Detailed systems of rules do not preclude argument over the rules. They just mean the arguments get more arcane and take up more time as you look up the rules.
I would add that games with very elaborate rule sysems draw people who really enjoy parcing rules. Systems with more basic rulesets will attract the gamer who is less likely to argue about it because not everything is designed to hinge on the letter of the law. The more elaborate the rules get, the greater our reliance upon them.
This is not a problem at all. I run this way at my local store and it works perfectly fine. People find it empowering and refreshing. I get the "why haven't we been doing this all along" comments alot.
Then you are blessed with great charisma, and have no need of a spell to charm person. But again, this is not something WotC can stick on a shelf and sell.
Are we even thinking of the same thing here? Go back to the 2nd post, the first one I made, listing two different charm spells. You're really supporting the first over the second? What happens when that goes to playtesting? "Oh, this worked great, because all my players are mature and reasonable, and we came to reasonable decisions about the corner cases you left out." "Great! I'm happy you understood the rules so well." "Oh, this sucked, there was this corner case we didn't understand and it ended up being an hour long argument." "Oh, oh my. Did you read the section on being mature and reasonable? Cuz if you missed that, I can see how you ended up in an argument."
My presumption is that most gamers are mature and reasonable.
To be honest I still contest this statement. Most gamers are not mature and reasonable. A lot of them are still teenagers. And not even the older kind with driver's licenses. But let's pretend it's true. Most gamers are mature and reasonable and, if they are willing to go without rules, then they can do without rules. They can do this at no cost to themselves. That's why a free form RPG like OVA has one main developer working part time and a bunch of volunteer playtesters. Not a whole lot of investment is required.
OTOH, if mature and reasonable gamers want a detailed system of rules to play with, they're stuck. Detailed systems of rules require time, expertise, and playtesting, which are all resources unavailable to the average gamer. If we're going to leverage hundreds of man-hours of design talent and thousands of man-hours of open playtesting, why not leverage it in a direction that plays to the strength of having design talent and playtesters?
You're doing two things here worth mentioning.
"OTOH, if mature and reasonable gamers want a detailed system of rules to play with, they're stuck.....why not leverage it in a direction that plays to the strength of having design talent "
1. You're arguing in absolutes which is not the situation. Nobody is saying the options you're looking for shouldn't exist or that designers should forego offering them. In a modular system they should both exist and will. It's a win/win. We were simply putting forth the merits of one over the other based on our styles of play, not whether either had a right to exist.
"Most gamers are not mature and reasonable.'
2. You're basically saying, "our target audience is largely uneducated, immature and unreasonable, therefore, we should publish the most elaborate and expansive system possible". That doesn't really make sense to me.
"OTOH, if mature and reasonable gamers want a detailed system of rules to play with, they're stuck.....why not leverage it in a direction that plays to the strength of having design talent "
1. You're arguing in absolutes which is not the situation. Nobody is saying the options you're looking for shouldn't exist or that designers should forego offering them. In a modular system they should both exist and will. It's a win/win. We were simply putting forth the merits of one over the other based on our styles of play, not whether either had a right to exist.
Ah, I made so many drafts of that post I forgot the question: Read my first post, (2nd in the thread), I posted two versions of Charm Person. Are you really supporting the first version over the second one? If you don't like either version, write one.
2. You're basically saying, "our target audience is largely uneducated, immature and unreasonable, therefore, we should publish the most elaborate and expansive system possible". That doesn't really make sense to me.
You're basically saying that this is a happy world where everyone can sit down and just talk things out and there's no need for arbitrage. That doesn't make sense to me. You've chosen to label being a part of that world as being mature and reasonable. That forces me into the position of admitting that the world is immature and unreasonable.
Historically, when humans have sat together and talked things out, it usually ended in either war, tyranny, or an elaborate and expansive system of justice. And while, yes, an elaborate and expansive system of justice can be difficult to understand, and yes, people often detest the people fluent in it, when things do get bad, it is there. You may have forgotten that since most people go for decades without ever seeing a court room. The thing is, you have a general idea how it works. Speeding will get you a ticket if you're caught, theft is bad, killing is straight out, and part of every paycheck goes to Uncle Sam. You can live your life that way. Most people live life that way, and probably consider themselves mature and reasonable. But if the law were written as "Ticket people you catch speeding, arrest people who steal, try to reserve something nasty for murderers, and take a part of every person's paycheck" it'd all fall apart. While those are great rules of thumb to live by, they are in fact terrible rules because of how arbitrary they are and how much power they give to the interpreter.
