|
|
Post by jeffb on Sept 4, 2021 18:44:39 GMT -6
So an interesting thread popped up over at another forum in which the OP was asking which edition of D&D members started with and how that game shaped the way they view/play D&D (RPGs)
That's not my question.
Instead of writing up one of my typical big boring diatribes I came up with "JeffB's Laws of Gaming" list:
The game is a construction kit, not a finished product.
Your setting informs the rules, not the other way around.
Every DMs game should be different. There is no one true way- that's boring.
Play the game you like. If you like heavy story and minimal dice go for it. If you want maps and minis and procedures for everything, go for it.
Rules lawyers are not tolerated (they can start their own game and bother everyone)
If you use a published product, hack and change to your heart's content. Canon be d**ned.
Be open to new things and ways to do things to get the experience you want to have (again-there is no one true way)
My question is- What are YOUR 7 (or less) "Laws of Gaming"
|
|
|
|
Post by captainjapan on Sept 4, 2021 20:14:05 GMT -6
1. Game sessions must be made fun for players AND for referees, alike. If either side of the screen is bored of it; that's when it's time to stop.
2.The referee may keep anything secret that they see fit, including the rules. Uncertainty is 50% of the fun of playing in someone else's dungeon.
3. Stories are created out of the games as they're played, not before. Character creation shall not be an exercise in fiction writing.
4. Characters shall always be considered expendable. No one shall interfere with the natural demise of even a favorite character.
5. Every player gets a job to do, whether it's mapping or negotiating or chronicling or just resource tracking, even after their character dies.
6. The referee will, under no circumstances, take revenge on a player for spoiling their plan.
7. Consistency in applying the rules must be maintained. Players need to be able to predict the consequences of their actions within reason.
|
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Sept 4, 2021 20:34:06 GMT -6
6. The referee will, under no circumstances, take revenge on a player for spoiling their plan. 6. a. The referee will not bother with a "plan" for how the game will proceed. 6. b. If the referee none-the-less insists on a "plan", he/she acknowledges and accepts that it will not survive first contact with actual play.  |
|
phantomtim
Level 3 Conjurer
13th Age Enthusiast
Posts: 87 
|
Post by phantomtim on Sept 5, 2021 1:44:14 GMT -6
So an interesting thread popped up over at another forum in which the OP was asking which edition of D&D members started with and how that game shaped the way they view/play D&D (RPGs) Your setting informs the rules, not the other way around. Could you elaborate on this one a bit? Maybe provide an example or two? I'm curious to know how you're thinking about it. |
|
|
|
Post by tombowings on Sept 5, 2021 5:03:18 GMT -6
I was going to participate, but then I realized Jeff had said everything I wanted to.
|
|
|
|
Post by jeffb on Sept 5, 2021 9:11:11 GMT -6
So an interesting thread popped up over at another forum in which the OP was asking which edition of D&D members started with and how that game shaped the way they view/play D&D (RPGs) Your setting informs the rules, not the other way around. Could you elaborate on this one a bit? Maybe provide an example or two? I'm curious to know how you're thinking about it. It's the idea that the setting takes precedence over the system. Your rules are there to reinforce the vision you come up with as a DM. Your creation comes first, not the rulebook. EPT/Tekumel- the good Dr. re-wrote OD&D around his fictional world which was completely different than typical S&S or High Fantasy. Arduin- Dave Hargrave completely changed his D&D rules to suit his vision of Arduin. Complete sub system re-writes.Re-wrote spells with the appropriate flavor, he made his own planar structure, he introduced all sorts of races, and modified the "typical PHB" races to adapt to his setting. He changed "bog standard" monsters to fit his vision. Dark Sun. Ravenloft. Planescape. All of these settings had a large number of variants, changes, and restrictions. The way Cleric's and Paladins worked (RL), New races and most PHB races completely re-written (Dark Sun), spells working in very different ways than they did in the PHB (Planescape), Defilers and Preservers in DS. The AD&D rules were changed to reflect the tone and style of the setting. This was not the case for Forgotten Realms and Greyhawk, where it was anything goes whether it really seemed to fit or not. I think even Dragonlance had some major differences that took precedence over the game rules. No Clerics. Using Alignment and the precursor of the Prestige Class with the way arcane magic works. In contrast let's look at the Forgotten Realms in 4E. 4e rules introduced the Dragonborn and a very different Tiefling race. It