Exploration and social - the two pillars that have no mechanics

[schm0]

If this structure is all that’s required for a storytelling system then you’ve drawn a broad categorization to include things like practical war gaming (such as kriegspiel) or a doctor walking medical students through a hypothetical patient diagnosis and treatment. The intent of the activity is what’s needed to filter out the war game and the medical hypothetical, as neither of those activities are performed for the purpose of telling or producing stories. D&D does not necessitate the intent and focus of creating and telling stories. While it is frequently used for such, the scope of a game like D&D is broader than simply just storytelling, and there are plenty of use cases for D&D that are not storytelling.

The core mechanic of the game is literally used for storytelling. Don't take my word for it. Just read the very first sentence of the PHB:

The Dungeons & Dragons roleplaying game is about storytelling in worlds of swords and sorcery.

Let's just say we disagree on this point. :)

It’s mostly a matter of framing and implications. Gamism/narrativism/simulationism is a flawed sorting system that misses a lot of the specific desires and fun that a system can address or a player can crave. GNS and The Forge have baggage and an unflattering past. Please accept my apologies for confusing your unawareness for implicit praise of them.

I'm not sure what "praise" it is that you think I gave? I have seen GNS theory bantered around over dozens of forums and discord channels over the years, and its terms are relatively well-defined and understandable. All I did was use those terms to describe the opposing sides and approaches of a debate that is being discussed here and in many other threads on this forum. It was not meant to offer commentary on whatever "baggage" you are referring to. If there is some controversy you are referring to, I am both unaware and uninterested in discussing it.

[Vahnavoi]

@schm0: you maybe should be a bit more interested about the theories you are misappropriating.

The Forge has been down for years; Ron Edwards, the guy behind the Forge and GNS, has moved on, noted both are obsolete. GNS was subsumed in its follow-up, the Big Model, which itself has been largely abandoned. To quote myself from another thread, discussing this same thing:

From the Wikipedia article concerning GNS theory:

"On December 2, 2005, [Ron] Edwards closed the forums on the Forge about GNS theory, saying that they had outlived their usefulness."

It was never a good theory. It was internet forum posts level, built on earlier internet forum posts level musings. Its successor, the Big Model theory of roleplaying games, did not fare much better. Here is what RPG museum has to say on the topic:

"The Big Model has been significantly criticised and is no longer widely used, even by many of the people who liked it when it was new and current. For example, Vincent Baker has said that, while it was a useful tool to diversify thought around what role-playing games could be (i.e. that there was more than a single type of RPG that could be played), the attempt to categorise all RPGs and all players (e.g. using the GNS creative agendas) do not hold up, and furthermore RPG design has moved on and left the Big Model behind."

The only lasting legacy these theories had was the use of certain phrases, such as the words "gamism", "simulationism" and "narrativism", by people who happened to be part of early 2000s internet hobby discussion. Majority of people who use those words, use them wrong, with no significant relationship to their special definitions in these theories. Outside of these theories, there isn't enough settled common usage for them to even net their own dictionary definitions.

[schm0]

@schm0: you maybe should be a bit more interested about the theories you are misappropriating.

Fair enough. My point stands regardless: there is a common divide found in this thread and in others, between those who wish to play the game with more perfect information (i.e. "structure") and those that prefer the freedom to change mechanics or difficulties as the story dictates (i.e. "free-form game play"). The argument is often framed in various contexts: rulings vs. rules, subjective DCs, advantage and disadvantage, skill descriptions, etc. but the underlying divide is usually made apparent after a page or two, with those on either side chiming in as they do. It's quite pervasive, so much that I found it interesting to point out, is all.

[Aimeryan]

Fair enough. My point stands regardless: there is a common divide found in this thread and in others, between those who wish to play the game with more perfect information (i.e. "structure") and those that prefer the freedom to change mechanics or difficulties as the story dictates (i.e. "free-form game play"). The argument is often framed in various contexts: rulings vs. rules, subjective DCs, advantage and disadvantage, skill descriptions, etc. but the underlying divide is usually made apparent after a page or two, with those on either side chiming in as they do. It's quite pervasive, so much that I found it interesting to point out, is all.

