RPG Writing and Design Needs a Paradigm Shift

[Manbearcat]

The difference is my interest in reading the book and playing the game.

I am not reading tractor operator manuals for enjoyment, I read novels. The same logic applies here, and I have stopped reading novels because I do not like the writing (or read them for the writing more than the story)…

So, if I'm reading you right, your primary interest in a game's manual is not to actively facilitate the functional play of the game during play, but rather to serve as passive consumption/pleasure reading and/or/also the possible add-on of the text's color/"purple prosiness" piquing your interest in playing it at some point.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

That seems to be the logical consequence of thinking of fireball as magically creating an explosion, but it may have been lost due to brevity. The PF1 version also leads with your generating a “searing explosion of flame” and only mentions the bead that’s projected in the second paragraph.

Hmm. I wonder if fireball would be more interesting as a conjuration spell instead of an evocation spell. It would be sort of like B/X magic missile, which gives the missiles a duration. (My homebrew system will likely embrace that version of magic missile should I include that spell.) You could create a bead and share it with others or perhaps use it creatively. Put the bead under an object to fling it somewhere or use it as a magical mine.

Update: Magic missile from B/X. Note the duration (1 turn = 10 minutes).

View attachment 348356

While it is rather ambiguous there is a school of thought, and this was a common interpretation in the original D&D days, that the missiles are simply arrows (albeit magically conjured and all glowy or whatever) and the spell allows you to project them at your enemies, requiring the normal missile firing rules. As I say, this was at least implicit in, and usually the interpretation, in the original spell. It is 100% certain you had to roll to hit at least, but the later versions, B/X and 1e, added the automatic hit rule. The PHB version from 4e interestingly returned to the original design, requiring an attack roll. Rate of fire is still a question that even B/X doesn't really answer, but the duration suggests that there IS a rate of fire! 1e and later versions are pretty clear on all the missiles being released at once.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

For me I much prefer how open things were in stuff like the white box where they don't cover every corner case. I want some flavor but much prefer a sense of spirit of the spell that the GM can interpret and in an open way, than everything hammered out. Don't get me wrong, I like stuff like AD&D and 3E just fine and can roll with the spells covering corner cases, but I just enjoy the not covering all the corner cases approach so much more based more on rulings

I know what you mean, but of course the problem was (and I am a past master at this, playing loads of AD&D spell casters) it became magic user player gaming against the GM. Gary's response was to make rulings and write them up in each more 'improved' iteration of the rules (the 1e DMG for instance has a very large section where he retroactively adds a lot of rules to the PHB spells, including rules for how they work underwater, on other planes, etc.). This, of course, lead to bloated text and still can only cover a few common situations.

My approach in 4e, and I don't know to what degree this was the intent of the designers, was to incorporate the SC system and Page 42, as well as leaning a bit on the ritual rules. So, for example, the Stinking Cloud spell is a level 5 Daily with a Sustain duration and a Zone AoE. So, it will bypass obstacles and affect things that are not in LOE of the caster. A player wanted to exterminate Jermlaine (tiny little goblinoid monstrosities that originate in a 1e module) which were infesting the air ducts of an ancient dwarven fortress they were exploring. So I told her she could turn her Stinking Cloud into a ritual that would generate a whole bunch of poison gas that could be directed to fill the ductwork. This required passing an SC that included acquiring the correct materials, magical research, setting up the ritual site, avoiding Jermlaine interference, etc. Then the ritual had to be performed, after which the problem was solved (they succeeded as it happens). I think @pemerton has some play examples that worked in analogous ways, and similar stuff came up fairly often in our play too. Like closing a gate that a Balor (WAY above party level) was trying to force open, that sort of stuff. I think the characters in that case hacked a Circle of Protection ritual to seal the thing, IIRC. while the fighter hacked on it with a demon-slaying axe his father made for him.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

And just to comment on the above a bit more: I think you can do this sort of stuff in basically any RPG, it isn't like the game police will stop you! However, 4e as a specific version of D&D, illustrates some unique design features which I think might be better appreciated in similar systems more.

Everything has keywords, and thus it is easy to 'connect the dots'. It is very suggestive of ways to ad lib stuff when you have these indicators telling you that you're dealing with 'necrotic poison' or whatever. Other versions of D&D, in particular, have only seemed to utilize that technique pretty haphazardly. Honestly, I haven't seen another RPG really take it up the way 4e did, but there's a heck of a lot out there I know little about, its a big hobby now!

Likewise Page 42 and the ritual subsystem are really fertile ground for easily extending and customizing stuff, and the SC subsystem gives the GM a ready made way to adjudicate it cleanly. Here we have clearly seen a shift in the direction of rules that include a lot of 'enablers' like this, clocks, ritual type rules, lore that specifically talks about ways to do crazy stuff (or ways it is being done, which are examples), etc. I think this is a trend, though again D&D itself seems a bit behind the curve here.

 

[mamba]

So, if I'm reading you right, your primary interest in a game's manual is not to actively facilitate the functional play of the game during play, but rather to serve as passive consumption/pleasure reading and/or/also the possible add-on of the text's color/"purple prosiness" piquing your interest in playing it at some point.

I probably would put the emphasis differently. I am not reading this instead of a novel. The goal still is to see whether I want to run this game. If the rulebook is too dry and uninspiring, then I do not want to run it, just like I would not want to run it if I did not like the rules themselves. If the book fails to get me interested, why would I run that game...