introduced a new magic system (IMO better, but besides the point). A new Alignment system. A New cosmology. Instead of WOTC just keeping things the same in FR and listing changes/restrictions to be applied they blew up the planet (literally, sort of) in order to accommodate a new rule set. We had a new continent where the dragonborn were from (another planet). Many Gods disappeared/were killed off or were "shuffled around" to adapt to the new Cosmology. The Spell Plague changed the way magic worked for everyone. They changed the setting to adapt to the "Points of Light" creative concept. FR Fans hated it. While I think FR needed a major re-write in theory, it was poor implementation and widely rejected. "You changed my favorite setting to conform to 4E rules!" And of course with 5th, much of those changes were reversed in the rules, therefore we got a fictional reversal and some pretty poor (if any) explanations. This also happened for 2e Forgotten Realms with the Avatar Crisis, and in 3E they just handwaved things like "now the Dwarves have made a comeback in poulation and BTW there has always been dwarven wizards, you just never saw any. The Elves are no longer leaving for Evermeet and some came back so you have plenty of elves around now. Genasi have been here all along. Drow PCs. Sure no problem- did you know there's a Good aligned God of the Drow?? Same for Greyhawk. Dwarven Magic Users have always been in the Ulek States. Half Orcs are pretty well accepted in the world, etc etc. I like 4E, and I like (the original grey box era) Forgotten Realms and GH, so it's not a dig but just a perfect example of trying to incorporate everything in the book and thus watering down the existing fictional worlds. On the flip side, The Nentir Vale. The 4E team came up with creative concepts around 4E- the "Points of Light", the new Cosmology, the idea of the Dragonborn/Tiefling wars, etc. The game design was based around these big picture creative concepts. Getting back to OD&D, I think if you dig around and look at books like Carcosa, Planet Eris, tombowings PDF of his OD&D world/game (Put up a link, Tom!), Seven Voyages of Xylarthen and others you will get great examples of how these authors looked at the world they wanted to portray, and how they molded OD&D to fit their creative vision. |
|
|
|
Post by simrion on Sept 5, 2021 9:36:18 GMT -6
So an interesting thread popped up over at another forum in which the OP was asking which edition of D&D members started with and how that game shaped the way they view/play D&D (RPGs) That's not my question.Instead of writing up one of my typical big boring diatribes I came up with "JeffB's Laws of Gaming" list: The game is a construction kit, not a finished product. Your setting informs the rules, not the other way around. Every DMs game should be different. There is no one true way- that's boring. Play the game you like. If you like heavy story and minimal dice go for it. If you want maps and minis and procedures for everything, go for it. Rules lawyers are not tolerated (they can start their own game and bother everyone) If you use a published product, hack and change to your heart's content. Canon be d**ned. Be open to new things and ways to do things to get the experience you want to have (again-there is no one true way) My question is- What are YOUR 7 (or less) "Laws of Gaming"Jeff, Great "laws!" Very evocative of the Original D&D rules as envisioned by Arneson/Gygax. Too bad success caused Gygax to move away from this "philosophy" to the let's stream line/codify and start churning out more rules/modules/settings to chase the ever elusive $$$. Can't blame him for that, I'm $$$ motivated myself. I can however lament the move away from the old school mindset. |
|
|
|
Post by captainjapan on Sept 5, 2021 10:00:19 GMT -6
So an interesting thread popped up over at another forum in which the OP was asking which edition of D&D members started with and how that game shaped the way they view/play D&D (RPGs) That's not my question.Instead of writing up one of my typical big boring diatribes I came up with "JeffB's Laws of Gaming" list: The game is a construction kit, not a finished product. Your setting informs the rules, not the other way around. Every DMs game should be different. There is no one true way- that's boring. Play the game you like. If you like heavy story and minimal dice go for it. If you want maps and minis and procedures for everything, go for it. Rules lawyers are not tolerated (they can start their own game and bother everyone) If you use a published product, hack and change to your heart's content. Canon be d**ned. Be open to new things and ways to do things to get the experience you want to have (again-there is no one true way) My question is- What are YOUR 7 (or less) "Laws of Gaming"If I were the anti-JeffB, what would my 7 rules be? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 5, 2021 10:31:15 GMT -6
Say 'yes' to player requests, especially in city adventuring - Courtney Campbell
