Where do you stand in terms of DM rulings vs. predetermined rules for every possibility?
In a system that is designed to have a rule for every possibility, that would be a flaw. In 5e (and , really, every version prior) the DM is supposed to rule and not make a big production out of it, lol.
I am very firmly n the cap of Rulings are the heart of the game, and that Rulings override rules. But then I look at the core Rule itself that says the DM makes those calls. So Rulings are built into the game as a feature.
I also don't think in a game where people can invent magical spells that break every known law of physics and causality that it is possible by humans to conceive of every possible situation where such a rule would be needed.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (2000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA
Question: Where do you stand in terms of DM rulings vs. predetermined rules for every possibility?
I personally rule, as a DM, for whatever is more memorable and doesn't break the game.
So for example, a party was investigating a "dragon sighting" and found several dead deer corpses.
The "dragon" turned out to be a Manticore.
The party damaged the manticore to the point where it decided to try and flee.
The Half-Orc Paladin who had no ranged weapons asked if they could throw a deer corpse.
Normally, I would not allow it - but it was the end of the fight.
So I said, "Give me a strength check, DC 14." They succeeded. "Now give me an unarmed strike, and meet or beat the manticore's AC."
They did.
Rolled some bludgeoning damage. Was enough to take the manticore down.
Made for a very fun, memorable end to the fight that everyone laughed about - and still talk about.
That is, imo, what D&D and TTRPGs in general are all about. Sorry to rant but my friend is adamant that TTRPGs are about the mechanics first, and that if those mechanics aren't fun without the themes or story, then it's a bad game. They think that a TTRPG should provide a rule for every contingency, instead of trusting the DM to make a fair ruling.
I think that rules are solely here for players to interact with the game world in a meaningful way, and to provide consistency for those actions. And as such, the DM can (and is encouraged to) make a different ruling depending on the situation.
Where do you stand in terms of DM rulings vs. predetermined rules for every possibility?
In a system that is designed to have a rule for every possibility, that would be a flaw. In 5e (and , really, every version prior) the DM is supposed to rule and not make a big production out of it, lol.
I am very firmly n the cap of Rulings are the heart of the game, and that Rulings override rules. But then I look at the core Rule itself that says the DM makes those calls. So Rulings are built into the game as a feature.
I also don't think in a game where people can invent magical spells that break every known law of physics and causality that it is possible by humans to conceive of every possible situation where such a rule would be needed.
This is also why I cringe a little when people ask for RAW rules. The rules literally state that the DM can change the rules.
Where do you stand in terms of DM rulings vs. predetermined rules for every possibility?
In a system that is designed to have a rule for every possibility, that would be a flaw. In 5e (and , really, every version prior) the DM is supposed to rule and not make a big production out of it, lol.
I am very firmly n the cap of Rulings are the heart of the game, and that Rulings override rules. But then I look at the core Rule itself that says the DM makes those calls. So Rulings are built into the game as a feature.
I also don't think in a game where people can invent magical spells that break every known law of physics and causality that it is possible by humans to conceive of every possible situation where such a rule would be needed.
This is also why I cringe a little when people ask for RAW rules. The rules literally state that the DM can change the rules.
So you cringe about as much as I do? You know, like every forum post? lol
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (2000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA
That is, imo, what D&D and TTRPGs in general are all about. Sorry to rant but my friend is adamant that TTRPGs are about the mechanics first, and that if those mechanics aren't fun without the themes or story, then it's a bad game. They think that a TTRPG should provide a rule for every contingency, instead of trusting the DM to make a fair ruling.
I think that rules are solely here for players to interact with the game world in a meaningful way, and to provide consistency for those actions. And as such, the DM can (and is encouraged to) make a different ruling depending on the situation.
I've learned that everyone gets something different out of D&D.
There are the people who play it for the social aspect. There are people who play it for the mechanics and finding the way to make the "best character possible." They want to be able to be useful and lethal in all that they do. There are some who enjoy the roleplaying aspect of it. Some enjoyed flawed characters. Some just like to roll dice. And some are a combination of all of those.
For myself, the rules provide a foundation; but that foundation is like sand. It can be adjusted at specific times to create more memorable moments.
