Mike Mearls' latest column (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20120326)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 (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20120326)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. :D
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.
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.
Saying "you have the option to do something different" without providing those options is basically just giving permission to house-rule, which I don't need permission to do. If I'm told "yeah, you can have random encounter tables in your game, but we won't actually provide them, but we will provide structured encounter "challenge rating" guidelines", its the same as just saying those "guidelines" are in fact the rule, and everything else is the exception.
Its also the same as saying "sure, you can do that, but you'll have to do several hours of work making your own encounter tables for a dozen different terrains"; at which point my response will likely be to just go and play an edition of D&D that actually has what I want in the first place.
RPGPundit
@Pundit, what is your feeling they will give us those random tables as a choice against structured CR ratings? Or is that an NDA thing?
I don't see how this is an "us against them" thing. Sometimes people need examples of what to do when a slated problem comes up. Sure it is understood some people are more creative than others. But this is about new (or returning) players and customers, not some sort of zero sum game.
If no one sits and explains the pros and cons of differing solutions, or talks meaningfully where GMs may want to focus on their own personalized solution, then you are going to be left with issues in the community. Some will just be frustrated and walk (or return to their product that dealt with this better), others will merrily skim the work and do what they're gonna do anyway, and others will dogmatically read it as holy script. But you want to at least make it approachable to the first group because they're the only group you have a chance to meaningfully assist.
Natural creatives are gonna experiment anyway (and good for them), and dogmatics are gonna start crusades anyway (and woe betide the table that suffers them gladly). But with the ones who are new, or veterans who at least want a spread of old and new options, why would you antagonize them when you can just provide both/all such things in the first place? Showing multiple valid solutions to an issue can only enrich the experience for players to "create their own version of spaghetti."
Quote from: Opaopajr;524800I don't see how this is an "us against them" thing.
Everything is us against them. Don't you know we're at war? At several wars, actually :D
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 or just make them "online only" in the form of a character builder.
I'll be blunt, making any rules of the game (or necessary items like the character builder for 4e, technically not needed but realistically a requirement for reasonable use of the game) available by monthly subscription only will automatically make the game DOA for me. I will not pay a monthly fee to play a tabletop RPG. I want to own everything I need for a tabletop RPG. I do not want to depend on a company's good will to keep access available
QuoteThough the question is whether an online character builder, would weaken or strengthen the "Cult of the RAW".
Strongly strengthen it if it was done anything like 4e's character builder where added third party rules and major houserules to it was next to impossible.
Worse, if the errata is added automatically, the GM looses control of the rules of his campaign. Perhaps some of the errata added would completely ruin his campaign or some of the PCs in it. This is especially true if some of the errata isn't because of real problems in the rules but because the company needs to change some of the existing rules to make its new $$$$ splatbook work or because the rules are only problems in tournament/RPGA type settings, or because the rules are being modified because charop players have found some way to abuse them even though non-charop players would nevcer see the problem being fixed.
I want to control my campaign and i do not want to turn control of the rules used to the publisher.
Quote from: Imperator;524819Everything is us against them. Don't you know we're at war? At several wars, actually :D
Ready . . . fire . . . aim!
I roll initiative.
Quote from: RandallS;524825I'll be blunt, making any rules of the game (or necessary items like the character builder for 4e, technically not needed but realistically a requirement for reasonable use of the game) available by monthly subscription only will automatically make the game DOA for me. I will not pay a monthly fee to play a tabletop RPG. I want to own everything I need for a tabletop RPG. I do not want to depend on a company's good will to keep access available.
Agreed;
vigorously.
Quote from: RandallS;524825Worse, if the errata is added automatically, the GM looses control of the rules of his campaign. Perhaps some of the errata added would completely ruin his campaign or some of the PCs in it. This is especially true if some of the errata isn't because of real problems in the rules but because the company needs to change some of the existing rules to make its new $$$$ splatbook work or because the rules are only problems in tournament/RPGA type settings, or because the rules are being modified because charop players have found some way to abuse them even though non-charop players would nevcer see the problem being fixed.
I want to control my campaign and i do not want to turn control of the rules used to the publisher.