|
|
|
|
Post by tombowings on Sept 5, 2021 10:33:18 GMT -6
If I were the anti-JeffB, what would my 7 rules be? The rules of the game are stricter than those governing a Catholic mass. The rules define the setting. House rules fracture the gaming collective. (Stand together, Comrade. Present a Fist of Red Dice!) Play the game how it is, was, and will always be meant to be played. A DM who alters a published product is cheating his/her players. Rules lawyers are sacred. They ensure compliance with the above mentioned commandments. There is only one true way. Apostates will be excommunicated. |
|
|
|
Post by captainjapan on Sept 5, 2021 10:40:26 GMT -6
If I were the anti-JeffB, what would my 7 rules be? The rules of the game are stricter than those governing a Catholic mass. The rules define the setting. House rules fracture the gaming collective. (Stand together, Comrade. Present the Fist of Red Dice!) Play the game how it is, was, and will always be meant to be played. A DM who alters a published product is cheating his/her players. Rules lawyers are sacred. They ensure compliance with the above mentioned commandments. There is only one true way. Apostates will be excommunicated. So, basically, Chaotic Good VS. Lawful Evil. |
|
|
|
Post by captainjapan on Sept 5, 2021 10:43:58 GMT -6
Say 'yes' to player requests, especially in city adventuring - Courtney Campbell Ah, the power of "yes". Good one. This could have been my number one law, too, if I were being more thoughtful. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 5, 2021 10:59:21 GMT -6
1. Don't ever phrase an attempted action with "can I?" It's a tabletop roleplaying game. You can attempt anything. The chances of success will vary.
2. The world will respond appropriately to your actions and reputation. Sometimes, misfortune or good fortune just happen, however.
3. There is no story or objective and your character is not the main protagonist of the world any more than you are in the real world.
4. The world has history, lore, politics, religion, economy etc. but these things only matter to the degree you choose to engage with them.
5. The rules and rulings in my game world are referee facing. You're here to play pretend in the role of a fictional character. If dice need be rolled, I will call for it
6. The referee is not soley responsible for your entertainment. It's an equal responsibility of every participant on a roleplay campaign.
7. You are not obligated to accept any given quest hook or do anything in particular but it's common etiquette to follow group consensus and to cooperate in a fantasy scenario to a certain degree, unless it could be strongly argued to be out of character.
And of course Wheaton's Law applies. It supercedes all others.
|
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Sept 5, 2021 11:47:33 GMT -6
Instead of writing up one of my typical big boring diatribes I came up with "JeffB's Laws of Gaming" list: Overall looks good, my nuances are different of course. The game is a construction kit, not a finished product. To a point, but I also view it as one of the way to tersely communicate to the players how the setting works especially the elements that will likely either come up in the campaign or that I know will interest the players. Your setting informs the rules, not the other way around. My view is that the setting defines what character can do, can't do, and what probable. The part that is probable means it not certain and thus needs to be adjudicate. And the most common way of doing this is by using the mechanics of a wargame i.e. what we call the system of an RPG. However if one starts with the rules first, then the setting in part arises from the rules. For many this is not an issue as referees and players just accept this and proceed with the campaign. But more than a few times, a referee will describe something for the setting, that doesn't work with or sit well with the rules as written. If the change is easy and straight forward then it becomes a house rule for that group or referee. If it takes more then often that element of the setting will get dropped in favor of how the rules describe things working. Every DMs game should be different. There is no one true way- that's boring. Yup, everybody thinks about this stuff differently. Most of the time it not how something happen but what details get focused on over other details. This is especially true if you use a more detailed RPGs like GURPS, or Basic Roleplaying. Play the game you like. If you like heavy story and minimal dice go for it. If you want maps and minis and procedures for everything, go for it. Again yup. A lot of folks made fun stuff in different way. The only flaw with this is not the "law" itself but too many can't imagine somebody handling what they do with a RPG in a different way. Rules lawyers are not tolerated (they can start their own game and bother everyone) This is not really applicable to me. For a variety