Rules Q&A Do you need D&D to hold your hand? [Archive]

View Full Version : Rules Q&A Do you need D&D to hold your hand?

akaddk

2014-09-03, 04:55 AM

Falka

2014-09-03, 05:56 AM

Then you have the other extreme, where people just make up stuff because they don't read the info laid out properly. Guilty of charge in some situations here, as I too made some hasty assumptions at the beginning. But there are a few things that are really kind of hard to miss.

Bellberith

2014-09-03, 06:09 AM

ambartanen

2014-09-03, 06:11 AM

AD&D didn't have a rule for everything. It required imagination. Something that I find lacking in players and DM's these days.

Well, that's not condescending at all. If you value imagination and creativity so much, play a system that actually encourages them. All version of DnD are terrible at this.

The rules are there so that all the players and the DM have the same ideas about what's possible in this fantasy world of magic, child-sized people every bit as strong as NFL players and floating eyeballs that shoot lasers. Every time a player does something that forces the DM to make up a rule on the fly, you get two big problems. Firstly, it's quite unlikely that the player and DM have the same expectation about how the world works which often leads to characters performing nonsensical actions. Secondly, the future ramifications of that momentary decision can be quite serious and will likely require further creation of new rules.

So assume there are no rules on falling and one player decides it's going to be really cool if their acrobatic rogue jumps out the second floor balcony and lands in an impressive tumble. The DM, however, knows jumping from ten meters in the air is just stupid and says falling damage is 1d6 per ten feet. The rogue takes 3d6 damage and breaks both his legs... but why did the character jump if they knew they couldn't land safely? They are an experienced acrobat that can't judge the safety of jumps because the rule wasn't needed until after he jumped off the balcony. A few months later, the default attack of the flying barbarian is to grapple enemies and dash straight up before dropping them because that unavoidable 12d6 damage that isn't reduced by resistance is better than trying to attack most things.

Vhaluus

2014-09-03, 06:14 AM

INDYSTAR188

2014-09-03, 06:29 AM

I prefer to have the rules be well defined because my players are all 3.X/4E experienced and that means pointing to specific paragraphs that contradict each other from time to time. However, I think it's unrealistic to think the developers could possibly write a rule to cover any and every corner case that might arise.

At my table I come as prepared as possible including viewing rules I think might be specifically important for that particular session, lets say a desert adventure that will expose the players to exhaustion. In the actual game when there is a disagreement on how to adjudicate a situation I will usually make a determination of the rule in question, usually this is to the players benefit, and then will look it up after the game. At the start of each session I always review the last session in an episodic format "Last time on Ashes of the Dragon Empire" (picked this up from Chris Perkins), and I also clarify any discussions we had on rules discrepancies.

I do not need or want the developers to pile situational rules and references for every corner case but I do expect there to be salient, user-friendly rules that identify the basic and semi-advanced solutions to situations that might arise. As DM, I also expect to determine the outcome based on context and player intention.

Tl;dr - I like the way 5E defines the rules and I like the agency the players and DM have to work within those rules to have a fun time.

Shadow

2014-09-03, 06:30 AM

The problem is that wizards have gone for this lack of specificity at the same time as heavily pushing public play where your DM may easily differ week to week.

So while one week your character may be able to do something, the next week something key to your build may be ruled as not allowed.

Then perhaps you should consider playing a character instead of playing a build.
As for the OP, I could not agree more. The imaginative aspect is the thing that I have missed most in this game for the past decade and a half or so. Ever since 3e released and the psuedo-mandatory grid play began, th egame has steadily declined.
Now we're poised for another Golden Age of DnD, and I'm ecstatic about it.

Cybris75

2014-09-03, 06:38 AM

As a DM, when the rules are unclear, or when there are no rules that govern a specific situation, I need to make lots of rulings.
I also want to present the players a consistent world and play experience, which means I have to remember or write down the rulings I make.
I can't possibly remember every ruling, so I have to write them down, and organize them so I can find them again later.
Which means I'm essentially writing a rulebook.

But: I am not a game designer. I don't know everything, neither about game mechanics nor about the real world. I've never used a weapon in my life,
never fought a monster, never cast a spell, never picked a lock, never disarmed a trap, never ridden a horse, never worn armor. I've also never
studied game design, never designed role-playing games, never written a book, never balanced abilities or classes or items for the long term.

I want pre-written rules. I don't want to have to think about everything. That's not my job - that's the job of the game designers, which are the
people I pay, by buying their books, for doing that work for me.

As a person, I'm busy with work, life, relationships, stuff. As a DM, I'm busy worldbuilding, acting out NPCs, telling a story, reacting to stuff
the PCs do, balancing the needs of the different players, ruling edge cases the rules can't cover. That's already a lot of work.

I can be the ref, but I don't want to come up with rules all the time. I will apply the rules, but not write them. I don't have the time, the talent,
or the will to come up with rules all the time because the original designers didn't think their stuff throught, or were too lazy to come up with
watertight rules when having years of time, instead of the minutes or seconds I have at the table before gameflow breaks down.

I don't feel empowered by not having rules.
I feel empowered by having rules, because then I can concentrate on all the other stuff that's actually important.

YMMV

Shadow

2014-09-03, 06:41 AM

People like yourself should continue playing 3.x or 4e or PF.
I'm not saying that to be mean. I'm saying it because those systems are better suited to you.
5e is not the game for you.

Grynning

2014-09-03, 06:49 AM

Cybris nails it above. IMO, 5E's rough spots are not strengths as some people are touting them to be - they're just mistakes. Saying that people who dislike mistakes are not "creative" enough to play D&D is pretty elitist and also is accusing people of having fun wrong. Rules need to unite, rather than divide, to borrow a political catchphrase, and to do that they need to be consistent and well-written.
I don't think there has to be a rule for everything. The ability check system covers anything there isn't a skill for just fine, I'm willing to let people wing it and do something the rules don't say they can technically do, etc. That's just good DM'ing. But when we're talking about things here on the forums, or doing OP at a store (which has really taken off lately, for whatever reason, we keep running out of DM's at my store every week) the rules are our only mutual reference point, and when they are muddy, unclear, or clearly in error, that's not a good thing. That's why errata has existed for every edition of D&D going all the way back.
People talk about the good old days of 1st, 2nd, BECMI, etc. all the time, but they also forget that every single printing of the old rules changed several things that were mistakes in the old printings. The internet just wasn't around so people didn't find out as quickly.

Cybris75

2014-09-03, 06:59 AM

People like yourself should continue playing 3.x or 4e or PF.
I'm not saying that to be mean. I'm saying it because those systems are better suited to you.
5e is not the game for you.

Please don't tell me, or people like me, whatever that is supposed to mean, what I should do.
I answered the OP's question, that's all.

This game has a very long history, and older editions haven't aged well, being either too rules-light, too complicated,
too inelegant, too bloated, too imbalanced, or too streamlined. Would someone please solve the simulationist mechanics
once, for real, with a good framework?

Edition wars are silly, but what's even more silly, is having radically different games in the first place,
and slapping the same name on all of them. If I buy the next edition of GURPS, I don't expect it to be totally
incompatible with the last edition. Basic mechanics problems that arise in D&D should have been solved by now.

akaddk

2014-09-03, 07:01 AM

IMO, 5E's rough spots are not strengths as some people are touting them to be - they're just mistakes.

Are they?

Mearls talks specifically about the Stealth rules in an interview where he explained why they made them vague. It wasn't a mistake, it was done very much on purpose. How do you know that something is a mistake and not done on purpose? That assumption is just as elitist and arrogant as the stance you claimed was both.

Bellberith

2014-09-03, 07:02 AM

Cybris75

2014-09-03, 07:05 AM

Shadow

2014-09-03, 07:06 AM

Please don't tell me, or people like me, whatever that is supposed to mean, what I should do.
I answered the OP's question, that's all.

This game has a very long history, and older editions haven't aged well, being either too rules-light, too complicated,
too inelegant, too bloated, too imbalanced, or too streamlined. Would someone please solve the simulationist mechanics
once, for real, with a good framework?

Edition wars are silly, but what's even more silly, is having radically different games in the first place,
and slapping the same name on all of them. If I buy the next edition of GURPS, I don't expect it to be totally
incompatible with the last edition. Basic mechanics problems that arise in D&D should have been solved by now.

People like you, as in people that want a lot of rules laid out for them.
It has nothing to do with edition wars, it has to do with which edition is the right one for you. I thought I made that clear and still you took offense.
So now I no longer care about offending you.

Vowtz

2014-09-03, 07:08 AM

AD&D didn't have a rule for everything. It required imagination. Something that I find lacking in players and DM's these days. I can only hope that 5e invites a new generation of gamers into the fold and that they learn how to be creative rather than textbook researchers. Maybe the tide will eventually turn, but for now it's like a tide of "TELL ME HOW TO PLAY THE GAME!" nonsense.

Ad&d lacked rules for important things (like a fighter trying to climb a wall, only a rogue could do it).

And had terrible rules for other things (thac0, fractioned attack rating).

I also played a lot of Ad&d, it has great nostalgic value, but I won't let it blind me, in term of rules, 3.X is superior by far.

Rules exist to help all players, if rules are ambiguous or insuficient and a DM has to ignore the rules / make his own rules all the time, it means the system is flawed.

Bellberith

2014-09-03, 07:11 AM

People like you, as in people that want a lot of rules laid out for them.
It has nothing to do with edition wars, it has to do with which edition is the right one for you. I thought I made that clear and still you took offense.
So now I no longer care about offending you.

You cared about offending someone but because you accidently offended them you no longer care if you offend them?

#logics

Grynning

2014-09-03, 07:11 AM

Are they?

Mearls talks specifically about the Stealth rules in an interview where he explained why they made them vague. It wasn't a mistake, it was done very much on purpose. How do you know that something is a mistake and not done on purpose? That assumption is just as elitist and arrogant as the stance you claimed was both.

Because Mike Mearls has never been wrong about anything or written bad rules before /eyeroll...
Also, he was talking about how they wanted it to be more situational and common sensed based, which is fine, when you aren't dealing with organized play or pregenerated adventures that assume a certain amount of combat capability on the part of the party, both of which are a huge part of 5th ed. The "stealth rule debate" mainly revolves around Halflings and Wild Elves who have a very specific ability that gives them new circumstances in which they can hide, and which is highly variable in usefulness depending on which DM you're sitting with, or even the same DM's mood (and for the love of Gygax please no one respond on the stealth argument, it's been debated to death in other threads). When one of the goodies you got for deciding to roleplay the iconic Rogue race is either really good or completely useless depending on how the DM interprets the rule - that's a bad rule. If it was done on purpose, that's bad design. Doesn't mean those of us that are able to see that are not capable of enjoying the whole edition, it just means we recognize that it has some bad design elements, much like every other RPG system ever written.

tl;dr - 5th ed is far from perfect and pretending that it's perfect just because "DM's exist" is silly, because DM's exist in pretty much every game and certainly in every other edition of D&D. People saying "you should just play pathfinder if you think the rules should be good" should "just go play 1st ed if you think rules can never be improved and the DM should do everything."

Shadow

2014-09-03, 07:24 AM

If you want a heavy ruleset, then playing a game which has been designed as, and described by said designers as rules light is just idiotic.
That's like trading in your Ford Taurus for a brand new shiny F150 and then complaining that there's no back seat. You had a back seat and you traded it. Maybe you should just go get your Taurus back and you'll be happier.

From the mouth of Mearls regardnig 5e: "Make rulings, not rules."
If you want 783 pages of rules then this isn't the game for you. 3.x, 4e and PF are all better choices.

Grynning

2014-09-03, 07:37 AM

You're just repeating yourself without responding to anything I said. I guess your philosophy is "make statements, not arguments?"

Look, I spent months playtesting this game, months hyping it to people, and several hours of my time every week running organized play for it. I think I can have an expectation that they should fix huge gaps in the rules. In the meantime, I can make rulings. That's not the problem. The problem is that my rulings will not be the same as the rulings as other DM's in the same city or even the same store, and then players will get confused and irritated with this rules set. Everyone is acting like those of us who want the rules clarified are just not good enough to DM or play their precious old school game, and frankly that offends me, and so yeah, I'm not going to just "pack up and go play a different game," I'm going to keep trying to puzzle out the rules vagaries of this one because this is the game that we are playing and that we are talking about.

Saying "play another game" is like this:
If we all bought a new model of Volkswagen, and were on a new model of Volkswagen forum, and it turned out that this new Volkswagen made a funny noise in reverse because of a defective part. People complain about this, and you tell the people who think the manufacturer should replace that part should instead just go buy a different car because having to fix that funny noise yourself with duct-tape and and a socket wrench is part of the new model's charm and they should just appreciate it.

Vowtz

2014-09-03, 07:40 AM

If you want a heavy ruleset, then playing a game which has been designed as, and described by said designers as rules light is just idiotic."

I saw posted in this forum something along these lines, I think most agree:

"Calling everyone who not agree with you an idiot is not a good thing."

Shadow

2014-09-03, 07:42 AM

Grynning

2014-09-03, 07:49 AM

Who cares if your rulings are the same as some other DM's rulings? Every single situaiton is different, requiring individual rulings.
So what if John Q Public makes a different call about whether the halfling can stealth in combat behind a friend but you don't? Who cares if John Q Public Rules that you get advantage on a roll when you make them roll a single die?
Why does that matter? If they're at your table, why does it matter in the least what some other DM would have said?

Because again, the game is heavily focused around a unified experience at organized play and using the pre-published adventures. Also, I really don't understand this idea that vague/bad rules = better role-playing and DM'ing. Having an easy-to-understand rule gives you more time at the the table for fun and RP and less time spent arguing about how something should work.

Also, if you watch that Mearls interview you keep referring to again, he is talking about the rules being intuitive and how happy he was that people were making rulings that were already in line with the rules or the design intent. He was not saying that the DM's should have to make up the rules as they went.

ambartanen

2014-09-03, 07:50 AM

If you want a heavy ruleset, then playing a game which has been designed as, and described by said designers as rules light is just idiotic.
...
If you want 783 pages of rules then this isn't the game for you. 3.x, 4e and PF are all better choices.

The PHB is nearly 300 pages long with a negligible quantity of flavor text and not that many illustrations. That's a lot of rules. The DMG is going to easily double that. Whoever says 5e is anything but rules heavy is wrong.

Edit:

Why does that matter? If they're at your table, why does it matter in the least what some other DM would have said?
Because it means your players don't know how the world operates and what their characters are capable of therefore they cannot effectively roleplay.

hymer

2014-09-03, 07:51 AM

Who cares if your rulings are the same as some other DM's rulings? Every single situaiton is different, requiring individual rulings.
So what if John Q Public makes a different call about whether the halfling can stealth in combat behind a friend but you don't? Who cares if John Q Public Rules that you get advantage on a roll when you make them roll a single die?
Why does that matter? If they're at your table, why does it matter in the least what some other DM would have said?

As a player, I'd care very much. If my halfling PC can hide behind my barbarian friend one day in broad daylight, but can't the night in a crowded street, this is really odd, even if I know the OOG reason is a different DM. If one DM says I can use mutiple attacks with Shillelagh if I have them, and I build my PC around being able to do this, and the next DM says I can't, my character is effectively crippled in combat; a high charisma or wisdom fighter with nothing to show for it. If one DM rules that reach weapons only work while actually attacking, while another that it also applies outside your own turn, this affects hugely whether I should try to get Sentinel + Polearm Master.
And so on and on.

Vhaluus

2014-09-03, 07:55 AM

There is a big difference between ambiguous stealth rules and "can I twin cast Eldritch blast"

The stealth rules are left vague because they are SITUATIONAL and as such requires a dm to kind of play it by feel as appropriate for every situation. How is the lighting, are there obstacles to hide behind, do people suspect you're there. So many things you can't possibly account for it all in a strict RAW sense.

The other is a purely mechanical question that does not have ever changing variables and to argue it being left vague is some triumph of creativity is just BS. It's sloppy and there was no need for it and no benefit to it. All the lack of clarity does is put more burden on the DM because they HAVE to rule on it. If it was written strictly one way or the other the DM can leave it as is or houserule it, he doesn't HAVE to take action.

The less the DM is having to leave storytelling to manage mechanical minutia by making rulings because the books don't provide the necessary information the less immersion is broken.

Shadow

2014-09-03, 07:55 AM

Having an easy-to-understand rule gives you more time at the the table for fun and RP and less time spent arguing about how something should work.

That's where we disagree.
Using common sense and trusting in your DM to be consistently sensible is a very large part of tabletop RPS. He's the storytell. Let him tell the story and play your part as an actor. He's the Srcreenwriter and Director. Don't try to change Act 2 just because you wanted Nancy to run out the front door instead of up the stairs.
When players accept this, and especially when they encourage it, the rules lawyering disappears. When rules lawyering disappears the rulebooks stay closed. When the rulebooks stay closed the game moves faster and more organically than you could possibly imagine. And that's when it really, truly becomes fun.

