RPG Writing and Design Needs a Paradigm Shift

[AbdulAlhazred]

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.

I am not sure what you mean. As a player it is irrelevant what the goals of the GM are, or their 'lusory attitude' to channel Clearstream. Whatever the GM is doing, when there are no rules, procedures, or at least strong and well-defined principles, governing a particular GM decision-making process, then I as a player can 'play to the GM'.

However, I agree with you, larding your spell descriptions full of attempts to rule on every corner case is a losing proposition! This is why I appreciate, and advocate for, systems which have robust general rules, structured approaches to adding to or making exceptions to them, and well-articulated principles, roles, and process. For example, it is pretty much impossible to 'game' a system like Dungeon World from the player perspective. If the GM is competent and running the game 'properly' then it will gain players nothing to 'play the GM', in fact aligning your character's approach and goals with the GM's preferences is probably a good way to make the game play BETTER, not worse. IME with D&D OTOH that isn't generally the case. I think newer games trend more in the direction of 'works well inherently', though again D&D seems to want to resist that trend.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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



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

I think there could be a misunderstanding here in terms of what I was talking about. I didn't reference antagonism or necessarily even 'playing the opposition'. When I talked about using vague/generic spell descriptions, or ones lacking reference to firm general rules, as allowing players to 'play the GM' all I am invoking is the general Gygaxian role of the GM as putting limits on the player's options in order to present them with a challenge. A spell which suggests a dozen off-label corner-case uses in its very general description and fuzzy rules invites, INEVITABLY, the player to think along the lines of how to anticipate and overcome/bypass GM decisions about the limits or suitability of the application of the spell (and it would apply to other game elements as well, I just use spells as an example). Every player will think along these lines if they are at all 'worth their salt' in a game which focuses on any sort of challenge mastery model of play.

1000's of hours of AD&D play amply bolsters my opinion. In play we literally compiled entire compendia of approaches to off-label or 'creative' use of spells. It was to the point where there are actual categories of approaches to getting around the typical kinds of obstacles GMs are likely to put in your path. Honestly, I don't consider this to be a problem at all, this can be argued to be what is INTENDED by TSR D&D. I just like to focus more on character and story nowadays, so it isn't appealing.

 

[pemerton]

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...

The way I read @Manbearcat's question is, what is the relationship between (i) prose descriptions - like "blossoms with a low roar into an explosion of flame" vs "explodes - and (ii) the rule book getting you interested?

For me - and perhaps for Manbearcat? - what gets me interested is not the degree of lavish prose in the rulebook, but rather the game play that it appears to promise.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I think there could be a misunderstanding here in terms of what I was talking about. I didn't reference antagonism or necessarily even 'playing the opposition'. When I talked about using vague/generic spell descriptions, or ones lacking reference to firm general rules, as allowing players to 'play the GM' all I am invoking is the general Gygaxian role of the GM as putting limits on the player's options in order to present them with a challenge. A spell which suggests a dozen off-label corner-case uses in its very general description and fuzzy rules invites, INEVITABLY, the player to think along the lines of how to anticipate and overcome/bypass GM decisions about the limits or suitability of the application of the spell (and it would apply to other game elements as well, I just use spells as an example). Every player will think along these lines if they are at all 'worth their salt' in a game which focuses on any sort of challenge mastery model of play.

1000's of hours of AD&D play amply bolsters my opinion. In play we literally compiled entire compendia of approaches to off-label or 'creative' use of spells. It was to the point where there are actual categories of approaches to getting around the typical kinds of obstacles GMs are likely to put in your path. Honestly, I don't consider this to be a problem at all, this can be argued to be what is INTENDED by TSR D&D. I just like to focus more on character and story nowadays, so it isn't appealing.

Off label uses are perfectly fine with me. Part of the fun of D&D spells is using them creatively

 

[kenada]

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.

