to a meaningful degree.

But your comments are also posed as hyptheticals. Am I to infer you haven’t used them?

I play very little 5e, so yes. Not technically none, but I haven't played it for a couple years now. I've played...maybe a dozen games (some intended as long-running games, some one-offs) since it came out, and a couple one-offs from when it was the D&D Next Playtest. The chase rules simply haven't come up.

Yes, system as intended. If the players don’t want to suffer the challenges of a chase (being tired after running and what that implies), they don’t have to participate and live with the consequences. That’s about right in my book. I don’t see a significant problem with the exhaustion mechanic - in fact, I rather like it. Moreover, the imposition of exhaustion here with the chase system goes away after a short rest. Hardly a terrible application.

You misunderstand. I don't mean the long-term consequences (since, as you say, a short rest clears that up). I mean the short-term consequences. Two levels of exhaustion--aka Dashing a mere two times beyond your limit--halves your speed. Moving at half speed guarantees you will be caught, so it's almost always completely counter-productive to Dash more than 4+CON times. Thus, the only choice is whether to take one level of exhaustion, or not. Up until that limit, there is never any better choice for the quarry than to Dash, because Dashing doubles movement speed, unless they're a caster that can cast a spell that gives more value than 30' movement (or the like). As a result, up until that limit, there is never any better choice for the hunter(s) than to Dash too, unless they're spellcasters, in which case the best choice (so long as the enemy is still within range) is to cast hold person or a similar spell that can stop the enemy in their tracks.

You're thus left with hunters who either cast hold person(/etc.) or Dash, and quarry who Dash or teleport or the like. There is essentially never any reason to do anything else. The first level of exhaustion is bad for both hunters and quarry, but maybe, possibly worth it if they can capture/evade without having to roll a skill; if they have any thought that they might want to roll a skill to succeed, that Exhaustion is far, far too costly to accept unless they're utterly desperate and 30' more distance plus a disadvantaged roll is actually worth contemplating (which...man, you must be REALLY desperate!). Certainly, however, the second level of Exhaustion is completely untenable; any quarry that reaches that point will guaranteed be caught by hunters who can now move twice as fast as they can; any hunter who reaches that point will instantly be outrun.

It becomes a contest of "Who has the highest Con mod?" Which is both uninteresting (merely a comparison of two numbers that takes longer to process) and devoid of drama (there is only one answer, either "quarry," "hunter(s)," or "neither.") It is neither naturalistic (because skill has diddly-squat to do with a successful chase, ONLY Con mod), nor rigorous, nor theatrical.

 

[overgeeked]

"Complete" in a rather....scant definition of the term, wouldn't you say?

Not at all. It works wonderfully well. It only requires the same buy in and benefit of the doubt other game systems get.

"Complete" in the sense that it treats truly absolutely every situation precisely identically.

Not true.

Sure, it requires no familiarity--because it offers no specificity (which may or may not imply complexity).

It offers exactly as much specificity as is necessary.

Such "systems on a business card" certainly function, but run into trouble whenever anyone feels there should be something special or different about any particular situation, which is one of the common criticisms of things like this…

Common, yes. Correct or accurate, no.

(such as Fate, with its open-ended "aspect" system), that everything from slaying the god-emperor of the universe to telling a lie to a small child is resolved in exactly the same way.

That’s not true of the system I posted nor of Fate.

But yes, if we're going to be that pedantic about it on a D&D subforum in a D&D General thread, any system of complexity comparable to any edition of D&D. So, "Doesn't that mean that a system of complexity comparable to any edition of D&D working is primarily a function of familiarity on the part of the players and DM?

Not at all. RPGs can function perfectly well without the player having any idea what the rules are. They can be handled entirely by the DM. And those rules can be as simple or complex as the DM requires.

That would seem to indicate that it's impossible for a new system of complexity comparable to any edition of D&D to EVER be 'working.' That seems like a metric without much utility for games like D&D."

Again, not at all. It just takes time.

Even Dungeon World would run afoul of this proposed metric, and it's by far the lightest system I've ever played. (Too light, for my taste as a player. But as a DM it is nice to have such a straightforward system for my second campaign ever.)

Only if you bring preconceived notions to it and insist on stopping the game frequently to look up rules. About 99% of PbtA games is “roll 2d6, higher is better”. They spend a lot of word count explaining things in excruciatingly convoluted ways when they don’t need to. I love the game, but damn. “I want to hit the guard.” “Roll for it.” Whether that’s d20, 2d6, flipping a coin, or doing a tarot reading doesn’t matter. The more complicated stuff is just covering edge cases and wards against rules lawyers.

 

[Hussar]

I would say that a system works when during play, the system is does not require frequent input from the players in order to cover things not covered by the system. IOW, a system where you are required to come up with on the spot resolution mechanics frequently is a system that does not work. If, OTOH, the system can give you a resolution to an action without requiring the players to constantly oversee the system, then it is working.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Not at all. It works wonderfully well. It only requires the same buy in and benefit of the doubt other game systems get.

...care to explain how it doesn't treat every situation exactly the same? Because if it's literally just "you both roll 2d6, whoever's higher wins," then I'm not seeing how there could possibly be any other factors. There are no modifiers, no rerolls, no influence from context. You specified the entirety of the game system with the phrase, "make opposed 2d6 rolls, higher roll wins." That leaves no room for nuance or variation from what I can tell!