The PHB is nearly 300 pages long with a negligible quantity of flavor text and not that many illustrations. That's a lot of rules. The DMG is going to easily double that. Whoever says 5e is anything but rules heavy is wrong.
The only rules you need to play are the Basic Rules available online. They are 32 pages.

Because it means your players don't know how the world operates and what their characters are capable of therefore they cannot effectively roleplay.
You misunderstand because you're answering the question with meta.
I'm asking what difference it makes at te tabel. You're in his game. You knowe his rules. You are not in someone else's game, and you don't know that mysterious other person's quarks. So what does it matter if the two rulings would theoretically be different? The only DM that matters is the one running the game you're in.

Slipperychicken

2014-09-03, 07:56 AM

Here's a thought. MAKE IT THE **** UP!

Here's another thought: Don't curse out strangers because they play make-believe differently from you.

akaddk

2014-09-03, 07:56 AM

Because Mike Mearls has never been wrong about anything or written bad rules before /eyeroll...
Also, he was talking about how they wanted it to be more situational and common sensed based, which is fine, when you aren't dealing with organized play or pregenerated adventures that assume a certain amount of combat capability on the part of the party, both of which are a huge part of 5th ed. The "stealth rule debate" mainly revolves around Halflings and Wild Elves who have a very specific ability that gives them new circumstances in which they can hide, and which is highly variable in usefulness depending on which DM you're sitting with, or even the same DM's mood (and for the love of Gygax please no one respond on the stealth argument, it's been debated to death in other threads). When one of the goodies you got for deciding to roleplay the iconic Rogue race is either really good or completely useless depending on how the DM interprets the rule - that's a bad rule. If it was done on purpose, that's bad design. Doesn't mean those of us that are able to see that are not capable of enjoying the whole edition, it just means we recognize that it has some bad design elements, much like every other RPG system ever written.

tl;dr - 5th ed is far from perfect and pretending that it's perfect just because "DM's exist" is silly, because DM's exist in pretty much every game and certainly in every other edition of D&D. People saying "you should just play pathfinder if you think the rules should be good" should "just go play 1st ed if you think rules can never be improved and the DM should do everything."

Strawman arguments, first page. Achievement unlocked!

Cybris75

2014-09-03, 07:58 AM

From the mouth of Mearls regardnig 5e: "Make rulings, not rules."

I don't know what that is supposed to mean. The statement lacks context, and perhaps I'm using the words differently. Let me try to define what I mean:

As a DM, I make rulings about the application of the rules, e.g. "Does rule A apply to this situation?". Note that this is different from: "When rules B and C are in conflict, which one should apply?". If there is a rules conflict, we need another rule to resolve the conflict (plus a good organisation of rules so I can find them).

I don't make the rules. That's not my job. I bought the rules, and I expect them to be complete, and to just work. Making those complete and workable rules is the job of the game designers.

If a game designers stated that their rules were not complete and didn't just work, why would I need those rules at all? Or, for that matter, why would someone write rules like that?
I don't need rules for pretending to be a hero that slays a dragon and frees the princess. But we are not just playing pretend, we are playing a game. Games need complete and working rules within their domain.

I don't expect rules about item crafting in Heroquest. I don't expect rules for growing crops in D&D. But I sure need rules for character options they actually put in the books.

Please note that I'm not dissing 5e here. The topic is relevant to all editions of D&D, which is a game that is in no edition a rules-light freeform RPG.

Vhaluus

2014-09-03, 08:01 AM

That's where we disagree.
Using common sense and trusting in your DM to be consistently sensible is a very large part of tabletop RPS. He's the storytell. Let him tell the story and play your part as an actor. He's the Srcreenwriter and Director. Don't try to change Act 2 just because you wanted Nancy to run out the front door instead of up the stairs.
When players accept this, and especially when they encourage it, the rules lawyering disappears. When rules lawyering disappears the rulebooks stay closed. When the rulebooks stay closed the game moves faster and more organically than you could possibly imagine. And that's when it really, truly becomes fun.

The only rules you need to play are the Basic Rules available online. They are 32 pages.

I couldn't disagree more. It should be the players that are the storytellers.

The DM is there to set the scene, to create the world and to describe it to the players. The players are there to be the storytellers, to make the decisions and drive events.

If a player tackles Nancy because she was about to run out the front door it isn't for the DM to say 'no, that isn't how the story goes', it is for him to describe how the world reacts.

If you take player agency out of a game you might as well play a video game because it's the same thing, the players have the illusion of control but in reality they're just running through the maze the way the designer requires him to.

Grynning

2014-09-03, 08:03 AM

That's where we disagree.
Using common sense and trusting in your DM to be consistently sensible is a very large part of tabletop RPS. He's the storytell. Let him tell the story and play your part as an actor. He's the Srcreenwriter and Director. Don't try to change Act 2 just because you wanted Nancy to run out the front door instead of up the stairs.
When players accept this, and especially when they encourage it, the rules lawyering disappears. When rules lawyering disappears the rulebooks stay closed. When the rulebooks stay closed the game moves faster and more organically than you could possibly imagine. And that's when it really, truly becomes fun.

Because clearly I've been doing it wrong all these years and have never actually had fun in 20+ years of playing D&D. Oh my god...I've wasted so much time, thinking I was having fun when I really WASN'T! WHAT HAVE I DOOOONNNNE?

Seriously dude, you're conflating the rules mistakes in the edition (which do exist, whether you believe it or not) with people just not being able to play the game at all. You seem to think that everyone who doesn't agree with you just throws up their hands and sits at the table paralyzed until they can find an exact rule in the book for every little thing. Of course that's not how the game plays and that is not what my table looks like. I rarely crack the PHB at my OP tables because I have the damn thing practically memorized at this point and I know where the problems are and where I'm going to need to houserule on something. But the fact that I have to houserule basic things like "can you become hidden in combat" or "do you actually have reach with your reach weapon" or "how does class feature X actually work?" means that there are flaws here. Flaws are flaws. They don't just give you bonus feats with very little consequence, that was an optional 3.5 rule.

Vhaluus

2014-09-03, 08:04 AM

Strawman arguments, first page. Achievement unlocked!

I think you'll find your OP is a strawman argument.

"A straw man is a common type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on the misrepresentation of an opponent's argument."

If your OP doesn't fit that I don't know what does.

Bellberith

2014-09-03, 08:12 AM

Here's another thought: Don't curse out strangers because they play make-believe differently from you.

Give this man a medal.

Vowtz

2014-09-03, 08:13 AM

Cybris75

2014-09-03, 08:15 AM

Don't try to change Act 2 just because you wanted Nancy to run out the front door instead of up the stairs.

You are totally ignoring the many many RPG tables out there that tell the story together. The DM doesn't decide everything. If the PCs want to influence Nancy to go the other way they can certainly try in my games.

When rules lawyering disappears the rulebooks stay closed.

I am the DM. I want rules. Because then I, and the players, know how stuff works mechanically. AFAIK D&D has no story-telling rules that anyone could rules-lawyer.

The only rules you need to play are the Basic Rules available online. They are 32 pages.

Yeah, I don't need those rules. I need the ones where it precisely says what the PCs can do in areas that I don't have real-world expertise in (fighting, casting spells, adventuring). I guess I could just hire Indiana Jones or something, but a complete rules book is much cheaper.

The only DM that matters is the one running the game you're in.

If I played pickup games I certainly wouldn't want to relearn what my character is able to do at every table. People do not always have perfect judgement, and the rules help everyone by establishing a baseline.

Vowtz

2014-09-03, 08:20 AM

You are totally ignoring the many many RPG tables out there that tell the story together. The DM doesn't decide everything. If the PCs want to influence Nancy to go the other way they can certainly try in my games.

I am the DM. I want rules. Because then I, and the players, know how stuff works mechanically. AFAIK D&D has no story-telling rules that anyone could rules-lawyer.

Yeah, I don't need those rules. I need the ones where it precisely says what the PCs can do in areas that I don't have real-world expertise in (fighting, casting spells, adventuring). I guess I could just hire Indiana Jones or something, but a complete rules book is much cheaper.

If I played pickup games I certainly wouldn't want to relearn what my character is able to do at every table. People do not always have perfect judgement, and the rules help everyone by establishing a baseline.
Perfect.:smallsmile:

Bellberith

2014-09-03, 08:22 AM

Example of bad rules desing: twinned spell - scorching ray
(There are TWO THREADS on the first page of this forum discussing this)

Player A will play for the first time with DM A.

After 2 hours of roleplay and exploration it's time to fight.

Player A: I cast twinned scorching ray!

DM A: you can't do that because of reason 1, 2 and 3.

Player A: but I always did that with DM B, and everyone over there agrees it works, no one saw a problem, you surprised me with your complaints.

DM A: it's crystal clear by the book, you can't do it.

Player A: but you are allowing player B to use the Sentinel feat in a way that is not written in the book.

DM A: yes, I worship Mike Mearls, and he said all rules should be ignored/twisted if I feel like it.

Player A: but now my character is useless!

DM: yes, so it seems, lol.

If scorching ray, sentinel, and other rules were properly written, situations like that would not happen.

Don't get me wrong, i'm on your side on this whole thing. But that is a bad example because scorching ray can target more than 1 opponent and twinned spell says "when you cast a spell that targets only one creature" unless a DM wants to allow a player to scorching ray all rays on 1 opponent and say "it is only targeting one, therefore it can be twinned in those circumstances" it would TECHNICALLY be correct.

However i do see what you are trying to say and yes there are a few rules like that.

on a side note: if a player actually said his character is useless cause he can't twinned scorching ray then i feel bad for him and his mentality whilst playing the game.

Edit: Freudian slip on the first part with twinned =P

Vhaluus

2014-09-03, 08:24 AM

Don't get me wrong, i'm on your side on this whole thing. But that is a bad example because scorching ray can target more than 1 opponent and twinned spell says "when you cast a spell that targets more than one opponent" unless a DM wants to allow a play to scorching ray all rays on 1 opponent and say "it is only targeting one, therefore it can be twinned in those circumstances" it would TECHNICALLY be correct.

However i do see what you are trying to say and yes there are a few rules like that.

on a side note: if a player actually said his character is useless cause he can't twinned scorching ray then i feel bad for him and his mentality whilst playing the game.

There's an entire other thread going on at the moment debating this exact issue. People on both sides agree it seems fairly ambiguous

Bellberith

2014-09-03, 08:30 AM

There's an entire other thread going on at the moment debating this exact issue. People on both sides agree it seems fairly ambiguous

I edited that, messed up when i quoted twinned spell... i accidently quoted part of scorching ray and part of twinned spell :smallredface:

Mandrake

2014-09-03, 08:35 AM

Shadow

2014-09-03, 08:35 AM

Because you guys need to see this:

From an interview:

Q: Do you feel the OSR Movement influenced you in a way as you designed this new edition?

A: I don’t really think it was a direct influence as in that’s what people are doing with that, so let’s follow that [OSR Movement]. I think it’s more, from my own experience, I think a lot of the Old School Gaming has arisen in a very similar way to how Indie RPGs arose. Because Indie RPGs are like we have an RPG rules and a setting, and your setting is about this and that, but your mechanics aren’t backing that up. So I’ll make up an example, because I don’t want to name a game that some people might really be into. So let’s take a cyberpunk game, and it’s all about the tension between humanity and technology, and you can have a lot of fun writing about it, but then your game mechanics are like a generic system. So on one hand you say your game is about this [cyberpunk], but I don’t see any rules for actually bringing that into play.

And so I think that was what happened in the early 2000s, and I think that the OSR was a similar reaction, for role-playing games… traditional role-playing games as opposed to Indie… have become these giant rules and three or four or five hundred page system, you know. And people see it and say, do you really need all these rules to play? And I think that it [OSR] was a reaction to it.

So like we have the Inspiration rule in D&D… for the Three Pillars. So you can say, what’s D&D about – it’s about Exploration, it’s about Interaction, and it’s about Combat. So you have rules to cover those Three Pillars, and it’s a role-playing game so the Inspiration [rules] encourages roleplaying. And I think it’s the same kinda thing where people are like, do we really need all these rules to game, or can we lean more on the Dungeon Master or the Game Master who is in charge of the game. Why can’t we let that person make more judgment calls, right? Make rulings not rules, right?

Vowtz

2014-09-03, 08:37 AM

There's an entire other thread going on at the moment debating this exact issue. People on both sides agree it seems fairly ambiguous

Yes. In the situation I proposed, I'm with DM A, in spite of him being an a**ho*e, I too would not allow a twinned scorching ray.

But I understand player A's confusion, it's a poorly written rule, and when raw sucks everybody suffer.

I see that some people threat this Mike Meyes (the lead d&d guy, I forgot his real name) like a god, I think he is human.

And as a human is a lot easier to say "use your imagination" than "yes, that rule is bad, I'll fix it".

Grynning

2014-09-03, 08:39 AM

It's not even a matter of whether a rule like the Twinned spell+Scorching Ray or the Halfling stealth thing makes a character substantially better. The characters are still viable with or without those things. Again, that's not the problem.

The problem with bad rules is the degree to which they incite debate. Debate at a table can be bad, and it's going to happen, because D&D players tend to be opinionated and intelligent and quite willing to argue things with a DM if they think they're right. No one likes to be told "no" when it comes to doing something cool in the game, especially by their friend (and most players and DM's are friends and equals). If you have players that are 100% demure and never question your DM rulings, you have some very unusual players.

All rules incite some debate (hence politics, courts of law, this forum in general, etc), but when that debate gets out of control, you need a kind of overall authority to defer to. A constitution, if you will. That's what the basic rules should be, and WotC is the Supreme Court.

Tengu_temp

2014-09-03, 08:43 AM

AD&D didn't have a rule for everything. It required imagination. Something that I find lacking in players and DM's these days.

Every time someone says this, I see it as definite proof that they're paying absolutely no attention to how non-DND RPG players look these days. And many DND ones too.

I should also take a shot, because it looks like a good drinking game.

Grynning

2014-09-03, 08:46 AM

So you have rules to cover those Three Pillars, and it’s a role-playing game so the Inspiration [rules] encourages roleplaying. And I think it’s the same kinda thing where people are like, do we really need all these rules to game, or can we lean more on the Dungeon Master or the Game Master who is in charge of the game. Why can’t we let that person make more judgment calls, right? Make rulings not rules, right?
This quote does not say what you think it is saying. Mearls was saying that they didn't write specific rules for fiddly little things, yes. However, what we're talking about in a lot of these discussions are not fiddly little things. They are combat rules, for the most part, and one of the Three Pillars he mentioned earlier is...Combat. That's a thing he explicitly called out that you *do* need rules for.

Shadow

2014-09-03, 08:51 AM

This quote does not say what you think it is saying. Mearls was saying that they didn't write specific rules for fiddly little things, yes. However, what we're talking about in a lot of these discussions are not fiddly little things. They are combat rules, for the most part, and one of the Three Pillars he mentioned earlier is...Combat. That's a thing he explicitly called out that you *do* need rules for.

And you have them. They gave you the rules. They're simplistic, but they're there. You have a framework to start from. It's up to the DM to take those rules and turn them into rulings.

Shining Wrath

2014-09-03, 08:58 AM

Bellberith

2014-09-03, 09:03 AM

And here I came into this thread expecting it to be a rant *against* 5e - flaws, bonds, ideals. I've seen that ranted as well.

So I guess the conclusion is that no matter what WotC does, someone is going to rant.

This may be a good thing, as it proves people care about the game.

I personally like the background traits..... it encourages people to dig deeper into their character and gives them a platform to RP from. obviously experienced players can build their own... but it is perfect for someone who is either new, or wants to build a quick character.

Merellis

2014-09-03, 09:11 AM

Every time someone says this, I see it as definite proof that they're paying absolutely no attention to how non-DND RPG players look these days. And many DND ones too.

I should also take a shot, because it looks like a good drinking game.

Pretty much this.

I never understood the idea that only older things inspired imagination, it just makes no sense to me. If that were the case, other games, other editions of those games, and even online roleplaying would never happen. Maybe it's just nostalgia for the older days, maybe it's just that some people hate that things change, or maybe some people just don't understand that imagination can happen no matter the game, no matter the rules, and no matter the age.

I find plenty of players and DM's have imagination, because these games take imagination to create a character, to create an enviroment, and to create the basic story you start the players with. I mean, it's not like people suddenly stopped having an imagination because a new game came out, that's just silly. Sillier still, is the idea that only people in the past had imagination.

I mean, it's basically the same argument that the internet, instant messaging, and advances in communication technology ruined the basic conversation. It's such a ridiculous argument because I can hold conversations with people all over the world now without having to write a letter, get on a plane, or hunt down a random phone number.

