Rules Precedence

[SangoProduction]

I was writing a section on a rule book, and thought I ought to actually run this pass the huge collection of gamers that are on this forum.

Spoiler: Rules Precedence

Show

Rules Precedence
All rules have a law of precedence - meaning in the event of a conflict, a rule category of higher precedence takes priority over those of lower ones. That is, unless a lower precedence rule specifically calls out a higher precedence one. Nothing takes precedence over the GM.


Rule Category Precedence Level
General Rules ----------- 1
Soul Skills --------------- 2
Talents ------------------ 3
Keystone ---------------- 4

For example, generally, you can can take damage, but a Keystone called Chaos Innoculation makes you immune to Chaos damage. The Keystone has the higher priority, so you are indeed immune to Chaos damage. If someone then uses a Soul Skill which deals chaos damage, it has a lower level of precedence than your Chaos Innoculation Keystone, which means you are immune to that damage.
It should generally be intuitive, but this is laid out here for the sake of preventing confusion.

So, aside from the specific Rule Categories, which you have no context for, is there anything I should clarify or add?

[Quertus]

{Scrubbed}

[SangoProduction]

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

???

OK. So your suggestion is that GMs can never do anything outside of the rules that are laid out?
Or was there actual criticism hidden there?

[Albions_Angel]

I think they might be referring to the part about nothing taking precedence over the GM.

I get what you are trying to say. Its a formal way of writing out Rule 0: At the end of the day, the GM is always right. Which is, of course, true. But it doesnt need to be written down, and doing so could, potentially, invite bad GM decisions.

If that rule is written down, and a player disagrees with a decision, its far too easy to go "Oi, no arguing. Read page 6, paragraph 3 of the Campaign Companion. End of discussion." Which is harsh, even if true. Not writing it down, but talking to your players in session 0 and saying "Sure, ask if things work a certain way, and feel free to point out if you think I am being inconsistent, or if I have forgotten a rule, but if it draws out too long, just note I will rule it a certain way for that moment, and it may well change later once I have time to look it up properly" is much nicer and will prevent more arguments and bad feelings.

As for the rest of your system, I dont quite get it. Is this something new you are adding, a whole new system? Or are you assigning EVERY point of order in the game to one of those categories? If its the former, we need more background. What is a soul skill? Why is it less than a keystone? Are these class abilities, or items? Can you upgrade one to the other? Why does it need to be mentioned that normally you take damage, but having an immunity to damage supersedes that?

If its the latter, however, then you dont need to write that. Its already written. Specifics trump tables. Tables trump descriptions, descriptions trump flavour text, flavour text trumps sidebars (or something like that, its in the DMG). 99 times out of 100, its obvious, but that rule exists for that final case.

[JeenLeen]

I think it sounds pretty clear and is helpful. A question, though, just to test.

If player Y had a Soul Skill said "immune to Chaos damage", but player X had a Keystone saying "deal 5 chaos damage with each hit", and X hits Y, would Y still take 5 chaos damage since the Keystone trumps the Soul Skill?

Rules seem to say Yes, but just testing.

If its the latter, however, then you dont need to write that. Its already written. Specifics trump tables. Tables trump descriptions, descriptions trump flavour text, flavour text trumps sidebars (or something like that, its in the DMG). 99 times out of 100, its obvious, but that rule exists for that final case.

Kinda agree here if it's D&D you're building on. Otherwise, I think this is incredibly helpful as it basically is the equivalent to D&D "Specific Trumps General" and so on that was quoted.

[Albions_Angel]

Kinda agree here if it's D&D you're building on. Otherwise, I think this is incredibly helpful as it basically is the equivalent to D&D "Specific Trumps General" and so on that was quoted.

Hate to be that guy, but if its not D&D that its being based on, or Pathfinder (which has the same rule), then it kinda doesnt belong here. All of us here will want to try and answer questions like these through the lens of D&D 3.5e or Pathfinder. There is both a general roleplay forum AND a homebrew forum that are likely able to give a much better answer than any of us are.

That said JeenLeen has helped me to see the rules in a different way. Is this a power tier system for a new ability system? People start with "general rules" and then can mod themselves with first soul skills, then talents, and finally keystones? Like a shadowcaster knowing many low level mysteries, and few high level ones?

