Why do RPGs have rules?

[FormerlyHemlock]

How could questions like this even be meaningful? Do you know how many lightning bolts strike WoG every day? How many houses are there? What proportion get hit over any period of time? Do you have even order of magnitude answers to these questions?

Worse, what is the cause of lightning in WoG? Elementals? Gods? Wizards? Dragons? Does electricity even exist there? Are there laws or physics or just magic? How does that work?

If you'd like to start a thread on Heiseneffects in RPGs I'm game, but there's been quite a lot of thread drift already and for now I'm resisting the temptation to get into it.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I see how it’s a priority for you. That if simulation as you’re describing it is in conflict with gamism or narrativism, then your priority is simulation.

I think my questions are more how is it achieved. Because how a dragon attacks is entirely up to the GM. There’s no baseline to simulate from. Yes, we can all suggest that certain tactics are likely better than others… but that assumes a lot about a dragon. There could be reasons the dragon has to land… perhaps it can only maintain flight for so long. Perhaps it has a massive ego and needs to crush foes directly. Any number of other traits or factors could come into play here.

But of it’s all just up to the GM, then I get that the GM is deciding what makes the most sense to them… but I’m just unsure how one outcome in a range is decided upon.

For instance:



What does this mean? How would one accomplish having lightning bolts strike where the players aren’t involved?

What I got from the dragon example is that there are different possible 'tones' of game and how dragons 'naturally act' is a function of the desired tone or agenda, heroic depiction of epic dragon combat or CaW style challenge which emphasizes tactical problem solving. I am mystified by the mixing in of all this stuff about 'realistic dragon combat' and such weirdness.

 

[Maxperson]

That is the point, though.

There's no and can't be no skilled play in D&D, because the only possible skill being expressed is players' ability to please the GM who pretends to be impartial. Some even go further and gaslight themselves into thinking that they are actually impartial, and their decision-making is predicated on anything other than their left foot.

This incorrect repetition is getting old. The game isn't played to "please the DM" nor is the DM "pretending to be impartial." And your condescending attitude where you asburdly(and it is patently absurd on its face) accuse DMs of gaslighting themselves is quite frankly laughable.

You don't like this style of play. Okay, don't play it. Play your favorite style and stop going out of your way to insult a style that you clearly don't grasp and never will because you have no desire to understand it..

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

What I got from the dragon example is that there are different possible 'tones' of game and how dragons 'naturally act' is a function of the desired tone or agenda, heroic depiction of epic dragon combat or CaW style challenge which emphasizes tactical problem solving. I am mystified by the mixing in of all this stuff about 'realistic dragon combat' and such weirdness.

What you got out of it was very different then from what I intended to say.

 

[Emberashh]

There's a reason for the play loop not being in the DMG. The DMG doesn't have any rules in it other than the optional rules from the DM tookbox section. All of the rules to play the game are in the PHB. The PHB isn't just for players, but rather it's for players and DMs which is the reason that so much of the PHB talks to DMs.

The DMG just gives advice for world building, how to create an adventure, and how to run the game. The play loop describes the basic play experience. DM describes, players declare, DM narrates, then rinse repeat.

While the loop is not explicitly referenced in the DMG, how to engage each of the parts is. The DM is given advice for how to create the world and describe and the DM is given advice on how to narrate responses to various player declarations. The DMG doesn't need to repeat the game loop in the form that it does in the PHB, because the DM is using both books to learn to DM and run the game.

Yes you reexplained everything I said, but skipped over the point being made that this isn't a good way to do things, as evidenced by the sheer amount of people who, through no true fault of their own, are never clued in to how the books are meant to be used.

This is why I said that if you're not going to do a Big Book then however many books you have have to be comprehensive. Something like the Monster Manual is fine being what it is (quality aside), but a DMG or a PHB should not be segregating critical info for either player type into one or the other book.

Either both books have the same information repeated or both books stick to their intended audience.

But even then, if you want to use this convoluted scheme that 5e has and spread critical info across both books without repetition, then both books fundamentally need to tell you that they do this and instruct the reader on how to synthesize the contents of both books into a workable practice for DMing.

5e does not do this. It doesn't even come close.

 

[Maxperson]

Yes you reexplained everything I said, but skipped over the point being made that this isn't a good way to do things, as evidenced by the sheer amount of people who, through no true fault of their own, are never clued in to how the books are meant to be used.

I fully disagree. The fault is absolutely theirs because so many do not read the DMG. Anyone who reads both books will easily understand 1) how to run the play loop, 2) how to build an adventure/campaign, 3) how to narrate responses to player declarations, and 4) is given multiple ways to do all of the above so as to be able to tailor the game to both DM and players. And more. Nothing more is needed for 5e EXCEPT better organization. What isn't needed, but probably should be included, are more pages in the DMG devoted to expanding certain important parts of DMing that are given a paragraph or page and really should have more on those topics.