A much older draft of my homebrew system took that approach. The spell conjured missiles of magical energy that you could direct at targets or save for later, having them orbit near you until used or for the spell’s duration. You could direct them later as an action against up to as many targets the spell would let you do normally. If you created more, the limit was however many the spell could create normally (so no stockpiling).

My current draft doesn’t define any spells outside of what the cleric has (because the magician retainer isn’t actively adventuring, so I haven’t needed to update it). I figure if I include magic missile again, it’ll probably work similarly — you create magical missiles (à la missile weapons) that you shoot as a Missile Attack.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

A much older draft of my homebrew system took that approach. The spell conjured missiles of magical energy that you could direct at targets or save for later, having them orbit near you until used or for the spell’s duration. You could direct them later as an action against up to as many targets the spell would let you do normally. If you created more, the limit was however many the spell could create normally (so no stockpiling).

My current draft doesn’t define any spells outside of what the cleric has (because the magician retainer isn’t actively adventuring, so I haven’t needed to update it). I figure if I include magic missile again, it’ll probably work similarly — you create magical missiles (à la missile weapons) that you shoot as a Missile Attack.

I think the idea of 'set ups' like this, where you prearrange some sort of effect that you can release later has a lot of points in its favor, at least as one quiver in the player's (or bad guys) arsenals. In HoML, my game, this sort of thing is accomplished using ritual practice. So you can do things like turn a power use into a potion, or a thingy orbiting your head if you wish, and release it later, or even give it to someone else and let them use it. The limitation there is you can't recover the power points invested until the effect is discharged (there can also be durations of course, once you quaff that potion you better use the effect).

It is part of a general concept in HoML of 'manifestation insensitivity', boons are not tied to any specific manifestation. So, a boon that produces a +1 permanent attack bonus with weapons might manifest as a specific magic "+1 sword" or it might manifest as "the god of battle blessed you with this boon." I mean, that could produce some differences in fictional position (IE you can lose a sword, but not a blessing).

 

[mamba]

For me - and perhaps for Manbearcat? - what gets me interested is not the degree of lavish prose in the rulebook, but rather the game play that it appears to promise.

you have asked basically the same question before, and back then I said that if my posts until then did not make it clear, then I doubt I can convey it to you.

I compared the bland text vs the evocative text to the storyboard vs the finished movie as the best analogy I could think of.

Let’s turn this around this time… if all that mattered were the technical, sterile rules, then why do rulebooks contain so much art? That is a waste of money then, yet most do, and not just the equivalent to a floorplan.

The answer to this I assume is the same reason why evocative text matters to me

I really do not understand why it seems so controversial or surprising that the sterile mechanical rules text is not all that matters…

 

[Lanefan]

@kenada

I thought there was a view that the 1 turn duration is a typo/oversight, rather than a deliberate piece of design?

There was an old version of Fireball posted upthread than also had its duration listed as "1 turn", which struck me as odd. Is it possible that 1 turn didn't always equal 10 minutes in the earliest versions but instead meant what we'd now see as 1 round, or one player's (or side's) turn at the table?

 

[Lanefan]

I don't think this is the case. The point of rulings is to address specific situations the rules either don't cover, can't possibly cover, or don't cover as well and so the GM needs to throw in a more nuanced resolution. Some people make rulings their house rules. Some people don't. If you are using rulings over rules, I think it often comes from a place of wanting to preserve the lightness of the system. For me, making every ruling into an actual rule (house rule or official) just bloats the game. Sometimes rulings will be so good, we keep using it and it sticks, but it isn't concrete or a must.

For me it is a must, in that in my view a ruling sets (or should set) a binding precedent for the remainder of that campaign in order to preserve consistency. As such, I'd prefer that as many such potential rulings as possible be nailed by the designers* before play even starts.

* - even if they get it wrong; it's easier to overturn one bad ruling out of many than to have to make those many rulings on the fly; and the designers have time to put thought into it that isn't always available when trying to rule on the fly during play.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

Where I say the solution IS to, within reason, fortress the game against dysfunctional players and GMs. I mean, that's what the bloody rules are for, isn't it?