Troll Lord Games

Just some Friday rambling...

How important is it that the rules work as written or expected for the players? The recent thread about Wish has reminded me that in 3.5 it seems to be expected that if it's written, it's not usually open to interpretation and an FAQ or Errata or Sage ruling is necessary to override it.

When I first started playing RPGs, it wasn't common at all for everyone to have a book, and something like the MM being a DM-only resource was at least true while we were sitting down and playing. Maybe it was because we were too broke to all go out and buy our own books, and maybe it was because we were lazy players and welcomed making the DM do all of the rule work. It would be extremely rude to grab the book from the DM and start looking something up to prove him wrong.

Not that we never cried "foul", I am sure we did, but it was pretty normal to play by ad-hoc rulings, often that changed from game to game. Still, however we ran it, a fireball would result in a ball of fire, and that was what was really important. We seemed to have fun, and if we didn't, we'd ditch the game.

In C&C, it seems like I run across plenty in the books that doesn't really work exactly as written. I think that is confusing to players, and initially confusing to CKs, but once you know that you need to bring a little work to it, the CKs can get over it pretty quickly. I am not sure about the players, and I am not sure how much it should matter. I think I am going too far when I start thinking obviously vague, incomplete, or broken rules make for better play because they force the CK to make it better, but on the other hand, sometimes that seems to be the case.

Aergraith wrote:Just some Friday rambling...

How important is it that the rules work as written or expected for the players? The recent thread about Wish has reminded me that in 3.5 it seems to be expected that if it's written, it's not usually open to interpretation and an FAQ or Errata or Sage ruling is necessary to override it.

When I first started playing RPGs, it wasn't common at all for everyone to have a book, and something like the MM being a DM-only resource was at least true while we were sitting down and playing. Maybe it was because we were too broke to all go out and buy our own books, and maybe it was because we were lazy players and welcomed making the DM do all of the rule work. It would be extremely rude to grab the book from the DM and start looking something up to prove him wrong.

Not that we never cried "foul", I am sure we did, but it was pretty normal to play by ad-hoc rulings, often that changed from game to game. Still, however we ran it, a fireball would result in a ball of fire, and that was what was really important. We seemed to have fun, and if we didn't, we'd ditch the game.

In C&C, it seems like I run across plenty in the books that doesn't really work exactly as written. I think that is confusing to players, and initially confusing to CKs, but once you know that you need to bring a little work to it, the CKs can get over it pretty quickly. I am not sure about the players, and I am not sure how much it should matter. I think I am going too far when I start thinking obviously vague, incomplete, or broken rules make for better play because they force the CK to make it better, but on the other hand, sometimes that seems to be the case.

Well, let me answer (first unless someone else is faster) since your thread is probably a reaction to my recent threads related to the rules of C&C. (And I say this in a very friendly way, don't worry.)

I like both 3.5 and C&C for different reasons. Both have their strengths and their flaws. It really depends on what type of game I want to run or play for a particular setting or story. But coming from 3.5, which is when I started playing D&D, yes, I am used to rules being clearly explained to me, without contradictions or confusing sentences. I think all rulebooks whether they are meant to be modular or not, should be CLEAR.

It DOESN'T mean I'll be a slave to the rulebook. For example, in 3.5 I've adopted some variant rules for some things. I hate XP costs for spells in 3.5, so I cannibalized from Pathfinder and instead I multiply by five the gold cost. I also took their stabilization rules. I created my own home-ruled system of chance points and luck system.

I've got another game coming with other players where I'll be using much deadlier combat rules, mental sanity rules from Call of Cthulhu and it'll be a humans-only setting. The monsters they will face won't be run-of-the-mill. People won't go "Oh yeah, I'm gonna go fight this abomination today..." Again, a different setting requires different rules. I'll be using 3.5 for this game too because it fits better with that campaign. In a way I think the C&C power level for that type of story would fit more, but 3.5 allows players to make the character they had in mind a lot more. (If anyone wants to bring Primes as their argument... All I have to say is that a Fighter with Dex as a Prime will NEVER be good at picking locks, but a 3.X Fighter who simply cross-classes his skill will become quite adept at it) Now this isn't me bashing C&C, because I like both for different reasons. For one thing, I wouldn't bring 3.5 with me to a road trip, but I sure as hell would bring C&C. It could even be played in the car, if someone's willing to roll the die for the driver! And not having to choose between lots of feats and whatnot can also speed up things. So combat and preparation in C&C is a lot better.

Another advantage of C&C? Yes, it's a lot easier to change the rules without having the whole system fall apart. And while my constant questioning of its rules might seem like I'm unhappy with it, I'm actually following the advice given at the beginning of the book. I make it fit my needs.