As a DM, I have certainly fudged in favor of the players to create those moments - where, for example, they've been fighting a big bad who is wrecking the party pretty hard, but the party has done some damage - and let's say the Rogue lands a critical hit, does something like 42 points of damage - and even though the big bad maybe still had 70 points left - to me, it was much better to say, "OK, Rogue, how do you kill the big bad?" So that the critical strike ends up being the killing blow. Sure, it could have gone a few more rounds maybe, and someone kill it with a Spiritual Hammer, but everyone loved that moment.
But, for example I am in a bi-weekly Sunday game of Curse of Strahd and that DM throws monster after monster at us; and the group (who doesn't know one another, except me and the DM and me and the other player; the other three players I have never met) - so there isn't a lot of RP at times. So it is waves of monsters. Which is not what I am used to; I am used to games with a lot of roleplay (I usually know all the players in the games I am in - but in this day of playing online, it's more common not to know everyone).
Where do you stand in terms of DM rulings vs. predetermined rules for every possibility?
While I can't stand crunch (3.5e drives me nuts, sorry to any who cut their teeth on it), I like having a bit of structure and guidance from a ruleset just so I don't have to do it all myself.
As for RAW, I'm pretty darn RAW. But only because I feel it allows me to give more fair and consistent rulings for my players. And the things in the rules I don't like get booted. To me, the rules aren't holy edicts, they're just pre-existing norms that (mostly) make things easier for me.
That is, imo, what D&D and TTRPGs in general are all about. Sorry to rant but my friend is adamant that TTRPGs are about the mechanics first, and that if those mechanics aren't fun without the themes or story, then it's a bad game. They think that a TTRPG should provide a rule for every contingency, instead of trusting the DM to make a fair ruling.
That would be virtually impossible in a TTRPG.
It can only be achieved in video games because the programming just doesn't allow certain actions at all or in war games where the scope of available actions is so limited.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
That is, imo, what D&D and TTRPGs in general are all about. Sorry to rant but my friend is adamant that TTRPGs are about the mechanics first, and that if those mechanics aren't fun without the themes or story, then it's a bad game. They think that a TTRPG should provide a rule for every contingency, instead of trusting the DM to make a fair ruling.
That would be virtually impossible in a TTRPG.
It can only be achieved in video games because the programming just doesn't allow certain actions at all or in war games where the scope of available actions is so limited.
Well, Pathfinder 1e seems to try. It assumes that the players are never going to do something that isn't covered by the rules. Which is foolish. You'll know what I mean if you've played any TTRPG for any amount of time lol
Where do you stand in terms of DM rulings vs. predetermined rules for every possibility?
While I can't stand crunch (3.5e drives me nuts, sorry to any who cut their teeth on it), I like having a bit of structure and guidance from a ruleset just so I don't have to do it all myself.
As for RAW, I'm pretty darn RAW. But only because I feel it allows me to give more fair and consistent rulings for my players. And the things in the rules I don't like get booted. To me, the rules aren't holy edicts, they're just pre-existing norms that (mostly) make things easier for me.
I'm in the same proverbial boat as you. Though my next campaign is going to use a bunch of house rules, such as spell fizzling (which I mentioned in another thread) and the new exhaustion from One D&D.
Follow-up question: what would your dream TTRPG look like? What mechanics would it use, and what would the overall tone be?
Didn't even know there was an "Off-Topic" forum until that thread lock...
Anyway, DM rulings are very much part of the game, as the rulebooks encourage. While I think you certainly need the structure of rules and mechanics to guide things, ultimately creativity is going to necessitate judgment calls, and I think good DMs encourage creativity more than stifle it (within reason, of course).
Where do you stand in terms of DM rulings vs. predetermined rules for every possibility?
I much prefer rulings. In 3e they tried to have rules for every situation, and it could lead to some pretty heated discussion especially if rules contradicted each other, or seemed to. But the bigger negative side effect was system mastery became more important than anything else. You needed to know how to manipulate every little edge case and squeeze out every last +1 to be really effective. I much prefer it now with rulings and bounded accuracy. It lets you just play the game without having to parse the rules. It’s like the system tries to get out of the way of the fun of playing.