If rules were locked in, like an online MMO, then I would have a different tune to sing. As it is, both those that wish to use rules as much as possible and those that wish to use rules as little as possible can be simultaneously catered to by having rules (they can be ignored), while both cannot be simultaneously catered to by not having rules. As such, and especially since we pay for rules as a major part of the purchase of the PHB and DMG (there is also some lore, artwork, and advice), the idea that we should push for the developers to not have rules (in two pillars no less!) seems either incredibly selfish or just plain daft. I just don't get it.

[Blatant Beast]

I do not want to be forced to purchase 700 pages of products, (when page count impacts product price), if I am only going to use 200 pages of the products.

One of my personal favorite D&D books of all time, is the Dungeoneer's Survival Guide from 1e.
That book, however, did not sell very well.

Releasing, optional products, with optional rules is fine, but we do not need a lot of rules bloat in the main game. We also should be mindful that their might not be enough of a marketplace to make it economically viable for WotC to make the type of rules you want with the production value their books typically have.

That is, presumably, one reason why there is an OGL that allows Third Party Publishers to publish. The type of rules you want do not have to be published by WotC, they could be published by Green Ronin, or anybody else.

This way, WotC books won't be full of stuff, that some of us would never use.

[Sorinth]

If rules were locked in, like an online MMO, then I would have a different tune to sing. As it is, both those that wish to use rules as much as possible and those that wish to use rules as little as possible can be simultaneously catered to by having rules (they can be ignored), while both cannot be simultaneously catered to by not having rules. As such, and especially since we pay for rules as a major part of the purchase of the PHB and DMG (there is also some lore, artwork, and advice), the idea that we should push for the developers to not have rules (in two pillars no less!) seems either incredibly selfish or just plain daft. I just don't get it.

What exploration related task doesn't have any rules? Want to travel somewhere there's rules for how long it will take and what you can do while travelling, want to know how long you can hold your breath, there's rules for that, want to know what happens in a blizzard or extreme heat/cold, there's rules for that, how to handle the party getting lost there's rules for that too. I can understand not liking the rules or finding them boring, but to say that they don't have rules in the exploration pillar just isn't true.

[Sorinth]

I do not want to be forced to purchase 700 pages of products, (when page count impacts product price), if I am only going to use 200 pages of the products.

One of my personal favorite D&D books of all time, is the Dungeoneer's Survival Guide from 1e.
That book, however, did not sell very well.

Releasing, optional products, with optional rules is fine, but we do not need a lot of rules bloat in the main game. We also should be mindful that their might not be enough of a marketplace to make it economically viable for WotC to make the type of rules you want with the production value their books typically have.

That is, presumably, one reason why there is an OGL that allows Third Party Publishers to publish. The type of rules you want do not have to be published by WotC, they could be published by Green Ronin, or anybody else.

This way, WotC books won't be full of stuff, that some of us would never use.

Completely agree, and I would also point out that there was/is probably a plan that they would introduce some of that more niche stuff via adventures instead of splatbook. So you want rules for sailing/ships you don't have buy a splat book for it you have Ghosts of Saltmarsh that expands/explores that particular niche.

[schm0]

As it is, both those that wish to use rules as much as possible and those that wish to use rules as little as possible can be simultaneously catered to by having rules (they can be ignored), while both cannot be simultaneously catered to by not having rules.

I don't really agree here. Having rules that you choose to ignore creates a source of conflict between the source material and the rulings at the table. This won't bother the DM, since they have the final say, but it sure will piss off the player when they pull out the table in their rulebooks and ask why their roll of 15 didn't beat the DC. With no such table to point to, the DM is free to rule however they want and the players are just mildly disappointed they didn't make the check.

Now on the other hand you can have a DM who rules too heavily in favor/against the players, because they are granted that freedom to arbitrate on the fly, but I find that to be an issue of experience rather than one of design. A DM who has their players stomp everything they throw at them or TPK on the regular is going to learn a few things about how to balance their rulings.

As it pertains to exploration and social pillars, I think there's just enough to satisfy most DMs of either persuasion. There's enough there to lean on if you want, and plenty more to expand upon what's there. The real problem in my mind is the lack of cohesion and support in all but a handful of official adventures. (And on a side note, I blame the failure of the PHB Ranger squarely on the lack of support for it in official adventures.) If you're going to build a class around excelling in the wilderness, you better have some wilderness to explore and challenge the party in every adventure.