of reasons but mainly because of the communication issues resulting from me being 50% deaf, I largely stick with rules as written. So if somebody notices a discrepancy I rather they speak up. Setting versus rules issue I fix before the campaign by picking a set of rules that work well with what I intend to do. But I have my limits. I had a player quit a 5e campaign I ran because they could not use hide and stealth to cross a otherwise bare room. I was using maps and token on Roll20 at the time so it was about as clear as these things get. The player totally lost his shirt. Just keep in mind that I been refereeing for 40 years and these instances are exceedingly rare. I had plenty "near misses" that was able to avert with patience and logic. If you use a published product, hack and change to your heart's content. Canon be d**ned. Sure but do let the players beforehand, that this campaign is your take on Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk, Tekumel, etc. Be open to new things and ways to do things to get the experience you want to have (again-there is no one true way) Again yup. For me it helps with running a sandbox campaign where I can say what the players will be pursuing. If they join up with say the City Guard, then I need to figure out to how to running a mission oriented campaign in a fun and interesting way. For a long time I could figure out a take on faeries, but between a specific convention and a tv show, things clicked and was able to come up with my own approach. My own "laws" would basically the above with the following tow. This is the heart of how I handle the setting versus rules issue. I ask the player to describe what it is they do as their character like I would describe to you how I would handle something in life. "OK I will stealth up to the door and listen." Then I will figure out a rules along with any rolls that are needed. This is first person roleplaying versus third person roleplaying. Now you can't totally avoid third person but for most thing you can always use first person. This does not mean a players has to be actor playing a distinct personality. It is fine that the character is basically the player's personality with the abilities of the character. This helps players a lot with my sandbox campaigns because it better engages their natural social instincts and life experiences. Things work out better in my campaign if the players things about the action as if they were actually there. As opposed to the character being a piece with a set of allowed moves. Good post there jeffbMy question is- What are YOUR 7 (or less) "Laws of Gaming"[/quote] |
|
|
|
Post by Desparil on Sept 5, 2021 14:59:37 GMT -6
1. Don't ever phrase an attempted action with "can I?" It's a tabletop roleplaying game. You can attempt anything. The chances of success will vary. I don't care for this, because I typically find that "Can I?" is shorthand for asking "Is there a reasonable chance of success if I attempt this?" Which is a perfectly reasonable question; for example, a rock climber can look at a rock face and judge if it looks easy or difficult, or a swimmer can judge whether tides or currents are slow enough to be manageable or are dangerously fast, but since D&D is all in the mind the players need the DM to provide that information in order to make informed decisions about whether or not they want to attempt things. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 5, 2021 15:08:09 GMT -6
I'd call these guidelines rather than laws. They are stated concisely. Everything has an exception or exceptions.
1. In general, some sort of die roll, even if it's an unfavorable one, should be involved when something bad may happen to a character, particularly when it is very bad.
2. The DM is a neutral arbiter. Situations may be deadly, the dice unlucky, or the players foolish. But the DM is not the players' opponent or adversary.
3. All things being equal, clever play should yield better results and vice versa. The game should not be so haphazard that actions are divorced from outcomes.
4. For the most part, the players should know the rules of the game or have the opportunity to know them at any rate. When they don't, the rules should be deducible from experience or trial and error.
5. The unknown keeps the game fresh. New monsters, new treasures, new spells. If everything comes out of a book, particularly a familiar one, the game will get stale.
6. The DM is infallible because his say is final, his say is not final because he's infallible. We err. Give player complaints a fair hearing. Reverse yourself when appropriate.
7. Try to say "yes" more often, even if it's "yes, but." You can't always do so, but a lot of us are prone to categorically say "no" too much in ways that inhibit creativity or inadvertently railroad.
My seventh guideline is more or less stated upthread by doublejig2. But I prefer my more wishy-washy formulation because I think sometimes people need to hear the word "no" too.