Yes, this as well. This happened to my group and eventually caused problems because not everyone in the group had the Character Builder, and some were just using the hard copy books they purchased. It eventually because big issue in play because we would have to constantly check to see if the non-CB players had compliant versions of stuff with the
current errata. It became such a hassle and headache for one of the non-CB players that he gave up on 4e D&D altogether because he didn't want the book work of checking every character and their powers against hard copy errata just to be on par with those players that had their characters automatically updated through the CB.
I disbelieve.
Quote from: Drohem;524856This happened to my group and eventually caused problems because not everyone in the group had the Character Builder, and some were just using the hard copy books they purchased. It eventually because big issue in play because we would have to constantly check to see if the non-CB players had compliant versions of stuff with the current errata. It became such a hassle and headache for one of the non-CB players that he gave up on 4e D&D altogether because he didn't want the book work of checking every character and their powers against hard copy errata just to be on par with those players that had their characters automatically updated through the CB.
I heard of this story. However when I talked to other 4e fans they said it was mostly text editing issues and that rules errata for powers, feats, and the like were overblown. Not invested in 4e, I had no personal experience to provide a point of contention. So all I can ask is how common is this experience of people's previous 4e books being corrected with errata into non-utility?
Quote from: Opaopajr;524903I heard of this story. However when I talked to other 4e fans they said it was mostly text editing issues and that rules errata for powers, feats, and the like were overblown. Not invested in 4e, I had no personal experience to provide a point of contention. So all I can ask is how common is this experience of people's previous 4e books being corrected with errata into non-utility?
I don't know about other people but it was the number one reason I gave up on 4e.
Quote from: RPGPundit;524784If I'm told "yeah, you can have random encounter tables in your game, but we won't actually provide them, but we will provide structured encounter "challenge rating" guidelines", its the same as just saying those "guidelines" are in fact the rule, and everything else is the exception.
Its also the same as saying "sure, you can do that, but you'll have to do several hours of work making your own encounter tables for a dozen different terrains"; at which point my response will likely be to just go and play an edition of D&D that actually has what I want in the first place.
I felt like I was missing something here so I did some research on the Google and ended up reading the Pathfinder encounter design rules (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/gamemastering.html).
So, I'm now thinking that, conservatively, you're looking at a minimum of 20 challenge rating levels, multiplied by, say, half a dozen different terrains and you probably want at least ten options in each table. So you're basically looking at 1,200 different encounters. Even if you manage to squeeze 40 encounters onto each page, that's still 30 pages.
Would you expect to find that many pages in a core rulebook dedicated to random encounter tables?
Quote from: Marleycat;524787@Pundit, what is your feeling they will give us those random tables as a choice against structured CR ratings? Or is that an NDA thing?
I have no idea at this time, its too soon to tell. I'm certainly trying to fight for it.
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPundit;525063I have no idea at this time, its too soon to tell. I'm certainly trying to fight for it.
RPGPundit
Good, hopefully they will listen to you. It's not like it would be that hard to do and wouldn't change the game at all unlike say something to do with the actual rules or something.
Quote from: RPGPundit;525063I have no idea at this time, its too soon to tell. I'm certainly trying to fight for it.
RPGPundit
We're all trying to get them the feedback they need (and I mean constructive feedback on my part, not the uncompromising rants I'm reputed for here), but I have to say that in some instances at least, it feels like an uphill battle. These guys are way too eager to fuck with the baseline of the game. I find myself crossing my fingers hoping they won't fuck too much with the game's legacy way too often these days, reading these columns in particular.
D&D is successful because it *is* D&D. It's not that hard to understand, is it?
Quote from: Dodger;525059Even if you manage to squeeze 40 encounters onto each page, that's still 30 pages.
Would you expect to find that many pages in a core rulebook dedicated to random encounter tables?
Oh fuck....
You are trolling, right? You're not really that... ..um... ..
Oh, I can be pretty obtuse at times...
Quote from: Dodger;525504Oh, I can be pretty obtuse at times...
How can you be obtuse at all? You are a
smiley ball, man!