I realize that for some people, mastering esoteric rules is part of what makes it fun, so I can see them not being as happy with 5e.
It would be the greatest of ironies if this thread turned into an extended conversation about D&D-related things and got subsequently locked for not being off-topic enough. đź¤
This is exactly what went through my head when I heard about the new thread, lol.
Follow-up question: what would your dream TTRPG look like? What mechanics would it use, and what would the overall tone be?
It's probably out there in the OSR realm, but I haven't gotten a chance to try any of those. Maybe Mausritter? Honestly though, 5e is pretty great. I subscribe to a particular theory of TTRPG design which says that flaws and gaps in a system can be used intentionally to drive creativity, and I think 5e does that really well. The barrier to creating homebrew for this game is pretty darn low, and it doesn't take long for players to start doing it. And it's fun and rewarding to do it. The question is, how important is that for me? Because while it definitely sets some TTRPGs apart, I also play plenty of things where it's not like that at all. I dunno.
Follow-up question: what would your dream TTRPG look like? What mechanics would it use, and what would the overall tone be?
The one that everyone playing it is having fun playing, from the game master to the players to the hangers on who wander in and out of the room or the camera shot.
In terms of rule sets, well...
It is a tie for me,. in the 90's, TSR got the license and put out an edition of a game called Marvel Super Heroes Advanced Set. It used a universal table and some really nice little mechanics that were more about being a superhero than anything, but I used the hell out of that system and tweaked the crap out of it and I love it because it is just so simple and and allows you to deal with stuff from a normal person to superman and everything in between -- or from a match to a roaring sun.
I even used it for an epic heroic fantasy campaign (and had lycanthropes that healed over time but were not stopped by damage, so I had limping werewolves who had just lost a limb to a tank, but because it wasn't silver they weren't "really hurt".).
I really liked 2e a lot, but when I combine 2e stuff with 5e stuff, I get the closest thing to a fun game for me, at least in the sense of how mechanics work. Like with the Rulings over Rules thing, I need and demand flexibility, but I want a taste of crunch (which is what I ultimately added into MSHAS) and frm basic ground rules to provide that flexibility with limits.
So for the next campaign, after hearing all the stuff my players wanted, I have spent ages rewriting and testing classes, races, magic, proficiency, adding in combat stuff, shifting finesse to a sword skill, allowing wizards to wear armor but with an impact on them that they might not care about at high levels, and really what comes down to all the niggling things that everyone has disliked for like 40 years, lol.
And yet, despite all of that, it is readily identifiable as 5e. I mean, to someone who has played it for a short while, and encounters this, it looks like, plays like, feels like 5e, except "monsters are tougher, spells are cooler, and I am really mad I can't play an artificer".
So it would be a tie between my MSHAS redux and my 5e redux -- but they might not be suitable for every game. MSHAS sucked at magical spells. I want to add in Psionics, but I have to finish and lock down magic stuff and the weird ass way I am doing runes before I can even look at it -- which means it will end up going straight to the website. After I finish this world, I want to make a setting that is good for urban paranormal fantasy -- a blend of gaslamp and steampunk clockworkery in what is otherwise a modern setting but with all the fantasy crittes being around in a big ole city I will probably spend a year on designing by itself.
This 5e based system would work for it, but so would the MSHAS one if I put effort into spells suddenly.
summation: my favorite is going to depend on the kind of game I want to play, but I like what we got right now plenty.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (2000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA
Where do you stand in terms of DM rulings vs. predetermined rules for every possibility?
I bring this up because I'm currently in an ongoing debate with a friend about rules vs. rulings. Friend thinks that if the DM is required to make a ruling, then the entire RPG system is flawed. I believe that TTRPGs should be more fluid and less like a board game.
I don't think a game is flawed just because the DM has to make rulings. I prefer games to have fluid rules, and if something is cool for everyone at the table and/or makes the story better then it is fine to allow it. It isn't possible to bind a fantasy game world in perfect mechanics. The laws of physics are regularly broken in a fantasy world, so other laws will be as well. Rules are needed to make the game work, you can't do anything you want or else the game just won't work, but I think that if it is fun for everyone at the table and won't ruin the game, then the rules can be bent.
