Crawford says monk stuff ain't magic

[Max_Killjoy]

Agreed. The interpretation preferred by Tanarii, etc. leads to absurdities and huge, unspecified consequences. A more natural reading doesn't, and so should be preferred. If one interpretation is absurd and there are interpretations that aren't, choose one of those instead. Spells and abilities are cabined by their own, bounded context. Importing definitions and uses of words from other contexts is an interpretation error.

Shouldn't terminology be consistent across a work, and not be compartmentalized to each little specific segment?

To me this compartmentalization is part of what makes D&D (some editions of, at least) so deeply vulnerable to the sort of counter-counter-counter-move, 5d-chess, encyclopedia-driven gameplay that has been discussed at length elsewhere.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Shouldn't terminology be consistent across a work, and not be compartmentalized to each little specific segment?

To me this compartmentalization is part of what makes D&D (some editions of, at least) so deeply vulnerable to the sort of counter-counter-counter-move, 5d-chess, encyclopedia-driven gameplay that has been discussed at length elsewhere.

No. The most "consistent" edition was 3.5, and that was the 5D chess edition. This is a common property of legal terms--the more you try to be consistent, the more edge-cases and loopholes open up. 5e went the exact other direction--context matters. Words have multiple meanings. Each ability (feature, spell, etc) is atomic and can be understood with only reference to the general resolution mechanics and the specific exceptions in the text of the ability. Trust the DM and the table together to find the interpretation that facilitates fun.

Yes, this is frustrating for those who want algorithmic rules. But TTRPG rules can't be algorithmic without sacrificing openness. Trying to do so represents a fundamental misunderstanding of language and of open-ended, exception-based game-play. Only a board game (with fixed conditions and a closed rule system) can be comprehensive, and even those need continual patching in competitive areas (like Magic: The Gathering) because people find new interpretations.

[Max_Killjoy]

No. The most "consistent" edition was 3.5, and that was the 5D chess edition. This is a common property of legal terms--the more you try to be consistent, the more edge-cases and loopholes open up. 5e went the exact other direction--context matters. Words have multiple meanings. Each ability (feature, spell, etc) is atomic and can be understood with only reference to the general resolution mechanics and the specific exceptions in the text of the ability. Trust the DM and the table together to find the interpretation that facilitates fun.

Yes, this is frustrating for those who want algorithmic rules. But TTRPG rules can't be algorithmic without sacrificing openness. Trying to do so represents a fundamental misunderstanding of language and of open-ended, exception-based game-play. Only a board game (with fixed conditions and a closed rule system) can be comprehensive, and even those need continual patching in competitive areas (like Magic: The Gathering) because people find new interpretations.

From here, no edition of D&D (prior to 5e, have no read through 5e) appears internally "consistent" -- each spell, each feat, each rule, appears to be largely compartmentalized as its own thing.

[Cybren]

No. The most "consistent" edition was 3.5, and that was the 5D chess edition. This is a common property of legal terms--the more you try to be consistent, the more edge-cases and loopholes open up. 5e went the exact other direction--context matters. Words have multiple meanings. Each ability (feature, spell, etc) is atomic and can be understood with only reference to the general resolution mechanics and the specific exceptions in the text of the ability. Trust the DM and the table together to find the interpretation that facilitates fun.

Yes, this is frustrating for those who want algorithmic rules. But TTRPG rules can't be algorithmic without sacrificing openness. Trying to do so represents a fundamental misunderstanding of language and of open-ended, exception-based game-play. Only a board game (with fixed conditions and a closed rule system) can be comprehensive, and even those need continual patching in competitive areas (like Magic: The Gathering) because people find new interpretations.

That said, titling it "the magic of ki" was probably a mistake. call it 'the mystery of ki' or 'the strength of ki' or something...

[Tanarii]

That said, titling it "the magic of ki" was probably a mistake. call it 'the mystery of ki' or 'the strength of ki' or something...

Why? It is magic. It says so quite clearly. It's just that there is a (definitely necessary) division between naturally / inherently / internally magical, and direct magical effects.

Or are you saying they should have made it not necessarily magical? Then there would have been a question as to how it was used to create spells. And whether or not those spells were still magical or not.