Not true.

It offers exactly as much specificity as is necessary.

Common, yes. Correct or accurate, no.

Your pithy responses offer me nothing to interact with, so honestly, unless you feel like saying more, I have no reason to respond. "Nuh-uh" is not productive.

That’s not true of the system I posted nor of Fate.

Then explain why.

Not at all. RPGs can function perfectly well without the player having any idea what the rules are. They can be handled entirely by the DM. And those rules can be as simple or complex as the DM requires.

That's....not exactly a useful statement either. Particularly in the context of your original assertion--"seamlessly" handling. Seamlessness with a game requires familiarity. Doesn't matter if that familiarity means the specific letter of the rules or just the overall process of play, but familiarity of some kind is still required.

A lot of gamers do not realize just how embedded the language of games becomes. We don't realize how we've turned certain phases, gestures, or actions into instincts. E.g., did you even consider that a non-gamer could be completely baffled by the meaning of the phrase "make opposed 2d6 rolls"? Both "opposed" and "2d6" are terms that require familiarity.

Again, not at all. It just takes time.

Why would one spend time becoming familiar with a system one does not know--and therefore does not work, by the proposed metric--when a system that does work because you know it is sitting right there?

YOU may not have that sentiment. But a crapton of actual TTRPG players do have that sentiment. We must work the dough we have, not the ideal dough we should have.

Only if you bring preconceived notions to it and insist on stopping the game frequently to look up rules. About 99% of PbtA games is “roll 2d6, higher is better”. They spend a lot of word count explaining things in excruciatingly convoluted ways when they don’t need to. I love the game, but damn. “I want to hit the guard.” “Roll for it.” Whether that’s d20, 2d6, flipping a coin, or doing a tarot reading doesn’t matter. The more complicated stuff is just covering edge cases and wards against rules lawyers.

"Not true."

See how useless a response that is? I could tell you that all that "excruciatingly convoluted" explanation you think is useless is actually very important for establishing the mental experience and retaining fictional consistency, and that there are deeper, underlying game-philosophy reasons (usually regarding things like ritual phrases and begin and end with the fiction and you have to do it to do it) why they are what they are and say what they say. But instead I have pithily dismissed your entire statement with an uninformative "no."

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I would say that a system works when during play, the system is does not require frequent input from the players in order to cover things not covered by the system. IOW, a system where you are required to come up with on the spot resolution mechanics frequently is a system that does not work. If, OTOH, the system can give you a resolution to an action without requiring the players to constantly oversee the system, then it is working.

I'm curious: how would you feel about a system which tells you, "There shouldn't be any need for an <X>. If you really want one, you know what you want it for better than we do."* That is, a system which says, "This is where our rules stop (in this area). If you want a thing which steps beyond this rule, it would not be helpful for us to tell you how to do that. Only you can figure out what that thing is or means." So, the system is neither giving a resolution to an action without oversight (since it is not giving a resolution at all), nor demanding on-the-spot resolution of its mechanics (because, at least in this instance, there are no mechanics to resolve).

It is instead saying that there is no rule for a theoretically-possible option, because whatever you wish to achieve will be better implemented by you doing it yourself than by them giving you a fixed result.

*This is an actual quote from the 13A corebook, specifically where X is an epic-tier Linguist feat, if you're curious.

 

[Aldarc]

There are a fair number of responses claiming that the system works when the rules get out of the way. This viewpoint suggests to me that the rules or system are mostly viewed as an annoyance or nuisance to roleplay gaming. Almost like the horrible adage that "children should be seen but not heard," albeit with 'rules' instead of 'children,' with some gamers taking even the more extreme version from the Milford School in Arrested Development: i.e., "children should neither be seen nor heard." I do recognize here, however, the importance of negative space design and I don't want to discount that. But on the whole, there seems to be something of an "out of sight, out of mind" viewpoint when it comes to how systems should utilize rules and what makes systems work.

However, similarly to @Grendel_Khan, I think that I am of a different persuasion, likely as a result of the "system matters" debate, even if only as a counter-balance to the above approach. To me, a system works when rules get in the way as an intentional part of facilitating a meaningful game experience in the fiction and the participants are glad that the system does. I think that meaningful rules interactions are an important aspect of games and why we like playing them.

Board games and card games are often places where the principle is more readily seen outside of roleplaying games. The rules are constantly getting in the way of the games we play: e.g., Texas Hold 'Em Poker, Uno, Settlers of Catan, Pandemic, Ticket to Ride, etc. Rules restrict possible moves in games like Chess, Checkers, or Backgammon, but in so doing, these rules help facilitate the game experience as well as strategies for playing them. [Here we may point out the almost banal point that the rules don't matter that much to these games, as what really matter is the fun we have the people we play them with.]

This not to say that I want to play roleplaying games as I would board or card games, but, rather, that we can see how rules getting in the way are part and parcel for how other games are played and facilitate said game experience. However, I think that when rules get in the way, it should contribute positively to the play experience and the fiction. The rules (and interactions thereof) may push the player characters' story in a way that the players did not foresee or intend, but I think that is part of the fun of playing to see/find out what happens. We the player experience new twists and turns in the character's fiction as part of playing the game.