Full disclosure, my friends didn't like playing with me at first. On the other hand, when they let me DM, it started the longest and most successful campaign we had as a group, and they haven't let me play the other side of the screen since... and yes, I do answer a lot of questions with, "What do you think should happen?" but it doesn't change how I feel about how the rules should be written.
"OTOH, if mature and reasonable gamers want a detailed system of rules to play with, they're stuck.....why not leverage it in a direction that plays to the strength of having design talent "
1. You're arguing in absolutes which is not the situation. Nobody is saying the options you're looking for shouldn't exist or that designers should forego offering them. In a modular system they should both exist and will. It's a win/win. We were simply putting forth the merits of one over the other based on our styles of play, not whether either had a right to exist.
Ah, I made so many drafts of that post I forgot the question: Read my first post, (2nd in the thread), I posted two versions of Charm Person. Are you really supporting the first version over the second one? If you don't like either version, write one.
2. You're basically saying, "our target audience is largely uneducated, immature and unreasonable, therefore, we should publish the most elaborate and expansive system possible". That doesn't really make sense to me.
You're basically saying that this is a happy world where everyone can sit down and just talk things out and there's no need for arbitrage. That doesn't make sense to me. You've chosen to label being a part of that world as being mature and reasonable. That forces me into the position of admitting that the world is immature and unreasonable.
Historically, when humans have sat together and talked things out, it usually ended in either war, tyranny, or an elaborate and expansive system of justice. And while, yes, an elaborate and expansive system of justice can be difficult to understand, and yes, people often detest the people fluent in it, when things do get bad, it is there. You may have forgotten that since most people go for decades without ever seeing a court room. The thing is, you have a general idea how it works. Speeding will get you a ticket if you're caught, theft is bad, killing is straight out, and part of every paycheck goes to Uncle Sam. You can live your life that way. Most people live life that way, and probably consider themselves mature and reasonable. But if the law were written as "Ticket people you catch speeding, arrest people who steal, try to reserve something nasty for murderers, and take a part of every person's paycheck" it'd all fall apart. While those are great rules of thumb to live by, they are in fact terrible rules because of how arbitrary they are and how much power they give to the interpreter.
Full disclosure, my friends didn't like playing with me at first. On the other hand, when they let me DM, it started the longest and most successful campaign we had as a group, and they haven't let me play the other side of the screen since... and yes, I do answer a lot of questions with, "What do you think should happen?" but it doesn't change how I feel about how the rules should be written.
"You're basically saying that this is a happy world where everyone can sit down and just talk things out and there's no need for arbitrage."
This sentence is internally contradictory. What it says isn't true, nor can it be. Sitting down and talking IS arbitrage (and also the basic act of playing an RPG interestingly enough). That's the point.
"Historically, when humans have sat together and talked things out, it usually ended in either war, tyranny, or an elaborate and expansive system of justice."
This statement is patently absurd and wildly false. Lets add a bit of context to shine some light on it.
"Historically, when humans have sat together and talked about games, it usually ended in either war, tyranny, or an elaborate and expansive system of justice."
Do you still think it's true? Because, that's the point that you're making.
And your comparisons to laws is a false choice. Nobody is asking for rules to be written in that fashion. The comparison isn't apt. It's a straw man, and to be honest, a pretty lazy one.
Again, no one is trying to take away the things you like. No one is arguing for their removal from existance. So the need to defend them in such absurd ways strikes me as strange. We're discussing a modular system where both desires are easily achieved. The discussion was purely expository.
And for the record, I can't find your second definition of charm person. Just a reiteration of the first and a recommended guidance. If you're referring to the recommended guidance, I would have no problem with that. In fact, I would encourage it.
The debate is heated already and I don't want to enter it. However, I will post my thoughts on the issue in general: do what you wish with them.
The base question is: what are rules for? And the answer I have is: to adjudicate conflict.