Though I am also notorious for bending the rules in games like scrabble....
Appreciator of all things Weird, Wondrous, and/or Yummy
In the Autumn Country, days end quickly, the gloaming hours linger, and the midnights pile one upon the other till the air is thick and flows like twilight syrup.
Appreciator of all things Weird, Wondrous, and/or Yummy
In the Autumn Country, days end quickly, the gloaming hours linger, and the midnights pile one upon the other till the air is thick and flows like twilight syrup.
Where do you stand in terms of DM rulings vs. predetermined rules for every possibility?
I bring this up because I'm currently in an ongoing debate with a friend about rules vs. rulings. Friend thinks that if the DM is required to make a ruling, then the entire RPG system is flawed. I believe that TTRPGs should be more fluid and less like a board game.
I don't think a game is flawed just because the DM has to make rulings. I prefer games to have fluid rules, and if something is cool for everyone at the table and/or makes the story better then it is fine to allow it. It isn't possible to bind a fantasy game world in perfect mechanics. The laws of physics are regularly broken in a fantasy world, so other laws will be as well. Rules are needed to make the game work, you can't do anything you want or else the game just won't work, but I think that if it is fun for everyone at the table and won't ruin the game, then the rules can be bent.
Though I am also notorious for bending the rules in games like scrabble....
I'll bite: how do you bend the rules in scrabble?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (2000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA
Where do you stand in terms of DM rulings vs. predetermined rules for every possibility?
I bring this up because I'm currently in an ongoing debate with a friend about rules vs. rulings. Friend thinks that if the DM is required to make a ruling, then the entire RPG system is flawed. I believe that TTRPGs should be more fluid and less like a board game.
I don't think a game is flawed just because the DM has to make rulings. I prefer games to have fluid rules, and if something is cool for everyone at the table and/or makes the story better then it is fine to allow it. It isn't possible to bind a fantasy game world in perfect mechanics. The laws of physics are regularly broken in a fantasy world, so other laws will be as well. Rules are needed to make the game work, you can't do anything you want or else the game just won't work, but I think that if it is fun for everyone at the table and won't ruin the game, then the rules can be bent.
Though I am also notorious for bending the rules in games like scrabble....
I'll bite: how do you bend the rules in scrabble?
Well, I am creative with the words and with the lettering. For example, have you ever noticed how an upside down “M” looks a lot like a “W”? And “O”s could also be zeros? How do you know that tile you say is an “I” isn’t a lower case “L”? Stuff like that. I also don’t see why names, places, and abbreviations aren’t allowed, and I think foreign and dead languages should also be fair game. That being said, I have played and beaten my Grandma who used to be a school teacher, and I adhered to the rules when I did so.
Appreciator of all things Weird, Wondrous, and/or Yummy
In the Autumn Country, days end quickly, the gloaming hours linger, and the midnights pile one upon the other till the air is thick and flows like twilight syrup.
Follow-up question: what would your dream TTRPG look like? What mechanics would it use, and what would the overall tone be?
Honestly, so far - 5e, as it stands right now is pretty close. It's got a wide variety of Races/Species/Bloodlines/Whatever you want to call it; and the classes are well defined too, with plenty of variation. My general preference to Table Top gaming is the fantasy setting - all I typically do really is shove aware the world lore, and apply my own to it.
Now that said, I do wish there was a space themed 5e also (and I don't mean Spelljammer) - but something closer to Star Wars or Star Trek, specifically because I really enjoyed Star Frontiers - strangely enough, because it was unlike D&D (with a lot of aliens or classes) to choose from; but it was more centered. So it made teaching someone how to create a character pretty easy. So each has their benefits... a lot of choices means a lot of questions and probably longer to set up.
It is a tie for me,. in the 90's, TSR got the license and put out an edition of a game called Marvel Super Heroes Advanced Set. It used a universal table and some really nice little mechanics that were more about being a superhero than anything, but I used the hell out of that system and tweaked the crap out of it and I love it because it is just so simple and and allows you to deal with stuff from a normal person to superman and everything in between -- or from a match to a roaring sun.