[Aimeryan]

I don't really agree here. Having rules that you choose to ignore creates a source of conflict between the source material and the rulings at the table. This won't bother the DM, since they have the final say, but it sure will piss off the player when they pull out the table in their rulebooks and ask why their roll of 15 didn't beat the DC. With no such table to point to, the DM is free to rule however they want and the players are just mildly disappointed they didn't make the check.

Will such a player? I know personally I do not feel that way. Whether the DC is made by the DM or is made by a rule, I want consistency. If something is described as X, I want to know it will be the same DC as previous thing described as X. I would not be happy with a DM that just pulled numbers out of various unsavioury places. What is important is that I know the rule or ruling so that I can plan appropriately, otherwise I might as well go watch a film.

Now, if the DM comes up with a ruling I really did not care for, that would remain the case whether or not a rule exists already. It appears to me that there are DMs out there that think that as long as there are no rules then everyone will like what they come up with, while if there are rules everyone will hate what they come up with. In reality, people will like/dislike what the DM comes up with on its own basis.

---

I do not want to be forced to purchase 700 pages of products, (when page count impacts product price), if I am only going to use 200 pages of the products.

So, there are two things to unpack here.

The first is that I have not seen any evidence that 5e being rules-lite has made it also be price-lite. I would agree that if your primary product component is rules and you go rule-lite then you should also go price-lite. This does not make the product better, or as good as it could have been, however it does make the value proposition stronger.

The second is that having more rules necessarily results in an encyclopedia. This is a slippery slope fallacy and I will call it out. There already exists some rules, even in the social and exploration pillars - disparate, pocket-change, token rules, but nevertheless. Yet, the book has not became a hefty tome. A few more will not suddenly do so.

[schm0]

Will such a player? I know personally I do not feel that way. Whether the DC is made by the DM or is made by a rule, I want consistency. If something is described as X, I want to know it will be the same DC as previous thing described as X. I would not be happy with a DM that just pulled numbers out of various unsavioury places. What is important is that I know the rule or ruling so that I can plan appropriately, otherwise I might as well go watch a film.

Now, if the DM comes up with a ruling I really did not care for, that would remain the case whether or not a rule exists already. It appears to me that there are DMs out there that think that as long as there are no rules then everyone will like what they come up with, while if there are rules everyone will hate what they come up with. In reality, people will like/dislike what the DM comes up with on its own basis.

Why wouldn't such a player? If there were tables of DCs for every skill, for example, then I'd absolutely expect players to assume that those tables apply to the games they play at. The game is providing the expectation for those rules by giving them to players. So any deviation from those rules creates a potential for conflict.

As far as consistency is concerned, as a player you'd really have no idea what the DCs are behind the screen anyways, so I'm not sure how you could possibly measure whether or not a given DC for a certain check is consistent over time (let alone the odds that the exact same check occurring frequently enough to measure such a thing). But ultimately I think what you are referring to above is consistency in fairness, and that we can agree on.

IMHO, the most ideal game is the one where the player's choices aren't primarily focused on optimizing for the rules or determining the exact probability of success, but instead one that is focused on what their characters want to do narratively. And in my mind, the more tables and rules that exist, the more players tend to focus on them. It's fine to optimize and calculate risk, don't get me wrong, but it should always be secondary to the game experience.

My only issue with exploration or social interaction isn't the quality or quantity of rules, but the uneven presentation and application of those rules. I'd pay decent money to have a quality book dedicated entirely to wilderness exploration, for example.

[Sindeloke]

Why wouldn't such a player? If there were tables of DCs for every skill, for example, then I'd absolutely expect players to assume that those tables apply to the games they play at. The game is providing the expectation for those rules by giving them to players. So any deviation from those rules creates a potential for conflict.

My homebrew world has no elves, dwarves, orcs, harregon, or literally any other existing player race other than human. Instead, it has a small handful of setting-specific homebrew races.

My players are not concerned that the PHB has races that are implied to be universal that are not available to them in my particular game. No one has ever come up to me and said "why the hell don't you have elves, the game says I can play elves, I want to play an elf." There's just literally never been even ten seconds of conflict about it. No one cares. They accept that this is what makes the game fun for me, and that my fun matters; they believe that I am a skilled worldbuilder and therefore trust that what I have provided for them as a replacement for that aspect of the game will be fun for them as well; they go into it with a collaborative attitude and we all have a good time.

