D&D 5th Edition: the fifth edition of the discussion thread

[Oracle_Hunter]

And that doesn't strike you as disempowering the player? You can't know what your own abilities do unless you run every single one by the DM and he makes up rulings on the fly? Maybe there was a reason that the designers intended it to be used one way or the other, and by writing it ambiguously, they've lost that effect, whatever it was. What happens when the DM changes his mind later on but you've already made irrevocable character decisions? What if the DM suspects you of being a power-gamer, so he says no to most anything you say, while his girlfriend gets a yes to all of her requests? Why have rules if the DM has ultimate authority to change them with no recourse for the players other than 'not play?' As a designer, if 'not playing' is the only way players can get out of being treated unfairly, you have failed. The rules are there to maintain fairness for everyone; why have them if they're useless as an ultimate authority? What would sports look like if the referee could change rules on the fly? No one would have any idea what to expect; the teams would have to sit down with the referee before every game, get his rulings (which will always be an incomplete list since he may have rulings for rules that you assume wouldn't have rulings), change their entire game plan, and then hope he doesn't change his mind halfway through or simply favor the other team.

This is a good point, but perhaps stressed overmuch.

Of course you need to trust your DM to run the game and that frequently means he needs to make decisions either on how to apply rules that are written or those which are not. The point of having "clear" rules cannot be for them to be used as a bludgeon unruly DMs into submission -- that sort of antagonism does not bode well for most, if any, RPG.

No, the reason you need "clear" rules (i.e. ones whose function is obvious to a Neutral Third Party) is that it permits Players to make rational decisions based on the options before them and for DMs to design adventures based on that same information. It helps no one if the Players design their characters and their plans of action based on information about the universe (i.e. the game rules) if the DM is operating with a very different set of universal laws in mind.

I call this game design principle "Foreseeability." Rules which give poor or no guidance as to how they function are no better than having no rules at all -- and are sometimes worse. My favorite examples come from 3.x skills:

Spoiler

Show

What happens when you craft a Quarterstaff as quickly as possible?
According to the rules it you craft it in 1/X of a day where X is the multiple which 15*(Check Value) is greater than 0. Anyone with modest mathematical training knows that this is not a simple question to answer and that a crude response is that people can create Quarterstaves out of nothing in no time.

Does a Commoner know more about Dretches (2 HD) than Brown Bears (6 HD) since Monster Knowledge Checks are based on HD?
As Commoners are untrained in both Nature and Planes he would be equally likely to know about either Outsiders or Animals according to the rules. Yet surely the rules did not mean to make it more likely that a Commoner would know more about denizens of the Abyss (DC 12) than Brown Bears (DC 16) much less that Commoners might actually know more about Dretches (DC 17 to know 2 things) than Brown Bears (DC 21 to know 2 things -- impossible without a INT mod).

Of course, Commoners are not trained in Nature so they probably don't know much about their own farm animals since they cannot get higher than a 10 on Untrained Knowledge Checks and Monster Knowledge Checks start at DC 11.

Rules like these actually add confusion to the game since they produce absurd results whereas no rules at all would have at least relied on the "common understanding" of reality. If you must have rules for this sort of stuff it is important that the rules provide clear guidance as to what is possible and what is impossible in the area in question and what makes those tasks easier or harder. This information alone will enable Players to make rational decisions ("It is harder to see in the dark; I will bring a light") and to even make trade offs ("If I take a light I will have +2 to see my quarry but I will take a -5 to my attempts to hide. Is that worth it?") either during character creation or during play.

This is why you must have clear rules in your game: not to tie down Players or to beat up DMs, but to make sure that both sides general know how the world works and can make informed decisions on that knowledge.

[Kerrin]

...but you've already made irrevocable character decisions?

I'm always confused by this. Do folks play in groups who seriously don't allow any (even minor) character build/leveling choice retconning to address issues that crop up?

I must play in a pretty laid back group because it doesn't really bother us unless you're making significant, fundamental changes to your character.

"Yeah, Joe, that feat you took hasn't worked out at all like you thought it would. What else would you prefer your character to learn instead? Okay, either a side-story or some off-stage activity later you drop the old feat and replace it with this new one you proposed."

"Cool."

"Onward!"

[Dublock]

Do folks play in groups who seriously don't allow any (even minor) character build/leveling choice retconning to address issues that crop up?

I do wonder about this sometimes when I am on these forums.

I am normally the DM for people I play with and I am more then willing to work on characters and their backstories if they want help or if they want a change 2 sessions in. I do normally ask the other players if they care, or at least let them give their input to changes when the game already started, but its never been a big deal, I even had someone change classes (he had a back up character which we already knew about). So we staged his introduction and prompt death of the old character, it was well done by the player actually.

When I look at the D&D books I see a game system with a default setting and rules for the common/general events/situations. I would love it if they had a big list of rules (in an ebook form so I can search for it quickly :P) that are clear and concise so I never have to make that decision.

Ultimately I view that as part of the job on the DM to moderate (if inbetween players) or judge fairly and then stick to that choice once its been made unless a conversation takes place afterwards and agreed upon with everyone.

In terms of 5E, I like what I see so far and to be fair I don't know enough if its going to be a big deal in 5E like 3.5E (I seem to have less problems with 4E, although its been a while since I really messed with 3.5E). What I really want is to have a good general set of rules as core, basic skill set, basic combat (even walk up smack with stick and a fwe more things I would be ok with).

Then spend time making an advance version of everything, combat, skills, commoners and other npcs (yes this should be a whole set by itself), etc that gets a lot more detailed and clear.

Also please have an ebook form so I can search all those rules on my kindle then flipping through pages. I am the rules lawyer of the group and it will improve my life (partly why my group doesn't challenge me and listen to my decisions :P).

[Menteith]

I'm always confused by this. Do folks play in groups who seriously don't allow any (even minor) character build/leveling choice retconning to address issues that crop up?

I've had DM's do that to me. It's one of the reason that I'm DM more often that not for our group. But yeah, there are sticklers out there who don't allow retraining of feats/skills ever, or who are strict about rerolls. It's frustrating sure, but that's technically the rules (One of these people also insists on favored class rules, which are almost never enforced).

[Seerow]

I'm always confused by this. Do folks play in groups who seriously don't allow any (even minor) character build/leveling choice retconning to address issues that crop up?

Not quite impossible, but some DMs do like to make it hard. Just as a quick example, I was playing an Archer Cleric. I dipped a level of Fighter early on because I wanted bow proficiency. Later, when I got bracers of archery, I wanted to retrain out that Fighter level because the only thing I wanted from it was now being taken care of.

The DM's answer was that to do the retraining, I had to play an entire level without using any weapons or armor. So as an Archer Cleric, I wasn't allowed to be an archer for a full level of play (To make matters worse I was playing a Spontaneous Cleric, so most of my spells wound up being useless as well since they were primarily for buffing my ranged attacks).


I've seen similar rulings for retraining feats, skills, and just about anything else.

[Kerrin]

I guess that for me it would be one of the things to know before joining a group since we are lenient about those kinds of things in our group.

[1337 b4k4]

And that doesn't strike you as disempowering the player?

Not at all, because at my tables the DMs and the players trust each other enough to agree to the rules as written + any house rules and let any edge cases or inconsistencies be decided as they come up in a fair manner that everyone can agree to. There's no "empowering" the player or the DM because there's no power struggle.

What happens when the DM changes his mind later on but you've already made irrevocable character decisions? What if the DM suspects you of being a power-gamer, so he says no to most anything you say, while his girlfriend gets a yes to all of her requests?

