D&D General Why Editions Don't Matter

[TwoSix]

I mean, ok, I guess if you define “complete” in a way that excludes any referee adjudication, D&D is incomplete. But that feels like painting the target around the spot where your shots landed. It also excludes all RPGs and most sports from being considered complete.

It does, yes. But as I said in a post above, at least the asymptotic definition provides two endpoints along an axis (coin-flip game and pure FKR) that games can be placed along. I do agree that with the right perspective, that axis does become more of a horseshoe shape.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I gotta disagree. I don't think there's a huge difference between a rulebook saying "for this specific use case, make it up" and the rulebook saying "for every unspecified use case, just make it up".


I think there's a major difference between "delegating the authority to a participant" and "delegating the authority to a non-participant".

I think that this is interesting, so ... why? This goes back to the Chinese Room (AI) analogy.

What is the difference between the following three scenarios-
1. A coin flip seen by everyone.
2. A coin flip by the DM that only the DM sees.
3. A coin flip by non-participant Jake, who you called, and asked to flip a coin.

I know that emotionally it feels different, and there might be reasons of fairness, transparency, and not bugging Jake to not employ these other methods, but fundamentally they are just outside referents for adjudication.

Actually, for the pure coin-flip game, no one gets to veto a coin-flip. That's a delegation of authority outside of the independent resolution. As soon as you decide to limit the game to particular subset of declarations to enforce genre or setting tropes or anything like that, at least one participant has to become a de facto arbiter.

This is where we get to the whole, "Everyone is playing in good faith" issue that is the necessary background to a system. Let's look at your proposed complete game-

1) There is a player and a DM.
2) The player makes a fictional persona, i.e. a character. The DM explains what is happening to the character, a scene.
3) The player explains what the character is going to attempt, and the result if they succeed. The players then flips a coin.
4) If heads, the player's character succeeds at their attempt and the intended result in realized. The DM then presents a new scene.
5) If tails, the player's character's attempt fails and the DM narrates the consequence of the failure and then presents a new scene.

Under this system, we have a few background assumptions, right?
1. Players can create fiction and there is no "secret information."
2. Every player is responsible for ensuring that (1) they call for coin flips for attempts (as opposed to pure narration), (2) they accurately assign results, and (3) that the results match the fiction.
3. Every DM is responsible for creating the fiction when the player fails, but must do so responsibly.

All of these probably seem self-evident if you are familiar with certain styles of play ... but ... they aren't for everyone. I think that a lot of people would get hung up on some of these - what can players just "do" and what must they attempt by coin flip? What if a player disregards the fiction entirely (the whole bad faith, "I jump over the moon" example)? What if a DM narrates failure that the player doesn't like (you failed at walking 5' forward, so the consequence is ... YOU SPONTANEOUSLY COMBUST AND DIE!!!).

These are background assumptions that are "baked in" to the ruleset you are proposing, and yet they are not self-evident when it comes to adjudication. IMO.

 

[pemerton]

Sure. I defined it a few posts up as the coin-flip game. No actually played RPG is complete, though.

I'm not persuaded that Cthulhu Dark isn't. Or at least that it isn't pretty close. In A Wicked Age would be another one. And probably Apocalypse World.

 

[TwoSix]

I think that this is interesting, so ... why? This goes back to the Chinese Room (AI) analogy.

What is the difference between the following three scenarios-
1. A coin flip seen by everyone.
2. A coin flip by the DM that only the DM sees.
3. A coin flip by non-participant Jake, who you called, and asked to flip a coin.

I know that emotionally it feels different, and there might be reasons of fairness, transparency, and not bugging Jake to not employ these other methods, but fundamentally they are just outside referents for adjudication.

I would absolutely agree that all of them are pretty much the same, assuming perfectly fair participants, of course. I think we can all see the possibilities of unfair play in scenario 2.

This is where we get to the whole, "Everyone is playing in good faith" issue that is the necessary background to a system. Let's look at your proposed complete game-

1) There is a player and a DM.
2) The player makes a fictional persona, i.e. a character. The DM explains what is happening to the character, a scene.
3) The player explains what the character is going to attempt, and the result if they succeed. The players then flips a coin.
4) If heads, the player's character succeeds at their attempt and the intended result in realized. The DM then presents a new scene.
5) If tails, the player's character's attempt fails and the DM narrates the consequence of the failure and then presents a new scene.

Under this system, we have a few background assumptions, right?
1. Players can create fiction and there is no "secret information."
2. Every player is responsible for ensuring that (1) they call for coin flips for attempts (as opposed to pure narration), (2) they accurately assign results, and (3) that the results match the fiction.
3. Every DM is responsible for creating the fiction when the player fails, but must do so responsibly.