If anything, the new editions, games, and increases in availability have increased the odds of a fun game with imaginitive concepts. Why? Because there are more people playing it than before, more DM's coming up with ideas, more players creating characters to dive in with.

Just because people had fun with their imaginations before, doesn't mean the ones that come after can't have fun with their imaginations.

Shining Wrath

2014-09-03, 09:19 AM

I personally like the background traits..... it encourages people to dig deeper into their character and gives them a platform to RP from. obviously experienced players can build their own... but it is perfect for someone who is either new, or wants to build a quick character.

I'm working on a 5e world, and one of my first rules as a DM will be "Roll on the tables to get ideals / flaws / bonds and I will tear up your character sheet and laugh as I do it". For a DM to use when pulling together a quick NPC they're fine, but I'd want my players to put some effort into their character.

OK, so I won't tear up character sheets. Poetic license & all that. What I'll probably do is tell people that if they can write a good story tying together their character's race, class, background, ideal, bond, flaw, & alignment so that everything makes sense as a cohesive whole, they shall be rewarded. Such as starting play with an inspiration point, or getting to pick one more skill to have proficiency in.

Shadow

2014-09-03, 09:19 AM

Just because people had fun with their imaginations before, doesn't mean the ones that come after can't have fun with their imaginations.

That's not what we're saying.
We're saying that the more rules were introduced, the more players looked only to those rules for what their characters could do. Prior to rules about every single thing you could imagine, players described what their characters were doing, and the sky was the limit. And the descriptions were exciting. And the creativity was amazing. You'd hear the group's rogue describe how he "climbed onto the bannister, jumping off to catch the chandelier, swinging from the chandelier and deftly flipping to the group behind the guard to deliver a backstab."
It was awesome.
After the rules upon rules upon rules appeared, you'd hear the rogue say "Is the railing difficult terrain? No? OK, I move 6 squares and attack."
It sucked.

Merellis

2014-09-03, 09:28 AM

Weird, I never run into that.

I run into people describing their actions and diving into the fun, while also putting a spoilers box to say what that meant mechanically for the purpose of clarity. I play in games where people are always working in-character with silly ideas and awe-inspiring action. In fact, I've never run into a player or DM who describes it in the way you have except for if they just can't make it clear what they're doing.

Which isn't a failure towards their skills as an RPer or use of imagination, but because some people just mix words up and the rest of us need some damn explanation.

Maybe you're just playing with people who don't RP that well in the first place and need some help in that regard? I certainly wouldn't say that rules-light and rules-heavy changes the ability to RP, only the skill of an RPer affects what the player will say.

Shadow

2014-09-03, 09:30 AM

Weird, I never run into that.

I run into people describing their actions and diving into the fun, while also putting a spoilers box ....

We're not talking about PbP here, but at a table. Obviously a PbP game is going to be descriptive, because that's the nature of a PbP game.

Grynning

2014-09-03, 09:31 AM

That's not what we're saying.
We're saying that the more rules were introduced, the more players looked only to those rules for what their characters could do. Prior to rules about every single thing you could imagine, players described what their characters were doing, and the sky was the limit. And the descriptions were exciting. And the creativity was amazing. You'd hear the group's rogue describe how he "climbed onto the bannister, jumping off to catch the chandelier, swinging from the chandelier and deftly flipping to the group behind the guard to deliver a backstab."
It was awesome.
After the rules upon rules upon rules appeared, you'd hear the rogue say "Is the railing difficult terrain? No? OK, I move 6 squares and attack."
It sucked.

The exact situation you describe still exists in 5E, as it has pretty specific movement rules just like 3rd ed did, including difficult terrain and jump checks etc. Just because it isn't explicitly grid based doesn't mean it doesn't have the same limitations.
No one on the "pro-rules" side of the debate is saying you can't do cool things. They're saying that when a specific cool thing that is high-fiat (like casting a spell or using a race or class feature) occurs, it should be clear as to how much that can impact the game and not just lazily written with the excuse that "the DM can rule it."
Like it or not, D&D is often of a game of numbers (as are many other fun games). Players and monsters have a specific number of hit points, specific save DC's, Armor Classes, hit bonuses, etc. Things that can affect these numbers need rules, otherwise things can get weird when you try to use them. That is my complaint with the edition. Advantage, while being a smooth mechanic overall, still affects the numbers, and so I have to be judicious as to where and when it applies to players, for instance, like with the halfling peekaboo problem.
If you don't acknowledge that D&D rules have to play at least some role in how you play the game, I think you might be the one who needs to switch systems.

Merellis

2014-09-03, 09:37 AM

We're not talking about PbP here, but at a table. Obviously a PbP game is going to be descriptive, because that's the nature of a PbP game.

Oh, sorry I wasn't clear but this is both on a website and in non-pbp games. I just never run into that unless the person describing the action isn't being clear enough, and even then it shows they're trying.

Mr.Moron

2014-09-03, 09:45 AM

I like the 5e approach as I've seen it so far. It provides a simple basic and straightforward framework: (Dis)Advantage, d20 Rolls, Proficiency Bonus with 1/2 and 2x.

Then it organizes and provides rules for the most common scenarios, that all follow similar templates, terminology. This lets me provided for specific or unusual cases really easily.

For example lets say the PCs are trying to figure out what is the best gift to bring with to a meeting with an important NPC. The players themselves are kind of stuck, so they want to make a check to determine if anything their PCs have seen or heard might have given them an idea.

I could say, that's an Intelligence check. You'll need to get a 9 to get a basic idea. If you get a 14 or higher, you'll think of something that's sure to knock his socks off.

Player A: You're a noble so take your proficiency bonus since you've done a lot of this kind of gift giving. However you're a foreigner and not familiar with local customs so it's at disadvantage:
Player B: Since your background says you were spent time as am errand runner for the high-society types you've probably picked up on a thing or two. You can add 1/2 your proficiency bonus.
Player C: Just make a normal check. You're from around here but have no connections to high society.
Player D, E: You guys are both foreigners so you'll need to make the check with disadvantage.

hawklost

2014-09-03, 09:53 AM

I don't know what that is supposed to mean. The statement lacks context, and perhaps I'm using the words differently. Let me try to define what I mean:

As a DM, I make rulings about the application of the rules, e.g. "Does rule A apply to this situation?". Note that this is different from: "When rules B and C are in conflict, which one should apply?". If there is a rules conflict, we need another rule to resolve the conflict (plus a good organisation of rules so I can find them).

I don't make the rules. That's not my job. I bought the rules, and I expect them to be complete, and to just work. Making those complete and workable rules is the job of the game designers.
And the Rules are complete. All the rules that are part of the game at this time are right there in the books you have purchased. There are no other rules at this time in the game. You are demanding a fully finished product that will not change at all. The only time that will occur is when the product is dead and no longer getting new content. Otherwise, use the rules as they are and make rulings on them as a DM. Make up your own mind instead of expecting someone else to make it for you.

If a game designers stated that their rules were not complete and didn't just work, why would I need those rules at all? Or, for that matter, why would someone write rules like that?
"We are releasing the DMG at this later date (after we finish editing it) and after that we will add in new books which we have not completed at this time over the following years"..... yup, sounds like they haven't completed all the rules by that claim right now since they plan on releasing new content which will change the rules. They also probably plan on making errata's to again... change the rules.

I don't need rules for pretending to be a hero that slays a dragon and frees the princess. But we are not just playing pretend, we are playing a game. Games need complete and working rules within their domain.
Yes, and the biggest rule in the TTRPG that you have is.... The DM makes the story up and is final arbitrator on everything. Not the books, not Mearls, not the players, the DM. The game gave complete rules by making that. Everything else is just suggestions on how the DM might rule.

I don't expect rules about item crafting in Heroquest. I don't expect rules for growing crops in D&D. But I sure need rules for character options they actually put in the books.

Please note that I'm not dissing 5e here. The topic is relevant to all editions of D&D, which is a game that is in no edition a rules-light freeform RPG.

------------------ Not directed at the poster I responded too--------------------
Personally, I think the biggest failing of Wizards was not the rules or how they are releasing the books, or even the way they marketed it. I think the biggest failure of DnD 5e was the fundamental assumption from the Developers that people wanted an open tabletop game instead of a computer game played on the table top

Grynning

2014-09-03, 10:03 AM

------------------ Not directed at the poster I responded too--------------------
Personally, I think the biggest failing of Wizards was not the rules or how they are releasing the books, or even the way they marketed it. I think the biggest failure of DnD 5e was the fundamental assumption from the Developers that people wanted an open tabletop game instead of a computer game played on the table top

That statement doesn't make any sense. Just because the rules on how a spell works should be easily decoded doesn't make TTRP into a video game all of a sudden. You still have unparalleled freedom in a table top game compared to any video game out there, and that's why we enjoy them. However, you can still have well-structured rules that give specifics for certain things. D&D has always been a rules-heavy system and the sheer number of different abilities and attacks means that there are going to be cases where you need errata. If you want a totally open-ended game that is mostly description based, things like FATE exist for that. Not saying you should or shouldn't play FATE, it's a good game, just saying you shouldn't expect people to play D&D like that game.

hawklost

2014-09-03, 10:11 AM

That statement doesn't make any sense. Just because the rules on how a spell works should be easily decoded doesn't make TTRP into a video game all of a sudden. You still have unparalleled freedom in a table top game compared to any video game out there, and that's why we enjoy them. However, you can still have well-structured rules that give specifics for certain things. D&D has always been a rules-heavy system and the sheer number of different abilities and attacks means that there are going to be cases where you need errata. If you want a totally open-ended game that is mostly description based, things like FATE exist for that. Not saying you should or shouldn't play FATE, it's a good game, just saying you shouldn't expect people to play D&D like that game.
Definition: 'Laws' in this case indicate immutable rules in the game (consider something like the Laws of Physics, they don't change between people).

A Video Game, not matter the kind, must have every single one of its rules laid out and programmed in. Even games like Neverwinter, which allowed someone to play as a DM effectively, required all the rules to be inputted into a system for people to be able to play it. The Only variables are the world that you are in, but not the 'Laws' of the world.

That is what I am saying people desire now. You don't want to make up your own rulings because you feel it would be unfair if the DM changed his mind or you switched DMs. You fear your idea might not be as viable because something you decided with one group is not valid with another.

I, and it seems many others on this forum desire and enjoy a game where the 'Laws' are the same with one DM, but that if a different DM came into play, we could have completely different 'Laws' in a general DnD universe. This allows me to play 2+ games without being required to pay double the amount. It all depends on the people I play with and the world we are trying to create.

Grynning

2014-09-03, 10:16 AM

I have never said individual GM's can't make their own rules. I houserule things all the time in my home games and will sometimes make a system near unrecognizable if it suits me. What I've been saying this whole time is that house-rules should not be required, which is the problem with the ambiguous rules.
Not everyone wants to spend hours intricately crafting their own rules or adventures and just want to pick up a pre-published module and go. I see this type of player a lot working on the retail end. Not everyone is comfortable in the GM chair and honestly the biggest problem with the hobby is that it requires so much effort from the GM that hardly anyone wants to take on that role. That's why organized play has become so popular.

Shadow

2014-09-03, 10:21 AM

But that's the whole thing. No one wants to sit and spend hours intricately crafting their own rules. Everyone wants to jump right in.
So do it. There's no need for intricate rules. You have a framework, and you have judgement calls. There's no need for more. Make the calls on the fly as the situation demands.
You guys are going on about how creativity remains, but you can't be bothered to be creative enough to make a judgement call on the fly?

ambartanen

2014-09-03, 10:26 AM

That is what I am saying people desire now. You don't want to make up your own rulings because you feel it would be unfair if the DM changed his mind or you switched DMs. You fear your idea might not be as viable because something you decided with one group is not valid with another.

I, and it seems many others on this forum desire and enjoy a game where the 'Laws' are the same with one DM, but that if a different DM came into play, we could have completely different 'Laws' in a general DnD universe. This allows me to play 2+ games without being required to pay double the amount. It all depends on the people I play with and the world we are trying to create.

That strikes me as an absurd statement. The current rules allow nothing of the sort, they just create some annoying minutae without explaining how they work and then leave the players to deal with finding a way to make them work. The halfling racial ability can vary in power to nearly useless (can never be used in combat) to quite powerful (halfling rogues get advantage on almost every single attack) depending on how the DM plays it. Playing with two DMs that fall on the extremes of that spectrum doesn't reflect their decisions to create two different worlds where halflings are extremely sneaky in one and not particularly good at hiding in another, it almost certainly represents a momentary decision that was forced on the DM out of nowhere. Having this kind of "control" in no way improves roleplaying or empowers the DM.

Additionally, as a player, if I made a halfling rogue character for a game with a DM I don't know, I wouldn't know in advance how stealthy my character is which will automatically translate to my character not knowing it which totally breaks immersion. So most games will either start with a list of houserules put out by the DM (who is now responsible for creating them, remembering them, organizing them and distributing them to players) or have a bunch of game flow breaking discussions in the middle of fights and other important encounters about how the world works.

Not that all experienced 3e DMs I've played with didn't have that list anyway but they chose to make it instead of being forced to do so by omissions in the system.

Mr.Moron

2014-09-03, 10:34 AM

Additionally, as a player, if I made a halfling rogue character for a game with a DM I don't know, I wouldn't know in advance how stealthy my character is which will automatically translate to my character not knowing it which totally breaks immersion. So most games will either start with a list of houserules put out by the DM (who is now responsible for creating them, remembering them, organizing them and distributing them to players) or have a bunch of game flow breaking discussions in the middle of fights and other important encounters about how the world works.

If you're an advanced enough player to be having this discussion, on this forum, you're an advanced enough player to know this is a point of ambiguity. Since you're aware of it, ask before it becomes an issue.

Even if this wasn't the case this shouldn't be a big issue. When the DM makes a ruling accept it. If you're going to have a disruptive argument during an involved part of the game (like combat), you're being just that: Disruptive, you are being a disruptive player.

If the GM says you can't hide, you can't hide. There is no discussion until it isn't disruptive and only then to the extent they are willing to be open to it. Like if the book says "Fireball deals 8d6 damage" and the GM goes "No. It only deals 2d3 because I say so"... that's the ruling. If you don't like the GMs rulings (which is totally fair in the case of that ****ty fireball re-write) don't play under that GM, just don't go spoiling the moment for everybody out of need to prove your point.

Cybris75

2014-09-03, 10:37 AM

And the Rules are complete. All the rules that are part of the game at this time are right there in the books you have purchased. There are no other rules at this time in the game.

The rules are incomplete because they don't handle some edge cases (e.g. twinned scorching rays and halfings hiding in combat). In a video game, those would be bugs, and need fixing.

You are demanding a fully finished product that will not change at all.

And you don't expect a fully finished product? Is D&D in beta now? Would you buy a beta?
Well, I expect a polished released version, and later, errata (because nobody is perfect and accidental mistakes always happen).
Also, the game is supposed to be modular, so of course there will be additions and changes.

Make up your own mind instead of expecting someone else to make it for you.

Then, pray tell, what do I need the rules for, if I have to make up my own rules anyway? What am I paying WotC for?

"We are releasing the DMG at this later date (after we finish editing it) and after that we will add in new books which we have not completed at this time over the following years"..... yup, sounds like they haven't completed all the rules by that claim right now since they plan on releasing new content which will change the rules. They also probably plan on making errata's to again... change the rules.

I don't demand rules on how to run the whole universe. I expect the existing rules to be able to interact with all the other existing rules without having to make up houserules.
Errata (in your video game analogy: patches) are good, expected, and necessary. They fix mistakes in the rules, so I don't have to.
As to the other books: a modular system is good, because it reduces interdependence between rules and makes containment of mistakes easier. I like modularity.

Yes, and the biggest rule in the TTRPG that you have is.... The DM makes the story up and is final arbitrator on everything. Not the books, not Mearls, not the players, the DM. The game gave complete rules by making that. Everything else is just suggestions on how the DM might rule.

I don't need suggestions on rulings, I need hard facts. I am the DM, and I don't need more work than I already have. I need all the support I can get.

------------------ Not directed at the poster I responded too--------------------
Personally, I think the biggest failing of Wizards was not the rules or how they are releasing the books, or even the way they marketed it.

Everything I said applies to all editions of D&D, not just 5e. The DM needs less work, not more.
Well, while we I have no idea what is supposed to be wrong with the marketing or release schedule or whatnot. I'm excited for a new edition of D&D, and really like some stuff in 5e (e.g. the epic and clever way vancian casting was revamped). I just want it to be a bit more polished.

I think the biggest failure of DnD 5e was the fundamental assumption from the Developers that people wanted an open tabletop game instead of a computer game played on the table top
I don't know what you want to say with that. I don't follow flowcharts or pick-your-own-adventure books while playing the game or something.

Tengu_temp

2014-09-03, 10:40 AM

Cybris75

2014-09-03, 10:44 AM

You guys are going on about how creativity remains, but you can't be bothered to be creative enough to make a judgement call on the fly?