But here's another thing about me. I'll change rules... But not before understanding the original intent correctly. You see, I used to be a player in a game where the DM would come up with completely unbalanced rules. He'd change stuff around without even understanding why things were the way they were in the first place. So I promised myself that if I ever were to change a rule, I'd know why I was doing that, and more importantly, I'd take time to consider why the rule initially was the way it was!

So yep, I do think that a rulebook shouldn't be vague. It's the official rulebook, it's the canon. The book should encourage people to change the rules to make it work for them, but it shouldn't have players scratching their heads or arguing about it for ten minutes. Everyone can change the rule if they want to, but what should NOT be open to interpretation is its official application. Everyone should be able to EASILY state how the official way of doing this or that works... And then feel free to change it if they want, understanding why it was the way it was in the first place.

treant_on_fire wrote: Well, let me answer (first unless someone else is faster) since your thread is probably a reaction to my recent threads related to the rules of C&C. (And I say this in a very friendly way, don't worry.)

It is, but I should like to add I'm not trying to make any assumptions or indictments on our about any particular person's viewpoints.

treant_on_fire wrote: So yep, I do think that a rulebook shouldn't be vague. It's the official rulebook, it's the canon. The book should encourage people to change the rules to make it work for them, but it shouldn't have players scratching their heads or arguing about it for ten minutes.

I think the quality should be better, but it seems like if it's not improved by 5th printing, it reflects the intention of the publishers. It's partially a good thing; at least anyone using the rules "as-is" aren't regularly having the rug pulled out from under them. Lots of the spells have an AD&D feel with an SRD base, and that doesn't always work, as we see in the case of Wish.

It's hard to talk about this stuff on these forums, because for one thing, it comes up all of the time and some people have tuned out or find it useless to discuss anymore, or find that they've worked around the issues pretty easily, or, and my theory is this is the most common, don't really read the books once characters are made; they just play the hodgepodge of D&D and C&C that exists in their minds; my evidence is any rule question thread where you get several divergent answers, few of which seem to have the written rule in mind at all.

If it sounds like I am complaining then I am writing all of this wrong; I'm just musing on the state of things. For my part, I am one of those that will just work around anything when it comes up, and while I actively play 3.5, once our next module is over I am getting rid of the books, just to be clear about where I stand on it; I am probably ready to "throw the baby out with the bathwater" as I don't want to get bitten anymore by players who prefer rules to DMs, and would get rid of DMs entirely if it didn't mean they'd have no one to torment .

Aergraith wrote:Just some Friday rambling...

How important is it that the rules work as written or expected for the players? The recent thread about Wish has reminded me that in 3.5 it seems to be expected that if it's written, it's not usually open to interpretation and an FAQ or Errata or Sage ruling is necessary to override it.

Hmm, In D&D it has always been the "rule" that the rules were changeable by the DM. It is good if they (rules) are as clear as possible. But, you can't cover every possible contingency and therefore, you have a "referee" (GM, DM, CK, et al) to adjudicate and to change the rules when he sees fit. If you write rules trying to cover everything possible, you get a huge mess.

Aergraith wrote:

treant_on_fire wrote: Well, let me answer (first unless someone else is faster) since your thread is probably a reaction to my recent threads related to the rules of C&C. (And I say this in a very friendly way, don't worry.)

It is, but I should like to add I'm not trying to make any assumptions or indictments on our about any particular person's viewpoints.

treant_on_fire wrote: So yep, I do think that a rulebook shouldn't be vague. It's the official rulebook, it's the canon. The book should encourage people to change the rules to make it work for them, but it shouldn't have players scratching their heads or arguing about it for ten minutes.

I think the quality should be better, but it seems like if it's not improved by 5th printing, it reflects the intention of the publishers. It's partially a good thing; at least anyone using the rules "as-is" aren't regularly having the rug pulled out from under them. Lots of the spells have an AD&D feel with an SRD base, and that doesn't always work, as we see in the case of Wish.

It's hard to talk about this stuff on these forums, because for one thing, it comes up all of the time and some people have tuned out or find it useless to discuss anymore, or find that they've worked around the issues pretty easily, or, and my theory is this is the most common, don't really read the books once characters are made; they just play the hodgepodge of D&D and C&C that exists in their minds; my evidence is any rule question thread where you get several divergent answers, few of which seem to have the written rule in mind at all.

If it sounds like I am complaining then I am writing all of this wrong; I'm just musing on the state of things. For my part, I am one of those that will just work around anything when it comes up, and while I actively play 3.5, once our next module is over I am getting rid of the books, just to be clear about where I stand on it; I am probably ready to "throw the baby out with the bathwater" as I don't want to get bitten anymore by players who prefer rules to DMs, and would get rid of DMs entirely if it didn't mean they'd have no one to torment .

Don't worry, like I said, I didn't take it the wrong way.