If so, it might be simpler just to give everything a "level" or tier rather than throwing in words like soul skill, talent or keystone. As I try and make my own role playing system, the urge to invent new terms for everything is overwhelming, but numbers are simple and universal.

Why not try something like:

"Abilities in this system fall into one of four tiers. A higher tier ability always overcomes a lower tier one that modifies the same thing. For example, the Tier 2 ability "Chaos Slash", does 5 chaos damage to anyone with the Tier 1 ability "General Hardyness", which provides no special resistance. However, someone with the Tier 4 ability "Chaos Immunity" would take no damage from "Chaos Slash".

Each ability will be listed as follows

Ability Name
Tier Level
Requirements
Description

In the world, people generally call Tier 1 abilities General Attributes, Tier 2 abilities Soul Skills, Tier 3 abilities Talents, and Tier 4 abilities Keystones, but players may find the numerical tier system easier to remember"

A good rule of thumb my friends (who are my playtesters) keep reminding me of is "if you have to use a table to explain it, there is probably a better, simpler system that does the same job". Sometimes tables are necessary, but often they arnt.

[SangoProduction]

I think they might be referring to the part about nothing taking precedence over the GM.

I get what you are trying to say. Its a formal way of writing out Rule 0: At the end of the day, the GM is always right. Which is, of course, true. But it doesnt need to be written down, and doing so could, potentially, invite bad GM decisions.

If that rule is written down, and a player disagrees with a decision, its far too easy to go "Oi, no arguing. Read page 6, paragraph 3 of the Campaign Companion. End of discussion." Which is harsh, even if true. Not writing it down, but talking to your players in session 0 and saying "Sure, ask if things work a certain way, and feel free to point out if you think I am being inconsistent, or if I have forgotten a rule, but if it draws out too long, just note I will rule it a certain way for that moment, and it may well change later once I have time to look it up properly" is much nicer and will prevent more arguments and bad feelings.

As for the rest of your system, I dont quite get it. Is this something new you are adding, a whole new system? Or are you assigning EVERY point of order in the game to one of those categories? If its the former, we need more background. What is a soul skill? Why is it less than a keystone? Are these class abilities, or items? Can you upgrade one to the other? Why does it need to be mentioned that normally you take damage, but having an immunity to damage supersedes that?

If its the latter, however, then you dont need to write that. Its already written. Specifics trump tables. Tables trump descriptions, descriptions trump flavour text, flavour text trumps sidebars (or something like that, its in the DMG). 99 times out of 100, its obvious, but that rule exists for that final case.

I am updating and rewriting an essentially dead experiment of a system, since the original creator lost interest when his YouTubers stopped playing. And you can't try and write out bad people from your system. Look at 4e. Bad players/GMs exist regardless of your rule set.

Thank you for for mentioning flavor text. I need to outright right state that it has no effect on the rules. As well as potentially a sub-precedence table for (short) descriptions, tables and texts. Should they come up.

Yes, I am assigning a point of order in the game to each rules category. As for "needing" the information on the rules categories, I don't think it matters at all. They could be named Classes and Feats, for all that it matters to the concept.
I mean, if I ask you, which is *more specific,* a feat or a class feature, can you definitively say? For most cases, yes. Like Extra Rage feat probably supersedes the Rage class feature's limitation. But that's pure intuition and interpretation and not neccesarily good rule set up.

But the rules categories are being specifically designed so that there is an order of operations, and if say a Class wanted to specifically mess with a feat (why?) then it could, but would have to do so specifically, or perhaps say that it ignores all effects of feats and what not. This would force additions, should they happen to come up, to not be willy nilly with the rules, or not have the same conception of what is more or less "specific."

I think it sounds pretty clear and is helpful. A question, though, just to test.

If player Y had a Soul Skill said "immune to Chaos damage", but player X had a Keystone saying "deal 5 chaos damage with each hit", and X hits Y, would Y still take 5 chaos damage since the Keystone trumps the Soul Skill?

Rules seem to say Yes, but just testing.

Kinda agree here if it's D&D you're building on. Otherwise, I think this is incredibly helpful as it basically is the equivalent to D&D "Specific Trumps General" and so on that was quoted.