Now, certainly, there are players who would not want to play in my game, because they couldn't be the cool warforged monk they've been dreaming about. I've been fortunate to have a group of friends who I'm very compatible with in this way, and if I didn't have them, I might have had to do some searching to find people who were interested in the same game I was. And, likewise, if there were detailed DC tables for every skill, and you as a DM told people up front "we won't be using those, I prefer to wing it," that you would have players who say "this game isn't for me, sorry," and who do not play with you, and you might have to do some searching to find players who were interested in your game.

But that would be a good thing. It would mean that the players who do choose to play in your game are guaranteed to be ones who will appreciate your DMing; ie, the playstyle and interests of the entire table align in an important way, and everyone is having fun during the portion of the game that involves that playstyle preference.

My only issue with exploration or social interaction isn't the quality or quantity of rules, but the uneven presentation and application of those rules. I'd pay decent money to have a quality book dedicated entirely to wilderness exploration, for example.

Honestly, I complain about this game in a lot of different ways, but my real, core frustration with 5e is actually just this - the promised "modularity" from the original marketing never actually appeared. "Here's a book about wilderness exploration; it's literally everything you could possibly need for a mechanically vigorous, challenging hexcrawl, so you can get this book out when you're hexcrawling and need only it, or not even buy it at all if your party will never leave the dungeon" is exactly what I was hoping for with this edition. But unfortunately "not every player will want or need to buy this" isn't compatible with Hasbro's business model, and so none of the support for extra play modes will ever exist, now or in DnDone.

[schm0]

My homebrew world has no elves, dwarves, orcs, harregon, or literally any other existing player race other than human. Instead, it has a small handful of setting-specific homebrew races.

My players are not concerned that the PHB has races that are implied to be universal that are not available to them in my particular game. No one has ever come up to me and said "why the hell don't you have elves, the game says I can play elves, I want to play an elf." There's just literally never been even ten seconds of conflict about it. No one cares.

Now, certainly, there are players who would not want to play in my game, because they couldn't be the cool warforged monk they've been dreaming about. I've been fortunate to have a group of friends who I'm very compatible with in this way, and if I didn't have them, I might have had to do some searching to find people who were interested in the same game I was. And, likewise, if there were detailed DC tables for every skill, and you as a DM told people up front "we won't be using those, I prefer to wing it," that you would have players who say "this game isn't for me, sorry," and who do not play with you, and you might have to do some searching to find players who were interested in your game.

But that would be a good thing. It would mean that the players who do choose to play in your game are guaranteed to be ones who will appreciate your DMing; ie, the playstyle and interests of the entire table align in an important way, and everyone is having fun during the portion of the game that involves that playstyle preference.

Making decisions restricting elements of character creation based on your setting is not really comparable to more universal rules such as skill descriptions or DCs, IMHO. It's much more palatable to say "these species don't exist in my world, so you can't play them" than it is to say "I don't use these rules because I don't really care for them." It' is expected that not every world in the multiverse has elves.

Furthermore, as you point out, it is also different because the restriction only applies once and at the beginning of a campaign, unlike universal rules that apply to running the game as a whole, beyond just the character creation stage. And while it is true that players can self-select by opting out of the game, the problem is evident: there will be players who see those decisions as a source of conflict, some to the point of passing over your game entirely.

[KorvinStarmast]

If rules were locked in, like an online MMO, then I would have a different tune to sing. As it is, both those that wish to use rules as much as possible and those that wish to use rules as little as possible can be simultaneously catered to by having rules (they can be ignored), while both cannot be simultaneously catered to by not having rules. As such, and especially since we pay for rules as a major part of the purchase of the PHB and DMG (there is also some lore, artwork, and advice), the idea that we should push for the developers to not have rules (in two pillars no less!) seems either incredibly selfish or just plain daft. I just don't get it.

Who is pushing for the devs to not have rules? Nobody. How much and how many (there are but some are in the DMG rather than in the PHB, deal with it) is a matter of taste.

I can understand not liking the rules or finding them boring, but to say that they don't have rules in the exploration pillar just isn't true.

Correct.

So you want rules for sailing/ships you don't have buy a splat book for it you have Ghosts of Saltmarsh that expands/explores that particular niche.

