Mike Mearls' latest column points out that not all DMs need to use all the rules in the game, citing item and treasure guidelines as an example.

Now, this is a great thing, for sure. But to make clear that a set of rules is optional is one thing (and you DO have to make it clear that the rules are optional, or else people will take them for being obligatory).  Its another issue entirely to PROVIDE ALTERNATIVES.   Because if alternative support isn't provided for, then what you're really doing is presenting the single "recommended rule", and then saying "if you're a DM you don't need to use these.. but we'll offer you no support whatsoever if you don't".

For example, its one thing to have treasure and xp-budget guidelines in a DMG.  Pretty much every edition I can think of has had them.
Its another thing to make it clear these are entirely Optional.
But its another thing if, besides that, you also have RANDOM TREASURE TABLES, and RANDOM ENCOUNTER TABLES in your game. This provides the alternative framework to the "GM-crafted prepackaged-with-suitable-CR/XP-per-encounter and treasure-according-to-character-level instead of emulation" setup.  Without random tables, your statements that the guidelines are "optional" is kind of meaningless, because its the only "option" you're providing.

RPGPundit

I agree. That makes a lot of sense, doesn't it?

My question is how in the Nine Hells professionals at Wizards of the Coast who are, you know, "designers", "game designers", can't figure this one out on their own. My guess is, they actually do realize that, but we're wasting time because we're not talking about the core of their design philosophies and how they envision their jobs in the first place. I think that's where you'd still have the most sparks coming out of debates.

Quote from: RPGPundit;524186Mike Mearls' latest column points out that not all DMs need to use all the rules in the game, citing item and treasure guidelines as an example.

Now, this is a great thing, for sure. But to make clear that a set of rules is optional is one thing (and you DO have to make it clear that the rules are optional, or else people will take them for being obligatory).  Its another issue entirely to PROVIDE ALTERNATIVES.   Because if alternative support isn't provided for, then what you're really doing is presenting the single "recommended rule", and then saying "if you're a DM you don't need to use these.. but we'll offer you no support whatsoever if you don't".

For example, its one thing to have treasure and xp-budget guidelines in a DMG.  Pretty much every edition I can think of has had them.
Its another thing to make it clear these are entirely Optional.
But its another thing if, besides that, you also have RANDOM TREASURE TABLES, and RANDOM ENCOUNTER TABLES in your game. This provides the alternative framework to the "GM-crafted prepackaged-with-suitable-CR/XP-per-encounter and treasure-according-to-character-level instead of emulation" setup.  Without random tables, your statements that the guidelines are "optional" is kind of meaningless, because its the only "option" you're providing.

RPGPundit

Be nice if they did this if they did I could put my Viking hat into retirement.

Quote from: RPGPundit;524186But to make clear that a set of rules is optional is one thing (and you DO have to make it clear that the rules are optional, or else people will take them for being obligatory).  Its another issue entirely to PROVIDE ALTERNATIVES.

Yeah, it's not really a toolbox if the only thing inside it is a set of left-handed crescent wrenches.

True. And it also matters where you introduce such alternatives as well, as AD&D 2e illustrated to its detriment.

I'm still favoring putting optional rules at the back of the book. Doesn't fall into the same issue 2e did, but doesn't rebuild the splatbook release schema that's now outdated. But we'll see how they handle it.

As has been said before, there's more than one way to force someone to do something. Offer A, B, & C and force someone to choose C or just offer C, while staying quiet about A & B. Options and presentation, shouldn't be a hard order to present.

To my mind, all rules are optional and the GM has the right and authority to use, ignore or replace any rule as he sees fit. Explicitly acknowledging that fact and/or specifying that certain rules are only intended as guidelines or suggestions, does not strike me as unreasonable.

I was having a discussion where I was noting preferences: some prefer alteration by addition, while others prefer alteration by reduction. So yes, the rules are subject to GM approval, there's a significant portion of the community that is OK with this idea. But how do you present it?