Correct, the Keystone would trump the Soul Skill, although that'd sort of be why the most game changing things (like damage immunity) are relegated to the higher precedence rule sets while those that are more mundane, and may only occasionally tweak the rules are lower.
-Note to self: Need to add a variation of that line to the rule book to explain the reasoning for it.

[EisenKreutzer]

Is this supposed to be a rules revision for D&D 3.x/Pathfinder?

[SangoProduction]

Is this supposed to be a rules revision for D&D 3.x/Pathfinder?

Oh. It was at this moment that I noticed I posted to the D&D-specific forum. RIP. Could have sworn I changed that before posting.

[Rynjin]

It sounds sort of like the interaction between Godbound characters in that system (eg. Deception Word characters are always believed when they lie, but also cannot be fooled by lies; these two abilities counter each other when two Deception Word characters interact), but more defined, which is interesting.

I will say however your examples are flawed. Yes, Extra Rage "trumps" Rage, explicitly. 6 additional rounds is an explicit modifier over the normal amount, and trumps the normal amount by wording.

Your system does not actual make the rules any more clear under most circumstances for a rules system, but that doesn't make it any less potentially valuable.

What it IS is an excellent way to save word count and distribute your book a lot cheaper while not decreasing rules clarity.

[SangoProduction]

It sounds sort of like the interaction between Godbound characters in that system (eg. Deception Word characters are always believed when they lie, but also cannot be fooled by lies; these two abilities counter each other when two Deception Word characters interact), but more defined, which is interesting.

I will say however your examples are flawed. Yes, Extra Rage "trumps" Rage, explicitly. 6 additional rounds is an explicit modifier over the normal amount, and trumps the normal amount by wording.

Your system does not actual make the rules any more clear under most circumstances for a rules system, but that doesn't make it any less potentially valuable.

What it IS is an excellent way to save word count and distribute your book a lot cheaper while not decreasing rules clarity.

True, I could have probably found a more concrete example, but I didn't. Also recently saw a thread (as in probably within the most recent couple months) where people were discussing "What makes one rule more specific than another?" and that example came up.

[Quertus]

???

OK. So your suggestion is that GMs can never do anything outside of the rules that are laid out?
Or was there actual criticism hidden there?

I think they might be referring to the part about nothing taking precedence over the GM.

I get what you are trying to say. Its a formal way of writing out Rule 0: At the end of the day, the GM is always right. Which is, of course, true. But it doesnt need to be written down, and doing so could, potentially, invite bad GM decisions.

If that rule is written down, and a player disagrees with a decision, its far too easy to go "Oi, no arguing. Read page 6, paragraph 3 of the Campaign Companion. End of discussion." Which is harsh, even if true. Not writing it down, but talking to your players in session 0 and saying "Sure, ask if things work a certain way, and feel free to point out if you think I am being inconsistent, or if I have forgotten a rule, but if it draws out too long, just note I will rule it a certain way for that moment, and it may well change later once I have time to look it up properly" is much nicer and will prevent more arguments and bad feelings.

As for the rest of your system, I dont quite get it. Is this something new you are adding, a whole new system? Or are you assigning EVERY point of order in the game to one of those categories? If its the former, we need more background. What is a soul skill? Why is it less than a keystone? Are these class abilities, or items? Can you upgrade one to the other? Why does it need to be mentioned that normally you take damage, but having an immunity to damage supersedes that?

If its the latter, however, then you dont need to write that. Its already written. Specifics trump tables. Tables trump descriptions, descriptions trump flavour text, flavour text trumps sidebars (or something like that, its in the DMG). 99 times out of 100, its obvious, but that rule exists for that final case.

Sigh. The oft-misquoted "Rule 0" is (iirc, AFB) explicitly about the GM making rulings on things not converted by the rules, not "the GM is always right" or the GM changing the rules.

Yet, despite this, Rule 0 is interpreted to support… what I would call both good and bad rules changes (when it supports neither).

Your rule, as stated, says that, by the rules, the rules are meaningless.

Now, I'm a fairly creative individual. I can play inside the box, or outside the box. But WoD Mage was all but ruined for me by a GM who not only didn't allow outside the box thinking, he didn't even allow rotes straight from the book to work because "that's not how I view spheres working".

So, I'm asking, what is the intended purpose of your rule? Because, as written, I view it as a complete failure, that says, "throw away the rest of this book".