Making judgement calls about the hidings rules is not creative. It's unnecessary work. Creating NPCs, worldbuilding, designing story hooks and quests, making acting decisions about NPCs, naming people, towns, roads, mountains - all that is creative. I don't care about fixing the rules, I care about how that stuff affects my gameflow.

Also, as I said above, I am not a game designer. I have no idea how ruling about halflings hiding will affect the game in the long run. I don't want to think about that in addition to all the really creative stuff I have to do.

Shadow

2014-09-03, 10:48 AM

I know what I'm talking about, being one of them.

Play theater of the mind style instead of grid play. Grid play and the overabundance of rules that came with the edition that featured it is what began the tactical play where once it was much more free form.
The return to TotM style for 5e (which is exactly the reason for the grid players' confusion over reach weapons' descriptions.... because leaving a threatened square cannot happen in TotM because squares don't exist) will bring the game back to what it was before it was effectively ruined in my mind. Which was before you ever started playing (or right around that time anyway)

So try TotM and you'll find it's a completely different game than anything you've seen from DnD since you started playing RPGs.
The tactical players are not happy with the rules as they exist right now. The more traditional old school style players are extremely happy (as I think you'll be from your self description).

Cybris75

2014-09-03, 10:50 AM

If you're an advanced enough player to be having this discussion, on this forum, you're an advanced enough player to know this is a point of ambiguity. Since you're aware of it, ask before it becomes an issue.

IMO the ambiguity is totally unnecessary, and should be fixed in the errata. Some people are saying that the ambiguity is fine, and I'm saying that it's not, because it creates more work for the DM, and impacts the game negatively when a DM makes an unwise on-the-fly decision. DMs make mistakes, too.

If you don't like the GMs rulings (which is totally fair in the case of that ****ty fireball re-write) don't play under that GM, just don't go spoiling the moment for everybody out of need to prove your point.

Not everyone has the luxury of shopping around for GMs.
And why is asking for unambiguous rules spoiling anything for anyone?

obryn

2014-09-03, 10:53 AM

AD&D didn't have a rule for everything. It required imagination.
Erm. Have you actually read AD&D? The 1e DMG is awash in crufty rules minutiae. Have you seen the 1e combat flowchart?

I love AD&D, but rules light it ain't. I think people remember it differently because it is so rules-heavy and at times incomprehensible, everyone (including me) mostly used the D&D rules (Holmes Basic, OD&D, or later Moldvay or Mentzer Basic) or went almost systemless while running the game, and mostly used AD&D as a supplement for spells, classes & races.

Are they?

Mearls talks specifically about the Stealth rules in an interview where he explained why they made them vague. It wasn't a mistake, it was done very much on purpose. How do you know that something is a mistake and not done on purpose? That assumption is just as elitist and arrogant as the stance you claimed was both.
I sometimes wonder if Mearls has a different PHB than the rest of us. There's quite a lot of words in that sidebar on p. 177 about Hiding, which I wouldn't exactly call an attempt at "purposefully vague" rules. :smallwink:

Shining Wrath

2014-09-03, 10:55 AM

As a basic comment:

Anyone who knows a rule can be read in more than one way, and does not clarify which way their DM reads that rule, and then builds their entire PC around one reading of that rule, deserves what they get - 5e, 3.5e, AD&D, Fate, Tunnels & Trolls, whatever you're doing.

90% of these oh-so-critical deficiencies in 5e can be taken care of with half an hour's discussion during Session 0 of the campaign, or an email. Or a few texts.

Shadow

2014-09-03, 10:56 AM

I sometimes wonder if Mearls has a different PHB than the rest of us. There's quite a lot of words in that sidebar on p. 177 about Hiding, which I wouldn't exactly call an attempt at "purposefully vague" rules. :smallwink:

I guess I have to link this (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/the-escapist-on-the-road/9672-Interview-with-Dungeons-and-Dragons-Lead-Designer-Mike-Mearls) once again.
Go to around 5 minutes or so for design philosophy, and around 10:45 for a discussion specifically about stealth.

And note (for Grynn and others) that the question isn't about stealth. The question is about examples of "an increased trend of dungeon master freedom", wherein Mike uses stealth as an example of the philosophy.

rlc

2014-09-03, 10:56 AM

.

I'd rather just have you hold my hand.

Cybris75

2014-09-03, 10:58 AM

Which was before you ever started playing (or right around that time anyway)

Wow, your age gives you authority? On what planet? I don't see how either of your ages makes a difference here.

So try TotM and you'll find it's a completely different game than anything you've seen from DnD since you started playing RPGs.
The tactical players are not happy with the rules as they exist right now. The more traditional old school style players are extremely happy (as I think you'll be from your self description).

TotM is a stylistic choice, and it can exist side-by-side with grid-based combat in the same game. My group, for example, uses both, each one when it is appropriate.

So, I guess you don't like "tactical players"? Could you elaborate on what you mean by that?

hachface

2014-09-03, 11:01 AM

The tactical players are not happy with the rules as they exist right now. The more traditional old school style players are extremely happy (as I think you'll be from your self description).

This is the part where I feel obliged to point out that playing D&D with tactical miniatures is, in fact, "old school." Miniatures were assumed in the earliest editions and support for them continued into 2e. You can see this very clearly in 1st edition, where monster and character movement rates are expressed in inches -- the number of inches their minis can move on a tactical playing surface. The Combat & Tactics supplement for 2nd edition provided a set of tactical rules that were actually much more detailed and complex than the subsequent rules sets of 3.x and 4e.

3.5 merely revived a feature that had temporarily fallen from prominence. And, by the way, I am currently playing 5th edition with minis, which is a style that the rules clearly support, thanks to every published measurement being divisible by 5 (the number of feet represented in a battlemat's square inch).

Cybris75

2014-09-03, 11:02 AM

Anyone who knows a rule can be read in more than one way, and does not clarify which way their DM reads that rule, and then builds their entire PC around one reading of that rule, deserves what they get - 5e, 3.5e, AD&D, Fate, Tunnels & Trolls, whatever you're doing.

And what if you don't know that there is ambiguity and discover at the table that the DM has a different reading? Ambiguity is bad. Mearls thinks so as well, by the way: he is proud that people intuitively assume the correct rules when they don't know them and look them up. Which I think is a success of design.

Shadow

2014-09-03, 11:04 AM

3.5 merely revived a feature that had temporarily fallen from prominence.

And it fell from prominence because no one was using it, rules or not. But them 3.x basically made it mandatory by their ruleset.

Grynning

2014-09-03, 11:10 AM

"increased game master freedom" should not mean "increased game master headache" is all I've been saying. The Game Master could easily get stuck in a logic knot if he doesn't have a clear rule to base their decision on, and may not be comfortable making a call on the fly. I've played with rules lawyer DM's, it happens. Also, you still aren't considering that a lot of 5E's market is casual players or people that will never play or DM outside of organized play. If they find a rule that doesn't make sense, one of two things will happen. They will assume they've found an exploit and either use it or ban it, depending on their style, or they will get annoyed with the game. That is the purpose of having well-constructed rules, is to avoid those situations.

Shadow

2014-09-03, 11:13 AM

Tengu_temp

2014-09-03, 11:17 AM

Play theater of the mind style instead of grid play. Grid play and the overabundance of rules that came with the edition that featured it is what began the tactical play where once it was much more free form.
The return to TotM style for 5e (which is exactly the reason for the grid players' confusion over reach weapons' descriptions.... because leaving a threatened square cannot happen in TotM because squares don't exist) will bring the game back to what it was before it was effectively ruined in my mind. Which was before you ever started playing (or right around that time anyway)

So try TotM and you'll find it's a completely different game than anything you've seen from DnD since you started playing RPGs.
The tactical players are not happy with the rules as they exist right now. The more traditional old school style players are extremely happy (as I think you'll be from your self description).

I said I don't really play DND, didn't I?

And I should point out that I think AD&D is as unfitting towards a roleplay-heavy, creativity-heavy gaming style as 3e/4e. Probably even more, because it's a very lethal system and one where character creation is often heavily randomized, while leaving you little room for customization, and one where you need people to fill specific party roles if you don't want the game to end in a disaster. And all of those are very gamist elements that are bad for roleplaying.

Vowtz

2014-09-03, 11:18 AM

Someone need to give Mike Mearls job to this guy!!

The rules are incomplete because they don't handle some edge cases (e.g. twinned scorching rays and halfings hiding in combat). In a video game, those would be bugs, and need fixing.

And you don't expect a fully finished product? Is D&D in beta now? Would you buy a beta?
Well, I expect a polished released version, and later, errata (because nobody is perfect and accidental mistakes always happen).
Also, the game is supposed to be modular, so of course there will be additions and changes.

Then, pray tell, what do I need the rules for, if I have to make up my own rules anyway? What am I paying WotC for?

I don't demand rules on how to run the whole universe. I expect the existing rules to be able to interact with all the other existing rules without having to make up houserules.
Errata (in your video game analogy: patches) are good, expected, and necessary. They fix mistakes in the rules, so I don't have to.
As to the other books: a modular system is good, because it reduces interdependence between rules and makes containment of mistakes easier. I like modularity.

I don't need suggestions on rulings, I need hard facts. I am the DM, and I don't need more work than I already have. I need all the support I can get.

Everything I said applies to all editions of D&D, not just 5e. The DM needs less work, not more.
Well, while we I have no idea what is supposed to be wrong with the marketing or release schedule or whatnot. I'm excited for a new edition of D&D, and really like some stuff in 5e (e.g. the epic and clever way vancian casting was revamped). I just want it to be a bit more polished.

I don't know what you want to say with that. I don't follow flowcharts or pick-your-own-adventure books while playing the game or something.

IMO the ambiguity is totally unnecessary, and should be fixed in the errata. Some people are saying that the ambiguity is fine, and I'm saying that it's not, because it creates more work for the DM, and impacts the game negatively when a DM makes an unwise on-the-fly decision. DMs make mistakes, too.

Making judgement calls about the hidings rules is not creative. It's unnecessary work. Creating NPCs, worldbuilding, designing story hooks and quests, making acting decisions about NPCs, naming people, towns, roads, mountains - all that is creative. I don't care about fixing the rules, I care about how that stuff affects my gameflow.

Also, as I said above, I am not a game designer. I have no idea how ruling about halflings hiding will affect the game in the long run. I don't want to think about that in addition to all the really creative stuff I have to do.

Not everyone has the luxury of shopping around for GMs.
And why is asking for unambiguous rules spoiling anything for anyone?

hachface

2014-09-03, 11:24 AM

And it fell from prominence because no one was using it, rules or not. But them 3.x basically made it mandatory by their ruleset.

Speak for yourself. Even in the good 'ol days of 2e, my group was always using some kind of marker to visualize combat. We were too young and broke to have nice sets of minis, but we used whatever was at hand: graph paper, M&Ms, spare dice, anything. It worked very well, and certainly did not detract from our role-playing -- in fact, I'm sure it enhanced it.

ambartanen

2014-09-03, 11:30 AM

And it fell from prominence because no one was using it, rules or not. But them 3.x basically made it mandatory by their ruleset.

Made it mandatory? I started playing DnD in 2001 shortly before 3.5 came out (or before it made it to my country anyway which it might have taken a while to do) and we played for months before we even bothered to make a battle grid and miniatures. I don't see what TotM has to do with editions or this discussion since you are free to use it or not in any edition (although making an interesting 4e encounter without a grid is quite a challenge). I played for a long time and still mostly play in games where taking out the battle grid is a per encounter decision made by the DM and usually only happens in encounters with too many different participants or particularly complex surroundings. At any rate, 5e does nothing to make grids any more or less necessary than they were in 3e.

Overall, you make it seem like the people you play with stick very close to RAW and only get to do interesting or creative stuff when something isn't specifically covered by the rules. That's probably not an accurate impression and we are probably mostly arguing semantics. The way I play the storyteller always gets to choose whether to apply the system's rules or a modified version of them or completely ignore them for a particular situation. As both a storyteller and a player, I like having specific rules so I can look up how something would work in the general case without assuming that it is how it will always happen in the game. Now, it is unavoidable that each group will build up some set of house rules that modify the system to better reflect their play style but the fewer they are and the later they have to come, the easier it is for new players to join. That is, after all, the only main draw of DnD- other people are familiar with it.

As for creativity, immersion and descriptiveness they are much better fostered by the other players and active game mechanics than through a deliberate omission of rules. The already mentioned FATE is a great example of that. 13th Age and Exalted also have good mechanics for it.

hachface

2014-09-03, 11:31 AM

Shining Wrath

2014-09-03, 11:41 AM

And what if you don't know that there is ambiguity and discover at the table that the DM has a different reading? Ambiguity is bad. Mearls thinks so as well, by the way: he is proud that people intuitively assume the correct rules when they don't know them and look them up. Which I think is a success of design.

If the PHB were 5,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 pages long, ambiguity would be possible, because some players / DMs are ... uh ... comprehension challenged. So before you base your PC around an idea, you talk to the DM about the idea.

I think every campaign should feature a Session 0 where the players and the DM discuss the campaign and the characters before a single die is rolled or a single NPC speaks. It saves so much heatache and arguing and tomes hurled as weapons.

Grynning

2014-09-03, 11:42 AM

I completelty understand that this is your opinion. I completely understand that there are other gamers with the same mindset.
The designers have stated that feedback via surveys (not forumites, because everyone knows that the internet is where people go to complain about anything at all to anyone that will read it) about the looser rulset has been overwhelmingly positive, so don't get your hopes up about some huge rulebook coming anytime soon.
People on forums are the vocal minority. But their metrics tell them that players are happy with the leaner rules.

I agree that people on forums are the minority. They are the minority that obsesses about the hobby and is intimately familiar with RPG's and systems and the various factors that would go into making a ruling.
I am not talking about forumites.
I am talking about the 50+ people that have bought D&D from me and the 20-odd of them that show up for organized play at my store. Most of them want something easy. Ambiguous rules are not inherently easy for a lot of people...they can make things more difficult and turn people off to the game. I was saying that OP is popular because people do not want to bother DM'ing for the game because they have experienced rules issues and don't want to have to be the person making that call.
I'm not saying the game needs to have tons of micro rules. I'm not saying it even needs a lot of rules...what I'm saying is that the rules they put in (which they did put in a lot of) should be clear and easy to understand. If they want things ruled on the fly, they shouldn't put in specific abilities that tell the player and the DM it should work a certain way but then make it confusing.
Going back to the Lightfoot Halfling Hidey-thing - If the ability had the simple clause "this ability can be used in combat" or the hide rules were a bit different, there wouldn't be dozens of pages here with everyone having different interpretations of it, instead we'd all grok that rule and be happy with it. If it wasn't there at all but instead there was a general rule that said "Small creatures may be able to hide behind larger ones in combat at the discretion of the DM," we'd all get that too, but if that was the intention, they shouldn't have made that same general rule a feature of the Lightfoot Halfling race.

obryn

2014-09-03, 11:49 AM

Play theater of the mind style instead of grid play. Grid play and the overabundance of rules that came with the edition that featured it is what began the tactical play where once it was much more free form.
The return to TotM style for 5e (which is exactly the reason for the grid players' confusion over reach weapons' descriptions.... because leaving a threatened square cannot happen in TotM because squares don't exist) will bring the game back to what it was before it was effectively ruined in my mind. Which was before you ever started playing (or right around that time anyway)

So try TotM and you'll find it's a completely different game than anything you've seen from DnD since you started playing RPGs.
The tactical players are not happy with the rules as they exist right now. The more traditional old school style players are extremely happy (as I think you'll be from your self description).
I grew up playing gridless, mostly. I started using a grid in 3e a little, and then once 3.5 hit it was basically mandatory. I still use one today for 4e. I run gridless for actual rules-light games such as Dungeon World, but for a tactically-dense game like D&D, where the rules reference areas, distances, and reaches left and right, it's pretty bad.

D&D 5e isn't a theater of the mind game. It isn't written as one. Everything's written with a grid in mind, and every combat rule assumes that if you're not using a real grid, you're imagining one. If you want to see a D&Dish game written for Theater of the Mind combat, look at 13th Age or Dungeon World. If you can go further afield, Fate Core's zones work very well.

hawklost

2014-09-03, 11:57 AM

Leaving blank spaces for the DM to fill in can be a wonderful thing. Here are examples of the kind of things that, as a DM, I want to remain up to me:

What do the player characters need to do to destroy the venomous Talisman of Aroxes, god of poison and disease?
If a player character goes back in time and meets her younger self, does that create an extraplanar phenomenon of some kind?
Just how low can the PCs haggle down the desert merchant Abu-Thamar?

I do not want to make rulings on the core system. That just gets in the way of making the interesting decisions.