It's a good book. There is also a meme running about that adventures on the water are a bad things since people in armor drown, etc. But that's as much tongue in cheek as anything else.

With no such table to point to, the DM is free to rule however they want and the players are just mildly disappointed they didn't make the check.

And play continues.

If you're going to build a class around excelling in the wilderness, you better have some wilderness to explore and challenge the party in every adventure.

Tomb of Annihilation is a good module for Rangers.

Will such a player? I know personally I do not feel that way. Whether the DC is made by the DM or is made by a rule, I want consistency. If something is described as X, I want to know it will be the same DC as previous thing described as X.

You are looking at the DC in isolation as though it is a thing in itself. It is not.
No two situations are identical, so no two skill DCs are necessarily identical. What you prefer/suggest is massively limiting to the game. As I mentioned elsewhere, each lock is its own problem to pick with thieves tools. DCs for lock picking run the gamut, from 12 to 25, in the published adventures that I have. And as I pointed out to Pex: there is no tree.

---

So, there are two things to unpack here.

The first is that I have not seen any evidence that 5e being rules-lite has made it also be price-lite.

It isn't rules light, but it is rules lighter than 3.x.

I would agree that if your primary product component is rules and you go rule-lite then you should also go price-lite. This does not make the product better, or as good as it could have been, however it does make the value proposition stronger.

More isn't better. Blades in the Dark is sort of a case in point. It's a very good game but it takes a lot of referring to the rule book to get untracked. (There's a running joke about "and once I've read this densely written rule book 83 times I'll finally be able to run the game" on reddit somewhere. But what BitD is, IMO, is rules coherent, and the rules are well bound to the setting. The rules fit the game experience that they are trying to create pretty darned well.

The second is that having more rules necessarily results in an encyclopedia.

The key is in excellent writing. Not volume. D&D 5e rules have some good, concise bits, and some 'filler heavy' bits, almost as though the same writer weren't involved in the writing of them. And that means that the editors were asleep on the job, in terms of getting a consistent style and voice.

As far as consistency is concerned, as a player you'd really have no idea what the DCs are behind the screen anyways, so I'm not sure how you could possibly measure whether or not a given DC for a certain check is consistent over time

That too. "I am a player, but I want control over the game world" is the appeal that I think is being made.
Fear of the unknown.

My only issue with exploration or social interaction isn't the quality or quantity of rules, but the uneven presentation and application of those rules. I'd pay decent money to have a quality book dedicated entirely to wilderness exploration, for example.

The "underwater" rules in PHB are a good case of "they seemed to go a bit lighter than I expected on this one" insofar as my critique of the editing bit.

But that would be a good thing. It would mean that the players who do choose to play in your game are guaranteed to be ones who will appreciate your DMing; ie, the playstyle and interests of the entire table align in an important way, and everyone is having fun during the portion of the game that involves that playstyle preference.

Which is a key point: there isn't a universal experience, nor a universal expectation for D&D play.

But unfortunately "not every player will want or need to buy this" isn't compatible with Hasbro's business model, and so none of the support for extra play modes will ever exist, now or in DnDone.

THey dumped about 4/5 of the team who put the game together once the last of the three core books was completed. The uneven quality of the supplements seems to me another case of "we do not speak with one voice" again.

Furthermore, as you point out, it is also different because the restriction only applies once and at the beginning of a campaign, unlike universal rules that apply to running the game as a whole, beyond just the character creation stage. And while it is true that players can self-select by opting out of the game, the problem is evident: there will be players who see those decisions as a source of conflict, some to the point of passing over your game entirely.

Good point.

[Aimeryan]

Who is pushing for the devs to not have rules?

The OP?

TL;DR: is it a good thing that exploration and social encounters have not been gamified in D&D 5e?
I think yes.

--

You are looking at the DC in isolation as though it is a thing in itself. It is not.
No two situations are identical, so no two skill DCs are necessarily identical. What you prefer/suggest is massively limiting to the game. As I mentioned elsewhere, each lock is its own problem to pick with thieves tools. DCs for lock picking run the gamut, from 12 to 25, in the published adventures that I have. And as I pointed out to Pex: there is no tree.