Then you have a crappy DM and you shouldn't play with them any more than you would continue to play with the player that flips the table every time he takes damage.

Why have rules if the DM has ultimate authority to change them with no recourse for the players other than 'not play?'

As a designer, if 'not playing' is the only way players can get out of being treated unfairly, you have failed. The rules are there to maintain fairness for everyone; why have them if they're useless as an ultimate authority?

No matter how many rules are in the book, the DM can always change them, even if the rules say he can't change them, the fact of the matter is he can change them because he's the guy running the game. The only options you ever have are to play the DM's game or go play your own. The rules are not a tool to bludgeon a crappy DM into submission, any more than they're a tool to bludgeon a crappy player into submission. Playing in any group where you have to use the rules to bludgeon other players is a toxic environment and you should get out immediately.

feel free to replace it with any of the offenders from that category, where the fluff of bonking an opponent on the head would not always lead to the crunch of dazing them (i.e. when you're fighting a headless foe). What happens when you use that power against a Slime?

Fluff as crunch dictates that clearly you can't use that power against headless foes since you can't bonk them on the head. Unless of course the DM decides otherwise. But nothing there is inconsistent.

I don't know about you, but I don't keep a checklist of all the rules which my DM has 'interpreted,' which I would then carry to the next table and ask about every single one before I choose my class.

I don't either. But if there is a rule with an ambiguous interpretation that having a clear understanding before I choose my class and characters is necessary to my having fun, then you're right I'm going to ask about it. To me, most rules fall into the category of "I don't need to know how they're interpreted until we get there".

then yeah, that's an ambiguous rule if all it says is "it prevents the target from running." That could apply to people, rivers, or refrigerators without more context, even if it was just the name of the spell; if it was "Entangle" then its use would be relatively clear. If it was just the "Stop Running Spell" then you're back at square 1

Now wait just a minute here. Is the name of a spell rules or fluff in your view? If it's fluff, then whether the spell is "Stop Running" or "Entangle" it doesn't matter, because the rule it bad for not specifying. On the other hand if you view fluff as rules, then as you said, the use is relatively clear when the spell is named "Entangle", even if the specific block of mechanics doesn't specify that.

This is why you must have clear rules in your game: not to tie down Players or to beat up DMs, but to make sure that both sides general know how the world works and can make informed decisions on that knowledge.

This is pretty much spot on. The rules don't need to cover every scenario, and be so specific that there is no room for interpretation. They just need to be clear enough to give a general overview of how the world works, and how the rules model that world.

I'm always confused by this. Do folks play in groups who seriously don't allow any (even minor) character build/leveling choice retconning to address issues that crop up?

Yeah, to me this seems a lot more like an overblown "internet nerds" problem than a paper and pencils problem. I'm sure there are some groups that wind up like this, but it seems to me that these groups either have deeper problems than the rules or they generally don't last very long. Sure everyone remembers the "guy" in their neighborhood who was the only guy who would run games, and was this sort of jackwagon, but the answer to this to me isn't more rules to try and keep him in check, it's better rules for DMs to encourage more people to become DMs and put these lousy ones out of business.

[Fatebreaker]

Bit of a long post. The overall point is, clarity is good. There are no downsides to having clear rules, easily understood by all involved, but there certainly are a great many downsides to not having them...

There is no confusion on what is or is not a rule because everything is a rule until the DM tells you otherwise. It appears to me that some people have a difficult time imagining non stat block elements as rules, but to me a game book which says:

"Spell: Fireball - Sends a ball of fire shooting from the wizards fingers to a fixed point which then explodes and does 3d6 damage in a 20' sphere"

and a book that says:

"Spell: Explosive Burst - Burst 4 - 3d6 Fire Damage"

are both providing clear cut rules. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you but the fact that the first version includes more information (it comes from the finger, flies as a ball and then explodes in a sphere) doesn't mean that those things aren't rules, it just means the second version's designers didn't consider those rules worth having.

Here are two three four fuzzy pseudo-rules created by the first version:

(#1) The fireball spell is a ball of fire both before and after impact. This means that I cannot interpret the spell to appear as something more befitting my character concept, such as a serpent of flame or a Macross Missile Massacre of smaller blasts which combine into a single explosion.

(#2) The wizard now requires fingers to cast the spell. Even if he later picks up a metamagic feat which lets him avoid any somatic components, the spell shoots from his fingers. What happens when the wizard has no fingers? What happens my character wants to, instead, spit the fireball, or have a pillar of fire erupt from the ground?

(#3) The fireball flies "to a fixed point." Can I cast it at a moving target? Can I cast it at nothing so it explodes in midair? Under some DMs, yes. Under others, no.

(#4) Sphere or square? Stubbazubba already mentioned this, so I'll leave it at that, except to say that "sphere or square" isn't important... until it is.

These aren't two equally clear-cut examples of rules. One of them has a load of baggage which might be irrelevant, or it might force my character to behave in ways I do not want him to.

The problem isn't that folks have a "difficult time imagining non stat block elements as rules." There's not a failure of imagination going on. Rather, there is, but it's the other way round. Having fluff locked in as quasi-rules sets limitations on what I can use my imagination for. Breathing swarms of fire-snakes which coil around my opponent before exploding is suddenly not a thing I can do, because even if it had the same mechanical outcome as a fireball, now it has to be a ball of fire during flight and it has to fly from my fingertips. This kind of limitation in no way improves the game.

And that doesn't strike you as disempowering the player? You can't know what your own abilities do unless you run every single one by the DM and he makes up rulings on the fly?

-snip-

What happens when the DM changes his mind later on but you've already made irrevocable character decisions? What if the DM suspects you of being a power-gamer, so he says no to most anything you say, while his girlfriend gets a yes to all of her requests? Why have rules if the DM has ultimate authority to change them with no recourse for the players other than 'not play?'

As a designer, if 'not playing' is the only way players can get out of being treated unfairly, you have failed. The rules are there to maintain fairness for everyone; why have them if they're useless as an ultimate authority?

The reason you need "clear" rules (i.e. ones whose function is obvious to a Neutral Third Party) is that it permits Players to make rational decisions based on the options before them and for DMs to design adventures based on that same information. It helps no one if the Players design their characters and their plans of action based on information about the universe (i.e. the game rules) if the DM is operating with a very different set of universal laws in mind.

-snip-

This is why you must have clear rules in your game: not to tie down Players or to beat up DMs, but to make sure that both sides general know how the world works and can make informed decisions on that knowledge.

To Stubbazubba's "social balance" and Oracle_Hunter's "Foreseeability & Rational Decisions," I'd like to add a third major reason to oppose unclear mixtures of fluff and rules, namely, how it impedes player ownership of their character's image.

Now, I don't want to play with a DM who thinks that it's "his" game and that my opinion means nothing. Nor do I want to play in a game where I cannot make meaningful choices because I have nothing to base my decisions on. But at the very least, I do get to decide what my character looks like and how they behave and what they do and how they do it. When the DM takes away even that, there really is no reason for me to even be at the table -- the DM is running a theater, and while my character is an actor, I myself am just a member of the audience.

D&D is a game you play with a group. The enjoyment of all its members, not just the DM, is a measure of success.

I'm always confused by this. Do folks play in groups who seriously don't allow any (even minor) character build/leveling choice retconning to address issues that crop up?

As a man who ran a gaming store for four years, I'm here to tell you that this is a thing which happens, and when it does, it is a big issue. It's not a hypothetical thing that people only do on the internet.