You don't want to make a decision on whether Twinning works on a spell or not if the spell is used in a certain way?
You don't want to make a decision on whether a person can brace a door with a sword to lock it down or what DC that might be?
You don't want to make a decision on whether alignments are used in your game or not?
You don't want to make a decision on whether your players get magical items and when?
You don't want to make a decision on whether Polymorph works one way or another?
You don't want to make a decision on whether using a spell and a feat and deciding which is more specific?
You don't want to make a decision on whether a Druid wild shape can work infinitely to give infinite hp?
You don't want to make a decision on whether a person must make a DC check and when?

So if Wizards made these decisions for you and wrote them out in the book, would you just take them as is. Or, would you look at their rulings and then decide to use the rule or modify it based on your own ideas of how the game should be run?

Are you wanting rules because you feel you must use them or are you wanting rules so that if you don't like them you can reject them and change them to your own ideas?

akaddk

2014-09-03, 05:04 PM

Here's a good example of what I mean by players who seem to need to be told exactly how to do something:

http://community.wizards.com/forum/rules-questions/threads/4136261

Any ambiguity whatsoever seems to put such people into a tizzy.

akaddk

2014-09-03, 05:21 PM

I'm working on a 5e world, and one of my first rules as a DM will be "Roll on the tables to get ideals / flaws / bonds and I will tear up your character sheet and laugh as I do it". For a DM to use when pulling together a quick NPC they're fine, but I'd want my players to put some effort into their character.
That's a suck-ass thing to do as a DM. For one thing, it's just an assholish thing to do, period. For another thing, random inspires creativity. You should try it some time.

First, I think there's a memory bias going on here. I'm willing to bet any amount that the AD&D era (which was a little before my time, I started playing RPGs in 1998) also had its giant share of boring, uncreative players who just moved and attacked. It's just that you don't remember them because boring and uncreative things fall to the back of memory by definition.
Rubbish, I currently play in an AD&D game as do many others who started back when it was new, and as do many who only started recently and none of what you just said is even remotely close to true.

D&D 5e isn't a theater of the mind game. It isn't written as one. Everything's written with a grid in mind, and every combat rule assumes that if you're not using a real grid, you're imagining one. If you want to see a D&Dish game written for Theater of the Mind combat, look at 13th Age or Dungeon World. If you can go further afield, Fate Core's zones work very well.
Seriously, this kind of stuff is just such utter nonsense I truly wonder what your purpose is in posting it. I've played in numerous sessions of 5e in my FLGS where not only my group but 4-6 other groups are all playing without a grid and it works just fine. And none of us are "imagining a grid". You're just being absurd.

I'd rather just have you hold my hand.
I roll d100 to check if we make wild, passionate love behind the apple tree at the top of the hill...

...rolls...

...42.

Giant2005

2014-09-03, 05:55 PM

Having ambiguous rules works fine if your DM is extremely competent and you trust him whole-heartedly.
Personally, I'd prefer to not have to trust my DM if I didn't have to.

obryn

2014-09-03, 06:04 PM

Seriously, this kind of stuff is just such utter nonsense I truly wonder what your purpose is in posting it. I've played in numerous sessions of 5e in my FLGS where not only my group but 4-6 other groups are all playing without a grid and it works just fine. And none of us are "imagining a grid". You're just being absurd.
Compare how a game like 13th Age handles TotM combat and you'll see what I'm talking about. Just because it can be done doesn't mean it's particularly suited to the task.

By "imaginary grid" I mean that you, as a DM, need to have an understanding of where everything is - and that your understanding needs to line up with your players'. It's a grid, only in your head.

Snails

2014-09-03, 07:43 PM

Shadow

2014-09-03, 07:55 PM

A PC built for this kind of thing might auto succeed.

And therein lies one of the biggest problems with 3.x and PF. How much excitement is there at the table when you have zero chance of failure, or zero threat from a group of mobs?
At that point you're just going through the motions.

Telwar

2014-09-03, 08:15 PM

You don't want to make a decision on whether Twinning works on a spell or not if the spell is used in a certain way?
You don't want to make a decision on whether a person can brace a door with a sword to lock it down or what DC that might be?
You don't want to make a decision on whether alignments are used in your game or not?
You don't want to make a decision on whether your players get magical items and when?
You don't want to make a decision on whether Polymorph works one way or another?
You don't want to make a decision on whether using a spell and a feat and deciding which is more specific?
You don't want to make a decision on whether a Druid wild shape can work infinitely to give infinite hp?
You don't want to make a decision on whether a person must make a DC check and when?

So if Wizards made these decisions for you and wrote them out in the book, would you just take them as is. Or, would you look at their rulings and then decide to use the rule or modify it based on your own ideas of how the game should be run?

Are you wanting rules because you feel you must use them or are you wanting rules so that if you don't like them you can reject them and change them to your own ideas?

My group has an abundance of gaming time, 8 hours or more every Saturday, with two games running on alternate weekends, and a nice dinner break in the middle of the session.

I would STILL rather spend that abundance of gaming time setting the world, interacting with the players, and trying to kill the party in a reasonably fair manner than having to interrupt play to discuss rules questions with the players or the GM. And because my group has been together for nearly 20 years, I'd much rather have consistency in play rather than having to remember how I ruled three sessions ago.

Tengu_temp

2014-09-03, 08:45 PM

Rubbish, I currently play in an AD&D game as do many others who started back when it was new, and as do many who only started recently and none of what you just said is even remotely close to true.

You realize that this does not invalidate what I said at all, right? Your group has only creative players, good for you. That doesn't mean all AD&D groups do, and especially doesn't mean they did when it was the current edition of DND.

Here's a good example of what I mean by players who seem to need to be told exactly how to do something:

http://community.wizards.com/forum/rules-questions/threads/4136261

Any ambiguity whatsoever seems to put such people into a tizzy.

Really, that's it? It's just a minor, vaguely nitpicky question about the rules of a single specific spell that was answered quickly and unambigiously. Does this really rustle your jimmies so much?

akaddk

2014-09-03, 09:17 PM

You realize that this does not invalidate what I said at all, right? Your group has only creative players, good for you. That doesn't mean all AD&D groups do, and especially doesn't mean they did when it was the current edition of DND.
You made an accusation that a "giant share" of players were uncreative. The giant's share of players IME have been very creative and continue to be, using the rules you stated inspired uncreative playing as a majority.

...nitpicky...
The only relevant part of that sentence.

Snails

2014-09-04, 12:16 AM

And therein lies one of the biggest problems with 3.x and PF. How much excitement is there at the table when you have zero chance of failure, or zero threat from a group of mobs?
At that point you're just going through the motions.

As a general issue this is an intrinsic "failing" of every edition of D&D. Double digit level PCs can easily overcome Challenges that are "impossible" by mundane common sense. Like death.

It so happens that the 3e/4e skills systems embrace this idea fully.

Under ideal conditions the Errol Flynn move is dicey for a 1st level PC, pretty easy for a 6th level PC, and an auto succeed for a 12th level PC. But the 12th level PC only bothers to perform this flashy move against retail-level mook renta-guards for the mod to her Intimidate roll (she has a merciful streak and avoids killing when other options are available). She considers carefully before picking up the dice for a flashy move against Frost Giants when every surface is coated with slick ice.

IIRC, in 1e, your typical Mob is a bunch of 0-level creatures, and a 10th+ level Fighter gets one attack per level against critters of level <1. 12th level? 12 attacks! The Fighter is probably expending attacks to pick up weapons off the fallen so he can chuck them at enemies, because he runs out of melee distance targets.

tl;dr -- PCs "graduate" past certain kinds of threats eventually. The details may have changed, but the system always scaled that way. 5e may have chosen to tone this down, but they certainly did not eliminate it.

hawklost

2014-09-04, 12:19 AM

As a general issue this is an intrinsic "failing" of every edition of D&D. Double digit level PCs can easily overcome Challenges that are "impossible" by mundane common sense. Like death.

It so happens that the 3e/4e skills systems embrace this idea fully.

Under ideal conditions the Errol Flynn move is dicey for a 1st level PC, pretty easy for a 6th level PC, and an auto succeed for a 12th level PC. But the 12th level PC only bothers to perform this flashy move against retail-level mook renta-guards for the mod to her Intimidate roll (she has a merciful streak and avoids killing when other options are available). She considers carefully before picking up the dice for a flashy move against Frost Giants when every surface is coated with slick ice.

IIRC, in 1e, your typical Mob is a bunch of 0-level creatures, and a 10th+ level Fighter gets one attack per level against critters of level <1. 12th level? 12 attacks! The Fighter is probably expending attacks to pick up weapons off the fallen so he can chuck them at enemies, because he runs out of melee distance targets.

tl;dr -- PCs "graduate" past certain kinds of threats eventually. The details may have changed, but the system always scaled that way. 5e may have chosen to tone this down, but they certainly did not eliminate it.

Hi, I am a 20th level Wizard who is stuck in an Anti-magic feild. I am required to make an Impossible DC jump check to cross the Cavern. Since this is 3.5, the DC for this check is 30 but I only have a +9. How Am I better than a first level character who has a +0 in this kind of situation?

Snails

2014-09-04, 12:39 AM

Snails

2014-09-04, 12:47 AM

Hi, I am a 20th level Wizard who is stuck in an Anti-magic feild. I am required to make an Impossible DC jump check to cross the Cavern. Since this is 3.5, the DC for this check is 30 but I only have a +9. How Am I better than a first level character who has a +0 in this kind of situation?

If your 20th level Wizard can roll a 17 or better, you have a chance to make that ledge over there. The 1st level Wizard will presumably always fail.

Long Jump
A long jump is a horizontal jump, made across a gap like a chasm or stream. At the midpoint of the jump, you attain a vertical height equal to one-quarter of the horizontal distance. The DC for the jump is equal to the distance jumped (in feet).

If your check succeeds, you land on your feet at the far end. If you fail the check by less than 5, you don’t clear the distance, but you can make a DC 15 Reflex save to grab the far edge of the gap. You end your movement grasping the far edge. If that leaves you dangling over a chasm or gap, getting up requires a move action and a DC 15 Climb check.

Of course, both the 1st level and 20th level Wizard could simply Jump into the gap and Feather Fall once out of the AMF.

Knaight

2014-09-04, 12:48 AM

That's not what we're saying.
We're saying that the more rules were introduced, the more players looked only to those rules for what their characters could do. Prior to rules about every single thing you could imagine, players described what their characters were doing, and the sky was the limit. And the descriptions were exciting. And the creativity was amazing. You'd hear the group's rogue describe how he "climbed onto the bannister, jumping off to catch the chandelier, swinging from the chandelier and deftly flipping to the group behind the guard to deliver a backstab."
It was awesome.
After the rules upon rules upon rules appeared, you'd hear the rogue say "Is the railing difficult terrain? No? OK, I move 6 squares and attack."
It sucked.
You know, this is pretty familiar for me. Every time I try to use an earlier edition of D&D, it's exactly what happened. Rogue skill tables (and that theoretically being difficult for every other class), the bizarre initiative systems, convoluted weapons and armor, so on and so forth. Actually using the rules involves quite a bit of interacting with the rules themselves, and what you describe as in new editions I consistently see more in older ones.

D&D in general is not a rules light game. Even D&D before AD&D had some heft to it, 5e core is pushing 1000 pages, so on and so forth. Rules heavy games have their niche, and I don't even mind them as a player (as a GM I stick to rules light), but lets not pretend that 5e isn't in that category. It's a game with long lists that are picked through, fairly sizable stat blocks, a whole bunch of rules on specific speeds for dungeon crawling, rules for rationing, so on and so forth. That's what D&D has been.

Given that it is that sort of game, sloppy wording gets irritating. If one is dealing with 1000 pages of text, going through lots and lots of long lists, then it might as well be pretty concrete. After all, GURPS managed just fine with half that length. Otherwise, I figure a more framework game with way fewer rules in it works a lot better. Heck, I'm currently GMing a Fudge game, which is what an actual rules light game looks like - 107 pages, about 60 of which are example characters, plus some supplementary material. The rules cover everything pretty nicely (generally by painting with a broad brush), and evocative description is the norm.

Shadow

2014-09-04, 01:54 AM

tl;dr -- PCs "graduate" past certain kinds of threats eventually. The details may have changed, but the system always scaled that way. 5e may have chosen to tone this down, but they certainly did not eliminate it.

Emphasis mine.
Scaled. Past tense.
Under bounded accuracy this is no longer the case. It used to be true, but now it isn't. Whereas before those less than CR1 kobolds or goblins became irrelevant after a certain point, being unabale to actually hit you at all, now those lower level monsters still pose a threat to you, even at 20th level, if there are enough of them.

Someone did the math on it. If you populate an entire enounter's worth of XP completely with mobs 3 levels below the party's CR, that party becomes a TPK threat. They can hit you now, and while they do laughable damage individually, there are so many incoming attacks that this previosuly laughable damage adds up quite quickly. The larger the gap between the party's level and the CR of the mobs in the encounter, the more deadly it becomes (following the rule that most of the encounter is lower level mobs).
There was one playtest example in my group where the party fought a BBEG necromancer with a bunch of undead "trash" protecting him. It turned out that the "trash" was actually more dangerous than the BBEG under bounded accuracy, simply because of the sheer number of them.
No longer do PCs "outlevel" certain mobs. That concept is a thing of the past.

akaddk

2014-09-04, 02:02 AM

No longer do PCs "outlevel" certain mobs. That concept is a thing of the past.

Personally, I love this. Even the lowly town guard is now a threat, not because he can kill you, because he probably can't. But his 200 other buddies could...

Shadow

2014-09-04, 02:43 AM

The 3ers and 4ers and 5ers of today, in the year 2034 will be talking about their edition is something special. They will have a mountain of books that they almost never consult, because the system just fits so naturally for "good roleplaying". And they will wonder what is wrong with those kids and their D&D 11th edition.
Not necessarilty true at all.
While I will freely admit that 2e was previously my favorite edition, the months playtesting and weeks playing with a released PHB have proven to be some of the best DnD games I've had in decades.
5e is very quickly climbing the ranks, and even now almost rivals my love of 2e. If new character options via sublass/archetype/whatever you want to call them continue to add options (and they aren't inherently OP), and if WotC stays true to its claim that they don't want a ton of bloat for this edition, then I could very easily see this becoming my favorite edition to date. It's almost at that point already. These are both things that they have promised. Let's see if they keep those promises.

So here's to hoping that they don't screw it up.

AuraTwilight

2014-09-04, 04:26 AM

What I don't understand is why people need to walk into conversations (or play games a certain way) they're not interested in and try to control what people talk about by shaming their preferences.

Instead of...you know, making threads for subject they find more entertaining and palpable to talk about. It's like being in a restaurant and when someone at a different table orders the chicken, you get up and complain that you're vegetarian, why would someone order the chicken? Don't they know salad is better?

Mandrake

2014-09-04, 04:30 AM

With respect, you can choose to play the game with fewer rules.
I think that the idea that creativity of the player lies wholly in the system and not in the player himself is an illusion.
Less important and anecdotal, but I DMed for a small group of first time players who played 4E only. They are absolutely smashing, while playing by the rules.

I think that investing into a bit more rule material (but not too much! see, we also have it, the cap is just higher) enables both players and the DM to understand each other and the situation better, allowing for creative and non-creative (why not?) means of interaction. Otherwise, there's a risk it just becomes a mess-up where you suddenly realize that it was somehow easier to jump off of a roof yesterday than to mount a horse today or that it was easier for you to kill a dire bear than a pair of scared teenage robbers. At that point players lose their belief in the world, they don't see it as coherent and henceforth have trouble anticipating any outcome, so they just randomly lash out. And I don't want my games to turn into randomness, and, after talking to my players, neither do they.

Putting that much weight on the DM, to improvise and impromptu know how everything relates to everything is something that is not rewarding and is, simply, really hard. DMs know a lot. They learn a lot. They imagine and improvise a lot. But even when playing Risk, you often have to see how many tanks was it again.

Sir_Leorik

2014-09-04, 07:25 AM

Yeah, yeah, antagonistic title. But this is starting to really get to me. I constantly see threads here and elsewhere of people saying, "How do I do X?!?!?!" AHMAHGAWD! tEh roolz do'nt tll me wot 2 doo!

Sigh.

This is why I grated against 3.x. A rule for everything. The thickness of the Pathfinder rulebook alone says everything you need to know about that system. And now, with 5e, where they've deliberately left a lot of things vague and up to DM interpretation, I'm seeing constant arguments and constant debates about "RAW" and constant "BUTT TEH REWLZ SAY!" and if the rules don't say, then it's constant hand-wringing over what to do and asking people to tell them what they should do.

Here's a thought. MAKE IT THE **** UP!

AD&D didn't have a rule for everything. It required imagination. Something that I find lacking in players and DM's these days. I can only hope that 5e invites a new generation of gamers into the fold and that they learn how to be creative rather than textbook researchers. Maybe the tide will eventually turn, but for now it's like a tide of "TELL ME HOW TO PLAY THE GAME!" nonsense.