That is your choice. It is not my choice. When a similar situation occurs in the game I want to be able to predict and plan for the DC. Different locks may be different DCs, but the same lock used on various XYZ Compendium's Strongboxes should have the same DC. Likewise, if the type of lock is described I would expect to know the DC for that before getting there - a kink in the plan then may present when the info was wrong, but that is part of the plot then. That builds a rule. If the book had a list of locks and DCs, describing the types and how they look, that would be value added for myself and likely many others. It would not subtract value for you though - if you don't like them, don't use them.

--

More isn't better.

If provided with X and then X + Y, as long as Y is at all positive then X + Y does provide more value. What you are doing here is saying F has more than X but does not provide more value. Sure, because you are comparing apples to oranges. But X + Y would, and that is what we are talking about.

[KorvinStarmast]

Schm0 has demonstrated that the "lack of rules" is a false premise.

but the same lock used on various XYZ Compendium's Strongboxes

OK, you are making stuff up now, or maybe engaging in a hypothetical that is at odds with how the game is structured, and how the DCs for published adventures are arrived at.
The term "lock" is not computer code for identical items in stored or random memory. And for that matter, organizations use varying qualities of lock for varying purposes. (One example from my time in the Navy: we had different qualities of locks on certain file cabinets and doors based on what was stored in/behind them).

You appear to be approaching this as though the players are in control of the game world.
They are not. Games like that are made, but this one isn't it. Your demand to "plan for that" is at odds with the discovery phase of the game.

The worldbuilder is the DM.
Your agency is the measure of how your PC responds to and interacts with the imaginary world. What's in the game world isn't driven by that, although your PC is a catalyst for changes in the game world via the choices made....with a little luck thrown in. Uncertainty is baked in, on purpose. You seem to be demanding certainty.

If the book had a list of locks and DCs, describing the types and how they look, that would be value added for myself and likely many others.

You know that the range for DCs is 5-30.

As schm0 points out: you don't know what's going on behind that screen. That is a feature, not a bug.

[Blatant Beast]

The first is that I have not seen any evidence that 5e being rules-lite has made it also be price-lite. I would agree that if your primary product component is rules and you go rule-lite then you should also go price-lite. This does not make the product better, or as good as it could have been, however it does make the value proposition stronger.

Hasbro is a financially desperate company, at a time in which the corporate zeitgeist exemplifies extreme rent seeking behavior. If you think the books are expensive now, of course WotC will charge more if they start printing larger books. WotC might charge more, even when they print less pages, and include things like slipcovers and small trinkets.

The rules you seek might be out there with 3pp. WotC does not need to be involved in your quest for the particular rules and guidance you seek.

The second is that having more rules necessarily results in an encyclopedia. This is a slippery slope fallacy and I will call it out. There already exists some rules, even in the social and exploration pillars - disparate, pocket-change, token rules, but nevertheless. Yet, the book has not became a hefty tome. A few more will not suddenly do so.

I did not mention anything about encyclopedias, as I recall, but alas history refutes on that front, as well. Companies, I suspect, would love making Encyclopedias/Reprints....very little new design goes into the books, so the cost of making the intellectual property has likely already been paid for in past production costs.

Let me introduce the D&D Compendium club membership, (that I remember):
The Big Book of Artifacts says "Yo"
The Monstrous Compendium from 2e says: "Hello"
The Spell Compendium from 3e says: "Heya"
Mordenkainen Presents Monster of the Multiverse from 5e says" "How are you doing?"

If you start factoring in reprinted material, then 5e does that frequently already, and 2024 Edition is likely going to continue the process. The Gazetteer sections of Princes of the Apocalypse, and Dragon Heist are largely lifted straight from 1e Forgotten Realms books, for example.

The Renown, Faith, and Horror based point systems that appear in Ravnica, Theros, and Ravenloft are largely the same system. 5e's support for character or campaign Role playing aids, has largely been making pretty lack luster charts. Why do I want to pay for lists of names, when libraries offer books of names, for free?

WotC, printing more rules, is no guarantee that the rules will be good or useful. WotC printing more rules, is not even a guarantee that the rules will be new. More is not necessarily, better.

Similarly to what Pex has stated, it seems your drive to have all these rules created, is that you want set DCs to exist from game to game. I understand how unpleasant anxiety can be, but it strikes me as a bit extreme to usher in a fundamental change to the most popular edition of D&D, for the comfort of an unknown percentage of the gaming community.

From an utilitarian perspective, we would really need to know the numbers on the percentage of players that feel the same as you and Pex, to make an informed decision.

[Aimeryan]

Schm0 has demonstrated that the "lack of rules" is a false premise.

No such thing has been demonstrated. Another person adequately rebutted it, so I did not weigh in. However, the idea that something existing in the books means that it must appear in any one DM's campaign is ludicrous. If a player does not like a ruling the DM has came up with enough that they are complaining it is a sign they are not content with the DM's ruling - not that they will throw a tantrum because a rule hasn't been followed.

If a DM does have a player that insists on all the rules being followed or else, and the DM wishes to do their own thing, then those two people are simply not compatible. Nothing will change that.

---

WotC does not need to be involved in your quest for the particular rules and guidance you seek.

Every customer/service relationship is built upon what is desired. Of course they have no obligation, I am simply stating what I desire from this - which is the point of a forum.

[Blatant Beast]

which is the point of a forum.

I do not believe anything has been stated asking you not to write about want you want.
You want things, that some of us do not want.

The things that you want, however, do not need to result in whole scale system changes. If you want set DCs for certain activities, if such a thing would make your play experience more enjoyable, then you could ask your DM to accommodate you.

Altering the game at the point of your play sessions, strikes me as the most measured way to get what you want, without impacting the entire 5e play community with changes that might prevent others from having the play experience they want.

One of my friends is claustrophobic, to the point that very detailed descriptions of tight spaces can sometimes make them feel uncomfortable. Should D&D not have squeezing rules and tight space to accommodate the segment of the marketplace that is claustrophobic?

That strike me as extreme action, especially given the fact, that accommodating action can be best accomplished at the level of the play group.

I myself would have no problem with having a larger DMG that costs more if there is a great section write-up on how to accommodate the needs and wants of playgroups. Monte Cook products often have a section like this, and often use the common convention of X-cards.

This is teaching people how to fish, and I am willing to pay for that.
I am not willing to pay for canned tuna, aka ubiquitous set DCs, (especially as the guidance for running a game only using three DCs for Easy, Moderate, and Hard tasks already exists).

TBF, I generally play with friends, (and acquaintances often quickly become friends when playing D&D together), I am not as familiar with the Tinder D&D mode in which you go to FLGS or Discord, etc, and play with randos. I imagine it might be difficult to ask a DM you have never met, and were just introduced, to only use the set DC that you want. Of course, there might already be DMs out there that run their game in a manner that would align with what you want Aimeryan.

[schm0]

No such thing has been demonstrated. Another person adequately rebutted it, so I did not weigh in.

I'm not sure how one can rebut a compilation of rules that do, objectively and irrefutably, exist. :)

[Tanarii]

5e has plenty of mechanics for exploration and social.

It even has a game structure for social: DMG p244-245

What it doesn't really have is a game structure for exploration. Or palette of frameworks to select from. Common examples are dungeon crawl, hex crawl, and point crawl.

Edit: For folks interest in game structures, The Alexandrian has a good series on them: https://thealexandrian.net/wordpress...ame-structures

[KorvinStarmast]

What it doesn't really have is a game structure for exploration. Or palette of frameworks to select from. Common examples are dungeon crawl, hex crawl, and point crawl.

Play examples in the DMG, like in AD&D 1e DMG or in the Vol 3 of the little brown books, or in Holmes, would IMO go a long way to helping with that: particularly for beginning players and beginning DMs.
FWIW: I find "discovery" to be a better way to frame that aspect of the game, with Exploring being a sub set of it.

For folks interest in game structures, The Alexandrian has a good series on them: https://thealexandrian.net/wordpress...ame-structures

Glad to see you break lurk again, hadn't 'seen' much of you for a while.

[Witty Username]

More isn't better. Blades in the Dark is sort of a case in point. It's a very good game but it takes a lot of referring to the rule book to get untracked. (There's a running joke about "and once I've read this densely written rule book 83 times I'll finally be able to run the game" on reddit somewhere. But what BitD is, IMO, is rules coherent, and the rules are well bound to the setting. The rules fit the game experience that they are trying to create pretty darned well.

This weirds me out some, Blades in the Dark at least feels significantly lighter on rules than 5e, I recall watching the Oxventure Blades in the Dark series before I got/read the book and found it pretty easy to follow what was going on mechanically. And stuff like the Flashback stuff should just be in RPGs generally in all honesty.