This is why I said that if you're not going to do a Big Book then however many books you have have to be comprehensive. Something like the Monster Manual is fine being what it is (quality aside), but a DMG or a PHB should not be segregating critical info for either player type into one or the other book.

Either both books have the same information repeated or both books stick to their intended audience.

1) I don't see an issue with advice to the DM being in one book and the rules of the game being in another.
2) The intended audience of the PHB is both the DM and the players, not just the players. The title is a holdover from 1e/2e.

It's not harder to learn to run the game by splitting the rules and advice up into two books. You just have to actually read both books. How is reading 500 pages in two books harder than reading 500 pages in one book?

 

[clearstream]

But even then, if you want to use this convoluted scheme that 5e has and spread critical info across both books without repetition, then both books fundamentally need to tell you that they do this and instruct the reader on how to synthesize the contents of both books into a workable practice for DMing.

5e does not do this. It doesn't even come close.

Yup, it's frustrating. PHB 5e can be used successfully to play published modules. Possibly by intent. There's nothing missing that is critical to that.

The DMG contains the encounter guidelines which are critical to get into homebrew campaign content. And you can start to see the design strategy. Homebrew encounters are a step up from simply playing published encounters. And so on.

So while it's wrong to say that critical information is spread all over the place (it's not) it's not great that they don't talk more in their game about their game. In a way that's a major difference with more recent trends in design, where the game text addresses itself (as well as stating principles for using the rules to achieve the intended play.) Possibly though, D&D designers will always be briefed to avoid that.

 

[Emberashh]

Im not getting dragged into relitigating nearly a decade of assessment of the core 5e books.

Everyone knows what these books are and how poorly they're set up to actually instruct anyone on running a game.

Trying to dispute nearly a decade of acknowledgement of this problem only now because its devastating to a side argument in this topic is a waste of time and I'll have no part in it.

If you think 5e does a good job at teaching DMs more power to you, but you're disagreeing with a decade of people saying and proving otherwise.

 

[Maxperson]

The typical person reads the title "Dungeon Mastere Guide" and makes the appropriate conclusion that said book includes everything you need to be a Dungeon Master.

That would be a very silly conclusion for anyone who has ever read the 5e DMG to make. I mean the DMG very clearly says at the top of page 4 in the INTRODUCTION.

"This book has two important companions: the Player's Handbook, which contains the rules your players need to create characters and the rules you need to run the game, and the Monster Manual, which contains ready-to-use monsters to populate your D&D world."

I mean, if they can read that and conclude that everything they need is in the DMG then they probably shouldn't be DMing. The very first thing that they say is that the actual rules the DM needs to run the game are in the PHB.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Right, that makes sense as a priority of play. Or of GMing, at least. It’s likely not to be clear to the players. I’m not sure if that matters or not to folks… I expect it varies.

What do you think about the players’ view?



Well just deciding that something happens moves us away from what I think of as simulation. I think of simulation as starting with something external, right? Some process or event that we’re trying to replicate in some way.

So to use the dragon as an example, how do we replicate a fictional creature? I expect you’d say we give it some thought and ask “what would happen if…” as you mentioned. But then there are all those many factors to consider. The dragon’s intellect and cunning, its ability to communicate and work with others. Its stamina for flight, its ego and other personality quirks… all those factors that need to be considered, how are they determined?

It seems to me that all of that is up to the GM, right? If the GM is the source of all those factors, then they’re determining the thing that’s being simulated. And that doesn’t seem to make a lot of sense to me.

So if you’ve decided your dragon is clever and cautious and can fly for extended periods with no problem, then you have your dragon attack the PCs from the air at a distance, never getting close enough for them to do much… you’re simulating.

If I imagine my dragon as cruel and megalomaniacal and overconfident with a desire to see its foes crushed in its claws, and so my dragon attacks from the air and then lands and closes with the PCs… I’m also simulating.

Are both of these true? If so, how do we keep it all straight? I mean, did I design my dragon that way for the purpose of including all the PCs in this scene? Or did I design it that way because it felt right? Is there tension there between simulation and narrative or gamist goals?

If the GM decides all the factors that need to be considered for simulation, then is it simulation?

You've hit the nail squarely on the head here. It's ridiculous to describe something as a simulation when all the parameters and conditions are arbitrary and decided in light of desired outcomes! That's just playing pretend and post hoc explaining why the story looks like it does by reference to some made up reasons. ALL RPG play has fiction explain situation, at least in principle, though probably most of it is never really explicated.