Whenever there is no conflict, either because the result is irrelevant or because the result is already a given, then there should be no rules. Things just happen. I don't want rules for climbing the stairs unless it's cursed stairs of doom above a fiery pit of molten lava. So the first characteristic of good rules should be that they get out of the way when not needed.
When there is conflict, however, then there should be rules. If something has a chance of failure, then this chance should be measured somehow, and a random factor should decide whether or not that thing fails, or succeeds. The choice of random factor is, of course, the d20. The mechanism for measuring the chance of failure is through modifiers and DCs. It's simple, and works well: I don't see a reason to change it. You shouldn't even need any other mechanism, on a very basic level, for your rules to work.
When the conflict is complex, or extended, then you have a need for less variance (in the probability sense) and for more variety. This is why fighting rules have generally been more complex: to grant a more satisfying experience with more variety and less randomity in the system.
The issue of ambiguity of the rules is the issue of balancing these two requests: simplicity, intuitiveness, and little emphasis on number-crunching on one hand, but on the other, complexity and depth for more interesting gameplay and less random results. People generally look for vagueness when they need faster resolution: in case of ambiguity, the DM adjudicates the result, and since his word is final the process (while being a burden for the DM) goes generally faster and in a direction that is more helpful for the story, with less care for consistency in the world (that is not to say that there can be no consistency, but that the general effect is one of less consistency). People who look for specific rules look for fairness and consistency in expectations (and in some oddball cases more ruleslawyering). In a way, having more specific rules is helpful to the players and especially helpful if your DM is a moron, while having vague rules is helpful to DMs and especially helpful when the DM is very good.
I believe there is a need for balance. I also believe some aspects of the game need more specific rules while others benefit a lot from vagueness. I think that the more one aspect of the game comes up, the more it benefits from proper rules. The more a certain aspect of the game needs to be enjoyable and profund, the more it benefits from good rules. The more a certain thing happens sporadically, the more it benefits from having no or vague rules.
Are you interested in an online 4E game on Sunday? Contact me with a PM!
Reflavoring: the change of flavor without changing any mechanical part of the game, no matter how small, in order to fit the mechanics to an otherwise unsupported concept. Retexturing: the change of flavor (with at most minor mechanical adaptations) in order to effortlessly create support for a concept without inventing anything new. Houseruling: the change, either minor or major, of the mechanics in order to better reflect a certain aspect of the game, including adapting the rules to fit an otherwise unsupported concept. Homebrewing: the complete invention of something new that fits within the system in order to reflect an unsupported concept.
The debate is heated already and I don't want to enter it. However, I will post my thoughts on the issue in general: do what you wish with them.
The base question is: what are rules for? And the answer I have is: to adjudicate conflict.
Whenever there is no conflict, either because the result is irrelevant or because the result is already a given, then there should be no rules. Things just happen. I don't want rules for climbing the stairs unless it's cursed stairs of doom above a fiery pit of molten lava. So the first characteristic of good rules should be that they get out of the way when not needed.
When there is conflict, however, then there should be rules. If something has a chance of failure, then this chance should be measured somehow, and a random factor should decide whether or not that thing fails, or succeeds. The choice of random factor is, of course, the d20. The mechanism for measuring the chance of failure is through modifiers and DCs. It's simple, and works well: I don't see a reason to change it. You shouldn't even need any other mechanism, on a very basic level, for your rules to work.
When the conflict is complex, or extended, then you have a need for less variance (in the probability sense) and for more variety. This is why fighting rules have generally been more complex: to grant a more satisfying experience with more variety and less randomity in the system.
The issue of ambiguity of the rules is the issue of balancing these two requests: simplicity, intuitiveness, and little emphasis on number-crunching on one hand, but on the other, complexity and depth for more interesting gameplay and less random results. People generally look for vagueness when they need faster resolution: in case of ambiguity, the DM adjudicates the result, and since his word is final the process (while being a burden for the DM) goes generally faster and in a direction that is more helpful for the story, with less care for consistency in the world (that is not to say that there can be no consistency, but that the general effect is one of less consistency). People who look for specific rules look for fairness and consistency in expectations (and in some oddball cases more ruleslawyering). In a way, having more specific rules is helpful to the players and especially helpful if your DM is a moron, while having vague rules is helpful to DMs and especially helpful when the DM is very good.
I believe there is a need for balance. I also believe some aspects of the game need more specific rules while others benefit a lot from vagueness. I think that the more one aspect of the game comes up, the more it benefits from proper rules. The more a certain aspect of the game needs to be enjoyable and profund, the more it benefits from good rules. The more a certain thing happens sporadically, the more it benefits from having no or vague rules.
Very interesting input. I would say, this question is somewhat ancillary to what I was talking about. However, I think it presents a very interesting point of discussion. Plus, the previous discussion has mostly devolved into defensive hyperbole, so I'd just as soon eject myself from it. So...
What are rules for?
I certainly wouldn't answer "To adjudicate conflict". Although, I can understand that as one answer based on how one views the game and what is important. I don't view the game that way though and don't consider that the key value or utility of rules for a fantasy RPG. I think resolving conflict exists as a goal for certain rules, but more broadly, I would answer the question to say that "Rules exist to explain how the world works".
I think of rules in a fantasy RPG the same way I think of laws of physics in our world. Things like how much damage a fall does, how many languages you can learn with an 18 intelligence, and how many miles you can walk in a day could, in theory be used to adjudicate a conflict but that, to me, is tangential to their real purpose, to help us understand what is, and why it is. Once you know these things, then you can go on to adjudicate most any conflict because you can contain it within the parameters of the world.
Just as one would need to understand things like gravity and momentum to consider whether they can jump a gap in the real world, a player needs to understand how that jump is modeled in the game world in order to attempt to do things. Is jumping the gap a conflict? Perhaps, but I think it's more basic than that. I think rules help us adjudicate all things, not just conflicts. Like to know if something is even possible or if it exists. Like a rule that says dead spirits must traverse the Shadowfell on their way to eternity. Or a rule that says 1 platinum is worth 5 gold. Or can I will myself to fly up to the top of that mountain in the game world? The rule will exist to tell us how things work. Even hit and damage rolls which seem like an obvious way to resolve the conflict between my sword and an orcs head are really there to express how the world works. This is how much damage a sword does. This is how hard it is to hit something (AC rules).
So, I think your assessment of what rules are for is correct......for you. But it's not the core purpose of what I want rules to do. This could very well be the underlying difference of what we want out of rules. It's likely based on what purpose they serve in the game.
Relating this back to not wanting overly elaborate and expansive rules that attempt to govern every corner case (i take issue with the naming of this thread since I've never advocated intentionally vague rules) I would say that it comes down to my view that rules tell us about the world and that a very large part of the joy of RPGs for me is the shared creativity of both filling the world with stuff, but also to a certain degree, getting to define bits of how that world actually works. The first is story and the second is, IMO, rules. Yes, this includes, but is not limited to creating house rules. But they're part of the same thing. The exact same reason that I would want to make a house rule (to make the game and world my own) is the reason I'd want the existing rules to be subject to my (and my groups) understanding of them. This, to me, is a major strength of RPGs and one that is minimized by rules that are careful to strictly preclude the group from impacting their application.
Lastly, I would say that I agree with your final statement, almost to the letter.
"I believe there is a need for balance. I also believe some aspects of the game need more specific rules while others benefit a lot from vagueness. I think that the more one aspect of the game comes up, the more it benefits from proper rules. The more a certain aspect of the game needs to be enjoyable and profund, the more it benefits from good rules. The more a certain thing happens sporadically, the more it benefits from having no or vague rules. "
Detailed systems of rules do not preclude argument over the rules. They just mean the arguments get more arcane and take up more time as you look up the rules.
+1
There's a spectrum with one end having hordes of complex and/or very specific rules, and when playing such a system the flow of play (and I'd argue immersion) is frequently broken up by arguments and/or constant rules-referencing; at the other end of the spectrum is a very rules-light, free-form system where play is rarely (if ever) interrupted by rules discussion because it's largely the DM's job to create rulings on the fly.
The vast majority of games occupy a middle ground on this spectrum, and every gaming group has a slightly different "ideal" along it as well. A group filled with rules-lawyers and people who spend a lot of time thinking about the game (resulting in them having memorized a lot of these rules) will do better with a game closer to the first end of the spectrum, whereas a group of casual gamers and "watcher" types would be better served at the second end. Most groups contain a mix of different kinds of players.
The argument basically comes down to "where do you draw the line?" With D&DN being modular, that line will be flexible but in the core set they will tend to shy away from complicated, overly-specific rules systems.
"Look what you are doing, here: you take a poorly-defined spell (Charm Person) and add to it a model, taken from your own experience, to define how it works. Would the spell really not have been far better with that model explicitly included from the start?" My answer would be "absolutely not". Simply because it's not how I would model it. The same thing could be said of whatever a designer might include. This is where the consensus world building comes in. I don't consider the wording poor. I think it's pretty clear. Shaman did too I think. The issue is that we can disagree on it to a certain degree. It is the sorting out of those disagreements that I enjoy, and the ensuing "model" that is of our own creation. This makes the world feel more organic and genuine. Plus, the model can expand and even change as necessary to reflect our developing understanding of our shared world.
Sorry, I just don't get this. You want to have a spell with a different effect than the one Shaman wants, so, instead of actually having a different spell with the effect you want, you actually, actively want there to be a "hybrid" spell that can be defined to be either spell (or, indeed, some other spell still)?? This really makes no sense to me at all.
"It’s not a system – it’s an invitation to come up with a system of your own." While I think this is somewhat hyperbolic, I actually agree. I want rules to be evocative and inspirational, that make us imagine wonderous things and seek to engage in them wholesale. Rules that are overly burdened with explanation and caveat can't achieve that as well, even if (and actually BECAUSE) they become "ironclad perfection" as you envision. Should rules be "intentionally vague"? No. Absolutely not. However, they should welcome the vision of their users and the application of them such that they serve the game and the story, rather than command it.
But the example spell as I (deliberately) worded it is (intentionally) vague! I'm not asking for "ironclad perfection" - I'm asking for game elements (like spells) to be constructed, at least in the published rules, to actually specify what they do. If someone wants to homebrew an alternative that is (intentionally) unspecified, fine - but why should I pay for a lack of any specification? I can provide that quite adequately myself, if I want it!
"players who want to focus on “beating the encounters” can..." This simply is not me, nor my group, so it's hard to use that as a baseline for what's "correct" or "best". This is why the modular approach is so wonderful. They write a baseline game with enough direction and guidance for me, without undue constriction, while adding things like gridded combat rules and further expansion on what capabilities exist for people who's main goal is "beating the encounters". We can literally have a win/win. I think this is their goal. I HOPE this is their goal. Based on this rather lengthy exchange combined with what I've seen so far, I see no reason they can't realistically achieve it, with perhaps a few mild concessions from both views.
As long as they add vague and unspecified elements only in modules, I agree. Why anyone would really want to use "added vagueness" is a mystery, to me, but if there's a demand for it I have no objections to them being available!
@Nelyo I don't think we are disagreeing ultimately. I'm not advocating everything be free form either. It's just that as you try to nail things down too much you sometimes go to far and make the game not fun. Thats all. 4e's slavishness to this principle went a bit too far in the hard magic arena for me. I prefer that things like fire not hurt fire elementals or blunt weapons are better against skeletons. I realize judgment opens up the possibilities of bad judgments but to me it's worth the risk to a degree.
Other than blunt weapons not being defined as a class, this is quite possible in 4e already - which has notably non-vague rules. Just add "Immunity (own element)" to elementals and "Resist (edge or point damage) X" to skeletons and you're done. It's houseruling, sure, but houseruling monster stats is about the most common form there is, surely?
The problem is, is that if I, as a player, do not know how the tools at my disposal (be they spells, skills, etc.) work, then I can't put a plan into action either to protect myself or to overcome an obstacle. The more ambiguity in the rules, the more potential for "Gotcha!" moments when it suddenly becomes apparent that the DM and I have different interpretations of how something works. If I come up with a plan that involves casting a grease spell and then setting it on fire, I'm not going to find out until the middle of the action when the DM says "Grease isn't flammable," and by that point I'm screwed because I'm wasting time in a dangerous situation trying to do something that my character should have known wouldn't work. If I don't even know where the corner cases exist on my tools because the descriptions of how they work are so vague, then my agency is effectively limited. Taking the example of Charm Person, as a player walking into a game with a new DM, I don't know what this spell does because I don't know where the DM draws the line on "trusted friend and ally." Can I get him to risk injury to help me? Maybe. Can I get him to give me a loan with generous terms? Maybe. Will he come back and break my legs after the spell wears off because the DM decides that people don't rationalize their actions in the aftermath of being Charmed? Who knows? This isn't incompatible with allowed the DM to make judgment calls. Finding yourself in a bad situation and looking to a corner case as a "Hail Mary" can be a great way to enact a dramatic comeback (and give the DM an out to avoid a TPK), but I'd rather be able to turn a situation around because I have tools at my disposal and can be confident that they will actually work because their application is well defined.
"Can I get him to risk injury to help me? Maybe. Can I get him to give me a loan with generous terms? Maybe. Will he come back and break my legs after the spell wears off because the DM decides that people don't rationalize their actions in the aftermath of being Charmed? Who knows?"
I don't know! Let's find out together! (would you rather a game designer simply said NO to all those questions? Simply said YES?).
I want the designers to say "no" or "yes" as a default, absolutely! Can they suggest alternatives or offer advice on changing this? Yes, of course. But having a game element that is freely available for players to take as part of their character build that are open to wide degrees of interpretation is just a deeply flawed rule, as far as I can see. It's asking for intra-group conflict, confusion, and for the player to either excite envy from others as it becomes obvious that the element can do far more than they think reasonable, or despair for themselves as it becomes clear that it does not add to the character what they thought it would add.
Is it just me or isnt a game where the majority of critical actions that take place in dire situations is based on a d20 roll almost guaranteed to have situations where a player is counting on a planned course of action working and it does not? Even situations where you are almost guaranteed to succeed (95% of the time) still have a 5% chance of failure.
This isn't even similar. If there is a die roll involved, I know that there is a chance of failure; I probably even have some reasonable idea how big that chance is. If I pick a power or spell assuming that it will have a specific effect and then find that it won't, however, there is no "chance" involved - I've just been screwed over by a mismatch of assumptions. It's not (necessarily) anyones fault, but we still have a pot of bad feelings to drink from that we didn't need to have.
Detailed systems of rules do not preclude argument over the rules. They just mean the arguments get more arcane and take up more time as you look up the rules.
This is true, but who is talking about "detailed systems of rules"? 4e is vertainly no more detailed than 3.X, and yet the difference in ambiguity and vagueness is immense. In 4e you might see:
Charm Person; Daily Wizard Attack, Arcane, Implement (Charm) Attack (Ranged 10): Int vs Will Hit: The target is Dominated (save ends).
That's hardly "detailed" or complex, and yet it describes explicitly what the spell does instead of talking in vague generalities about "reasonable actions" or "treating the caster as a trusted friend". No complex detail is needed - just clear specificity.
Is it just me or isnt a game where the majority of critical actions that take place in dire situations is based on a d20 roll almost guaranteed to have situations where a player is counting on a planned course of action working and it does not?
Even situations where you are almost guaranteed to succeed (95% of the time) still have a 5% chance of failure.
There's a difference between succeeding or failing based on a die roll, an impartial simulation of chance, and succeeding or failing based on whether or not the DM agrees with you about how a spell works. I have no problem with taking a risky course of action and failing based on the dice. I have a problem with taking a risky course of action and auto-failing because the DM and I don't interpret the world in the same way based on an ambiguously worded rule.
Is it just me or isnt a game where the majority of critical actions that take place in dire situations is based on a d20 roll almost guaranteed to have situations where a player is counting on a planned course of action working and it does not?
Even situations where you are almost guaranteed to succeed (95% of the time) still have a 5% chance of failure.
There's a difference between succeeding or failing based on a die roll, an impartial simulation of chance, and succeeding or failing based on whether or not the DM agrees with you about how a spell works. I have no problem with taking a risky course of action and failing based on the dice. I have a problem with taking a risky course of action and auto-failing because the DM and I don't interpret the world in the same way based on an ambiguously worded rule.
But that's no longer "risk", that's something else and I would also want to avoid it. If you think this is what I'm (or anyone here thus far) presenting as desirable then I'm simply doing a poor job of communicating. Somehow you keep saying/implying outcomes or resolutions that I've never mentioned nor seen on this thread. That's why I comment that your responses are defensive and strange.