As for your 3.5 books... Nooo! All editions/versions/variants need love! (Yes, even 4e I guess...)

I believe the official rules should be clear and not left to interpretation. The PBH is a rulebook, not a Bible. I also believe there should be an official rule for everything imaginable, but not integrated into the core rules.

You know, I've been thinking about this, too. I think I'm partially to blame because I started the thread about what do we all want to see in the new printing. My intention, though admittedly not clear in the original post, was to ask what we all thought needed fixed. I think there are some things in C&C that need fixed. I think that leaves a lot to the individual interpretation, though. SR issues are one good example. Steve made a good clarification back in a forum post somewhere about what SR 0 and SR 1 meant. I feel that should be included in a new printing. The thrown/splash rules should, too. Fundamental pieces of information that erases some questions of the game in which there are already some established rules on the subject I think are important in the inclusion of a new print.

I feel the disengaging rules are a little wonky, as why would one hastily disengage and suffer an attack when one can just run at max speed and not suffer any attacks (at least by the rules as written)? But, contrary to what I wrote in that aforementioned thread about what we want in a 5th printing, I feel this is something that I can house rule on my own. It's supposed to represent a defensive retreat as to dissuade the attackers from pursuing. What adjudicates that? It would be hard, or at least unrealistic, to put a rule down on paper to replicate that. That's the CK's job to tell the players that "as you back away slowly from the alley, weapons still drawn, the thugs eye you cautiously but remain in the alley, and are not pursuing." Disengagement, is supposed to be a flag to the CK that the players have had enough and cannot continue. They're trying to save face and bow out of combat gracefully. Sometimes, it won't work. But, again, that's up for the CK to decide.

I've been thinking about the disengagement rules in the past week or so since I posted that post (and I brought it up before in another post) and have come to realize that there wasn't too much of a problem with it, as is. Was it written poorly? No. It was written the best it could be written considering it's partly a mechanical process and partly a roleplaying scenario. I had to step back, though, and ask myself if it was something that really needed clarification or was it something that I had issues with personally. It's the latter, of course, just like illusionist healing. The Trolls went to lengths to include it, rationalize it, and it's something that they felt would be an addition to the game. I don't like it, but personal likes and dislikes are the very reason for house rules. They're gone in my game, never to return, but I don't feel like the rules need to be changed. The same thing with the wish spell, the color spray spell, the +6 to primes, adding levels to checks, assassin and open locks, and more.

Let me stop and say that I love these conversations! And I don't want anyone to take this personally (like others have said in this thread). I love talking about stuff like this. In the past I've seen these conversations as house rule discussions, a kind of "here's what I do" talk. But lately, there's been a lot of call for changing the PHB because the way it's written now is wrong. The tone in some conversations seem to have changed a little from "here's what I do" to "this needs to be fixed/changed." The question is, is it wrong? Does it need to be changed? Is something fundamentally broken with it, as-is, that makes it unplayable? Or is it something that can be easily fixed with a house rule?

I agree that rules are aren't made purposely broken or written intentionally wrong for the CK to demonstrate his adjudication power. But they are written from one person's (or a small group of people's) perspective. That perspective isn't always going to mesh with our own. But we have the right to change, edit, add, or delete what we want to make the game fit how we want it to be. Aergraith asked how important is it that the rules work as written or expected for the players? My answer to that is "how the CK deems it." I don't know if there's a static, concrete, answer to that question, in my opinion. In my games, there is the default assumption that the core rulebook is the foundation of the rules for the game we're playing. But any revisions to those rules will be given out by me and they're as solid as the core book itself. If not more so. If I don't like illusionist healing spells, they'll be replacements for those in my house rule document.

Those are one type of "problem" with the rules, the other type being those broken rules that weren't written well for one reason or another or ones that don't function as it was written to. Those latter types (SR, again, being the example) need "fixing" most certainly. The former, the ones the individual sees as problematic, can be house ruled. Unless, of course, conversations here on these forums reveal a bigger problem with one person's issue with a particular rule.

Please accept my apologies to anyone I may have offended. I wasn't directing anything at anyone...since we're ranting, I thought I'd join in the fun, too! And I apologize if I rambled on too long. Hopefully you guys read a point in this post somewhere.

I tend to agree with Peter on this.

Dynel, I know exactly what you mean about discussions. I love to discuss these things, and since tone is hard to convey over the internet sometimes people can take it personally.

Also, while I'm not going to search over the posts, I remember someone mentioned that TLG must have kept some things vague on purpose since they're still like that in the latest printing... I don't want to be mean here, but the latest printing is still full of typos and errata. That doesn't fill me with confidence about things being explained correctly. I don't want to bash them, I really like C&C, but I'm not going to lie about this either.

Spot on Lord Dynel.