... I'd also probably kill (not literally before someone reports me for violence! heheh) to have something like the old school Marvel Super Heroes RPG - I think most people who played it called it FASERIP (Fighting, Agility, Strength, Endurance, Reason, Intelligence, and Psyche if I remember correctly) - because I loved the Marvel Super Heroes RPG from back then. (Still furious that my friend borrowed it, then a year or so later, moved and never returned it... and has since then fallen off the face of the world... thing is expensive to replace if you go the eBay route... anyway....) That said, the Marvel Super Heroes site has PDFs of it - and when I look at it now, I'd love a far more simplified combat system, because combat could be a little wonky in how it worked.
I think my current group of D&D players would be down for a super hero game.
The biggest challenge I always found for it was finding balance. When you could have someone who wants to play someone like The Hulk and someone who wants to play someone like Nomad. So when I typically ran games, everyone was either a part of the New Mutants who some had graduated to X-Men status, or if there were non mutants (which was rare, everyone I knew loved themselves some X-Men) - or they were Avengers in Training - so everyone had the same base level (sort of like a point buy system I developed).
It is a tie for me,. in the 90's, TSR got the license and put out an edition of a game called Marvel Super Heroes Advanced Set. It used a universal table and some really nice little mechanics that were more about being a superhero than anything, but I used the hell out of that system and tweaked the crap out of it and I love it because it is just so simple and and allows you to deal with stuff from a normal person to superman and everything in between -- or from a match to a roaring sun.
... I'd also probably kill (not literally before someone reports me for violence! heheh) to have something like the old school Marvel Super Heroes RPG - I think most people who played it called it FASERIP (Fighting, Agility, Strength, Endurance, Reason, Intelligence, and Psyche if I remember correctly) - because I loved the Marvel Super Heroes RPG from back then. (Still furious that my friend borrowed it, then a year or so later, moved and never returned it... and has since then fallen off the face of the world... thing is expensive to replace if you go the eBay route... anyway....) That said, the Marvel Super Heroes site has PDFs of it - and when I look at it now, I'd love a far more simplified combat system, because combat could be a little wonky in how it worked.
I think my current group of D&D players would be down for a super hero game.
The biggest challenge I always found for it was finding balance. When you could have someone who wants to play someone like The Hulk and someone who wants to play someone like Nomad. So when I typically ran games, everyone was either a part of the New Mutants who some had graduated to X-Men status, or if there were non mutants (which was rare, everyone I knew loved themselves some X-Men) - or they were Avengers in Training - so everyone had the same base level (sort of like a point buy system I developed).
Man, I miss those days.
We never once used the actual Marvel Heroes -- or even DC. It was straight up our own creations. I should still have the ultimate powers book in the storage unit, sitting in a milk crate, lol.
It was indeed FASERIP, lol. We had all tried Champions before that, but it was the speed and simplicity of the TSR one that we all really liked.
One of the classes i had to make is a kind of Jedi -- and they are the reason that I want to introduce psionics more effectively into my game. Not a "true jedi", mind you (forgetting the lore, it just wouldn't work) but a kind of wandering sort, linked to a group called Messengers inspired by The Watchtower/Dancers of Arun/Northern Girl books. Because of that, I could probably come up with some decent shifts in 5e to support a Star Wars style genre. But I would prefer to do it with a universal table, lol.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (2000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA
I personally rule, as a DM, for whatever is more memorable and doesn't break the game.
So for example, a party was investigating a "dragon sighting" and found several dead deer corpses.
The "dragon" turned out to be a Manticore.
The party damaged the manticore to the point where it decided to try and flee.
The Half-Orc Paladin who had no ranged weapons asked if they could throw a deer corpse.
Normally, I would not allow it - but it was the end of the fight.
So I said, "Give me a strength check, DC 14." They succeeded. "Now give me an unarmed strike, and meet or beat the manticore's AC."
They did.
Rolled some bludgeoning damage. Was enough to take the manticore down.
Made for a very fun, memorable end to the fight that everyone laughed about - and still talk about.