There is nothing wrong with it being organized in a sensible way and have concise but evocative descriptions, in fact that is what I would look for (along with the rules themselves). The technical bits are welcome to be their separate line. Where I lose interest is when all that is left are the technical descriptions (and maybe a sterile description for the sake of having one).

That the manual facilitates the game is a given, that just needs some decent organization. That alone is not enough.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I know what you mean, but of course the problem was (and I am a past master at this, playing loads of AD&D spell casters) it became magic user player gaming against the GM.

But this is highly play. You don't have to GM this way, and you don't have to GM with game masters who run games this way. The GM isn't against the magic user. The GM is trying to balance the system, the world, the player, the other players, and make reasonable rulings that feel correct. I've always asked players if they think a particular ruling is fair before I go ahead with it. And this is a door that swings both ways, you can have adversarial GMs but you can also have players who try to exploit the game to get advantages that feel out of proportion to the spirit of the text. The solution is not to fortress the game against dysfunctional players and GMs.

 

[Manbearcat]

There is nothing wrong with it being organized in a sensible way and have concise but evocative descriptions, in fact that is what I would look for (along with the rules themselves). The technical bits are welcome to be their separate line. Where I lose interest is when all that is left are the technical descriptions (and maybe a sterile description for the sake of having one).

But what game has ever done this? I’ve never read or run a single game that does this. Not one. And I’ve read and I’ve run_a_lot_of_games.

I mean not even a little bit. The core book(s) (just the core…forget primers or settings or supplements) of every game I can ever recall reading ever is drenched in motif, metaphor, genre conventions, and general imagery. Now, whether or not that adds up to a conflict-rich premise that works in concert with the game’s mechanical engine and is therefore begging to be played is another question entirely (I’ll hat tip @Campbell here; “White Wolf Designer: The problem with our games is that people try to play them, rather than just appreciate them.”)…but every game is rich in color and imagery.

EDIT: And I’ll absolutely dispute the notion that “the manual facilitates the game is a given.” There are loads of games that are absolutely “assembly and GM Force required” to the point that the experience of running it or playing it (or both) resembles more Calvinball or GM Storytime or Ouija than an actual, functional game (where system and players have remotely sufficient “say” over what happens to constitute “game”).

 

[mamba]

But what game has ever done this? I’ve never read or run a single game that does this. Not one. And I’ve read and I’ve run_a_lot_of_games.

it was a response to what the OP was arguing for

Let's us a simple example: fireball. Here's the SRD entry: Fireball – 5th Edition SRD

That is too wordy on its face. The lines giving range and stuff are fine, but why not an "Area: 20ft radius sphere" line and an "Effect: 8d6 fire damage" line? Then it is done.

To me this does sound like reducing everything to its mechanics only, and I am against it

 

[Manbearcat]

But this is highly play. You don't have to GM this way, and you don't have to GM with game masters who run games this way. The GM isn't against the magic user. The GM is trying to balance the system, the world, the player, the other players, and make reasonable rulings that feel correct. I've always asked players if they think a particular ruling is fair before I go ahead with it. And this is a door that swings both ways, you can have adversarial GMs but you can also have players who try to exploit the game to get advantages that feel out of proportion to the spirit of the text. The solution is not to fortress the game against dysfunctional players and GMs.

But isn’t there another way to put this rather than “fortress the game against dysfunctional players and GMs.”

Perhaps; “a solution might be to anchor play around concrete, systemitized indices/procedures.”

For instance, imagine baseball without a Home Plate. Every Strike/Ball call and every “bang-bang Catcher-Runner tag-slide” interaction becomes an Umpire mediating Strike/Ball and Safe/Out exclusively with their “feels like” intuition and therefore every player becomes beholden to that. Now add in a Home Plate for all participants to index each and every pitch/play. I doubt we’d find a large coalition of folks decrying that measure with “the solution is not to fortress the game against dysfunctional baseball players and Umpires.”

 

[Bedrockgames]

But isn’t there another way to put this rather than “fortress the game against dysfunctional players and GMs.”

Perhaps; “a solution might be to anchor play around concrete, systemitized indices/procedures.”

Sure but to the posters point, the concern raised was that about GMing wielding this in an antagonistic way. If you want a game that anchors play around concrete and systematized indices/procedures, fair. But it doesn't make these kinds of approaches bad simply because there are bad GMs and bad players. And I think any effort to design a game to protect against dysfunctional people, is doomed, because it is often done in a way that removes the very thing that makes a game work so well in other circumstances

For instance, imagine baseball without a Home Plate. Every Strike/Ball call and every “bang-bang Catcher-Runner tag-slide” interaction becomes an Umpire mediating Strike/Ball and Safe/Out exclusively with their “feels like” intuition and therefore every player becomes beholden to that. Now add in a Home Plate for all participants to index each and every pitch/play. I doubt we’d find a large coalition of folks decrying that measure with “the solution is not to fortress the game against dysfunctional baseball players and Umpires.”

I don't see these as the same at all. The game has the core mechanics needed to play. But it opens up those mechanics and descriptions in a way that empowers a human referee to make rulings that help bring the world to life. Now this isn't how every game ought to be. My point is simply one of the charms of OD&D is this element (like I said I like AD&D as well and 3E).

Again my point was simply that one of the things I love about the white box is how these descriptions don't deal with every edge case and there is freedom rule on them in an imaginative way