All of these probably seem self-evident if you are familiar with certain styles of play ... but ... they aren't for everyone. I think that a lot of people would get hung up on some of these - what can players just "do" and what must they attempt by coin flip? What if a player disregards the fiction entirely (the whole bad faith, "I jump over the moon" example)? What if a DM narrates failure that the player doesn't like (you failed at walking 5' forward, so the consequence is ... YOU SPONTANEOUSLY COMBUST AND DIE!!!).

These are background assumptions that are "baked in" to the ruleset you are proposing, and yet they are not self-evident when it comes to adjudication. IMO.

Yes, absolutely correct. And that's exactly why most games have specified rules, even though it makes them more incomplete (by my self-employed definition, of course). Shared unlimited authority is simply too much to handle. That's why the coin-flip game is a hypothetical.

 

[Maxperson]

I gotta disagree. I don't think there's a huge difference between a rulebook saying "for this specific use case, make it up" and the rulebook saying "for every unspecified use case, just make it up".

Where does that actually happen in 5e(or any other edition of D&D), though? Combat spells things out pretty clearly. The skill rules likewise impose limits. Someone attempting to climb a wall uses the climb speed rules, athletics(str) rules to climb, rules for setting the DC(easy, moderate, etc) and then the d20 rolling and adding bonuses rules.

Where is the rulebook just saying "make it up" for anything?

 

[TwoSix]

Where does that actually happen in 5e(or any other edition of D&D), though? Combat spells things out pretty clearly. The skill rules likewise impose limits. Someone attempting to climb a wall uses the climb speed rules, athletics(str) rules to climb, rules for setting the DC(easy, moderate, etc) and then the d20 rolling and adding bonuses rules.

Where is the rulebook just saying "make it up" for anything?

Aren't the Stealth rules somewhat notorious for giving some direction but leaving a lot of possible interactions up for grabs? I gloss over RAW debates because they're so boring, but I seem to remember that cropping up before.

 

[Maxperson]

Aren't the Stealth rules somewhat notorious for giving some direction but leaving a lot of possible interactions up for grabs? I gloss over RAW debates because they're so boring, but I seem to remember that cropping up before.

There are a few ambiguous areas where DMs might have to decide something, but as a whole the rules are sufficient for a player to have a very good idea how things are going to play out.

Some areas where the DM(or player(s)) has to decide doesn't make for incomplete rules, though. No system can cover everything in enough detail to prevent that. At some point some person or persons in the group playing an RPG will come up to something that the rules don't cover or don't cover well enough.

 

[TwoSix]

I'm not persuaded that Cthulhu Dark isn't. Or at least that it isn't pretty close. In A Wicked Age would be another one. And probably Apocalypse World.

PbtA games are probably pretty close. I mean, the core mechanic you can distill down to roll 2d6, 10+ the player gets authority, 6- the referee gets it, and 7-9 both get a say.

But all the PbtA games still require ad-hoc determination by the referee as to if any particular action declaration is out of scope of the setting and fiction.

 

[TwoSix]

Some areas where the DM(or player(s)) has to decide doesn't make for incomplete rules, though. No system can cover everything in enough detail to prevent that. At some point some person or persons in the group playing an RPG will come up to something that the rules don't cover or don't cover well enough.

The coin-flip game covers everything.

You're more than welcome to tell me my particular definition is hot garbage, of course, I really don't mind. This has been a fun thread.

 

[Umbran]

Because they paid for a book with werewolf rules?

What should the expectation of buying an RPG sourcebook be if not to provide rules for implementing concepts as part of the game or provide context for how the work in the game's universe?

Setting aside that we are talking about behavior of the creature, rather than any mechanical resolution, or process of play or the like, such that we are only questionably talking about "rules" at all....

What you are saying is that the person has walked into play with an inaccurate external expectation about what the game entails. The game text does disabuse the GM of the notion that strict adherence to printed rules is required, or even expected. But, the player has either not read that advice, or overlooked/discarded it, and is still concerned with strict adherence to printed materials, and therefore flummoxed when those materials aren't perfect for their situation.

I am not sure how the rules about werewolves are supposed to correct for that issue.

Especially when it does do that for other subjects.

There is no creature in the rulebooks for whom the guidance on how they behave is truly comprehensive. Not a single entry tells you unambiguously everything the critters will think, feel, or do in all situations. The GM is always expected to make some stuff up. In that sense, no game is "complete", rules lite or otherwise.

That, to me, is the difference between rules lite and incomplete.

One cherry-picked example of poorly edited text should not be the basis of such an assessment, in my opinion.

Because, that's the issue here - editing, nothing about design or concept.