And that's what I think the Pundit is getting at. If you are told as GM you have the option to ignore these recommendations, but have no alternatives to show you a new way to deal with the same issue, then what real choice do you have in the end? Not everyone scours rpgs for new mechanics, so it leaves a lot of people at a loss of where to go from there.

So what you're saying is that a lot of people have no imagination or creativity and lack the ability to think for themselves?

I don't really care about those people.

Quote from: Opaopajr;524602And that's what I think the Pundit is getting at. If you are told as GM you have the option to ignore these recommendations, but have no alternatives to show you a new way to deal with the same issue, then what real choice do you have in the end? Not everyone scours rpgs for new mechanics, so it leaves a lot of people at a loss of where to go from there.

That did not stop those playing early editions of D&D from changing the rules to suit their groups/campaigns when told the rules were nothing more than guidelines for their campaigns but not presented with alternative rules as example.

I agree that alternative rules (say random monster charts as well as balanced encounter design by CR) would be nice, the most important thing the designers/publishers of D&D can do is make it very clear in the game books that the rules books are really nothing more than guidelines for the GM to use, modify, or replace as the GM needs for the campaign and the needs of the players in the group. That players have no right to expect the game to be played "Rules as Written" unless the GM says he is playing the game "Rules as Written".

Breaking the "Cult of the RAW" player mentality is extremely important, IMHO, whereas providing examples alternatives in the rules is "merely" very nice.  In fact, if the do present alternatives (which would be nice), they really need to be presented as merely examples of other ways to do something so they don't imply that GMs are limited to selecting only from the variants provided in the rulebook.

Quote from: RandallS;524633Breaking the "Cult of the RAW" player mentality is extremely important

Wonder what would be the easiest way to break the "Cult of the RAW".

If WotC is pursuing a modular type system for 5E, in principle they can publish supplement books for the "add on" layers or just make them "online only" in the form of a character builder.

The latter case of an "online only" character builder, could be a natural fit with the crowd accustomed to using the 4E DDI character builder (instead of buying 4E splatbooks).  Dunno what the 3.xE and Pathfinder players would feel about an online only character builder.

Though the question is whether an online character builder, would weaken or strengthen the "Cult of the RAW".

Quote from: Dodger;524613So what you're saying is that a lot of people have no imagination or creativity and lack the ability to think for themselves?

I don't really care about those people.

Unfortunately for WotC, that is their current playerbase.  

Quote from: ggroy;524642If WotC is pursuing a modular type system for 5E, in principle they can publish supplement books for the "add on" layers . . .

And they'll see which one of those add-ons sells the best, then for the next two years they'll write almost exclusively to that strain, until it becomes the new normal.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;524651And they'll see which one of those add-ons sells the best, then for the next two years they'll write almost exclusively to that strain, until it becomes the new normal.

In such a scenario, it will most likely be the powergamers, rules lawyers, and collectors/completionists who will be buying such supplement books in large quantities, and hence driving the direction of subsequent books.

Quote from: ggroy;524642Though the question is whether an online character builder, would weaken or strengthen the "Cult of the RAW".

Well, considering that any character builder would have to be flexible and thus require actual software design skills the chances of having one are close to zero.

(Thinking about it more).

The collectors/completionists will buy just about any D&D book published by WotC.  The only way they will disappear, is if WotC stops publishing any supplement books.

DM oriented supplements, will mainly be purchased by DMs, the collectors/completionists, and maybe some rules lawyers (depending on the specific topic).  If past rhetoric holds for 5E, then the DM oriented books will not be very good sellers (besides the DMG1).

What's left are the player oriented supplement books (ie. new classes, powers, feats, paragon paths, epic destinies, prestige classes, etc ...), which purportedly the powergamers, rules lawyers, collectors/completionists, and some DMs will be interested in.


If all these cases still hold for 5E, then it will be the powergamers and rules lawyers whom may very well be driving the direction for future supplement books.  Hence no easy way to break the "Cult of the RAW", if the supplement treadmill business model is maintained for 5E.