Some of my guidelines have a theme, for lack of a better word. I hate "Killer DMs" who think that a good session of D&D should resemble trying to rescue the Kobayashi Maru.
|
|
phantomtim
Level 3 Conjurer
13th Age Enthusiast
Posts: 87
|
Post by phantomtim on Sept 5, 2021 16:43:14 GMT -6
It's the idea that the setting takes precedence over the system. Your rules are there to reinforce the vision you come up with as a DM. Your creation comes first, not the rulebook. This was a fantastic explanation. Thanks for taking the time to share it with me. And I'm totally aligned with you on this. |
|
phantomtim
Level 3 Conjurer
13th Age Enthusiast
Posts: 87
|
Post by phantomtim on Sept 5, 2021 16:44:31 GMT -6
I was going to participate, but then I realized Jeff had said everything I wanted to. mentioned that you have a PDF of your OD&D world/game. I'd love to check it out, if you don't mind sharing it here. Thanks in advance! |
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Sept 5, 2021 17:11:41 GMT -6
Great stuff. Dare I observe there seem to be two subsets of laws/guidance emerging; the more player- and the more ref-centric. 3. There is no story or objective and your character is not the main protagonist of the world any more than you are in the real world. Bing! |
|
|
|
Post by jeffb on Sept 5, 2021 18:25:58 GMT -6
Great stuff. Dare I observe there seem to be two subsets of laws/guidance emerging; the more player- and the more ref-centric. Yep, Since I have been a DM for 99.9% of my gaming since the early 1980s, I tend to focus there. But, I'm all about the players doing their thing. In recent years, I am much more "player facing" and a "Fan of the PCs" than I used to be. I have relinquished a fair amount of control over to players. It makes the game more fun for them, AND me. |
|
|
|
Post by tombowings on Sept 5, 2021 23:52:06 GMT -6
I was going to participate, but then I realized Jeff had said everything I wanted to. mentioned that you have a PDF of your OD&D world/game. I'd love to check it out, if you don't mind sharing it here. Thanks in advance! It needs a major update, but here is the version I posted a while ago: The Green Wastes |
|
jonsalway
Level 1 Medium
Enter your message here...
Posts: 23
|
Post by jonsalway on Sept 6, 2021 1:16:23 GMT -6
Of all of your laws, the statement about the setting guiding the rules is perhaps the best and yet least understood. It seems to me that is one one of the basic defining features of old school play...
And yet, and yet. Possibly for nostalgic reasons, I still have a need to play ODD RAW (or at least until you hit playability issues).
|
|
|
|
Post by captainjapan on Sept 6, 2021 9:59:35 GMT -6
If I were the anti-JeffB, what would my 7 rules be? The rules define the setting. I feel like this was one of the problems with Psionics in Eldritch Wizardry. Maybe it would have been more successful if EW was a campaign sourcebook rather than a rules supplement. That also goes for Blackmoor Supplement with it's Monk and Assassin. Greyhawk was 'rules over setting', too. Absolutely no setting details, despite the title. Would Gygax and Arneson have been more successful with the supplements if they had centered on campaign settings instead of grab bag rules? But then, that goes against the 'rules as a tool kit approach' that Gygax seemed to endorse back then. FWIW, I used Psionics a lot, but only after 2nd ed. Dark Sun Campaign Setting came out. Before then, I wouldn't have bothered with it. |
|
|
|
Post by tombowings on Sept 6, 2021 12:03:38 GMT -6
Ideally (to my mind), the rules and the setting should be one and the same. The setting defines the rules, some of which may be the same as those written in the rulebook.
