Quote Originally Posted by Clawhound View Post
The good thing about rules is that they give the players firm ideas about what they can and can't do. The bad thing about rules is that they give the players firm ideas about what they can and can't do.

All RPG rules come with an opportunity cost. That cost is how your players think in a situation. 3.X brought in lots of good rules, but it also lost that rich ingenuity that was the hallmark of previous editions.

What is it that makes a good D&D game? Is it "good rules", or is it "player experience"?

In my opinion, RPG rules are best when they bring a situation to life in such a way that your players make rational, if not downright cool decisions. RPG rules are worst when players don't realize that they've happily locked themselves into boxes.
Yes, but personally I'd like some consistency or at least guidelines in how things should be ruled. What a Fighter currently has is an attack with 6 accuracy that does 2d6+7 damage. It is perfectly legitimate to say: Or something that the GM thinks is roughly as useful as that like say tripping a guy or disarming him, really it's up to you GM go to town.

I've played rules light games and had a good time.

However, in D&D half the classes are given strict limits and procedures on how they can do things. Spells have a stated affect, are gained a stated way, are as hard to accomplish as stated. I don't think this mix is good as the mentality it creates is disjointed and at odds with itself.

I'd actually be really fine if the game did something like this:

Martial Maneuvers
Often a martial character will want to do more than just whack an enemy repeatedly over the head. They'll want options to do cool tricks as well, ultimately how they are implemented is up to the GM but here are some examples we find most useful

Parry: Make a melee attack roll against the melee attack roll of the opponent. If your attack roll is higher than the opponents the attack roll is negated. Each additional use of Parry suffers a -2 penalty to the attack roll.

Trip: As an action make a Strength or Dex check opposed by the opponents Dexterity Save. If successful the opponent is knocked prone

Push Back: As an action make a Strength check opposed by the opponents Con save. If successful the opponent is pushed back 5 feet.

Just this establishes a precedent for later maneuvers. Attack rolls to connect the maneuvers do not appear to be required, these types of maneuvers don't do any damage, there is no penalty when attempting these maneuvers the first time in a round, and so forth. Establishing precedents can be great for just helping to align expectations of what a character can potentially do while giving a basic outline of how the GM would go about doing it in a fair, balanced way.

Right now, we have nothing. As a GM it is completely legitimate for me to say when the fighter asks to knock down the goblin warchief "No, you can't do that" or perhaps even worse "Go ahead, you have to land an attack against the goblin at -5 penalty because it's harder to really get close enough for a good push than just landing a hit. Then make a Strength check DC 20."

Now of course, that's a bit of hyperbole there. But personally I don't like when my characters strengths and limitations are up so completely upon the judgment of someone who is not me, whose fairness of reasoning is not ultimately known to me.