Moreover, while I strongly encourage players to talk to their DM/teammates/opponents before any gamewhile, these kinds of disagreements are the kind of thing that can crop up by surprise, because it's most likely to happen when both of you are operating on such fundamentally different assumptions that you don't even think about them. And when it does come up, it's likely to be important (otherwise you wouldn't be arguing over it), which means that now both sides are invested in a certain outcome -- which makes it harder to compromise or arrive at a fair ruling. And when the rules aren't clear, both of you have enough of a leg to stand on, which only compounds the problem.

And consider this: 1337 b4k4's fluff/crunch mix ("flunch," if you will) of fireball created four issues alone. I do not want to waste precious gaming time running down a laundry list of all the hypothetical ways the DM might unintentionally screw me over mid-game because he interprets something differently than I do. I do not then want to waste even more precious gaming time listening to all the other players do the same, and if I'm the DM, I certainly don't want to listen to four or five other people quiz me on all of this. But when the alternative is "none of us have any clue how the rules will actually function," that kind of suspicion and interrogation is encouraged by the system.

A system which creates an incentive for distrust is a bad system (or Paranoia).

At the end of the day, a game should strive for clarity. It's not nearly as hard as folks want to make it out to be. But it's worth working towards, because when everyone around the table is playing the same game without the system getting in the way, you get to do the most important thing in tabletop RPGs: play a game and have fun with your friends.

[Oracle_Hunter]

To Stubbazubba's "social balance" and Oracle_Hunter's "Foreseeability & Rational Decisions," I'd like to add a third major reason to oppose unclear mixtures of fluff and rules, namely, how it impedes player ownership of their character's image.

Now, I don't want to play with a DM who thinks that it's "his" game and that my opinion means nothing. Nor do I want to play in a game where I cannot make meaningful choices because I have nothing to base my decisions on. But at the very least, I do get to decide what my character looks like and how they behave and what they do and how they do it. When the DM takes away even that, there really is no reason for me to even be at the table -- the DM is running a theater, and while my character is an actor, I myself am just a member of the audience.

D&D is a game you play with a group. The enjoyment of all its members, not just the DM, is a measure of success.

Now, IMHO this sentiment and Stubbazubba's are both concerns better addresses OOC than IC -- that is to say, they are part of good DMing and need not be a factor when designing the rules.

At the root of both concerns is the "Power Mad DM" who is using his in-game powers to run roughshod over the people sitting at his table. IMHO, no amount of rules will make such a DM "come to heel" and as such there is very little that words on a page can do to influence a DM of this persuasion. In lesser cases this sort of behavior can be mitigated by having rules which do not invite DM Fiat to resolve them (e.g. Diplomacy Rules with strict modifier conditions vs. "whatever modifiers the DM feels appropriate) but such rules are already preferable for the sake of efficiency, constancy and foreseeability -- there is no reason to put the weight of social engineering on them as well.

In any case, the most a game designer can hope to do mitigate this behavior is either develop a "cooperative storytelling" game or write a "how to DM" chapter which warns against being Power Mad. No rules are so clear they cannot be argued about by self-interested parties, after all.

[jseah]

These aren't two equally clear-cut examples of rules. One of them has a load of baggage which might be irrelevant, or it might force my character to behave in ways I do not want him to.
<...>
Having fluff locked in as quasi-rules sets limitations on what I can use my imagination for. Breathing swarms of fire-snakes which coil around my opponent before exploding is suddenly not a thing I can do, because even if it had the same mechanical outcome as a fireball, now it has to be a ball of fire during flight and it has to fly from my fingertips. This kind of limitation in no way improves the game.

I feel I must respond to this, if only to give another viewpoint.

I prefer my games to have detail and consistency. It might not be visible or needed at all times, but if I want to look, it is there.
If wizards need their fingers to shoot many spells, a criminal punishment for wizards in a hypothetical country might be to break their fingers.

It *can* be important, and I would like that level of detail for most, if not all, rules in the game.

In order to maintain this, the description of happenings in the game world must fall within an acceptable variation.

EDIT: And sometimes I do change this as GM. When I do so, it is always to clarify a rule needing it, or at setting creation.
If the rules say wizards don't need fingers to cast and I decide they will, then I do it at the start of the game and make sure my players know I have done it (houserule document)

But at the very least, I do get to decide what my character looks like and how they behave and what they do and how they do it.

As a GM, I normally grant the first 3, within the limits of the game (no, your fighter does NOT look mickey mouse). But in my games, a greataxe is a greataxe, you cannot change it to a spear. Period.
Sunwarped half-giants follow whatever rules apply to them, not a hydra's statblock.

Magic and classes are a little more flexible, but requests for major refluff will often end up with me writing you a new spell or class ability.
- Eg. your fire serpent will be a new spell, with slightly different mechanics (single target attack roll, on hit, full damage, on miss, reflex half; Xd6-X fire)

I am willing to make houserules to accommodate sundry requests, but my usual method for changing even apparently cosmetic things is to sit down, have a think about it, and then rewrite.

[Fatebreaker]

Now, IMHO this sentiment and Stubbazubba's are both concerns better addresses OOC than IC -- that is to say, they are part of good DMing and need not be a factor when designing the rules.

At the root of both concerns is the "Power Mad DM" who is using his in-game powers to run roughshod over the people sitting at his table. IMHO, no amount of rules will make such a DM "come to heel" and as such there is very little that words on a page can do to influence a DM of this persuasion. In lesser cases this sort of behavior can be mitigated by having rules which do not invite DM Fiat to resolve them (e.g. Diplomacy Rules with strict modifier conditions vs. "whatever modifiers the DM feels appropriate) but such rules are already preferable for the sake of efficiency, constancy and foreseeability -- there is no reason to put the weight of social engineering on them as well.

In any case, the most a game designer can hope to do mitigate this behavior is either develop a "cooperative storytelling" game or write a "how to DM" chapter which warns against being Power Mad. No rules are so clear they cannot be argued about by self-interested parties, after all.

Yes and no. Certainly, the "Power Mad DM" is an OOC problem, but that's a case where it really doesn't matter what the rules are or aren't anyway.

But even quality DMs and quality players, the kind with all sorts of positive descriptors (mature, intelligent, rational, cooperative, etc.), can come to a legitimate disagreement over the rules when the rules aren't clear.

And that, I would say, is certainly a fault which can be laid at the feet of a game designer.

[navar100]

I'm always confused by this. Do folks play in groups who seriously don't allow any (even minor) character build/leveling choice retconning to address issues that crop up?

I must play in a pretty laid back group because it doesn't really bother us unless you're making significant, fundamental changes to your character.

"Yeah, Joe, that feat you took hasn't worked out at all like you thought it would. What else would you prefer your character to learn instead? Okay, either a side-story or some off-stage activity later you drop the old feat and replace it with this new one you proposed."

"Cool."

"Onward!"

Cynically - the DM is on a power trip. More likely, being reasonable, is the DM doesn't want players to exploit the rules to pwn the game. Changing Skill Focus (Forgery) to Improved Initiative may be reasonable, but the DM fears the next player wants to use Psychic Reformation to change everything then use Psychic Reformation to get rid of Psychic Reformation.

Common sense should be the norm. The players just wants to fix an Honest True unfun thing, not trying to Win D&D. The DM lets it happen. Horror stories of those who don't play with common sense ruin the idea.

[1337 b4k4]

Here are two three four fuzzy pseudo-rules created by the first version:

And every single one of those is not a problem of lack of clarity, they're problems with the rules either not being sparse enough for you (#1/#2) or too sparse (#3/#4). That doesn't mean the spell isn't clear.