Check out my publication on DMs Guild: https://www.dmsguild.com/browse.php?author=Tawmis%20Logue
Check out my comedy web series - Neverending Nights: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Wr4-u9-zw0&list=PLbRG7dzFI-u3EJd0usasgDrrFO3mZ1lOZ
Need a character story/background written up? I do it for free (but also take donations!) - https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?591882-Need-a-character-background-written-up
In a system that is designed to have a rule for every possibility, that would be a flaw. In 5e (and , really, every version prior) the DM is supposed to rule and not make a big production out of it, lol.
I am very firmly n the cap of Rulings are the heart of the game, and that Rulings override rules. But then I look at the core Rule itself that says the DM makes those calls. So Rulings are built into the game as a feature.
I also don't think in a game where people can invent magical spells that break every known law of physics and causality that it is possible by humans to conceive of every possible situation where such a rule would be needed.
Only a DM since 1980 (2000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA
Wyrlde.com
Free PDFs
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
That is, imo, what D&D and TTRPGs in general are all about. Sorry to rant but my friend is adamant that TTRPGs are about the mechanics first, and that if those mechanics aren't fun without the themes or story, then it's a bad game. They think that a TTRPG should provide a rule for every contingency, instead of trusting the DM to make a fair ruling.
I think that rules are solely here for players to interact with the game world in a meaningful way, and to provide consistency for those actions. And as such, the DM can (and is encouraged to) make a different ruling depending on the situation.
[REDACTED]
This is also why I cringe a little when people ask for RAW rules. The rules literally state that the DM can change the rules.
[REDACTED]
So you cringe about as much as I do? You know, like every forum post? lol
Only a DM since 1980 (2000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA
Wyrlde.com
Free PDFs
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
I've learned that everyone gets something different out of D&D.
There are the people who play it for the social aspect. There are people who play it for the mechanics and finding the way to make the "best character possible." They want to be able to be useful and lethal in all that they do. There are some who enjoy the roleplaying aspect of it. Some enjoyed flawed characters. Some just like to roll dice. And some are a combination of all of those.
For myself, the rules provide a foundation; but that foundation is like sand. It can be adjusted at specific times to create more memorable moments.
As a DM, I have certainly fudged in favor of the players to create those moments - where, for example, they've been fighting a big bad who is wrecking the party pretty hard, but the party has done some damage - and let's say the Rogue lands a critical hit, does something like 42 points of damage - and even though the big bad maybe still had 70 points left - to me, it was much better to say, "OK, Rogue, how do you kill the big bad?" So that the critical strike ends up being the killing blow. Sure, it could have gone a few more rounds maybe, and someone kill it with a Spiritual Hammer, but everyone loved that moment.
But, for example I am in a bi-weekly Sunday game of Curse of Strahd and that DM throws monster after monster at us; and the group (who doesn't know one another, except me and the DM and me and the other player; the other three players I have never met) - so there isn't a lot of RP at times. So it is waves of monsters. Which is not what I am used to; I am used to games with a lot of roleplay (I usually know all the players in the games I am in - but in this day of playing online, it's more common not to know everyone).
Check out my publication on DMs Guild: https://www.dmsguild.com/browse.php?author=Tawmis%20Logue
Check out my comedy web series - Neverending Nights: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Wr4-u9-zw0&list=PLbRG7dzFI-u3EJd0usasgDrrFO3mZ1lOZ
Need a character story/background written up? I do it for free (but also take donations!) - https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?591882-Need-a-character-background-written-up
While I can't stand crunch (3.5e drives me nuts, sorry to any who cut their teeth on it), I like having a bit of structure and guidance from a ruleset just so I don't have to do it all myself.
As for RAW, I'm pretty darn RAW. But only because I feel it allows me to give more fair and consistent rulings for my players. And the things in the rules I don't like get booted. To me, the rules aren't holy edicts, they're just pre-existing norms that (mostly) make things easier for me.
That would be virtually impossible in a TTRPG.
It can only be achieved in video games because the programming just doesn't allow certain actions at all or in war games where the scope of available actions is so limited.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
Well, Pathfinder 1e seems to try. It assumes that the players are never going to do something that isn't covered by the rules. Which is foolish. You'll know what I mean if you've played any TTRPG for any amount of time lol
[REDACTED]
I'm in the same proverbial boat as you. Though my next campaign is going to use a bunch of house rules, such as spell fizzling (which I mentioned in another thread) and the new exhaustion from One D&D.