(In 4e they went the other direction and just put the whole thing under Psionics. Which IMO wasn't a bad move.)

[Cybren]

I feel like this thread is sufficient example why they made a poor decision in calling it "The Magic of Ki"

[Tanarii]

I feel like this thread is sufficient example why they made a poor decision in calling it "The Magic of Ki"

I feel it's sufficient example why AMF needed to specify the list of things it affects is exclusive, as opposed to hedging out all magic. Ki being magic isn't the problem*, AMF needing to be clear it only hedges out a limited subset of magic is the problem. But at least RAI the RAI is clear now.

*necessarily the problem. They could have made it psionic or not-magic. But the issues with AMF would still remain.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Side note--I'm still waiting for a list of Max_Killjoy-approved worldbuilding examples

From here, no edition of D&D (prior to 5e, have no read through 5e) appears internally "consistent" -- each spell, each feat, each rule, appears to be largely compartmentalized as its own thing.

The amount of (relative) consistency has changed between editions. Sure, from an absolute standpoint it's not very consistent and never has been. But I'd say that that's at least not a flaw--consistency to me is only important between things that are otherwise the same. Different things may benefit from different approaches.

Before 3e: Total inconsistency (or at least only accidental consistency). Each subsystem is atomic and interactions are at the DM's whim. Often entries are inconsistent within the same entry.

3e: Attempted system consistency--shoving everything into the D20 system. This got buried under an explosion of material, much of which payed little attention to the consistency rules such as they were. As a result, there is factorial combinatoric complexity--every new game element interacts with and modifies a whole universe of other items, often in unpredictable or bizarre fashions. The role of the DM is greatly reduced (at least culturally). Understanding a single element (feat, subsystem, spell, etc) requires looking at the whole range of things that it can interact with and trying to make sense of things.

4e: Pinnacle of system consistency. Every class, monster, etc follows the same AEDU framework for powers. All classes gain feats at the same rate, and the mechanics are locked into a tight box. Essentially, all classes have a very similar chassis. This edition is panned by long-term fans as feeling "samey-samey", like everything is a video game. Every status effect is codified, every ability range/damage type is standardized. As a result, you get weird things like proning an ooze, where the default term (and mental image) for the mechanical bundle of effects is wildly out of sync with the in-universe fiction. This is done to reduce the number of entries in the definitions section needed.

5e: Natural-language consistency, with atomic game elements and increased (compared to 3e or 4e) DM role. To understand a 5e class feature (or spell, or feat, etc), you generally only need to reference the basic resolution mechanics and the text of the entry itself. This results in a lot of duplication of wording (every race that has darkvision includes the same wording), but it drastically reduces both the interaction surface (since game elements only interact if they say they do either specifically or by direct category reference) and limits the amount of reference material needed by a player. For a non-spellcaster, they need their class entry, possibly a racial entry, and the rules for items and combat. Worst case, the player can simply state what action they attempt and the DM can decide how to mechanically resolve that action. For me, it's the best of both worlds. You get the crunch where needed but don't have to cross-reference a bunch of sources.

As an example, let's compare the spell fireball between the last 3 editions. I've marked with numbers the things you need to reference another source to know how to handle.

Spoiler: 3e (taken from PF as their SRD is better)

Show

School(1) evocation(2) [fire (3)]; Level (4) bloodrager 3, magus 3, sorcerer/wizard 3; Domain (5) fire 3; Elemental School (6) fire 3

CASTING

Casting Time (7) 1 standard action (8)
Components (9) V (10), S (11), M (12) (a ball of bat guano and sulfur) (13)

EFFECT

Range (14) long (400 ft. + 40 ft./level (15))
Area (16) 20-ft.-radius spread (17)
Duration instantaneous (18)
Saving Throw Reflex (19) half (20); Spell Resistance yes (21)

DESCRIPTION

A fireball spell generates a searing explosion of flame that detonates with a low roar and deals 1d6 points of fire damage per caster level (marked above) (maximum 10d6) to every creature within the area. Unattended (22) objects also take this damage. The explosion creates almost no pressure (23).

