D&D 5E With Respect to the Door and Expectations....The REAL Reason 5e Can't Unite the Base

[Remathilis]

OK, well, of those three jobs, I simply disagree with the first in just about all instances of 'a roleplaying game'. The only thing any GM will achieve by unilaterally changing (or "adjusting") a rule is to break the game for the players who want any active role in the affair. The other two roles are fine - and there are other, lesser roles besides - but rather than do them by changing the rules to make them easy, I prefer to do them by (a) picking a decent rule set to start with and (b) knowing those rules and how they work.

Gary Gygax would like to disagree with you.

It is the spirit of the game, not the letter of the rules, which is important. Never hold to the letter written, nor allow some barracks room lawyer to force quotations from the rule book upon you, if it goes against the obvious intent of the game.

 

[Dour-n-Taciturn]

To address a few points going back-and-forth here:

The simulated actions and environs always proceed their mechanics; no one is arguing that mechanics simply manifest themselves in a vacuum. When rules are distilled from what is being simulated, any narrative becomes "fluff." Each version of D&D has their own set of rules that attempt a certain style of play or fictional trope, but as with clothing, changing styles do not appeal to everyone.

IMO, assessing rules and arbitrarily denying their ability to work when unusual scenarios arise, because "it smells funny", is a good way of inviting unnecessary debates into a game. Players who expect the rules to work (when an agreed interpretation applies) and plan character actions accordingly (within reason) should not have to deal with constant hand waving.

Certainly the DM has final say when and where appropriate, but if a rule says something is allowed and you say nay just because "fire should not harm fire", even if a rule plainly states such a thing is possible, that crosses the line into Fiat-land or rather a moving of Fiat-land borders into territories they don't belong. Characters should be somewhat familiar with the workings of the game world (fantasy physics, etc.) and, at the very least, should be allowed to use their skills to figure out if an action or power may or may not apply.

 

[Balesir]

Gary Gygax would like to disagree with you.

He's welcome to. That won't change what I have come to believe after 35 years or so of roleplaying, nor the reasons I have come to think the way I do.

 

[billd91]

Certainly the DM has final say when and where appropriate, but if a rule says something is allowed and you say nay just because "fire should not harm fire", even if a rule plainly states such a thing is possible, that crosses the line into Fiat-land or rather a moving of Fiat-land borders into territories they don't belong. Characters should be somewhat familiar with the workings of the game world (fantasy physics, etc.) and, at the very least, should be allowed to use their skills to figure out if an action or power may or may not apply.

I would say that if the rule suggests results that don't make sense, the DM should give it the heave-ho. Not every rule in an RPG rule set is going to be a gem and there are always going to be situations that the designers couldn't predict nor cover with a rule or exception to a rule. There is no territory where the DM's writ doesn't belong when the situation calls for it.

 

[Victim]

I would say that if the rule suggests results that don't make sense, the DM should give it the heave-ho. Not every rule in an RPG rule set is going to be a gem and there are always going to be situations that the designers couldn't predict nor cover with a rule or exception to a rule. There is no territory where the DM's writ doesn't belong when the situation calls for it.

Things that don't make sense are the foundation of DnD.

 

[Balesir]

I would say that if the rule suggests results that don't make sense, the DM should give it the heave-ho. Not every rule in an RPG rule set is going to be a gem and there are always going to be situations that the designers couldn't predict nor cover with a rule or exception to a rule. There is no territory where the DM's writ doesn't belong when the situation calls for it.

Results that don't "make sense" to whom? It all boils down to whether you are playing in a world that works as the rules suggest it does, or in a world that works however the GM feels like having it work.

If there are "proud nails" that cause irritation to some of the group (including, but not limited to the GM), then by all means generate house rules - and the GM should take a leading role in specifying and accepting/rejecting those. But to say "here are the rules, but actually they don't really describe or define anything, since the way things actually work is however this guy's brain thinks they do; good luck second-guessing that..." is just nonsensical.

 

[Dour-n-Taciturn]

As Victim stated, there are plenty of things that "don't make sense." If something sits ill with you as a DM, would it not be better to discuss the issue, rather than throwing the book away? Maybe some players like a DM charging through the "nonsensical", but I prefer a DM-player dynamic that encourages trust, not fear.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Gary Gygax would like to disagree with you.

He may, but the quote you cited is largely orthogonal to the issue Balesir raised.

Gygax is talking about fidelity to the spirit being superior to fidelity to the letter. No one with half a brain argues against that (though there are plenty of people on the internet demonstrating how it goes).

Balesir is discussing what are good solutions when the spirit and letter are in conflict, not whether they ever are. Gygax's solution is fine as a stop gap. You are running some game, and something comes up that is obviously in conflict with the spirit of the game. So you make a ruling. But outside that environment, and certainly once you talk about reasonable game design, it's a lousy option. If you've got a rule that is that much in conflict with the spirit, change the rule so that DMs will not need to fix it!

Part of the presentation problem with 4E is that very distinction. All that syrupy crap about saying yes all the time, with no discussions of the edge cases, is exactly against the spirit of what 4E is trying to do elsewhere in the ruleset. The whole idea of flexible, narrative mechanics is that you roll with it when it makes sense, establish what makes sense as it happens, and then build from there. (You might do a "reset" for a new campaign or such, but you'd have some consistency.)

That is, if someone otherwise happy running 4E who doesn't want the players to have any kind of narrative control, then said DM should ban CAGI and/or house rule it to work some other way. They should not allow it under some mistaken fidelity to the letter of 4E making power choice a player decision, but then effectively neuter that decision by arbitrarily imposing their vision of the power. If the spirit of the rules is important enough here to rule on, it's important enough to either ban the power or state the conditions that make it acceptable.

You'd think DMs, of all people, would be comfortable with the idea of wearing different hats. But a lot of the "criticism" of systems from people strikes me very much as credentialed dude insisting that the system recognizing a particular hat on his head at all times, as if he were the Doctor DM running a hospital, and everyone else staff, but then acted that way when at home, on a fishing trip with buddies, etc.

 

[Neonchameleon]

So you proved my point. The mechanics of vancian or spontaneous casting don't fit the fluff (your concept of a wizard). The AEDU wizard does fit the fluff (your concept of a wizard). So (bear with me here), if you didn't have a concept at all (I know, hard to do) for a wizard, would AEDU mechanics jump out at you and say WIZARD?

You miss mine.

AEDU mechanics don't jump out and say anything about the character. They are shared between all classes - and the thing they say to me is story pacing. Default background/1 per scene signature move/1 per episode piece of awesome.

The reason Vancian recharge jumps out as defining the wizard is that it differentiates the casters from almost all other classes. AEDU, because it's communal to all (or almost all thank you Essentials) PCs says something about the game, not about the specific class. And what it says is "Large, big budget, scene based action movie style". Which is perfect for a lot of narrative play and terrible for some types of simulationist play.

And the ironic thing is that AEDU is a much better fit for Jack Vance's novels than Gygaxo-Vancian.

 

[Argyle King]

I mentioned a second power that is modelled on and intended to be the upgraded version of the first. I can not think of a third such martial ability in the entire game.

off the top of my head...

Own The Battlefield

Warlord Utility from PHB 1

I've played Warlord so much that I have some of the powers memorized. I'm starting to forget some of them after not playing 4E for a while, but I remember there being a few. I only mentioned one.