|
|
|
|
Post by captainjapan on Sept 6, 2021 12:14:39 GMT -6
jeffb said: So, the original, war games rules lawyers were basing their arguments on the facts of real warfare, it's potential and it's outcomes, as they read them in military history texts. We're a long way from that, owing to both the initial desire to incorporate sci-fi/ fantasy elements from popular mid-century fiction and, also, Dave Arneson's personal weariness with rules lawyering. Today, I would expect rules lawyering to revolve around matters of simple "common sense" such as when robertsconley says: Rob's player isn't trying to exploit a rules loophole necessarily, but I presume that they own their own copy of the rules and now that they've created a character from those rules, they intend to press their advantage in skills bonuses at every opportunity. The rules are silent(?) on the circumstantial application of hide and stealth, and Rob's player sees his opening. The rules don't say you CAN'T sneak across a wide open room, sooo... Which brings me to what @dungeonmonkey said: I think I know what dungeonmonkey means; and I agree with him, but what happens when the player knows the setting better than the referee? Take the published settings of Star Wars or Lord of the Rings, for example. Is it incumbent on the referee to know all there is to know about an established setting before they sit down to their first gaming session? What if you wanted to whip up a little LOTR adventure with the d&d rules, but one of your players was tkdco2. Or, what if you thought you'd like to try your hand at a Star Trek scenario for a player like Falconer? I'm sure they're both very patient and accommodating players, but is it really a good idea to subvert their expectations by trying to guess how rules should work in Middle Earth or along the Neutral Zone. Wouldn't a rules lawyer who was conversant in one of these settings just interrupt, constantly, to correct the referee on their ignorance? I can see only two solutions: 1) Don't allow any source material, into role playing, that the referee isn't already the expert in. 2) Eschew published material, altogether, in favor of homebrew. These don't sound like very good solutions to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by tombowings on Sept 6, 2021 12:34:53 GMT -6
2) Eschew published material, altogether, in favor of homebrew. These don't sound like very good solutions to me. This is the solution I use. Why would I ever want to run a game in someone else's world when I can create my own that better fits my individual interests? Besides, as I player, why would I want to explore a world I'm already familiar with? I know some people enjoy playing in the Forgotten Realms or Middle Earth, or the Galaxy Far Far Away. I'm just not one of them. When I sit down at my table, I want to run my world. When I sit down at another referee's table, I want to see something new and exciting. Something I've never encountered before and unique to that referee's imagination. |
|
|
|
Post by Desparil on Sept 6, 2021 12:46:19 GMT -6
Rob's player isn't trying to exploit a rules loophole necessarily, but I presume that they own their own copy of the rules and now that they've created a character from those rules, they intend to press their advantage in skills bonuses at every opportunity. The rules are silent(?) on the circumstantial application of hide and stealth, and Rob's player sees his opening. The rules don't say you CAN'T sneak across a wide open room, sooo... No, the player just wanted to cheat, and possibly had a previous DM who let him walk all over him. The 5E rules explicitly say "you can't hide from a creature that can see you clearly," as well as a specific reminder that the DM has the final say in the matter. It has a couple of important corollaries that can be found earlier in the book. 1. The following is specifically a Lightfoot halfling racial advantage: "You can attempt to hide even when you are only obscured by a creature that is at least one size larger than you." This implies that normally the cover provided by standing behind another creature is not sufficient grounds for a Stealth check. 2. The following is specifically a wood elf racial advantage: "You can attempt to hide even when you are only lightly obscured by foliage, heavy rain, falling snow, mist, and other natural phenomena." This implies that normally being lightly obscured is insufficient for a Stealth check; presumably you must be heavily obscured (what other editions might call total concealment) |
|
|
|
Post by jeffb on Sept 6, 2021 13:00:02 GMT -6