Breathing swarms of fire-snakes which coil around my opponent before exploding is suddenly not a thing I can do, because even if it had the same mechanical outcome as a fireball, now it has to be a ball of fire during flight and it has to fly from my fingertips. This kind of limitation in no way improves the game.

What do you mean it's not something you can do? It's called talking to your DM. Seriously, do you people only play with psychopaths or something? It's a group activity, start talking to your group. Again, rules as fluff is only a limitation if you believe that rules are immutable and sacrosanct.

Given your interpretation here, am I correct in assuming that you find the 4e power mage hand to also be broken and limited given that the "Effect" section explicitly states "You conjure a spectral, floating hand" and therefore precludes you from choosing to instead conjure a floating tentacle or eagle's claw? Or that it also precludes you from deciding instead that your wizard works like Scorpion and a spear flies from his hand to grab whatever you're mage handing?

D&D is a game you play with a group. The enjoyment of all its members, not just the DM, is a measure of success.

Absolutely, which is why you should be talking to your group about the world you want to have and make that world, not bludgeoning your other group members into line because "the rules say so".

But when the alternative is "none of us have any clue how the rules will actually function," that kind of suspicion and interrogation is encouraged by the system.

For 30 some years before 4e, people managed to play D&D and had fun doing it. Somehow I think "None of us have any clue how the rules will actually function" is a non existent problem. That isn't to say that D&D rules have always been clear, but that when they aren't clear, somehow people managed to come to an intergroup agreement and move on without worrying about it too much. Yes, did some rules lawyers and munchkins make mountains out of molehills and ruin peoples fun? Sure they did, and they do it in 4e too, and M:tG and every other game (even chess and monopoly). I'm reminded of an internet meme: Nerds ruin everything

As I said, we're just going to have to agree to disagree because you and I are approaching this from two completely different world views, and they are apparently completely irreconcilable. You do have my deepest sympathies if gaming for you has been as painful as your fears seem to make it out to be. It's a game, it should be fun first, regardless of what the rules say.

Now, IMHO this sentiment and Stubbazubba's are both concerns better addresses OOC than IC -- that is to say, they are part of good DMing and need not be a factor when designing the rules.

At the root of both concerns is the "Power Mad DM" who is using his in-game powers to run roughshod over the people sitting at his table. IMHO, no amount of rules will make such a DM "come to heel" and as such there is very little that words on a page can do to influence a DM of this persuasion. In lesser cases this sort of behavior can be mitigated by having rules which do not invite DM Fiat to resolve them (e.g. Diplomacy Rules with strict modifier conditions vs. "whatever modifiers the DM feels appropriate) but such rules are already preferable for the sake of efficiency, constancy and foreseeability -- there is no reason to put the weight of social engineering on them as well.

In any case, the most a game designer can hope to do mitigate this behavior is either develop a "cooperative storytelling" game or write a "how to DM" chapter which warns against being Power Mad. No rules are so clear they cannot be argued about by self-interested parties, after all.

This this this, a thousand times this.

[Togath]

How long should i wait before signing up for the playtest again?, Currently at least i haven't gotten an email detailign what to do after the base signup

[Oracle_Hunter]

I prefer my games to have detail and consistency. It might not be visible or needed at all times, but if I want to look, it is there.

If wizards need their fingers to shoot many spells, a criminal punishment for wizards in a hypothetical country might be to break their fingers.

It *can* be important, and I would like that level of detail for most, if not all, rules in the game.

In order to maintain this, the description of happenings in the game world must fall within an acceptable variation.

EDIT: And sometimes I do change this as GM. When I do so, it is always to clarify a rule needing it, or at setting creation.
If the rules say wizards don't need fingers to cast and I decide they will, then I do it at the start of the game and make sure my players know I have done it (houserule document)

Then as you know, this is the sort of thing that DMs can more easily tailor themselves than say the Game Designers.

For example, in 4e there are no rules saying precisely how Wizards cast spells. For most people, it doesn't particularly matter in most situations -- and if it does come up, the DM can make a decision. The best thing for a DM like you is that Players don't come in with preconceived notions you have to fight against.

So, while it is nice to have such rules IMHO they are better left to the "fluff department" than the "mechanics department" if for no other reason than they are really simple to describe as fluff and much harder to describe as mechanics.

EDIT:

Yes and no. Certainly, the "Power Mad DM" is an OOC problem, but that's a case where it really doesn't matter what the rules are or aren't anyway.

But even quality DMs and quality players, the kind with all sorts of positive descriptors (mature, intelligent, rational, cooperative, etc.), can come to a legitimate disagreement over the rules when the rules aren't clear.

And that, I would say, is certainly a fault which can be laid at the feet of a game designer.

My point, rather, was that "quality DMs and quality players" do not need clear rules to avoid disagreements because they can work that out easily; the real hazard was in messy disagreements and no rules can stop Munchkins and Power Mad DMs from getting into those.

As a result it is better to think of rule clarity as a "Foreseeability" issue rather than try to nail down every lose end that might be (ab)used by self-interested parties. This means not spending time rigorously detailing all possible edge cases but rather focusing on rules whose meaning are clear to "Objective Third Parties:" they are simpler to write, clearer to read, and less likely to spark intense honest disagreement amongst "quality" people

[jseah]

So, while it is nice to have such rules IMHO they are better left to the "fluff department" than the "mechanics department" if for no other reason than they are really simple to describe as fluff and much harder to describe as mechanics.

The thing is, there is only so much I can modify before my players start to lose track.

Two pages of houserules is pushing it, imagine if I dropped a 10 page document on them detailing misc. bits of fluff and detailed magic theory, because to run at least one of the campaigns that I did, that is what would have needed to happen. (3.5's houserule list was about 2 and a bit pages long)

I'd much rather have a working default. It doesn't usually matter so much exactly what the detail is, only that the detail be there at all.

[Clawhound]

I think that the rules are somewhat clear about much of the game if you accept the premise of the game.

You are playing a role-playing game and pretending to be a person (of some race) in a magical setting with a pseudo-medieval technology.

• Where possible, you use real-world practicalities (i.e., people need to drink water and falling hurts).
• Where possible, you use real-world analogies. For example, there's no such thing as mithril, but it's a metal, so you assume that it acts like most metals.
• Societies still need to organize themselves and intelligent creatures have opinions.
• People who do jobs know how to do their jobs. We don't need detailed rules on cow milking or hay bailing or baby feeding.
• People react appropriately to issues involving danger. Villages will erect walls and make weapons.
• Ordinary things act like themselves. Shovels are shovels and don't need extensive documentation.
• And so on.

The rules that go with the game are those that effect the PC characters. In a fighting game, combat matters. Spells matter. Monster matter. Magic items matter. These get lots of explanation. We can't assume real-world analogies. In fact, we want the opposite. We want combat to have enough variables to produce unpredictable results. Any action, no matter how well documented, has a %chance to fail.

The game produces strange results when you start with the exceptional rules, those that the players follow, then apply them to the world at large, which don't need those rules at all.

[Stubbazubba]

Now, IMHO this sentiment and Stubbazubba's are both concerns better addresses OOC than IC -- that is to say, they are part of good DMing and need not be a factor when designing the rules.