Two comments. One, AD&D had a lot of rules for lots of situations. However they were often counter-intuitive or just plain bad rules (I'm looking at you brawling rules from 1E and 2E) or rules in one supplement contradicted rules in another supplement (did you know there was a kit for Beggar thieves in both the Complete Thieves' Handbook and the Arabian Adventures supplement?). So lots of DMs (including me) ignored lots of the rules. That's one area 3.X has where it is better than AD&D: the rules are straightforward. Roll a d20, add modifiers, compare to a DC. There's a reason 4E, Pathfinder and 5E/Next all use the same core mechanic introduced in 3.0.

Second, some DMs do prefer more codified rules. Others are better at winging it. My advice to DMs running 5E (or any RPG they haven't run before) is to go over the rules once or twice, and then remind the players that you are new to the system. If you make a blatant error, ask the players to remind you of the correct rules, so that you can learn the system. If there is a gray area, or if no one is sure of the rule, rather than pause the game to look it up, make a temporary ruling, and look up the rule later. That way the flow of the game is not interrupted.

To those interested in more specific rules than the PHB or the Basic Rules provide, I remind you that the DMG is not out yet. It is supposed to have variant rules that could provide the level of specificity you're looking for.

Sir_Leorik

2014-09-04, 07:45 AM

The is both nostalgia and Survivor's Bias that infect perceptions about the Good Olde Dayes.

People with a lot of experience with 1e/2e (they are close enough to the same thing) often have a lot of experience. 25 years X 52 weeks X 10 hours = 13,000 hours.

Then they log 1000 or 2000 hours of 3e and wonder why it seems harder. They also wonder why youngsters with 1000 or 2000 hours experience do not seem really seem to "get it" they way they were expecting.

Guess what? When you only had 1000 hours of 1e under your belts, you probably sucked, too. But you were having enough fun that you did not care. People who were not having enough fun stopped back in 1982. Those who stuck with it matured, both as gamers and as people, and the memories got clouded along the way.

I started playing with the Red Box rules back in 1989 (when I was a freshman in high school), later moving on to 2E, with a (very) brief foray into 1E. I ran adventures and played for years, but I never really liked the 2E rules. I liked the "theater of the mind" feeling of 2E (one of the many reasons I did not like the Player's Options series was that they were promoting the use of minis and a grid), and I liked many of the campaign settings introduced in 2E (especially Ravenloft and Planescape), but I disliked many aspects of the rules. When 3.0 was announced, I decided I would try the rules and if I liked them, good, if not I'd stick to 2E. And I much preferred the streamlined rules of 3.0 to the convoluted, counter-intuitive rules of 2E. And with the OGL you could incorporate as many or as few rules supplements to your campaign as you wanted. (In hindsight, many of those third-party products were awful, but I didn't know that until I bought a few. :smallyuk:)

The 3ers and 4ers and 5ers of today, in the year 2034 will be talking about their edition is something special. They will have a mountain of books that they almost never consult, because the system just fits so naturally for "good roleplaying". And they will wonder what is wrong with those kids and their D&D 11th edition.

Unfortunately, I don't think we need to wait forty years for that to happen. :smallsigh: There is too much antipathy between players who prefer one edition over the others. Personally there are aspects of 3.X (and Pathfinder), 4E and 5E/Next that I like. One of the reasons I like 5E so much is that it incorporates so many of the best aspects of 2E ("theater of the mind";), 3.X (streamlined mechanics; cool spellcasters) and 4E (interesting things for Fighters, Monks, Rogues and Warlocks to do; Short Rests; clearer explanations of rules; Backgrounds; at-will Cantrips and Orisons) and added some new elements I like (lower attack modifiers and AC values for PCs and monsters, allowing low level enemies to remain threats at higher levels without increasing their levels; Gishes that can actually function; new ways to play Paladins, Monks and Sorcerers; and of course the Bard, the best class in the game!).

Personally, I feel players should play the edition they want, and maybe even play other editions just to avoid the bitter feelings players have with each other. At the end of the day, it's not the system that should matter, but the fun you have with your fellow players. Why not suggest rotating systems, with one player running Pathfinder, another running 4E and a third running 5E, so that everyone has fun, and everyone gets to see why the other players prefer one system to the other? Just a suggestion. :smallwink:

(BTW, I'm taking my own advice. On Sunday I'm going to be joining a new group playing Pathfinder. In the meantime I'm still playing 5E in the D&D Adventurer's League, and am thinking of running my own 5E game in the near future.)

Tengu_temp

2014-09-04, 11:00 AM

You made an accusation that a "giant share" of players were uncreative. The giant's share of players IME have been very creative and continue to be, using the rules you stated inspired uncreative playing as a majority.

I stand by my opinion. DND was always the leading RPG system, at least in the US (it was different here). And most people playing the leading RPG system, no matter what it is, will simply not play it in a very creative way.

Random character generation and heavy lethality discouraging roleplaying is not a matter of opinion, however. It's a fact. You attach less to a randomly creater character, and to a character who might die to an unlucky roll at any moment. And lack of player attachment hurts roleplaying.

The only relevant part of that sentence.

If people being nitpicky on the internet annoys you so much, then your life must be constant torment. Because it happens all the time.

Sir_Leorik

2014-09-04, 11:23 AM

I stand by my opinion. DND was always the leading RPG system, at least in the US (it was different here). And most people playing the leading RPG system, no matter what it is, will simply not play it in a very creative way.

Random character generation and heavy lethality discouraging roleplaying is not a matter of opinion, however. It's a fact. You attach less to a randomly creater character, and to a character who might die to an unlucky roll at any moment. And lack of player attachment hurts roleplaying.

I can't speak to which tabletop RPGs were the leading ones in Poland over the last 25 years, but I can speak about my experiences playing in the US. In the mid 1990's AD&D began to face serious competition from White Wolf games like V:tM. At the same time, the heavy handed practices of the TSR's management alienated many of TSR's more loyal customers. However, the style of playing AD&D changed drastically between 1990 and 1996 (when TSR was on the verge of shutting down). The release of the Ravenloft, Dark Sun, Planescape and Birthright settings were part of that change in play style. Usenet, mail-lists and chat rooms (which TSR was trying to shut down) brought players from around the country (and the world) together. House rules were shared, new concepts were explored. Websites Mimir.net and Secrets of the Kargatane were launched. Jokes about Munckins, Gazebos and the Head of Vecna were shared.

One of the changes was that DMs began to stop seeing themselves as the antagonist of the players, and players became more attached to their characters. These changes were a result of White Wolf and other game companies' influence, the new on-line culture that was developing, and the change in focus on the products TSR put out. Rather than explore a dungeon, you might be debating philosophy with a rival Faction in Sigil, hunting Vampires in Barovia, leading an army against a Sorcerer-King or ruling a nation.

1337 b4k4

2014-09-04, 12:25 PM

Having ambiguous rules works fine if your DM is extremely competent and you trust him whole-heartedly.
Personally, I'd prefer to not have to trust my DM if I didn't have to.

I wanted to address this quote directly because I see it often in these discussions. Please please please stop playing with people you don't trust. Gaming is a social hobby that's supposed to be fun, and playing with people you suspect (or actually believe) are cheating, screwing up or screwing you over just sucks the fun right out of things. I'm not saying you should only play with people you would trust with your life, but if you can't trust the people you're gaming with to not cheat and not try to screw you at every chance they get, why are you gaming with them at all?

Now on to some other thoughts

With regards to the OP, that was needlessly (and rudely) antagonistic. People have (and enjoy) different playstyles. Folks who enjoy a more detailed and comprehensive (and equally restrictive) rule set are no more idiots or simpletons than my players who don't want to make tactical decisions from a list of moves every time. Insulting them in this was does not promote quality discussion or understanding.

With regards to the oft mentioned "time crunch, therefore more rules gives me more time" I would like to point out an opposite perspective on this. I have 3 hours a week to game, if I'm lucky. These 3 hours are crammed into space between 40-60 hours of work and then everything else involved with life. Needless to say, time to game (or work on a game) is at a premium for me. And I prefer more ambiguous and less detailed rules. I prefer them because it means less time spent doing prep work trying to find the right rules to justify X Y or Z. I prefer them because it means my gaming time at the table is not taken up by searching through books trying to find the right rules to resolve the current situation at hand that I don't have memorized because it doesn't come up often. I prefer them because it means my players don't come to the table with finely crafted and honed characters with their next 10-20 levels planned out who will break if I decide that in this world you can't twin spell a scorching blast. I prefer them because it means I'm not constantly worrying that someone at the table is fuming silently because I forgot a particular rule and have been using it wrong and they think I'm cheating or worse doing it to screw them over. I prefer them because it means when I make a house rule, I'm less likely to create unforeseen side effects with the tightly integrated rules. This isn't to say that my way is the correct way, but simply to point out that in my case, being time constrained makes me appreciate lighter and more ambiguous rules more, not less.

With regards to the "nostalgia and survivorship bias" of old D&D and how fun or not fun those games are, dismissing it as nostalgia does a huge disservice to the games themselves and to the OSR movement as a whole. Yes, a large part of the OSR movement are old players. But if that were all it was, it wouldn't be a big thing. The fact is, there is a measurable portion of people who prefer (or are getting into) OSR / OD&D type games that didn't start there. I'm one of them. I started with GRUPS, then some homebrew system and then D&D 4. I didn't even play 3e until after I had played 4. And as I've played older editions of D&D, I've come to prefer those editions. This isn't nostalgia, it's actual honest play experience. Yes, I admit to preferring newer presentations of those old rules (let's be honest, some of those early TSR books were a mess) but ultimately the game I'm playing (and preferring to play) is the game as written then, and interpreted now. If the game was objectively as bad as claimed, if the only way people could really prefer those games is nostalgia and survivorship bias, then this should not be occurring.

With regards to "old games required 'imagination'" I agree that this is more or less a false statement. I also agree that you can play a wildly imaginative game in newer D&D (see Acquisitions Inc). However that being said, certain games and certain presentations of games do more or less to encourage improvised (what has been called imaginative) vs constrained (what has been derrided as pushing buttons) gaming. To that end as you get earlier into D&D's life, I certainly can agree that the game and the presentation lended itself to a more improvised game style. When all that you have on your character sheet is 6 stats, HP, AC, a to-hit array and an equipment list, you will by definition and necessity be improvising and making almost everything up as you go along, especially as compared to a 3e or 4e character sheet where in addition to those you also have lists of feats, maneuvers, powers, skills and active class features. I've seen more than a handful of players who learned in 3e or 4e and when they ask "what can I do" were often (and let's be honest here, rightly so*) pointed to their character sheet and told to pick something. Those same players when transplanted to an OD&D game had a deer in the headlights look when the response to "what can I do" was "what do you want to do". Those players did learn quickly about improvising and as a result also became better at the 3 and 4e games as well because of learned behavior, so again, not to say they couldn't do this in 3e or 4e, but that those games did not encourage (and in some ways require it) the same way that OD&D did. And it's worth pointing out that while AD&D certainly had it's share of rules, remember that the players weren't supposed to see 90% of it. If you've never done so before, give a read through of the 1e PHB sometime and realize how little in the way of rules the players were expected to "know". The game was a different type of game, and that means encouraging (and discouraging) different ways of playing.

* A game which gives you a list of abilities and powers to use should (must) expect you to use those abilities and powers. Suggesting that these players ignore their ability lists to just make some stuff up would defeat the purpose of those ability lists.

Edit
------------------

Random character generation and heavy lethality discouraging roleplaying is not a matter of opinion, however. It's a fact. You attach less to a randomly creater character, and to a character who might die to an unlucky roll at any moment. And lack of player attachment hurts roleplaying.

I would like to see a citation of this "fact" because that has not been my experience either as a player or as a GM. In my experiences, random character generation and high lethality produce different but no less attachment or roleplaying behaviors from players. A randomly generated character that is expected to be roleplayed well requires the player to think on their toes, to get outside their comfort zone and to produce within limitations which is in and of itself a form of creativity and roleplaying just as much as having created and lovingly fleshed out a full character from scratch. Again, to draw from my own examples, I love the Traveller character generation system. If you haven't used it before, the Traveller system is completely random. All your stats are random, and your entire career and history up until the point your character enters play is determined by dice rolls. In some editions, its even possible for your character to die in character creation. I've spent hours actually building Traveller character, and have had more fun with(and more attachment to) those characters than some of my most painstakingly crafted 4e characters. No, it isn't the same, but it's still attachment and still roleplaying. Similarly, I've been far more attached to characters that have scrapped by and by all rights should be dead by now than characters who never had a real risk of dying in the first place. You personally might attach less to a random character with a chance of dying, but this is not universally true, and I submit that if it is so, then you should perhaps try other system or change your approach to your character a bit, you might find you actually do enjoy it when you let go of your control and embrace the character for who they are rather than who you made them to be. Again, this isn't to say your preferences are badwrongfun, just that your experience does not match mine.

Knaight

2014-09-04, 02:36 PM

Personally, I love this. Even the lowly town guard is now a threat, not because he can kill you, because he probably can't. But his 200 other buddies could...

Honestly, coming from a non-D&D background, 5e characters still seem pretty ridiculous in combat. Their ability to hit individuals with minimal combat training is oddly low, but the sort of fights they still win? Not so much. Compared to 3e and 4e, they're a lot less powerful. But in so many other games, even the best warrior in the world is probably going to have a hard time in a straight fight with a half dozen generic guards, and is basically guaranteed to lose against twelve.

Coming back to the initial question - I've put more thought into it, and a lot of the issue comes down to where the rulings have to be made. In 5e, a bunch of the rulings are on how a specific ability that was made works, or how two specific abilities that were put in work together. That's the sort of thing that I'd much rather not have to deal with, and frequently don't have to deal with even in much lighter games.

There's another type of ruling which comes up a lot though, which is how to adjudicate a specific situation using broad rules. Assigning difficulties is a good example of this - you generally don't just look it up on a table, because the tables are pretty much gone. It's a situation which requires a ruling, but that isn't a problem at all - I'd much rather not deal with a table for every skill, the rules do cover the situation in broad strokes, and all's well.

Basically, if a system is going to codify something in a detailed manner, they should do so such that how they codified it is clear, and a failure to do so is irritating. If they're going to paint in broad guidelines, then I'd just like the guidelines to be useful. The general difficulty table, the attributes which apply to things, and other broad guidelines generally are pretty clear, though there's a bit of a fuzzy area in the mental attributes that probably could have been avoided by selecting a different set.

GreatWyrmGold

2014-09-04, 05:42 PM

I don't remember GitP being this contentious when I drifted away. Dangit, I'm too young to be feeling nostalgic!

-snip-
"A good GM doesn't need rules. Therefore, no rules is good." If you believe this--and there's nothing wrong with doing so--save your money and make all the rules you need up on the fly.
You argue that the players are actors, the GM the storyteller. This is fundamentally a flawed argument; why call it a role-playing game if the players can't control what happens? The players need agency in the world, and the story. In the example you gave, if I was Nancy, I would be angry at the GM for making choices for me.
Let's say, however, that there's an actual reason for Nancy to flee up the stairs against her (his?) better judgement. For the sake of argument, let's say that it's a really scary monster. Here's how it might play out in three hypothetical systems:
1. Some sort of Collaborative Story-Writing System with no rules whatsoever. The GM says that the monster frightens Nancy, who has to run upstairs. Nancy's player is robbed of agency, which is why these systems tend to work best if the players aren't controlling specific characters in a story.
2. A rough analog of what you are saying is good. The rulebook lists the Monster as having a Frightful Presence, which notes that anyone not of strong will tends to flee the monster in a straight line if possible. The closest thing to a straight line is up the staircase. However, Nancy's player argues that she (he?) has enough of a will or is good enough at keeping her wits about him that she should run out the front door, giving her more room to run before it catches up. There is no way to resolve this, except by one side giving in. This kind of system works best when players aren't attached to their characters and don't care about what happens to them or the story--in other words, very rarely. For things that are easy to determine (e.g, if you survive when cast into space without a space suit) or almost never come up (e.g, how long you survive when cast into space with a space suit in D&D), it's perfectly acceptable to leave things out, but basic things like how much control you have over your character or when you can hide strike me as important enough to merit some guidelines at minimum, don't you think?
3. 3.5 D&D. The sourcebook/GM notes list the Monster as having the Frightful Presence ability, requiring a DC 20 Will save to avoid being panicked. Nancy rolls and (being a first-level character) fails her save, and runs up the staircase. However, there is no argument here, because there was a clear way to resolve the situation; the player implicitly agreed to follow all rules in the rulebook when they agreed to play the game, and--perhaps most importantly--it's easier to accept inanimate objects like stat blocks and polyhedra deciding your character's fate than the guy controlling the monster doing so.
Rules and guidelines within the rules are either required for a game, or else completely unneeded so you can save money by not bothering buying the books. Your choice, but the middle ground is hardly optimal.