Follow-up question: what would your dream TTRPG look like? What mechanics would it use, and what would the overall tone be?
[REDACTED]
Didn't even know there was an "Off-Topic" forum until that thread lock...
Anyway, DM rulings are very much part of the game, as the rulebooks encourage. While I think you certainly need the structure of rules and mechanics to guide things, ultimately creativity is going to necessitate judgment calls, and I think good DMs encourage creativity more than stifle it (within reason, of course).
I much prefer rulings. In 3e they tried to have rules for every situation, and it could lead to some pretty heated discussion especially if rules contradicted each other, or seemed to.
But the bigger negative side effect was system mastery became more important than anything else. You needed to know how to manipulate every little edge case and squeeze out every last +1 to be really effective.
I much prefer it now with rulings and bounded accuracy. It lets you just play the game without having to parse the rules. It’s like the system tries to get out of the way of the fun of playing.
I realize that for some people, mastering esoteric rules is part of what makes it fun, so I can see them not being as happy with 5e.
This is exactly what went through my head when I heard about the new thread, lol.
It's probably out there in the OSR realm, but I haven't gotten a chance to try any of those. Maybe Mausritter? Honestly though, 5e is pretty great. I subscribe to a particular theory of TTRPG design which says that flaws and gaps in a system can be used intentionally to drive creativity, and I think 5e does that really well. The barrier to creating homebrew for this game is pretty darn low, and it doesn't take long for players to start doing it. And it's fun and rewarding to do it. The question is, how important is that for me? Because while it definitely sets some TTRPGs apart, I also play plenty of things where it's not like that at all. I dunno.
The one that everyone playing it is having fun playing, from the game master to the players to the hangers on who wander in and out of the room or the camera shot.
In terms of rule sets, well...
It is a tie for me,. in the 90's, TSR got the license and put out an edition of a game called Marvel Super Heroes Advanced Set. It used a universal table and some really nice little mechanics that were more about being a superhero than anything, but I used the hell out of that system and tweaked the crap out of it and I love it because it is just so simple and and allows you to deal with stuff from a normal person to superman and everything in between -- or from a match to a roaring sun.
I even used it for an epic heroic fantasy campaign (and had lycanthropes that healed over time but were not stopped by damage, so I had limping werewolves who had just lost a limb to a tank, but because it wasn't silver they weren't "really hurt".).
I really liked 2e a lot, but when I combine 2e stuff with 5e stuff, I get the closest thing to a fun game for me, at least in the sense of how mechanics work. Like with the Rulings over Rules thing, I need and demand flexibility, but I want a taste of crunch (which is what I ultimately added into MSHAS) and frm basic ground rules to provide that flexibility with limits.
So for the next campaign, after hearing all the stuff my players wanted, I have spent ages rewriting and testing classes, races, magic, proficiency, adding in combat stuff, shifting finesse to a sword skill, allowing wizards to wear armor but with an impact on them that they might not care about at high levels, and really what comes down to all the niggling things that everyone has disliked for like 40 years, lol.
And yet, despite all of that, it is readily identifiable as 5e. I mean, to someone who has played it for a short while, and encounters this, it looks like, plays like, feels like 5e, except "monsters are tougher, spells are cooler, and I am really mad I can't play an artificer".
So it would be a tie between my MSHAS redux and my 5e redux -- but they might not be suitable for every game. MSHAS sucked at magical spells. I want to add in Psionics, but I have to finish and lock down magic stuff and the weird ass way I am doing runes before I can even look at it -- which means it will end up going straight to the website. After I finish this world, I want to make a setting that is good for urban paranormal fantasy -- a blend of gaslamp and steampunk clockworkery in what is otherwise a modern setting but with all the fantasy crittes being around in a big ole city I will probably spend a year on designing by itself.
This 5e based system would work for it, but so would the MSHAS one if I put effort into spells suddenly.
summation: my favorite is going to depend on the kind of game I want to play, but I like what we got right now plenty.