The rules define the setting. I feel like this was one of the problems with Psionics in Eldritch Wizardry. Maybe it would have been more successful if EW was a campaign sourcebook rather than a rules supplement. That also goes for Blackmoor Supplement with it's Monk and Assassin. Greyhawk was 'rules over setting', too. Absolutely no setting details, despite the title. Would Gygax and Arneson have been more successful with the supplements if they had centered on campaign settings instead of grab bag rules? But then, that goes against the 'rules as a tool kit approach' that Gygax seemed to endorse back then. FWIW, I used Psionics a lot, but only after 2nd ed. Dark Sun Campaign Setting came out. Before then, I wouldn't have bothered with it. I think actually in a sense, these were setting books. In OD&D they just showcased the setting through rules instead of fictional elements of lore and maps- because they didn't think people wanted those things in that format. I believe this stems from the wargaming mentality- Alternate scenarios and actual play situations would occur because the rules elements have changed. E.g. Now Assassins are available in your campaign- You can use them to cause all kinds of trouble for your PCs. Rivals who want them dead. Someone wants all their items and loot. The Evil High Priest needs to get rid of them to further his plot. Kind of like the optional alternate rules in old SPI games ala Commando. It's a rule but it alters the "fiction" of gameplay, it's just not spelled out in the fictional sense. The supplements were largely Gary's home game rules (and some were apparently intended for the LBBs proper but wouldn't fit), with some of Dave's BM setting elements (and Steve Marsh's great selection of monsters), along with lists of treasures and artifacts. This implied setting was that Elves and Dwarves and Hobbits are few in number and mankind rules the world due to sheer numbers (but has only a loose grasp on it). Ancient lands long ago held much greater power and prestige than that of today. There are Lost Relics of incredible power and hoards of gold beyond belief guarded by Dragons well beyond the years of any living being. Wizards are weak in their formative years and grow to be the most powerful of all men. Small Kingdoms abound and any Fighter, Cleric or Wizard with enough experience and power can sack an existing one or carve out their own. Some of these men may even rise to godhood, or lichdom, or likewise become tavern tales of legend. This is all actually a setting. The closest we get in the supps in the typical lore sense is Dave's Temple and the Artifacts of EW. Strangely enough Dave's Temple was the types of thing people were clamoring for, but TSR didn't get that....yet. Eventually this would all ball up into AD&D , the old ways and their intent would be lost and D&D would become it's own brand of Fantasy informed by a standard set of rules seen as something akin to Chess. |
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Sept 6, 2021 13:56:34 GMT -6
These are good rules so far. I have table rules. I think there are seven of those. Seven rules of gaming? How about:
Each of the following is trumped by the previous when necessary. So, apply a rule unless it breaks one higher up in the hierarchy:
Rule 0. Trust the referee ("the referee is always right," positive version. Or "rulings not rules.")
Rule 1. Plausibility, or game-world consistency for the suspension of disbelief (accurate time records included, thank you Gygax)
Rule 2. Fun
Rule 3. Cool
Rule 4. Funny (I run a zany game, so this works for me. For other settings and tones this could be replaced with "serious," or even "edgy," or whatever is your and your group's thing)
Rule 5. Say "yes;" and, when necessary, "yes and . . ." (Improv rules. Courtney Cambell)
Rule 6. Only use dice as an oracle when you are not sure of what the outcome of an action would be
Look up some of these on TV Tropes to get an idea of my thinking on these.
Fight on!
|
|
|
|
Post by jeffb on Sept 6, 2021 14:43:31 GMT -6
Rob's player isn't trying to exploit a rules loophole necessarily, but I presume that they own their own copy of the rules and now that they've created a character from those rules, they intend to press their advantage in skills bonuses at every opportunity. The rules are silent(?) on the circumstantial application of hide and stealth, and Rob's player sees his opening. The rules don't say you CAN'T sneak across a wide open room, sooo.. . IDK the exact circumstances, but this sounds like a player problem. 5E seems to give some guidelines on Stealth, but leaves a lot to DM fiat based on circumstances. If the player has issue with the DM fiat part of Stealth, well... I'd need more details. What's the lighting? Who is in the room that could detect the rogue? What way are they looking, etc etc. If the player insisted? Ok, Clouseau ...do your best. I probably would just let the PC make the roll, impose disadvantage on the check, and if they got caught, they'd be in for a world of hurt from whomever caught them... Oh...a 6...."The Guards are well aware of your presence and get a surprise round with advantage on the attack rolls because you are so obviously out in the open" And then Kato the PC's @$$. If they somehow made it, I'd rationalize like in Star Wars... "The Guards hear a noise off in the distance and turn their heads towards the sound and walk towards the window to look out, you capitalize on the distraction....." * I'm positive Rob is experienced enough to make good decisions...again, alot of details left out so hard to say one way or the other... * I realize this explanation may be "new school" thinking, but I find this makes for more interesting (and fun) gameplay than shutting a player down. Throw some dice, see what happens. This is why I have come to prefer systems without binary results such as DW, or FFG Star Wars vs. D&D or RQ. |
|