This isn't to say that GMs shouldn't be able to make rulings on the fly, just that he shouldn't have to.
This isn't to say that games should slavishly follow the rules on every little detail, just that those who want to should be able to.
This isn't to say that the only True Way to play games involves rules and dice rolls for every little thing, just that every little thing which is defined by the rules should be defined well.

Because you guys need to see this:
From an interview: -snip-
Regardless of what he said, "When can I hide?" is a question that the rules need to clearly answer in any game where roughly one out of every four characters is a sneaky guy, "Can I apply Twinned Spell to Scorching Ray?" is one that needs to be clearly answered in any game where both of those exist, and so on.
He's saying that you don't need rules for, say, inciting revolts, but not that rules in general are bad.

All rules incite some debate (hence politics, courts of law, this forum in general, etc), but when that debate gets out of control, you need a kind of overall authority to defer to. A constitution, if you will. That's what the basic rules should be, and WotC is the Supreme Court.
Excellent analogy. I applaud.
(The only problem is, of course, that the Supreme Court doesn't write the Constitution. WotC is also Congress, with the GM being President--a prominent position with a variable amount of actual power. In the case of the PotUS, it's based on how much Congress lets him have, while the relationship works in reverse for D&D, which shockingly suggests that RPG groups and governments are different.)

I personally like the background traits..... it encourages people to dig deeper into their character and gives them a platform to RP from. obviously experienced players can build their own... but it is perfect for someone who is either new, or wants to build a quick character.
Agreed. Good roleplayers can deal with whatever hand they're dealt; bad roleplayers get a base to start their RPing with; people who don't like die rolls deciding those things can easily ignore that page or two.

That's not what we're saying.
We're saying that the more rules were introduced, the more players looked only to those rules for what their characters could do. Prior to rules about every single thing you could imagine, players described what their characters were doing, and the sky was the limit. And the descriptions were exciting. And the creativity was amazing. You'd hear the group's rogue describe how he "climbed onto the bannister, jumping off to catch the chandelier, swinging from the chandelier and deftly flipping to the group behind the guard to deliver a backstab."
It was awesome.
After the rules upon rules upon rules appeared, you'd hear the rogue say "Is the railing difficult terrain? No? OK, I move 6 squares and attack."
It sucked.
Interesting. Not so for me. Generally, it depends more on what the GM allows than what the system does. In fact, when playing the myriad types of games on the Bay 12 Forum-Games-And-RP subforum, the ones with lots of rules on what you could do tended to be the ones where people did lots of different things. (Except the badly-designed or badly-run ones, but I daresay that professional game developers can avoid the former and nothing can help the latter.)
For that matter, some of my favorite plans were in GURPS, the epitome of Rules For Everything. shame the GM didn't like them much. (I don't care what he says, the pewter candlestick really should have hurt the vampire! Especially since we didn't have anything that could...)

-snip-
Um, what kinds of rules are left unclear in 5e that you can have two substantially different games with different interpretations? The stuff I've heard of are things like "Can you hide in X situation?"

You guys are going on about how creativity remains, but you can't be bothered to be creative enough to make a judgement call on the fly?
You're clearly using different definitions of "creativity" here. They're using it to mean being able to think of all sorts of things, like unexpected plans and cool maneuvers. You are apparently assuming that being creative means you can create anything and do so well.
The problems with DMs making rules decisions, especially for such simple, core things, on the fly are manifold. First, they won't be consistent between DMs. Second, if you don't think to take notes (or if you didn't bring note-taking materials, or if you lost your notes, or if you accidentally burn them*), they won't be consistent between sessions, or in extreme cases between different parts of the same session. This is bad because for many things, consistency is vital for verisimilitude and highly helpful for fun. Even without extreme examples like character builds revolving around a given use of the Hide skill, you run into problems when tactics work one adventure but not the next for no apparent reason. Especially if you didn't explain your full plan to the GM ahead of time and have to try and argue your position after having put yourself at what will be risk if it fails. Third, GMs have enough on their plates without needing to finish the rulebooks. Fourth, the notes/books which contain the rulings will almost certainly be worse-organized than a decent rulebook, and will certainly not have the relevant rules in a sidebar in the book with the rest of the rules; more paper-shuffling and clutter needed for play? No thanks. Fifth, the rules will almost certainly be worse, period, than what the professional game designers designing the whole game come up with. Sixth, we're paying them to make a game; why would they leave out rules? It's like a Civilization game where they forgot to program in the bonuses one gets from building the Great Wall, with the exception that it's hypothetically possible to solve.

*It wasn't campaign notes, but someone I game with once did put his character sheet into a campfire he was starting. In his defense, it was dark enough that he didn't see what was on it.

And you don't expect a fully finished product? Is D&D in beta now? Would you buy a beta?
Well, some of my favorite games are in beta or even alpha, but those are unusual cases (KSP and DF), and more importantly, neither Squad nor Toady tried to say their game was a complete game. (Although they were complete, if sparse and buggy, at the time they were released, so maybe they don't count.)
The point being, this isn't a perfect analogy, but it works. Or something like that.

The return to TotM style for 5e (which is exactly the reason for the grid players' confusion over reach weapons' descriptions.... because leaving a threatened square cannot happen in TotM because squares don't exist) will bring the game back to what it was before it was effectively ruined in my mind.
Shouldn't they actually try to clarify how reach weapons work when they bring it to Game-Nirvana, though?

The question is about examples of "an increased trend of dungeon master freedom work, especially of the guess variety", wherein Mike uses stealth as an example of the philosophy.
FTF...Mike, I guess. So FTFM.
Seriously, how do vague rules of the "How does X work?" variety help the GM in any way?

Wow, your age gives you authority? On what planet?
There are a number of situations on Earth where age gives authority. For instance, most kingdoms and similar organizations instituted a system where the eldest child or eldest son became the next ruler, although some instead gave the youngest child/son the crown. I can only assume that royal children had unusually high death rates in those nations.
Regardless, until people start swearing fealty to the Heir of the Throne of Gygax, I don't think any of that applies.

But them 3.x basically made it mandatory by their ruleset.
Wrong. I played 3.5 (which I assume falls under 3.x?) with my family and various other groups for years, and never used a single miniature. I have only ever used miniatures in various school clubs, where you really do have to account for such peoples' tastes.
My point being, claiming that you need miniatures for any edition of D&D shows how little you have played of that edition.

-snip-
*applause*

You don't want to make a decision on whether Twinning works on a spell or not if the spell is used in a certain way?
You don't want to make a decision on whether a person can brace a door with a sword to lock it down or what DC that might be?
You don't want to make a decision on whether alignments are used in your game or not?
You don't want to make a decision on whether your players get magical items and when?
You don't want to make a decision on whether Polymorph works one way or another?
You don't want to make a decision on whether using a spell and a feat and deciding which is more specific?
You don't want to make a decision on whether a Druid wild shape can work infinitely to give infinite hp?
You don't want to make a decision on whether a person must make a DC check and when?
So if Wizards made these decisions for you and wrote them out in the book, would you just take them as is. Or, would you look at their rulings and then decide to use the rule or modify it based on your own ideas of how the game should be run?
Are you wanting rules because you feel you must use them or are you wanting rules so that if you don't like them you can reject them and change them to your own ideas?
If Wizards wrote a rule that said Twinning works on X spell, I'd use it. If Wizards wrote a rule that said Twinning doesn't work on X spell, I'd use it. If Wizards wrote a rule that said Twinning works on X spell only if you are a female elven wizard, I'd ignore it and let everyone Twin it.
99% of the time, these kinds of rules aren't going to affect the flow of the game hugely and should probably be left in the hands of qualified game developers. The other 1% of the time, someone's channeling the essence of Pun-Pun.

Rubbish, I currently play in an AD&D game as do many others who started back when it was new, and as do many who only started recently and none of what you just said is even remotely close to true.
Some people say they don't resort to move-and-attack strategies when playing AD&D. Clearly, no one uses such strategies!
Logic: It's a nice thing.

I roll d100 to check if we make wild, passionate love behind the apple tree at the top of the hill...

...rolls...

...42.
I don't have the rulebook in front of me; does that mean twins or a falling bowl of petunias interrupts you?

You made an accusation that a "giant share" of players were uncreative. The giant's share of players IME have been very creative and continue to be, using the rules you stated inspired uncreative playing as a majority.
Really? You've talked with all the tens of thousands of AD&D players (if not millions)?
If nothing else, the fact that you're on a forum where more extreme RPG nerds discuss their favorite and least favorite parts of various games suggests that your experience isn't exactly representative. And with no other evidence to go on, I present you two guidelines:
1. People don't change that much. Therefore, since there are a lot of hack-and-slashers today, there were probably a lot in the past. (Incidentally, my father's gaming stories from back in AD&D days suggests that there were a fair number of those, though he and some of his friends were not among them.)
2. Sturgeon's Law. Therefore, roughly nine out of ten roleplayers (and hence, a large fraction of any given subset thereof) are bad at roleplaying.

Hi, I am a 20th level Wizard who is stuck in an Anti-magic feild. I am required to make an Impossible DC jump check to cross the Cavern. Since this is 3.5, the DC for this check is 30 but I only have a +9. How Am I better than a first level character who has a +0 in this kind of situation?
Because the GM needed to use an antimagic field and a ginormous gap to challenge you at all.

No longer do PCs "outlevel" certain mobs. That concept is a thing of the past.
I'll believe it when I see it. From what I've heard of 5e, I don't see it (unless maybe you're dealing with absolute mobs and were prepared for dragons).

-snip-
Your understanding of "trust" seems to be a little mono-dimensional. Would you trust your spouse/SO (assume you have one) with your car keys, or your bank account number, or a family heirloom? If not, you may want to reconsider the relationship, so we'll assume yes. Now, would you trust that same individual to perform open-heart surgery on you?
It's entirely possible to have people who are absolutely great to play with, who think of brilliant plans or devious adventures, and yet who can't design a good game system to save their lives (which is, of course, why they pay WotC $100 or so to use their system).

I don't know the rules being described in this thread very well, but it sounds like they need more detail. There is no excuse for this. It is an undeniable weakness, albeit one which some people might not mind much. (Not that this says much; there are people who wouldn't mind needing to spend an hour setting up their OS when they get a new smartphone, but needing to do so would be considered a clear weakness.)

Tengu_temp

2014-09-04, 07:47 PM

I would like to see a citation of this "fact" because that has not been my experience either as a player or as a GM.

There are no citations available, at least to my knowledge, but instead I will offer an analysis:
1. High lethality games - in such a game, you need to focus a lot of your effort on being cautious and staying alive, to the point where, for most people, you stop focusing on roleplaying as much as you would in a more lenient environment - because humans can only pay so much attention to several things at once. The ability to overcome challenges, which is very important in such games, is not roleplaying, it's tactics, a different aspect of the game. Also, it's hard to stay attached to your character if you reroll it every other session because the previous one died.
2. Random character generation - here, the situation is simple. Pretty much everyone gets more into roleplaying if they find their characters interesting. A personally hand-crafted character, the character you want to play in this specific campaign, will be more interesting to you than one that's just rolled randomly. That's because you put more effort into thinking of the character, and from that effort grows attachment - and when the game finally starts, you feel more fervor to start playing this specific character.

You personally might attach less to a random character with a chance of dying, but this is not universally true, and I submit that if it is so, then you should perhaps try other system or change your approach to your character a bit, you might find you actually do enjoy it when you let go of your control and embrace the character for who they are rather than who you made them to be.

I am already very familiar with such systems, because I played them a lot in the past. When I'm saying random character generation and high lethality are elements that hinder roleplaying, I'm talking not just from a theoretical point of view, but also from experience.

ambartanen

2014-09-04, 07:54 PM

I am already very familiar with such systems, because I played them a lot in the past. When I'm saying random character generation and high lethality are elements that hinder roleplaying, I'm talking not just from a theoretical point of view, but also from experience.

I don't really agree about random character generation. I like doing it and putting thought into the character after the bare bones of the mechanics have been completed. It doesn't make me put any less thought into personality and story, I just do it at a different time. Usually I have many ideas about what characters I want to play anyway and no clear preference so getting some things randomly decided up front just limits the scope of appropriate character concepts.

Sartharina

2014-09-04, 07:54 PM

I actually like the vague rules that also function as strong guidelines. The inverse problem with that is rules that are nontransitive and rigid - "You have to have a rule to do X" - and X has to be something the developers account for, especially because of the broad range of ability.

A big problem is that it's impossible to write a good rule in a way that makes sense and isn't overly verbose. One of the complaints about 3.5 was you needed HipS to be able to move from one piece of cover to another because everyone has 360* vision all the time.

In D&D 5e, world consistency trumps the overlaying rules. Some people, unfortunately, think the system is an underlying foundation for the game when it's not - Instead, the rules are an overlay for interpreting ambiguity. Less Game Code, and more User Interface.

Knaight

2014-09-04, 08:16 PM

In D&D 5e, world consistency trumps the overlaying rules. Some people, unfortunately, think the system is an underlying foundation for the game when it's not - Instead, the rules are an overlay for interpreting ambiguity. Less Game Code, and more User Interface.

I'd say that the rules are a set of models that are applied to things. Some of the models are pretty simple - attribute checks where you model a task by picking an attribute, picking a difficulty, and rolling - and some of the models are pretty complex (how magic works, how combat works). That's totally fine, particularly as the complex models are generally pretty good at staying where the game is supposed to be focused.

Generally, people aren't having an issue with picking a model, applying it to things, and calling it a day. There's a definite preference for lots of table look up among people, but it's generally understood as a preference, and so those people generally just avoid 5e as it's not their cup of tea. Where the issue comes up is where people try to use the model, and the model itself is ambiguous or self contradictory.

I don't consider having to creatively apply the models a system gives me a problem. That's typical GM stuff, and I vastly prefer it to dealing with looking things up all the time. If I'm applying creativity to interpreting the system itself because what the designers are saying is ambiguous, it's a mark against the system.

akaddk

2014-09-04, 08:17 PM

I don't remember GitP being this contentious when I drifted away. Dangit, I'm too young to be feeling nostalgic!

It wasn't until I got here. That's why this place needs me. I make it more interesting :smallsmile:

Pex

2014-09-04, 08:25 PM

And therein lies one of the biggest problems with 3.x and PF. How much excitement is there at the table when you have zero chance of failure, or zero threat from a group of mobs?
At that point you're just going through the motions.

The fun is in the leveling up and investing game resources until such time you can auto-succeed. Until then you can fail, but once you can autosucceed the fun is enjoying the spoils of your hard work.

That is a feature, not a bug, of 3E and Pathfinder.

Shadow

2014-09-04, 08:35 PM

The fun is in the leveling up and investing game resources until such time you can auto-succeed. Until then you can fail, but once you can autosucceed the fun is enjoying the spoils of your hard work.

That is a feature, not a bug, of 3E and Pathfinder.

When I play basketball with my 7 year old cousin I don't "enjoy the spoils of my hard work" with years more practice than he has. That would be no fun. So when I destroy him because he has zero chance of beating me, it's not fun for him and it's not fun for me.
When I'm on the court, I want a challenge. I want someone that will challenge me as a player. That's fun.
When I'm at the gaming table I don't enjoy the game at all if I simply WIN because I planned my build a certain way. Because that's no fun either.
When I'm at the table, I want a challenge. I want encounters that will challenge me as a player. That's fun.

The fact that you consider auto-success and auto-failure in a game system a positive feature simply tells me that you and I should never play at the same table.

Sartharina

2014-09-04, 08:36 PM

I'd say that the rules are a set of models that are applied to things. Some of the models are pretty simple - attribute checks where you model a task by picking an attribute, picking a difficulty, and rolling - and some of the models are pretty complex (how magic works, how combat works). That's totally fine, particularly as the complex models are generally pretty good at staying where the game is supposed to be focused.

Generally, people aren't having an issue with picking a model, applying it to things, and calling it a day. There's a definite preference for lots of table look up among people, but it's generally understood as a preference, and so those people generally just avoid 5e as it's not their cup of tea. Where the issue comes up is where people try to use the model, and the model itself is ambiguous or self contradictory.

I don't consider having to creatively apply the models a system gives me a problem. That's typical GM stuff, and I vastly prefer it to dealing with looking things up all the time. If I'm applying creativity to interpreting the system itself because what the designers are saying is ambiguous, it's a mark against the system.Some things have to remain ambiguous because there's not a way to make them unambiguous without excluding a lot of stuff you don't want to exclude. Too much precision, and you have issues with the system not accounting for things that would screw up that precision or getting overly verbose, such as handling stealth - which, frankly, I think may need more granularity. Right now, we have the same rule to try and handle ambushing someone from concealment, ducking into an alley without being spotted, sneaking up on someone in daylight, sneaking up on someone through cover, distracting someone... just, oww.