Only a DM since 1980 (2000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA
Wyrlde.com
Free PDFs
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
I don't think a game is flawed just because the DM has to make rulings. I prefer games to have fluid rules, and if something is cool for everyone at the table and/or makes the story better then it is fine to allow it. It isn't possible to bind a fantasy game world in perfect mechanics. The laws of physics are regularly broken in a fantasy world, so other laws will be as well. Rules are needed to make the game work, you can't do anything you want or else the game just won't work, but I think that if it is fun for everyone at the table and won't ruin the game, then the rules can be bent.
Though I am also notorious for bending the rules in games like scrabble....
I enjoy it. I use it as a way to gain inspiration and exercise my creativity muscles.
I'll bite: how do you bend the rules in scrabble?
Only a DM since 1980 (2000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA
Wyrlde.com
Free PDFs
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Well, I am creative with the words and with the lettering. For example, have you ever noticed how an upside down “M” looks a lot like a “W”? And “O”s could also be zeros? How do you know that tile you say is an “I” isn’t a lower case “L”? Stuff like that. I also don’t see why names, places, and abbreviations aren’t allowed, and I think foreign and dead languages should also be fair game. That being said, I have played and beaten my Grandma who used to be a school teacher, and I adhered to the rules when I did so.
Honestly, so far - 5e, as it stands right now is pretty close. It's got a wide variety of Races/Species/Bloodlines/Whatever you want to call it; and the classes are well defined too, with plenty of variation. My general preference to Table Top gaming is the fantasy setting - all I typically do really is shove aware the world lore, and apply my own to it.
Now that said, I do wish there was a space themed 5e also (and I don't mean Spelljammer) - but something closer to Star Wars or Star Trek, specifically because I really enjoyed Star Frontiers - strangely enough, because it was unlike D&D (with a lot of aliens or classes) to choose from; but it was more centered. So it made teaching someone how to create a character pretty easy. So each has their benefits... a lot of choices means a lot of questions and probably longer to set up.
And then - on top of that there's...
... I'd also probably kill (not literally before someone reports me for violence! heheh) to have something like the old school Marvel Super Heroes RPG - I think most people who played it called it FASERIP (Fighting, Agility, Strength, Endurance, Reason, Intelligence, and Psyche if I remember correctly) - because I loved the Marvel Super Heroes RPG from back then. (Still furious that my friend borrowed it, then a year or so later, moved and never returned it... and has since then fallen off the face of the world... thing is expensive to replace if you go the eBay route... anyway....) That said, the Marvel Super Heroes site has PDFs of it - and when I look at it now, I'd love a far more simplified combat system, because combat could be a little wonky in how it worked.
I think my current group of D&D players would be down for a super hero game.
The biggest challenge I always found for it was finding balance. When you could have someone who wants to play someone like The Hulk and someone who wants to play someone like Nomad. So when I typically ran games, everyone was either a part of the New Mutants who some had graduated to X-Men status, or if there were non mutants (which was rare, everyone I knew loved themselves some X-Men) - or they were Avengers in Training - so everyone had the same base level (sort of like a point buy system I developed).
Man, I miss those days.
Check out my publication on DMs Guild: https://www.dmsguild.com/browse.php?author=Tawmis%20Logue
Check out my comedy web series - Neverending Nights: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Wr4-u9-zw0&list=PLbRG7dzFI-u3EJd0usasgDrrFO3mZ1lOZ
Need a character story/background written up? I do it for free (but also take donations!) - https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?591882-Need-a-character-background-written-up
We never once used the actual Marvel Heroes -- or even DC. It was straight up our own creations. I should still have the ultimate powers book in the storage unit, sitting in a milk crate, lol.
It was indeed FASERIP, lol. We had all tried Champions before that, but it was the speed and simplicity of the TSR one that we all really liked.
One of the classes i had to make is a kind of Jedi -- and they are the reason that I want to introduce psionics more effectively into my game. Not a "true jedi", mind you (forgetting the lore, it just wouldn't work) but a kind of wandering sort, linked to a group called Messengers inspired by The Watchtower/Dancers of Arun/Northern Girl books. Because of that, I could probably come up with some decent shifts in 5e to support a Star Wars style genre. But I would prefer to do it with a universal table, lol.
Only a DM since 1980 (2000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA
Wyrlde.com
Free PDFs
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds