D&D General Dungeon Craft on Simplifying Rules

[Guest 7034872]

In his latest, Professor Dungeon Master explains how he became the Wild 'n' Cuh-raazy DM he is such that he now has all the "rules" right there in his head at all times.

And why he failed algebra.

But discovered girls.

But still failed algebra.

It's pretty good.

 

[overgeeked]

It really is the best way to play games. All those rules just get in your way and slow things down. He's basically talking about Free Kriegsspiel. Tell the referee what you want to do and throw the die. The referee will tell you what happens. Done.

 

[Guest 7034872]

It really is the best way to play games. All those rules just get in your way and slow things down. He's basically talking about Free Kriegsspiel. Tell the referee what you want to do and throw the die. The referee will tell you what happens. Done.

The longer I DM, the more persuaded I become of some of his points. In combat I spend a lot of time looking up bonuses and all that, but I've noticed that a great majority of the time, the difference between hitting or missing does indeed come down to the four number groups the professor discusses: it really does.

The desire for greater precision doesn't include a desire to over-complicate things, but it does have that result.

 

[Reynard]

It really is the best way to play games. All those rules just get in your way and slow things down. He's basically talking about Free Kriegsspiel. Tell the referee what you want to do and throw the die. The referee will tell you what happens. Done.

It's one good way to play games, but it isn't the only way. Some people really like detail, whether it is in counting rations or moving on a grid. What really needs to happen is tables need to communicate about preferences and expectations so folks can find fellow players and GMs (if they even want GMs) that match their styles.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

It is a good technique for the tables where there is; trust in the DM, and combat is secondary to RP and/or exploration. I would see players that have a bee in their bonnet about railroading or fudging have a fit over it.
It really runs against players that get a lot out of character building/optimising and tactical combat.

Like a lot of things, it has its pros and cons. Still worth remembering if ever stuck on a tropical island and no D&D books, we can still play.

 

[Guest 7034872]

It's one good way to play games, but it isn't the only way. Some people really like detail, whether it is in counting rations or moving on a grid. What really needs to happen is tables need to communicate about preferences and expectations so folks can find fellow players and GMs (if they even want GMs) that match their styles.

I completely agree with that. Between this kind of streamlining and the pursuit of detail and precision, for me it's always an act of balancing those two desiderata against each other and there'll always be meaningful sacrifices involved in any choice I make. It's also the case that my preferred style of play is not your preferred style and neither of ours quite matches up with Bob's preferred style (but you know--he's playing a bard, so we're just going to steamroll over anything he wants...). Different people like different things in this game and one of the biggest things I like is the fact that different people like different things in this game, so each table will have its own by-compromise-and-consensus approach. That, I say, is all as it should be.

Even in my own case, while I really like and admire Professor Dungeon Master's approach, I'm not adopting it whole hog. For instance, Saving Throws strike me as a place where greater precision on those d20 rolls becomes pretty important.

1. So often, a Saving Throw is an all-or-nothing proposition.
2. There're a host of buffs and de-buffs out there to monkey with Saving Throws: players don't choose those abilities and spells idly.
3. The effects of these spells and abilities on a failed Saving Throw are typically much more dramatic and encounter-altering than a mere bunch of Hit Points.

For these reasons, I'll say, getting the exact adjusted roll right and comparing it against the caster's exact DC is too important to just say, "Eh. A 15 or a 16--what's the difference?" No, no--with so many Saving Throws it makes all the difference.

But I still really, really like the Professor's advice and approach on not over-complicating things that don't really need it. There I'm with him.

 

[Cruentus]

I've followed a lot of DungeonCraft because his approach (old school, flexible, faster moving, and that his 27 year old campaign is only at 6th level) aligns with how I've come full circle from starting in basic, playing every edition up until 5th, and have now moved back to and am enjoying mightily Basic/OSE.

I think his main point is not to let the mechanics and the rules look ups interfere with the flow and drama of the game (although I also seem to remember they don't use the written spells, casters just make up the effect they want, and he adjudicates it in the moment - and they roll a caster roll to see if the spell goes off). Most of us know the rules inside and out (with a little edition leak thrown in) to be able to keep a game going, and make reasonable calls in the moment, especially if it serves story rather than hard mechanics.