At the root of both concerns is the "Power Mad DM" who is using his in-game powers to run roughshod over the people sitting at his table. IMHO, no amount of rules will make such a DM "come to heel" and as such there is very little that words on a page can do to influence a DM of this persuasion. In lesser cases this sort of behavior can be mitigated by having rules which do not invite DM Fiat to resolve them (e.g. Diplomacy Rules with strict modifier conditions vs. "whatever modifiers the DM feels appropriate) but such rules are already preferable for the sake of efficiency, constancy and foreseeability -- there is no reason to put the weight of social engineering on them as well.

In any case, the most a game designer can hope to do mitigate this behavior is either develop a "cooperative storytelling" game or write a "how to DM" chapter which warns against being Power Mad. No rules are so clear they cannot be argued about by self-interested parties, after all.

No, I don't suggest these things to be used as a bludgeon to strong-arm a power-tripping DM into doing anything. I do these things to help people who are new to DMing avoid the unconscious abuse of the system. I agree that a designer has no responsibility to fix Power Mad DMs or munchkin and/or rules-lawyer players; but I believe the designer does have a responsibility to make the game such that OK DMs and Players are helped to be great ones.

When a newbie DM makes a ruling about a power or ability at chargen, which at least partially informs a PC's choice of class, and then a few sessions in it turns out that ruling seems a little OP and the DM nerfs it, and this happens for a sizeable handful of powers, then the game is having serious consistency issues which may or may not engender frustration for everyone, and the game designer has put the responsibility for all of that on the DM, instead of clarifying what the rules should mean in the first place.

This is an otherwise great game group who, yes, do manage to 'get over' all the problems inherent in unclear rules and have fun in spite of the rules, but it's a serious drain to the enthusiasm when the rules are a drag on your group's fun instead of a solid foundation for it. I want people to be enthusiastic about my game without reservation, and at least part of that comes down to not needing house-rules in 95% or more of sessions. If a power is unclear, then every time it's used based on a DM's ruling is a point against my game in my mind.

The DM has a hard enough job trying to make a good campaign; why put the additional burden of having to be game designer on him, as well? That is what has happened for the last 30 years, and it has produced a wide range of results, some good, some abusive. The hobby has survived in spite of this, I just want us to get past this crutch that "Oh, the DM can just finish the game for us," in design, to put an end to sloppy design, which has been the rule of the big tent-pole games for that entire period.

[Oracle_Hunter]

The DM has a hard enough job trying to make a good campaign; why put the additional burden of having to be game designer on him, as well? That is what has happened for the last 30 years, and it has produced a wide range of results, some good, some abusive. The hobby has survived in spite of this, I just want us to get past this crutch that "Oh, the DM can just finish the game for us," in design, to put an end to sloppy design, which has been the rule of the big tent-pole games for that entire period.

This I completely agree with.

We both agree that rules need to be clear, concise and consistent yet I am trying to make a finer point here: the clarity should be inspired for Foreseeability, not to reign in DM Fiat.

Spoiler

Show

Most of your examples point to the later -- "When a newbie DM makes a ruling about a power or ability at chargen" for example seems to point more to "ban lists" than "unclear power construction:" making rulings on what he feels comfortable using rather than trying to figure out what the power is supposed to do.

Something like 3.0's Polymorph rules are the former -- do you really get at-will Wishes when you become a Efreet? The latter is more like untangling 3.X's Grapple and Knowledge Rules and the like; even a Neutral Third Party is going to have trouble understanding how to correctly use them. Design rules on a "ban list" mentality usually leads to "rule by exception" in which every OP usage is ruled out specifically; designing by "unclear construction" lead more towards precision in language. IMHO, designing under "unclear construction" leads to rules which are not only easier to use but also avoid a lot of the problems that lead to "ban list" mentality.

This is may seem like a niggling distinction but, IMHO, it is as important to have the proper mindset when designing rules as it is to design the rules in a proper manner.

@jseah -- but your Players would have no problem remembering the same text if it were published in a book? If it's a problem of memory, then neither approach will help; if it is a problem of access then you just need to write the fluff you find important yourself and give it to the Players to read. If they'd read the former, they should be able to read the latter.

If you don't like to write the fluff, then don't use homebrew settings in the first place -- you can buy settings where all that jazz is laid out for you. But for homebrewers having a "blank slate" is far easier than having to work against hardwired fluff.

[Fatebreaker]

And every single one of those is not a problem of lack of clarity, they're problems with the rules either not being sparse enough for you (#1/#2) or too sparse (#3/#4). That doesn't mean the spell isn't clear.

Nonsense. Comparing your fluff/crunch example to your pure-crunch example does introduce new elements which take on a certain weight in spite of the fact that they aren't relevant to the crunch at all. If they were, they would have been in the pure-crunch example. This creates a lack of clarity about what matters and what does not, because when I look at one entry, the game provides me with one set of rules, and when I look elsewhere, the game provides me with an entirely different set of rules.

What the fireball looks like has no mechanical effect on the range, blast radius, damage, or damage type. It's not relevant to the decisions of when, how, where, and against whom to use a fireball. But when you describe what a fireball looks like, now you've introduced a fluff bit in there which suddenly places limitations on the player for no mechanical reason.

In other words, if you change the damage, that has a clear effect on myself, the other players, the npcs, where it stands in comparison to other spells, the game as a whole. Same for range or radius or type. As you increase those factors, the increased effectiveness of fireball makes it better compared to other spells of similar type and level.

But if you say the fireball can't look the way I want it to look... that doesn't really have any relevance to anyone except for me and my enjoyment of the game.

And that's the problem. The game has created a limitation for the sole purpose of creating a limitation. It doesn't benefit the players who want to play according to clear rules, because the rules aren't clear. It doesn't benefit the players who ignore the rules and make it all up anyway, because, well, they'll make it all up anyway. It doesn't even benefit the people who don't care, because they don't care. It doesn't benefit the people who wanted it that way anyhow, because if the system left it up to them, then they could just make it that way anyway. It contributes nothing, but limits players who want something different.

So why have it?

Spoiler

Show

What do you mean it's not something you can do? It's called talking to your DM. Seriously, do you people only play with psychopaths or something? It's a group activity, start talking to your group. Again, rules as fluff is only a limitation if you believe that rules are immutable and sacrosanct.

Absolutely, which is why you should be talking to your group about the world you want to have and make that world, not bludgeoning your other group members into line because "the rules say so".

Both of these suffer from the same flaw:

Not everyone is able to do this.

Sure, you've got your crazy DMs who have to control everything. And you've got your crazy players who want to count their kitchen knife as a laser cannon. But that's not what I'm talking about, and I think you know that. There are plenty of legitimate reasons for players and DMs to not be able to do this. I'll touch more on this further down, and leave this section for another point.

When you design a system, you can use your rules to encourage or discourage certain behaviors by the player. On a broader scope, you can create a system which encourages players to be creative or a system which tells them what they can't do.

The more the game says "no," the more the players and the DM are trained to say "no," too. And when the game places these limitations (a fireball looks like [x] and not [y] or [z]), that is a form of saying "no." It's a preemptive no, a "no, you may not make up your own fireball appearance, because this is what it looks like."

(Again, some folks are able to overcome this, and some folks are not, which shall be discussed later)

Basically, instead of empowering the players to play the game they want to play, you're advocating for a system which creates meaningless limitations for the players, and then puts the responsibility for lifting that limitation on the player's ability to convince their DM. That kind of limitation serves no real purpose. So why have it?

For 30 some years before 4e, people managed to play D&D and had fun doing it. Somehow I think "None of us have any clue how the rules will actually function" is a non existent problem.

Really?

"No matter how many rules are in the book, the DM can always change them, even if the rules say he can't change them, the fact of the matter is he can change them because he's the guy running the game. The only options you ever have are to play the DM's game or go play your own."

"Fluff as crunch dictates that clearly you can't use that power against headless foes since you can't bonk them on the head. Unless of course the DM decides otherwise. But nothing there is inconsistent."

So, let me see if I've got this: "You can't do it, unless you can, and only when the DM says so, and the DM can always change it, even if he can't, and you have no options except to leave the game."

Somehow, this does not strike me as a clear foundation for how the rules will actually function in a game.

When a player enters a game with a DM who makes these statements, their ability to make meaningful decisions is sorely limited. Choosing [x] over [y] because [x] is better (whether mathematically or thematically) is only a meaningful decision if you have some reasonable certainty of how [x] and [y] will play out in the game. If it's a crap-shoot, then decisions cease to be meaningful.

As I said, we're just going to have to agree to disagree because you and I are approaching this from two completely different world views, and they are apparently completely irreconcilable. You do have my deepest sympathies if gaming for you has been as painful as your fears seem to make it out to be. It's a game, it should be fun first, regardless of what the rules say.

Actually, I've had a lot of fun in my hobby. Y'know why? Because I learned how to be discerning in my hobby. I've learned what I like, what I don't like, and how to get the kind of game I want with the kind of players I want.

But, like I've said, I've run a gaming store, and one of the neat things about running a gaming store is that you get to watch all kinds of people play all kinds of games with all kinds of other people under all kinds of circumstances. Tournaments, pick-up games, schedules games, league games, private games, long running games, lunch break games, mega-campaigns, speed run sessions. I've seen people who played to win, people who played for the fun of the game, people who played for the fun of the people, people who played to tinker with systems, people who played because they were looking for something to do, you name it. All sorts of people, all sorts of games, day in, day out, for years on end.

Like everything else in life, gaming is a learning experience. It's not always easy to see in yourself, but the advantage of watching and helping all those gamers in all those games was the opportunity to see how different people learn and grow. And before you can really find your hobby, there are certain skills, some mental, some social (and for all you artists, modellers, and painters out there, some physical, too!), which a new member of the hobby must learn.

Some of them involve, yes, learning that it's okay to change the rules. Many new gamers aren't even aware that you can do this! Or that it's okay!

Some of those skills involve learning how to recognize which rules are good rules and which rules you need to change.

Some of those skills involve learning that they, too, have a say at the table. It's not DM's game, it's the group's game. It's okay to have a different opinion!

Some of those skills involve learning that you don't have to play with people. Some folks just don't know any better. Some folks haven't reached a point in their lives where they know how to confront the other players at their table.

And y'know what? Some of those skills, yes, involve learning about yourself. What do you even want out of a game? What do you like? What do you dislike?

The rules can help in this regard. They can also hinder. Learning is the kind of thing we take for granted once we're past it, and sometimes we don't even realize it's happening. But obstacles to learning are very real, and how the game presents options is an opportunity to remove those obstacles.

A game which constantly tries to set limitations for the players isn't going to encourage players to be creative. But a game which presents options, openly and honestly, is a much more inviting opportunity for hobbyists to try new things. Legend of the Five Rings (the 4th edition) has a variety of optional rules, clearly marked as optional. Some of them are mechanical in nature -- do you want a mass-combat module or not? If so, here is how to resolve mass combat. Others are more fluff-oriented. What degree of gender equality exists in your campaign? If you want female samurai to be on par with their male counterparts, here are some suggestions for that. If you don't, here are some suggestions for that, too. That's much more encouraging than the game saying "female samurai are considered inferior to male samurai" and leaving it to the group to fight to change that "rule." And since the mechanics support either option equally well, then that's a fluff decision which should be left up to the players rather than half-baked into mechanic flavor text.

The point is, how you design and present your system will impact the behavior of your players. Clear rules with honest options encourages players to be creative. Muddled mixtures of mechanics and fluff creates limitations, and players will respond in kind. There's no reason to make it hard on players to learn and play the game they want to play.

I feel I must respond to this, if only to give another viewpoint.

I prefer my games to have detail and consistency. It might not be visible or needed at all times, but if I want to look, it is there.

-snip-

In order to maintain this, the description of happenings in the game world must fall within an acceptable variation.

EDIT: And sometimes I do change this as GM. When I do so, it is always to clarify a rule needing it, or at setting creation.
If the rules say wizards don't need fingers to cast and I decide they will, then I do it at the start of the game and make sure my players know I have done it (houserule document)

I'm fine with this when it's the DM doing it. You and I can sit down before a game (which is something which should be happening whenever new players and DMs game together, or even when starting a new game with familiar faces) and discuss your style and my style and where our gaming interests intersect and where they diverge.

I'm not fine with this when the game does this in a backhand way by making an unclear blend of fluff and rules. As I've mentioned elsewhere, this becomes a serious problem because the really nasty disagreements are going to stem from things we don't even think to discuss, because we take them for granted.

Finding out mid-campaign that we have fundamentally different ideas of how something critical to my enjoyment of the game actually works is a Bad Thing.

My point, rather, was that "quality DMs and quality players" do not need clear rules to avoid disagreements because they can work that out easily; the real hazard was in messy disagreements and no rules can stop Munchkins and Power Mad DMs from getting into those.

I find that the system designer bears some burden of responsibility for constructing rules in a clear fashion such that quality DMs and quality players do not even enter the disagreement in the first place. Even if they could resolve it amicably, the point of the game isn't to resolve disputes, it's to play the game and have fun with friends. Any time we have to fight the system, that cuts into the fun, and if we're fighting the system because of how the system presents itself, then yes, that is something to hold against the system rather than the players.

As an aside, I don't care about Munchkins and Power Mad DMs, because there's no helping them until they get over their Munchkin-ness or Power Mad DM-ness. Since you can't design a system to solve that problem, it's not worth worrying about.

No, I don't suggest these things to be used as a bludgeon to strong-arm a power-tripping DM into doing anything. I do these things to help people who are new to DMing avoid the unconscious abuse of the system.

The simple fact of the hobby is that there is a significant number of hobbyists (I'd even dare to say most members of the hobby) who don't analyze their games, and take them largely at face value. This is one reason why it is so important for game designers to get things right -- saying "the customer will fix it" doesn't always hold true. Heck, a group might not even realize what, exactly, is wrong, or even know how to rectify it once they catch on.

If you don't like to write the fluff, then don't use homebrew settings in the first place -- you can buy settings where all that jazz is laid out for you. But for homebrewers having a "blank slate" is far easier than having to work against hardwired fluff.

Spot on. If you want a premade setting, those are out there. If you want to create your own setting, then having to fight against a poorly meshed, murky mixture of fluff and rules only makes it harder.

[Togath]

I'm sorry for still asking, how long is the usual wait between signing up and getting a chance to playtest the rules? I would like to know whether I did something incorrectly during signup or not, so i can know whether i need to reapply/change something, or some other thing i messed up by mistake.

[lesser_minion]

Here are two three four fuzzy pseudo-rules created by the first version:

Actually, there's only one problem with it, and that can be attributed to it being far more hastily-written than anything that would go in a rulebook.

(#1) The fireball spell is a ball of fire both before and after impact. This means that I cannot interpret the spell to appear as something more befitting my character concept, such as a serpent of flame or a Macross Missile Massacre of smaller blasts which combine into a single explosion.