You point your finger and determine the range (distance and height) at which the fireball is to burst. A glowing, pea-sized bead streaks from the pointing digit and, unless it impacts upon a material body (24) or solid barrier (25) prior to attaining the prescribed range, blossoms into the fireball at that point. An early impact results in an early detonation. If you attempt to send the bead through a narrow passage, such as through an arrow slit, you must “hit” the opening with a ranged touch attack (26), or else the bead strikes the barrier and detonates prematurely.

The fireball sets fire to combustibles (27) and damages objects in the area. It can melt metals with low melting points (28), such as lead, gold, copper, silver, and bronze. If the damage caused to an interposing barrier shatters or breaks through it (29), the fireball may continue beyond the barrier if the area permits; otherwise it stops at the barrier just as any other spell effect (30) does.

Total count: ~30 references to other things you'd have to know to resolve the spell.

Spoiler: 4e, Wizard Level 5 Daily

Show

Fireball Wizard Attack 5 (1)
A globe of orange flame coalesces in your hand. You hurl it at your enemies, and it explodes on impact.
Daily (2) * Arcane (3), fire (4), implement (5)
Standard Action (6) Area burst 3 (7) within 20 squares (8)
Target (9): Each creature in burst
Attack (10): Intelligence (11) vs Reflex (12)
Hit: (13) 3d6 + Intelligence modifier fire damage
Miss: (14) Half damage

Only 14 external references, but whole big chunks of the 3e spell are missing (the setting fire to things, bursting early, etc.)

Spoiler: 5e (from 5eSRD)

Show

3rd-level (1) evocation (2)

Casting Time (3): 1 action (4)
Range (5): 150 feet
Components (6): V (7), S (8), M (9) (a tiny ball of bat guano and sulfur) (10)
Duration: Instantaneous (11)

A bright streak flashes from your pointing finger to a point you choose within range and then blossoms with a low roar into an explosion of flame. Each creature in a 20-foot-radius sphere centered on that point must make a Dexterity saving throw (12). A target takes 8d6 fire damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one.

The fire spreads around corners. It ignites flammable (13) objects in the area that aren’t being worn or carried.

At Higher Levels: When you cast this spell using a spell slot of 4th level or higher, the damage increases by 1d6 for each slot level above 3rd.

Only 13 references (all to things that are common resolution mechanics shared between most spells), and most of the 3e stuff is there (minus the bursting early). This is done by condensing language and incorporating things like what "unattended" means directly into the spell text. Exceptions to the general case are fully specified in the text, not specified by reference. The removal of caster level scaling also is a tremendous simplification.

[pwykersotz]

Side note--I'm still waiting for a list of Max_Killjoy-approved worldbuilding examples

Me too. I'm very much looking forward to them. I have many, many sources of inspiration that fuel the imagination, but grounding it is often a trying task. If there are some examples that live up to 1/10 of what Max says he prefers, they will be excellent worldbuilding help.

[Max_Killjoy]

Side note--I'm still waiting for a list of Max_Killjoy-approved worldbuilding examples

Me too. I'm very much looking forward to them. I have many, many sources of inspiration that fuel the imagination, but grounding it is often a trying task. If there are some examples that live up to 1/10 of what Max says he prefers, they will be excellent worldbuilding help.

Frankly, I'm having trouble coming up with published worlds specifically/originally designed for RPGs that don't run into major issues, either in and or themselves, or because of the systems they were paired with implying radically different worlds than those presented. In and of themselves even, the only worlds I've ever been happy with are original/homebrew, or have had serious issues reworked by the group for use in the game (see, the entire White Wolf line, etc). Then there are the adapted settings that came into gaming adaptation with their existing deep flaws, such as the Star Wars setting (and man did we file some rough edges and fill some deep cracks in that thing).

[Cybren]

I feel it's sufficient example why AMF needed to specify the list of things it affects is exclusive, as opposed to hedging out all magic. Ki being magic isn't the problem*, AMF needing to be clear it only hedges out a limited subset of magic is the problem. But at least RAI the RAI is clear now.

*necessarily the problem. They could have made it psionic or not-magic. But the issues with AMF would still remain.