It all ultimately comes down to how your table likes their game flow. I'm becoming less and less interested in the "more and more" (abilities/spells/powers/races/classes/subclasses/mechanics, etc.) and prefer a smoother tempo to the game. Our use of Basic and OSE has been great for that, for ex, everyone gets one action each round. Simple. No one is waiting for the mutliattack/free interaction/reaction/bonus action/action surge with 6 or 7 different class/race/Feat spell like abilities analysis paralysis to resolve before the next person gets to go. We had one player who would walk his dog between his turns IN COMBAT in our games. .

Ultimately, all the youtube and blog posts about "how to play the game" are grist for the mill of thinking about different styles, what might work, what might not. Use it is you like it, ignore it if you don't. Most important is to have fun playing what you're playing. There is no wrong way to do it.

 

[overgeeked]

I've followed a lot of DungeonCraft because his approach (old school, flexible, faster moving, and that his 27 year old campaign is only at 6th level) aligns with how I've come full circle from starting in basic, playing every edition up until 5th, and have now moved back to and am enjoying mightily Basic/OSE.

I think his main point is not to let the mechanics and the rules look ups interfere with the flow and drama of the game (although I also seem to remember they don't use the written spells, casters just make up the effect they want, and he adjudicates it in the moment - and they roll a caster roll to see if the spell goes off). Most of us know the rules inside and out (with a little edition leak thrown in) to be able to keep a game going, and make reasonable calls in the moment, especially if it serves story rather than hard mechanics.

It all ultimately comes down to how your table likes their game flow. I'm becoming less and less interested in the "more and more" (abilities/spells/powers/races/classes/subclasses/mechanics, etc.) and prefer a smoother tempo to the game. Our use of Basic and OSE has been great for that, for ex, everyone gets one action each round. Simple. No one is waiting for the mutliattack/free interaction/reaction/bonus action/action surge with 6 or 7 different class/race/Feat spell like abilities analysis paralysis to resolve before the next person gets to go. We had one player who would walk his dog between his turns IN COMBAT in our games. .

Ultimately, all the youtube and blog posts about "how to play the game" are grist for the mill of thinking about different styles, what might work, what might not. Use it is you like it, ignore it if you don't. Most important is to have fun playing what you're playing. There is no wrong way to do it.

A lot of PDM's stuff in regard to spells and running games seems to come from B/X and X-Treme Dungeon Mastery by Tracy Hickman. It's a great book.

 

[Stalker0]

hehe this does remind me of several players I play with. They roll get the result, ok I got a 20 (DM says, hey you hit). Then they pause, counting their fingers and doing more math (oh wait, I actually got a 23!!!). Dm says...."um....you still hit". Then the player still freezes, double checking bonuses. "oh man totally forgot about X bonus, I got a 27!!!). DM sighs, "congrats you um....still hit".

hehe the exact math isn't always important, if you made it, you don't have to tell me always how much you made it. Same when people roll a 2 and try to milk every bonus they can, its like "all, your never going to beat the 20 DC when you roll a 2, its just not happening, lets move on"

 

[Cruentus]

hehe this does remind me of several players I play with. They roll get the result, ok I got a 20 (DM says, hey you hit). Then they pause, counting their fingers and doing more math (oh wait, I actually got a 23!!!). Dm says...."um....you still hit". Then the player still freezes, double checking bonuses. "oh man totally forgot about X bonus, I got a 27!!!). DM sighs, "congrats you um....still hit".

hehe the exact math isn't always important, if you made it, you don't have to tell me always how much you made it. Same when people roll a 2 and try to milk every bonus they can, its like "all, your never going to beat the 20 DC when you roll a 2, its just not happening, lets move on"

Yup, we had taken to saying "Just roll, if you get around a 13 we'll add things up, if you roll below a 10, chances are you missed." It did speed things up some. LoL.