It's not a problem for fluff to be fixed because a lot of fluff actually should make a difference to the mechanics. It's not a purely cosmetic distinction for a fireball to be made up of lots of smaller blasts, for example, because if that was the case, you should be able to reshape it to hit a different area. That is actually a more powerful spell.

(#3) The fireball flies "to a fixed point." Can I cast it at a moving target? Can I cast it at nothing so it explodes in midair? Under some DMs, yes. Under others, no.

This issue is completely and utterly made-up. Recent editions of D&D have never had "moving targets", and spells have always been aimed at fixed points in space.

(#4) Sphere or square? Stubbazubba already mentioned this, so I'll leave it at that, except to say that "sphere or square" isn't important... until it is.

It's a sphere in both cases. The only reason "burst 4" implies a square is because it's modelled that way under 4e's "gamer have lizard brain no able do geo-whatsit" principle.

[jseah]

@jseah -- but your Players would have no problem remembering the same text if it were published in a book? If it's a problem of memory, then neither approach will help; if it is a problem of access then you just need to write the fluff you find important yourself and give it to the Players to read. If they'd read the former, they should be able to read the latter.

It's not a problem of memory or a willingness to write.

Players coming to the table or posting in PbP are expected to know the core rules, to have read the PhB, DMG and MM before even joining.

They are also expected to read the houserule list before the game starts. If this list is too long, they will forget parts of it or not read it. When you make a game, you can create an entire super-detailed setting but you cannot expect your players to read all of it just like a core-rulebook.

And the following is also to Oracle Hunter:

Finding out mid-campaign that we have fundamentally different ideas of how something critical to my enjoyment of the game actually works is a Bad Thing.

<...>
Spot on. If you want a premade setting, those are out there. If you want to create your own setting, then having to fight against a poorly meshed, murky mixture of fluff and rules only makes it harder.

Having a default set of fluff for everything in the core-rulebook will give a base description of the world and how it works by default. It makes everyone know how the world works when not otherwise contradicted.

By no means does it restrict your ability to create a setting if the descriptions given are not setting material (names of cities, maps, blah blah).
If a specific description of a spell (eg. fireball) is crucial to your setting, then you can change it and specifically call it out.

Also, I do agree that if WotC were going to do it badly, then it would be better to not provide fluff descriptions. However, if done adequately, it will serve to keep everyone on the same page.

[Oracle_Hunter]

It's not a problem of memory or a willingness to write.

Players coming to the table or posting in PbP are expected to know the core rules, to have read the PhB, DMG and MM before even joining.

They are also expected to read the houserule list before the game starts. If this list is too long, they will forget parts of it or not read it. When you make a game, you can create an entire super-detailed setting but you cannot expect your players to read all of it just like a core-rulebook.

Seems like if there is no fluff in the Core Rules then surely the Players have time to read your fluff, no? Why wouldn't they?

This is, of course, a matter of expectations. I expect my Players to be familiar with the fluff that pertains to their characters whether or not it is written in the rule books. If they are going to be a former soldier from Vasserspalt I expect them to know what that means -- what kind of army they were in, their rank, and how they came to be detached. If they are going to be a wizard and I've decided that they casting is done by hand gestures they'd better know that as well.

In short, I expect my Players to know about their characters -- which I think is more than fair. If there is additional fluff they need to know they can always make an appropriate Know Check if it is exotic or unfamiliar, or I can remind them of it if it is otherwise.

The only advantage of "default fluff" is that the Players only have to read it once per system (provided they only stay in Generic Settings). As a homebrewer, this isn't particularly useful for my games but I guess if you run a lot of PbP it may be. Still, I'd have thought if they could read your home rules they could at least read up on the world around them too.

[Fatebreaker]

Actually, there's only one problem with it, and that can be attributed to it being far more hastily-written than anything that would go in a rulebook.

Ah, but the difference between the two creates problems, because one has additional rules not present in the first. Looking at one section tells you one thing; looking at the other section tells you something quite different. This is a problem, because some of the information in the fluff section backdoors mechanics onto the crunch which is not present in the crunch section. This creates confusion about what is or is not actually crunch versus flavor text. Some DMs will look at the mechanic entry and say, "This is what matters." Other DMs will look at the fluff entry and say, "This is also what matters." Therein lies the opportunity for confusion.

As for hastily written, absolutely. It should have been blast, not burst, and then it would need a range. Unless fireball is suddenly an AoE centered on the caster.

Good thing D&D has never had hastily written or poorly worded rules before! This sort of thing will never happen!

It's not a problem for fluff to be fixed because a lot of fluff actually should make a difference to the mechanics. It's not a purely cosmetic distinction for a fireball to be made up of lots of smaller blasts, for example, because if that was the case, you should be able to reshape it to hit a different area. That is actually a more powerful spell.

...why should you be able to reshape it to hit a different area? Without applying metamagic, a D&D fireball can't be reshaped. Just because a player wants it to look different so it better matches their character or their idea of cool doesn't mean it can suddenly do different things.

By definition, if you are not changing mechanics, and making a purely cosmetic alteration, then it does not change mechanics.

This issue is completely and utterly made-up. Recent editions of D&D have never had "moving targets", and spells have always been aimed at fixed points in space.

Well, ignoring how 5e seems to be going heavily down the path of not-so-recent editions...

Sure, you're right. In D&D, for some reason, everyone moves in small increments before stopping to wait and let everyone else move. Unless your DM is leans heavily on the narrative side, where you do have moving targets. And, whether that's right or wrong on the part of the DM only matters if he's making that call in spite of the rule being clear. If the rule is poorly written so that it has "rules" and "maybe also rules?" then it's hardly the DM's fault for making a bad call.

Of course, this move-stop-move-stop is most obvious on a grid, which only brings us to...

It's a sphere in both cases. The only reason "burst 4" implies a square is...

...because that's how the rules define it.

...because it's modelled that way under 4e's "gamer have lizard brain no able do geo-whatsit" principle.

4e takes place on a grid. 3.x has... sorta-kinda-maybe grid bits. It works better on a grid, at least. Rather, many of the spells and feats work better on a grid, because it's easier to be more precise with ranges and blasts and stuff. 3.x as a whole may not work better on a grid than off it, but some elements of it do, and are clearly designed for grid-work.

Anyhow, the point is, once you decide to play on a grid, you're committing to shapes that work on a grid. In this case, that means squares and rectangles. It's easier and cleaner. That doesn't mean that 4e presumes that it's players are stupid. It just means that the game doesn't think that it's worth it for the players to invest a lot of time figuring out how to make arcs and circles play nice on a field of squares and rectangles.

I'm sorry for still asking, how long is the usual wait between signing up and getting a chance to playtest the rules? I would like to know whether I did something incorrectly during signup or not, so i can know whether i need to reapply/change something, or some other thing i messed up by mistake.

If I remember correctly, I signed up, got an email, and followed the link it gave to get my playtest materials. If you haven't received an email, you should contact someone at Wizards or reapply.

Having a default set of fluff for everything in the core-rulebook will give a base description of the world and how it works by default. It makes everyone know how the world works when not otherwise contradicted.

By no means does it restrict your ability to create a setting if the descriptions given are not setting material (names of cities, maps, blah blah).
If a specific description of a spell (eg. fireball) is crucial to your setting, then you can change it and specifically call it out.

Also, I do agree that if WotC were going to do it badly, then it would be better to not provide fluff descriptions. However, if done adequately, it will serve to keep everyone on the same page.

Well, there are plenty of games which mesh good fluff with good rules. I like it when it's done well.

