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

[Lanefan]

Or how much they find the effort worthwhile.

Perhaps; but for these purposes let's assume the effort is made, and proceed on that basis.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Perhaps; but for these purposes let's assume the effort is made, and proceed on that basis.

I might not have been as clear as I could be; there can be games that are easy for me to grasp, but where the mechanics of the system seem undercooked and thus unsatisfying; on the other end, you can have a game like Fragged Empire, where I had some initial struggles with the game system, but in the end it was worthwhile.

I don't doubt, for example, that some OSR games that would have required much less work for me to get than Pathfinder 2e did, but I doubt the effort-to-benefit ratio would feel nearly as worthwile.

 

[Yora]

Especially if you're over 30!

When helmets were reintroduced as the only piece of armor for the next half century, it was not to stop bullets. It was mostly for shrapnel, but also protects your head when you just trip and fall down.

Maybe critical fumbles do have a place in combat systems? Not to make you drop your weapon, to to just faceplant.

 

[Thomas Shey]

It might sound a little stupid, but try running across uneven ground in often questionable lighting while being shot at and I suspect a lot of people will manage to do a header sooner or later.

 

[Hussar]

I was noodling about this this morning and I wonder if a slightly different definition might not work. For me, a "working" system means that the system is reliable. In other words, I, as player or GM, can be fairly confident that in any given, fairly normal situation in the game, the rules of the game will cover the resolution.

This was always my problem with early forms of D&D. Yes, I played the heck out of those systems back in the day. Far, far too many hours. But, over the years, I managed to accrete a lot of house rules and patches for those rules. And, I'm hardly alone there. Lots of people talk about the binder full of house rules they had/have for AD&D. Fast forward to WotC D&D and now, my house rules would probably fit on a couple of pages, and most of those are table rules, not actual rules changes for the game.

If the people playing the game can be confident that introducing a new element to the game will just work, then the system can be said to work. If, OTOH, I have to vet every single element, going over it and testing it and then revisiting that new element every single time, then, no, that system doesn't work.

Although, to be fair, "the system works" should always amend the phrase, "for me" to the end. What works for one table is very much not true for other tables.

 

[Grendel_Khan]

@loverdrive Just curious: did you mean to file this one under D&D General instead of TTRPGs General?

 

[Irlo]

I always considered it part of D&D's design that it was meant to be fiddled with or entirely warped by the users. I don't think that's a cop out by the designers. It's built into the system.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I was noodling about this this morning and I wonder if a slightly different definition might not work. For me, a "working" system means that the system is reliable. In other words, I, as player or GM, can be fairly confident that in any given, fairly normal situation in the game, the rules of the game will cover the resolution.

This was always my problem with early forms of D&D. Yes, I played the heck out of those systems back in the day. Far, far too many hours. But, over the years, I managed to accrete a lot of house rules and patches for those rules. And, I'm hardly alone there. Lots of people talk about the binder full of house rules they had/have for AD&D. Fast forward to WotC D&D and now, my house rules would probably fit on a couple of pages, and most of those are table rules, not actual rules changes for the game.

If the people playing the game can be confident that introducing a new element to the game will just work, then the system can be said to work. If, OTOH, I have to vet every single element, going over it and testing it and then revisiting that new element every single time, then, no, that system doesn't work.

Although, to be fair, "the system works" should always amend the phrase, "for me" to the end. What works for one table is very much not true for other tables.

Well, we are talking about incarnations of the game where some people seemed to think lots of ad-hoc decision making was a virtue. Its going to be hard to have that and also have it supply enough rules for those who don't think its a virtue.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I always considered it part of D&D's design that it was meant to be fiddled with or entirely warped by the users. I don't think that's a cop out by the designers. It's built into the system.

I think there's a difference between "tolerates lots of house rules" and "requires lots of house rules or ad hoc decisions" though. The former does not mandate the latter.

 

[Irlo]

I think there's a difference between "tolerates lots of house rules" and "requires lots of house rules or ad hoc decisions" though. The former does not mandate the latter.

I think I mean "encourages" as a middle-ground between "tolerates" and "requires."