Meanwhile I have DMed both 3.5 and 5e and still feel like I don't actually grok most of 5e's DMG. As well as a lot of bloat and nothing statements for rules to hide in.

[Tanarii]

This weirds me out some, Blades in the Dark at least feels significantly lighter on rules than 5e, I recall watching the Oxventure Blades in the Dark series before I got/read the book and found it pretty easy to follow what was going on mechanically. And stuff like the Flashback stuff should just be in RPGs generally in all honesty.

Meanwhile I have DMed both 3.5 and 5e and still feel like I don't actually grok most of 5e's DMG. As well as a lot of bloat and nothing statements for rules to hide in.

Blades in the dark is only rules lighter if you count count the bajillion spells D&D has. And maybe class features.

And its organization is just terrible. Imagine if the PHB and DMG were one book with the DMGs organization.

That said, the biggest barrier to understanding the rules seems to be thinking like a typical D&D DM/Player. It's not designed to be run or played the same way.

[Schwann145]

It was not my intention to invoke notions of such a horribly constructed system as some of the offending white wolf offerings.

I got a genuine laugh out of this, considering how similar White Wolf/Paradox games and D&D are when it comes to the fundamentals.
Vampire: "In most situations that require a roll, you pick an Ability and an Attribute that best match the intended action and you roll for success. Combat has it's own more complex system because it requires more than a simple roll for verisimilitude."
D&D: "In most situations that require a roll, you pick an Ability Score and a relevant Skill Proficiency that best match the intended action and you roll for success. Combat has it's own more complex system because it requires more than a simple roll for verisimilitude."

[Vahnavoi]

@Schwann145: their basic mechanics being so similar is part of why White Wolf games were horribly constructed. You have to look outside what those games say about rolling dice, and at what they say about how to create stories and what the relationship of rolling dice has to that.

Or, in case you don't want to go through WoD books, let me explain using much simpler games to illustrate the principle:

Among the simplest storytelling games, is story dice: you have some number of dice. Each has some nice, evocative pictures on it. A player rolls the dice, sees what symbols they get, and then their task is to tell a story based on them. Success is based on how entertaining other players find the result.

Among the simplest roleplaying games, is a mimicry guessing game: there are cues for different roles that have to be portrayed within some restriction (typically, not making sound). The player's task, upon receiving the cue, is to change their behaviour to match the role. Success is based on how recognizable their performance is.

A mimicry guessing game might use dice (even the same dice) to pick roles for players as a story dice game, but what the player is expected to do is different. You can call mimicry a type of storytelling too, but only the mimicry game posits the player has to play a role.

In comparison to these simple games, a more complex game such as D&D or a Vampire LARP can ask players to do both at various times, to various degrees. The question I want you to ask and answer, is this: if you want players to focus on the mimicry aspect (changing their behaviour to match a role), does it make sense to emphasize rolling dice and calling your system a storytelling system?

[Tanarii]

(Edit: personal definitions incoming )

The simplest role playing game: each player declares what they want their character to try and do, rolls dice, and based on the result, finds out if they succeeded or failed.

The simplest (modern) storytelling game: each player declares what they want their character to try and do, rolls dice, and based on the result, decides what the world does in response.

Role playing games you play your character. Storytelling games you play your character AND the world.

-------------

Complex games introduce more specific rules.

Good complex games introduce game structures with the more rules tied into them.


Mutant Year Zero and Forbidden Lands are better complex game than D&D when it comes to exploration. They not only have rules, but they have a game structure, which means there is a solid gameplay loop.

[Witty Username]

And its organization is just terrible. Imagine if the PHB and DMG were one book with the DMGs organization.

Eh, I think my only issue is the playbooks being towards the middle. Putting basic rules towards the front and classes towards the back is my personal preference. The important part is the 'classes section' for a game should be in an easy to access location, that is easy to flip to in game if necessary, it just being in the middle of the book means a lot of getting at it and needing to remember where the section actually is.

DMG and PHB materials being one book I have gotten decently comfortable with. And it almost always saves the currency. D20 Star Wars being just 3rd edition D&D in about half the pages (I think the core rulebook is still a chunky boy) without losing anything was transformative in how I view this problem.