Here's where I think we're missing each other:

(#1) "It makes everyone know how the world works when not otherwise contradicted." Your point is good, except that D&D mechanics do not model the fluff. Oracle_Hunter's point about how the mechanics make commoners more familiar with Abyssal creatures than with bears, for example. Or how magic is described as hard to learn, but it actually takes no more experience to gain a level of wizard than anything else. So when players are told that the world works one way in theory, but they see how it works another in practice, all that default fluff becomes questionable -- suddenly, players don't know how the world works. Do mechanics trump fluff? Does fluff trump mechanics? Do peasants know about bears? If so, why does the knowledge skill work differently for players than for peasants?

(#2) "If a specific description of a spell (eg. fireball) is crucial to your setting, then you can change it and specifically call it out." I can, but the more that default fluff is intermixed with the rules, the more likely I or my players are to miss something when we change it, thereby creating confusion down the line when things don't match up. This is why I support clear separation of rules and fluff, rather than mixing them all up in such a way that fluff can be mistaken for rules.

I like 4e's approach because it has a good set of default fluff, but that fluff is (compared to previous editions) far more clearly marked as fluff so that you can tailor or customize to your heart's content. In 4e, turning a fireball into a swarm of flaming serpents is a thing you can do, no problems, without changing the mechanics. In previous editions... it depends on the grace of the DM, with the default set to "no."

I like well-written fluff. I love well-written fluff that creates an evocative game world modeled by elegant mechanics. D&D, traditionally, has not been one of those, and moving away from the amalgamation of rules and fluff is a move I strongly support. It makes it easier to play the game the way you want to play it, which is the whole point of tabletop games over other entertainment mediums.

[Togath]

Ah, the link I used to sign up was bugged, I feel somewhat silly for not having realised that bit.

[jseah]

Ah, but the difference between the two creates problems, because one has additional rules not present in the first. Looking at one section tells you one thing; looking at the other section tells you something quite different.

Your point is good, except that D&D mechanics do not model the fluff.

This problem need not occur. The crunch is written after the fluff and is written to model the fluff within the expected scenarios.

If the fluff is well-written, it will also state the scenario the crunch is made to model and if you go outside it (which ideally should be corner cases only), then you know you need to go back to the fluff to understand how to make a new ruling.
It also very clearly explains why certain ridiculous inferences from crunch, when scaled beyond the limits of the model, cannot happen or have 2nd order effects. (auto-resetting traps anyone?)

I'm not saying we can just write fluff for all of 3.5's mechanics and call it a day. 3.5's mechanics are rather inconsistent and writing fluff explanations while keeping all the mechanics the same will result in painful contortions.
Rewrite from ground up is what I am suggesting.

This is why I support clear separation of rules and fluff, rather than mixing them all up in such a way that fluff can be mistaken for rules.

To a certain extent, they ARE rules. They are rules that are given as a description rather than formal terms. Formal terms are only good in describing a strict model, but when you are trying to help give a baseline for dealing with corner cases or unusual scenarios that cause your model to break down, formal terms do not help.

Losing the ability for players to write their own fluff is an acceptable loss in my book. That sort of thing should be worked out with the GM ahead of time.

Still, I'd have thought if they could read your home rules they could at least read up on the world around them too.

Well, that happens far too much. Especially since I can sometimes forget even my own rules if I don't have them laid out in front of me. The less I have to mod the system, the better.

[Oracle_Hunter]

Well, that happens far too much. Especially since I can sometimes forget even my own rules if I don't have them laid out in front of me. The less I have to mod the system, the better.

Like I said -- this is a personal deal.

IMHO, the default setting should have little rules/fluff tie in so that homebrewers can easily mod it. Anyone who wants more fluff can buy a Setting and use all the fluff in that. If there is any missing fluff that the DM or Players find important, then it can be made up when it arises.

Rules/Fluff ties both make the rules more complicated and ambiguous (see 3.X) and make life harder for the Homebrewing DM.

[Togath]

So any idea why i cant open the download page now that I've gotten the email with the download link?, I tried the links from enworld but none worked.
tried firefox and got a "error; 400" error messege from the email link.
edit; finally got the download.
oddly looks closer to dnd 3.0 or 3.5 then to dnd 4E, which is interesting

[Fatebreaker]

This problem need not occur. The crunch is written after the fluff and is written to model the fluff within the expected scenarios.

If the fluff is well-written, it will also state the scenario the crunch is made to model and if you go outside it (which ideally should be corner cases only), then you know you need to go back to the fluff to understand how to make a new ruling.
It also very clearly explains why certain ridiculous inferences from crunch, when scaled beyond the limits of the model, cannot happen or have 2nd order effects. (auto-resetting traps anyone?)

I'm not saying we can just write fluff for all of 3.5's mechanics and call it a day. 3.5's mechanics are rather inconsistent and writing fluff explanations while keeping all the mechanics the same will result in painful contortions.
Rewrite from ground up is what I am suggesting.

Ah, now we're getting somewhere exciting!

As I read this, your basic premise is that mechanics should model fluff and that the intended themes of the fluff be well-stated. You have a secondary piece about how 3.x had a poor fluff/crunch interface, and that a total rewrite is the solution.

As it so happens, I agree with you. I personally believe that narrative elements and mechanical systems work best in conjunction with one another. Amusingly, my second preference is for a 4e-style divorcing of fluff and rules. The ends of the spectrum are fascinating. The middle is... not so much. Under no circumstances is a backdoor half-mixture like 3.x going to fly with me, because it creates a situation where you must make your own setting, but the rules have all these specific assumptions built in which limit your ability to actually make a setting. It's a very awkward blend which achieves neither the objective of a clear and developed setting nor the freedom to easily develop your own.

Sadly, I don't think we're going to see D&D5e actually commit to a clearly established default setting like the Nentir Vale, or even a broader premade setting like the Forgotten Realms. I think we're going to see them revert back to older models of trying to have it both ways.

And that, to me, is very disappointing.

To a certain extent, [fluff IS] rules. They are rules that are given as a description rather than formal terms. Formal terms are only good in describing a strict model, but when you are trying to help give a baseline for dealing with corner cases or unusual scenarios that cause your model to break down, formal terms do not help.

When fluff and rules are made together, such as, say, Legend of the Five Rings, then I would agree that fluff carries a weight on par with the rules. This becomes less true when you move away from a specific setting, and try to have a multi-setting system like D&D. Then, it's the rules that matter, because fluff isn't set.

As an example, having core-book flavor text which says it is twice as hard to learn a level of wizard only makes sense if the mechanics actually follow through on this. In a defined setting, this might be perfectly acceptable. In a setting where the setting-fluff says that it is no harder to gain a level of wizard than anything else, plus mechanics which make it equally easy compared to other classes, then suddenly that core-book flavor text from earlier is not just out of place, but actively working against other elements of the game.

Losing the ability for players to write their own fluff is an acceptable loss in my book. That sort of thing should be worked out with the GM ahead of time.

The ability for the player to really develop their own image and define their character is one of the key draws of a tabletop game over, say, movies, or books, or video games. If the players are comfortable with someone else telling them who their character is, what they do, and the style of in which they do it, then there are better mediums for that sort of thing.

However, that aside, the more a system (as opposed to a DM) limits the ability of the players to define and describe themselves, the more people it excludes. On the other hand, leaving that option in the hands of the players only eliminates DMs who would rather have an audience than players, and players who are strangely afraid of imaginary responsibility for their in-game avatar.

oddly looks closer to dnd 3.0 or 3.5 then to dnd 4E, which is interesting

Thoughts on this, Togath?