The fun is in the leveling up and investing game resources until such time you can auto-succeed. Until then you can fail, but once you can autosucceed the fun is enjoying the spoils of your hard work.

That is a feature, not a bug, of 3E and Pathfinder.I kinda disagree - not on the 'auto-succeeding at high levels is fun', but with how 3.5/p go about it. I like gaining new abilities, and getting reliability on abilities (Such as the new jump rules), but 3.P makes often makes being good at something a headache (WTF's an Item Familiar, and why do I need it to be good at sneaking?), and impossible to be able to do new things without trivializing previous things.

1337 b4k4

2014-09-04, 09:26 PM

Your understanding of "trust" seems to be a little mono-dimensional. Would you trust your spouse/SO (assume you have one) with your car keys, or your bank account number, or a family heirloom? If not, you may want to reconsider the relationship, so we'll assume yes. Now, would you trust that same individual to perform open-heart surgery on you?
It's entirely possible to have people who are absolutely great to play with, who think of brilliant plans or devious adventures, and yet who can't design a good game system to save their lives (which is, of course, why they pay WotC $100 or so to use their system).

I'm not asking that players play with game designers or that they trust their DM to do open heart surgery. I'm asking them to trust their DM to do the job of the DM which is to fairly and impartially adjudicate the world. That isn't brain surgery, it isn't rocket science and it isn't difficult either. In fact, as we keep pointing out when discussing "how many rules", the vast majority of rules are for simple things that (some) people don't want to spend time coming up with a rule and adjudicating it. In other words, it's the low hanging fruit and the easy stuff. If you can not trust your DM to fairly and impartially adjudicate whether or not twinned spell works on scorching burst (or even easier, whether your character can jump over the pit), how in the world can you expect them to impartially and fairly adjudicate the real corner cases and tough things? To use your analogy, people saying "I want these rules because I don't trust my DM to do it" are saying "I want someone else to take my blood pressure because I don't trust my heart surgeon to do it."

Again, this isn't to say that more rules is inherently good or bad, but to say that you should trust the people you play social games with to be fair, impartial and dedicated to making the game fun. That should be the bare minimum requirement before you sit down at the table.

There are no citations available, at least to my knowledge, but instead I will offer an analysis:
1. High lethality games - in such a game, you need to focus a lot of your effort on being cautious and staying alive, to the point where, for most people, you stop focusing on roleplaying as much as you would in a more lenient environment - because humans can only pay so much attention to several things at once. The ability to overcome challenges, which is very important in such games, is not roleplaying, it's tactics, a different aspect of the game. Also, it's hard to stay attached to your character if you reroll it every other session because the previous one died.
2. Random character generation - here, the situation is simple. Pretty much everyone gets more into roleplaying if they find their characters interesting. A personally hand-crafted character, the character you want to play in this specific campaign, will be more interesting to you than one that's just rolled randomly. That's because you put more effort into thinking of the character, and from that effort grows attachment - and when the game finally starts, you feel more fervor to start playing this specific character.

1) This assumes that "roleplaying" is a function of freedom from death. This does not seem to be supported by evidence, given the number of games (and successful ones at that) with higher than D&D levels of lethality. To name a few, Traveller in all it's forms, many forms of GURPS, OD&D (relative to 3.x/4e), Dread and Call of Cthulhu. I think you'd be pretty hard pressed to make the case that players of these games somehow aren't roleplaying as much as you are when you play D&D. In fact, I'm aware of no definition of "roleplaying" which says anything about the relative survivability of the character.

2) This may be the case for you, but is not the case for others. Plenty of people (myself included) find fun and interest in exploring a character that we didn't build. It's like the difference between scripted and improv comedy. Both are comedy and both are funny, they're just different. Whose Line is it Anyway is no less "comedy" than Seinfeld simply because it didn't have a team of writers behind every episode. So it is with random characters. The ones I roll and play are no less real or interesting to me than one that I hand crafted. In fact, in general, I prefer characters that I've rolled randomly because they usually give me something outside my normal box to chew on and work with.

I am already very familiar with such systems, because I played them a lot in the past. When I'm saying random character generation and high lethality are elements that hinder roleplaying, I'm talking not just from a theoretical point of view, but also from experience.

And my experience says the opposite. Which means what we have before us is anecdotes, but not data, hence I asked for a citation. I'm happy (and more than willing) to accept that your experiences are different from mine. What I'm not willing to do is take your experiences as objective fact, especially when those experiences fly in the face of my own.

Knaight

2014-09-04, 09:33 PM

The fact that you consider auto-success and auto-failure in a game system a positive feature simply tells me that you and I should never play at the same table.
It's probably worth differentiating between auto-success and auto-failure in the context of character build, and in the context of emergent difficulties. If you auto-succeed at a bunch of stuff because you have a generally powerful build or auto-fail at a bunch of stuff because you have a crappy one it's generally not fun, but auto-succeeding and auto-failing are in basically every system. You auto-succeed to walk across the floor, you auto-fail to fly by flapping your arms. I don't necessarily have an issue with an ace pilot auto-succeeding at some particular maneuver other pilots find tricky, it just means that the more engaging, challenging parts of the game either aren't in piloting at all or are in much trickier conditions.

Some things have to remain ambiguous because there's not a way to make them unambiguous without excluding a lot of stuff you don't want to exclude. Too much precision, and you have issues with the system not accounting for things that would screw up that precision or getting overly verbose, such as handling stealth - which, frankly, I think may need more granularity. Right now, we have the same rule to try and handle ambushing someone from concealment, ducking into an alley without being spotted, sneaking up on someone in daylight, sneaking up on someone through cover, distracting someone... just, oww.

The rules don't have to be ambiguous there. They have to be applied, and there are decisions to be made in the application of those rules in modeling, but the rules themselves can be clear. They just can't feasibly be super detailed unless you're aiming for an entirely developed subsystem - though stealth seems like an area where a subsystem could be pretty reasonable. They can certainly not contradict themselves.

Pex

2014-09-04, 10:20 PM

The fact that you consider auto-success and auto-failure in a game system a positive feature simply tells me that you and I should never play at the same table.

I knew that several threads ago.

pwykersotz

2014-09-05, 12:14 PM

For what it's worth, I like the 5e rules better than any system I've looked at.

Getting into too much detail causes ridiculous conflicts in a game where literally anything is possible. Trying to define every outcome quickly makes the game lose human readability.

Getting too few details down leads to too many questions that have to be decided and thought out by the DM/Players mid-game. The lighter the rules, the less we have to work with, since boundaries often paradoxically free us (quote from Daria) and let us use our imaginations more.

5e isn't perfect, but darned do I love the balance they've struck. They give me enough of a ruleset for me to use, but then don't bog it down with something like this:

"A persons primary hand is either stronger or more dextrous than their offhand. Roll on the table below to choose which. If a hand is stronger, you get a +1 on strength checks with that hand. If you are using your primary foot as well, this bonus increases to a +2. You lose this bonus on rough terrain, or when you balance is compromised (see balance tables on page 327). If combining an off foot and a primary hand in your stance, the bonuses and penalties are negated entirely unless you are taking 10."

Seriously, that's what I don't want. I can respect that some people do, but I hate needing to sift through that.

But that's just me. :smallsmile:

cobaltstarfire

2014-09-05, 12:55 PM

I like 5E's rules, I can't speak with any authority with it compared to other games though (Other than 5e I've only played 3.5 and role master)

It's got a very nice mix of twiddly bits and simple bits. And there have been very few rules that flat out confuse me or leave me very uncertain of whether I understand them correctly.

I think I don't want D&D to hold my hand. 3.5 had a lot more rules for every other little thing, and the result for me is generally a fear to do anything without first obsessively checking, and then having to ask someone else or the DM to make sure I understood the rules properly. (A lot of the time I had trouble understand the rules because they're complicated, and the descriptions are very poorly written to boot).

Role master I had a special excel sheet that did all the calculations for me, and I think I only ever needed one or two dice for most in game stuff (so I'd just roll when the GM told me to). Role master was the easiest for me, since I never had to worry about remembering any rules wrong. (since I could practically play and get really creative with my spells without really knowing the rules at all)

Pex

2014-09-07, 09:23 AM

I wanted to address this quote directly because I see it often in these discussions. Please please please stop playing with people you don't trust. Gaming is a social hobby that's supposed to be fun, and playing with people you suspect (or actually believe) are cheating, screwing up or screwing you over just sucks the fun right out of things. I'm not saying you should only play with people you would trust with your life, but if you can't trust the people you're gaming with to not cheat and not try to screw you at every chance they get, why are you gaming with them at all?

Your point is valid, but the problem is some people don't know any better. A player's first DM could be a jerk. If he's not ticked off enough to quit the campaign, enjoying the game itself despite the DM, he may think that's just what DMs are supposed to do. Way back when in my college 2E days that was the norm. Any time a player wanted to do something out of the ordinary, the DM either said no, applied a hefty penalty to the roll, or gave a greater disadvantage upon the character as a consequence. To switch DMs meant another DM who behaved the same way. When finally one player who became DM behaved differently and was actually fair, the veil was lifted and I could see how the game was supposed to be. I once overheard a conversation at a convention of DMs discussing their campaigns. One DM was boasting there was no magical healing. Cure Light Wounds didn't exist. The others just accepted it. The 2E DMG I think encouraged this behavior as it advised the DM to say no to practically everything, such as denying a player who wanted to be a ranger instead advising him to be a fighter who always wanted to be a ranger but is allergic to trees.

3E broke the mold by having defined rules and encouraging creativity. Players had more control of what their character could do. 4E continued that idea by advising the DM to say yes. There still could be jerk DMs, but their numbers decreased. We'll have to wait to see if the 5E DMG encourages the DM to say yes or no, but those of us who have played 3E or 4E already know we don't need to tolerate the jerk DMs. We know better that no game is better than a bad game. Being of ages 30+ having to deal with jobs, family, real life won't waste time playing with jerk DMs. It's the new young players who could have the trouble. It will depend on the DMG. I hope it won't go back to the negativity of 2E.

Snails

2014-09-08, 10:44 AM

With regards to the "nostalgia and survivorship bias" of old D&D and how fun or not fun those games are, dismissing it as nostalgia does a huge disservice to the games themselves and to the OSR movement as a whole. Yes, a large part of the OSR movement are old players. But if that were all it was, it wouldn't be a big thing. The fact is, there is a measurable portion of people who prefer (or are getting into) OSR / OD&D type games that didn't start there. I'm one of them. I started with GRUPS, then some homebrew system and then D&D 4. I didn't even play 3e until after I had played 4. And as I've played older editions of D&D, I've come to prefer those editions. This isn't nostalgia, it's actual honest play experience. Yes, I admit to preferring newer presentations of those old rules (let's be honest, some of those early TSR books were a mess) but ultimately the game I'm playing (and preferring to play) is the game as written then, and interpreted now. If the game was objectively as bad as claimed, if the only way people could really prefer those games is nostalgia and survivorship bias, then this should not be occurring.

I am not intending to dismiss the experiences. I am, very correctly, dismissing certain strongly stated conclusions that are built on a foundation of nostalgia. "The game as written then, and interpreted now" is open to bias, because you are simply comparing apples and oranges. That is not a knock against the game you like playing the way, but you should stop and look at the big picture.

The fact of the matter is, that by modern standards, 1e, 2e, 3e, 4e, and even 5e are all Very Rules Heavy games.

So when someone claims that "This edition here is better because it unleashes the creativity of the players". Well, I can go look at the text and prove that claim wrong.

Oh, but it is not really the actual text as Gary wrote it you are using but "the game as written then, and interpreted now". Well, guess what? Every version of D&D can easily be "interpreted now" in a way that is very rules light. It just takes good judgement and confidence on the part of the DM. The rulebooks do not put the DM in any straightjacket. 3rd edition actually made this process vastly easier, by introducing a standard "d20 + <stat mod>" mechanic that is very easy for a novice DM to tune on the fly.

Snails

2014-09-08, 11:09 AM

When I play basketball with my 7 year old cousin I don't "enjoy the spoils of my hard work" with years more practice than he has. That would be no fun. So when I destroy him because he has zero chance of beating me, it's not fun for him and it's not fun for me.
When I'm on the court, I want a challenge. I want someone that will challenge me as a player. That's fun.
When I'm at the gaming table I don't enjoy the game at all if I simply WIN because I planned my build a certain way. Because that's no fun either.
When I'm at the table, I want a challenge. I want encounters that will challenge me as a player. That's fun.

The fact that you consider auto-success and auto-failure in a game system a positive feature simply tells me that you and I should never play at the same table.

Your example argues against your point.

One of the attractions of RPGs (or "Fantasy Roleplaying Games", as we called them back in the day) is that by modelling a fantastic world, our imaginations gain access to experiences that stretch far beyond the realms of our normal and/or plausible world.

In our normal and plausible world, there are "tests" that are simply too easy to wonder about or be enjoyable.

That is the case in a fantasy world. In fact, it is inevitable. So what do you do when such a test comes up? Do not bother to pick up the dice; roleplay the inevitable result and move on. Keep in mind that there will always be greater and greater foes, where you may choose to attempt "impossible" things. When you were low level and you were trying to estimate the king's intentions with respect to certain intrigues, you were only able to make a few Gather Information checks, bribe a single guard/official, and make guess. At high levels, you can make great Gather Information checks, employ powerful divinations, and have your rogue slip past numerous guards and magical wards to hide under the king's bed and listen to the pillow talk. You have graduated past the normal challenges, and you can now solve problems with tactics that will surprise great and powerful opponents.

obryn

2014-09-08, 11:55 AM

Oh, but it is not really the actual text as Gary wrote it you are using but "the game as written then, and interpreted now". Well, guess what? Every version of D&D can easily be "interpreted now" in a way that is very rules light.
Mentzer/Moldvay Basic is certainly rules light, regardless of interpretation.

I think it gets somewhat heavier by the time it crystallized with all its supplements into the Rules Cyclopedia, though never anywhere near as crunchy or complicated as 3e/4e.

1337 b4k4

2014-09-08, 01:11 PM

Your point is valid, but the problem is some people don't know any better. A player's first DM could be a jerk. If he's not ticked off enough to quit the campaign, enjoying the game itself despite the DM, he may think that's just what DMs are supposed to do.

I agree, but the solution to this is making it abundantly clear (both in how to play guides and elsewhere) that there always is an alternative. That you should not play with people that aren't committed to having fun with you rather than in spite of you. The answer is not to design rule sets that assume you don't and can't trust your DM. That is as needlessly antagonistic as a DMG that advises DMs to always say no.

The fact of the matter is, that by modern standards, 1e, 2e, 3e, 4e, and even 5e are all Very Rules Heavy games.

So when someone claims that "This edition here is better because it unleashes the creativity of the players". Well, I can go look at the text and prove that claim wrong.

Then you should do that rather than dismiss it as nostalgia.

It's also worth noting that presentation and game construction can count for as much (or more) of the perception on "unleashing creativity" as the heaviness of the rules. For example, Checkers is extremely lightweight in its rules, Chess is heavier, Chainmail heavier still and Warhammer 40k is much much heavier. All 4 are at their core, abstract combats between two opposing forces, or put another way, they're war games. Yet I think you would agree with me that chainmail and 40k provide for and "unleash" much more player creativity than either Chess or Checkers. The same is applicable to D&D as well. As a simple example, lets take movement rules. Basic and AD&D both had relatively simple movement rules. Characters has a fixed speed, sometimes modified by encumbrance and in some cases special rules for climbing walls, swimming and/or flying and one special case for disengaging from combat. Now compare this to 3e or 4e which then added in rules to handle AoOs, reach, difficult terrain, crawling, prone, balancing etc. Is it that surprising that some might find early D&D's movement rules to have enabled more "player creativity" even if both old and new editions of D&D could be described as rules heavy?

Oh, but it is not really the actual text as Gary wrote it you are using but "the game as written then, and interpreted now". Well, guess what? Every version of D&D can easily be "interpreted now" in a way that is very rules light. It just takes good judgement and confidence on the part of the DM.

You misunderstood the meaning of "as written then, and interpreted now". It was meant to describe an experience with the game unclouded by historical nostalgia as the players in question did not play OD&D or AD&D when they were new. It's new gamers coming to old games and finding them fun. That can't be nostalgia as there's nothing for them to be nostalgic about.

The rulebooks do not put the DM in any straightjacket.

If the rulebooks do not restrict the DM (or for that matter the players) then what is the issue with the game providing less extensive rules? Why the concern over having to "trust" one's DM? The answer of course is that the rules are intended to restrict the DM and players within the bounds of the boxes laid out by the rules. Of course the DM can do whatever they want (see Rule 0, also, it's the DMs game in the end) but the rules are intended to provide some structure and structure, no matter how minimal is intended to restrict and limit.