There'd be no thread if "the magic of ki" wasn't named that. AMF isn't the problem.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Frankly, I'm having trouble coming up with published worlds specifically/originally designed for RPGs that don't run into major issues, either in and or themselves, or because of the systems they were paired with implying radically different worlds than those presented. In and of themselves even, the only worlds I've ever been happy with are original/homebrew, or have had serious issues reworked by the group for use in the game (see, the entire White Wolf line, etc). Then there are the adapted settings that came into gaming adaptation with their existing deep flaws, such as the Star Wars setting (and man did we file some rough edges and fill some deep cracks in that thing).

If I ran into something like that, I'd worry that my standards were out of sync with the common understanding of such things (and of gaming)--that is, that I'm asking something of worldbuilders that they make no pretense of trying. The worldbuilding you must do for single-author fiction is very different in my (limited) experience than that for RPGs. There are many worlds I love for fiction that would be very difficult to make playable (at least for a TTRPG). But maybe that's my foolish addiction to assuming competence. I'd rather assume that their assumptions/goals were different than mine and try to match my assumptions to theirs, judging a work in the light of what the author(s) intended it to do as opposed to holding it up to some idiosyncratic personal standard. Judging a rake as poor because it's not good for eating soup with seems unfair.

[pwykersotz]

Frankly, I'm having trouble coming up with published worlds specifically/originally designed for RPGs that don't run into major issues, either in and or themselves, or because of the systems they were paired with implying radically different worlds than those presented. In and of themselves even, the only worlds I've ever been happy with are original/homebrew, or have had serious issues reworked by the group for use in the game (see, the entire White Wolf line, etc). Then there are the adapted settings that came into gaming adaptation with their existing deep flaws, such as the Star Wars setting (and man did we file some rough edges and fill some deep cracks in that thing).

If you have some examples of published worlds that aren't designed for RPG's that still meet your standards, I'd be happy to hear those too. It's tougher to incorporate those because the author doesn't have to be concerned with gameplay balance, but it would be cool to check out anyway.

[PhoenixPhyre]

If you have some examples of published worlds that aren't designed for RPG's that still meet your standards, I'd be happy to hear those too. It's tougher to incorporate those because the author doesn't have to be concerned with gameplay balance, but it would be cool to check out anyway.

Same. I'm also always looking for things to read for inspiration (and to feed the fiction addiction I have).

[Max_Killjoy]

If you have some examples of published worlds that aren't designed for RPG's that still meet your standards, I'd be happy to hear those too. It's tougher to incorporate those because the author doesn't have to be concerned with gameplay balance, but it would be cool to check out anyway.

Same. I'm also always looking for things to read for inspiration (and to feed the fiction addiction I have).

Right off the top of my head, Bujold's Vorkosigan setting.

[LeonBH]

Frankly, I'm having trouble coming up with published worlds specifically/originally designed for RPGs that don't run into major issues, either in and or themselves, or because of the systems they were paired with implying radically different worlds than those presented. In and of themselves even, the only worlds I've ever been happy with are original/homebrew, or have had serious issues reworked by the group for use in the game (see, the entire White Wolf line, etc). Then there are the adapted settings that came into gaming adaptation with their existing deep flaws, such as the Star Wars setting (and man did we file some rough edges and fill some deep cracks in that thing).

Declaring that the only worlds you've found to be satisfactorily self-consistent are homebrew ones means we cannot check what your standards are for ourselves. Your games could be full of loopholes you don't know about because they're self-created.

Declaring that all TTRPG worlds have no self a consistency is just a bit naive. Are you sure you've tried all of them yet?

Finally, if your games truly are tightly self consistent, do you never follow the Rule of Cool? 5E makes a point to emphasize that the DM is free to ignore any rule if it produces the most fun at the table. The Rule of Cool demands the occasional contradiction to be handwaved away.

[Max_Killjoy]

I treat the "rule of cool" as entirely constrained by the need to work that element into the setting coherently. I'm not going to sacrifice the integrity of the setting and establish a bad precedent -- that would actually reduce my fun. There are things I'll include in a setting because I think they're "cool", but it always has to be made to make sense in context (and the other way around, too). I fully admit that this makes viable gaming settings challenging to create, and I'm experiencing it firsthand in the setting I'm working on in that thread over in general discussion.

I'm not declaring that all TTRPG worlds have no self a consistency -- I'm stating that I can't think of any I've played or read that met my own personal standard for consistency and coherence.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Right off the top of my head, Bujold's Vorkosigan setting.

Read and enjoyed, but I never noticed that it was unusually consistent. I may be less attuned to that than some though.

[Max_Killjoy]

Read and enjoyed, but I never noticed that it was unusually consistent. I may be less attuned to that than some though.

It use clothing as a metaphor, I don't notice that a shirt is comfortable nearly as readily as I notice that a short is uncomfortable.

It's less that I actively notice the Vorkosigan setting is consistent and coherent, and more than while reading those books nothing jumps out at me as irritatingly inconsistent or incoherent.

[PhoenixPhyre]

It use clothing as a metaphor, I don't notice that a shirt is comfortable nearly as readily as I notice that a short is uncomfortable.

It's less that I actively notice the Vorkosigan setting is consistent and coherent, and more than while reading those books nothing jumps out at me as irritatingly inconsistent or incoherent.

For me, consistency errors have to be glaring and obviously unintended (so not just an unreliable narrator) to really stands out. I'm much more likely to get annoyed by pretentious blather or misused jargon (in fiction claiming to be "hard"). Or anvilicious message pushing, but we've discussed that in the past. I read fiction for the mental imagery, the turns of phrase (I love a good word play or bon mote) and the narrative more than for the details of the world anyway.

[pwykersotz]

Right off the top of my head, Bujold's Vorkosigan setting.

I have not read that. I'll check it out.

[LeonBH]

I'm not declaring that all TTRPG worlds have no self a consistency -- I'm stating that I can't think of any I've played or read that met my own personal standard for consistency and coherence.

What RPGs have you tried and evaluated as unsatisfactory? How many?

I'm curious to learn your credibility as for evaluating RPGs consistency problems in terms of your experience playing RPGs (not necessarily designing it). An empty list of games that pass your test just looks like you haven't tested that many systems yet. Designers of all kinds, not just game designers, usually have an example of a thing they pull inspiration from, which serves as a guide for their design decisions.

[Max_Killjoy]

What RPGs have you tried and evaluated as unsatisfactory? How many?

The tangent at hand was settings, not systems.

I'm curious to learn your credibility as for evaluating RPGs consistency problems in terms of your experience playing RPGs (not necessarily designing it). An empty list of games that pass your test just looks like you haven't tested that many systems yet. Designers of all kinds, not just game designers, usually have an example of a thing they pull inspiration from, which serves as a guide for their design decisions.

On the subject of systems:

D&D
AD&D
AD&D 2e
WEG d6 Star Wars, every edition.
Multiple d20/OGL products, from the Thieves' World adaptation to a bunch of random stuff I picked up used cheap
HERO 4th and 5th (6th went full-lawyer-mode sideways, and anyway the guy who runs their forums started imposing a political-opinions litmus test on the moderators and decided I didn't pass, so I broke off any involvement with the place).
Every edition of Vampire through utter disappoint that was Requiem.
Multiple editions of Warewolf.
Read through and studied (but didn't directly play) all the other White Wolf products through about that time.
Traveller
GURPS (only read, not played)
Mechwarrior (Battletech-setting RPG)
Pendragon
Legend of the Five Rings (4th ed)
Mythras (read for reference)
The Burning Wheel (reading it right now as I get time)
The most recent Conan RPG (reference)
Literally scores of free and sample products off DriveThru RPG (mostly read through for reference)

And I'm sure that's not a complete list.

I even forced myself to read through some of Ron Edwards' pretentious little products.

[Pex]

Or there is, as explained in the Sage Advice Compendium.

Or there isn't, and as result, we should all declare nobody should play this game anymore. I'm not certain, but your statement leads me to believe this is the conclusion you're hinting at.

But actually, if Ki is background magic (as explained in Sage Advice), it doesn't have terrible effects for the game. It is the type of magic that AMF does not suppress... so monks can go on using their powers inside an antimagic field, dragons can continue being dragons, and the antimagic field goes on and does its job to shut down casters. There are no adverse or terrible effects for the game that way.

It's not me you're responding to, but I'd like to butt in anyway.

I wouldn't go so far to say 5E shouldn't be played, but this topic is further evidence that the on purpose decision to have 5E be based on rulings and not rules was a poor one. Obviously 5E has rules, but there are many things so vaguely worded it causes a lot of confusion. It's not enough to say let the DM handle it. He shouldn't have to handle it. That was the game designers' job.

Personally I hadn't any issue of monks in an Anti-Magic Field. For me it's obvious the monk can flurry in it but Burning Hands or shadow teleporting wouldn't work. Apparently it's not so obvious to others. It could be my obviousness is due to 3E thinking of how it works, but 5E purposely works differently.

It would be nice if there was a definitive solution, but that would require a universal rule, not a DM ruling. 5E doesn't want to do it that way.

Edit:

Re Fireball

Simpler does not equal better. Doesn't equal worse either. People aren't complaining how 5E Fireball works because it's not vague. People complain how 5E Conjure spells work because they are vague despite being simple, namely they don't define who determines the creatures conjured. People aren't complaining how 3E Fireball works despite the so called plethora of references because it's not vague. People also don't complain how the Summon Monster spells work because they are also not vague. (Technically some people do complain the summoned monsters add to combat time because the player's turn takes longer. It's a footnote but not important to the point.) If it takes 2 weeks to learn the 3E PHB compared to 1 week to learn the 5E PHB, that proves 5E is easier to learn but no one is disputing that. Once 3E is learned the number of references are irrelevant. What relevant is that the references are known, defined, and consistent. Some people may not like what the 3E rules say, but they know what the 3E rules mean. Nothing is perfect and there can exist a vagueness here and there in 3E, but they are less in percentage of rules than 5E (opinion) and more easily figured out how they work because of consistent and defined terms.

[KorvinStarmast]

I even forced myself to read through some of Ron Edwards' pretentious little products.

We thank you for taking one for the team.

[Max_Killjoy]

We thank you for taking one for the team.

That was me.

[PhoenixPhyre]

That was me.

Yes. Absolutely. As far as game systems go, I'm a relative newbie. I've only really focused on 5e, but have read through Fate (Accelerated? Core? Not sure.) and 3.5e; I have 2e experience only through the D&D CRPGs.

I'm allergic to pretentious stuff.

[2D8HP]

....I even forced myself to read through some of Ron Edwards' pretentious little products.

I actually liked Ron Edwards
Sorcerer and Sword
game supplement (great bibliography), but I just didn't care for his Sorcerer, the game it was a supplement for.

[Tanarii]

Edit:

Re Fireball

Simpler does not equal better. Doesn't equal worse either. People aren't complaining how 5E Fireball works because it's not vague. People complain how 5E Conjure spells work because they are vague despite being simple, namely they don't define who determines the creatures conjured. People aren't complaining how 3E Fireball works despite the so called plethora of references because it's not vague. People also don't complain how the Summon Monster spells work because they are also not vague. (Technically some people do complain the summoned monsters add to combat time because the player's turn takes longer. It's a footnote but not important to the point.) If it takes 2 weeks to learn the 3E PHB compared to 1 week to learn the 5E PHB, that proves 5E is easier to learn but no one is disputing that. Once 3E is learned the number of references are irrelevant. What relevant is that the references are known, defined, and consistent. Some people may not like what the 3E rules say, but they know what the 3E rules mean. Nothing is perfect and there can exist a vagueness here and there in 3E, but they are less in percentage of rules than 5E (opinion) and more easily figured out how they work because of consistent and defined terms.

Not to edition edition war, because I loved every edition of D&D at the time, but that's not how I remember it going down.

What I remember is lots of long stupid extended discussion (and online, arguments) about minutia rules interactions that people still disagreed on or couldn't understand, despite the attempt to be exact.

Whereas now in many areas, the answer is simple: ask your DM.

5e has in some places become to vague. And AMF may well be one. But in general it's done wonders to free the DM from the tyranny of rulezlawyer players.

[Morty]

There are elements of the game that it's best to leave vague, but it has to have some benefit. I don't see much of a benefit behind making it unclear what is and isn't shut down by an anti-magic field.