During the Cold War, it became apparent in the Eastern Bloc that there wasn't exactly a perfect correspondence between the Marxist understanding of the socialist mode of production and what was happening in reality. People coined a phrase, "actually existing socialism", to describe the imperfect real-life version. Nowadays, it's not uncommon to hear leftist academics discussing something which they call "actually existing neoliberalism", to distinguish the real-life governing ideology in the modern day UK, US, and so on from the theoretical ideas of the so-called neoliberals (Hayek, Buchanan, Friedman, etc.).
This is because - in case this needs pointing out to anybody - it turns out that ideology doesn't tend to translate very well into real-world politics. What Marxist thinkers like to call "praxis" (you can always spot post-68 Marxist analysis because it generally cloaks its insights in impenetrable jargon so that the working classes can't even be bothered to try to understand them) is actually very messy indeed, to put it mildly.
This is also why when you tend to get ideologues together in an argument, they start saying things like, "Yes, the Soviet Union was a failure, but real communism has never really been tried!" or "Yes, laissez-faire capitalism in the 19th century was a failure, but real free market capitalism has never really been tried!" (I bet there are neo-Nazis on the internet somewhere who will tell you that, yes, Hitler's Germany was a failure, but real Nazism has never really been tried.) The messiness of the real world always gives them an excuse: "Ah, but if only Trotsky had been in charge." (The free marketeer's version of this is, "Ah, if only the State hadn't crowded-out private charity.")
D&D isn't an ideology exactly, but there's a big difference between the game's idealised form - the rules - and "actually existing D&D" as it tends to get played at the table. This is true of every edition. Praxis ain't easy.
I think the best example, the paradigm case, of this is weapon speed factors in AD&D. Those things exist in the rules, all right. But they are not, in my experience or to my knowledge, part of actually existing D&D. A similar one is the damage type versus armour type table (I may be misremembering the title of the table; I don't have a DMG from 1st or 2nd edition to hand), which tells you the AC modifiers to apply for a piercing weapon versus chainmail, a slashing weapon versus studded leather, a bludgeoning weapon versus plate, etc.
It's not that those rules wouldn't be interesting or even beneficial in play. It's just that people don't use them. There's a gap between system and actual games, and weapon speed factors and damage types versus armour types don't make it across.
As with all these things, there is a continuum. On one extreme there are the rules which are not present at all in actually existing D&D, like damage type versus armour type. (Somebody will now pipe up in the comments and insist they use that table, I am sure.) Then there are those which are present in actually existing D&D, but not in most people's games - racial level limits in 2nd edition, for example, or the stat limits for women characters in 1st edition. Then there are those where there is more of a genuine mix: I bet the majority of people who still play B/X or Basic nowadays have probably switched to ascending AC, but it's still possible to find descending AC in actually existing D&D in reasonably large numbers. And on the other extreme there are the rules which are there in the books and which people actually put into effect generally speaking - like hit points, or the six core stats.
Some people would probably conclude that the more the rules contained in the core books differ from actually existing D&D - i.e., the more the main rules are ignored by the players - the worse the game design. I tend to disagree. The messiness of D&D is part of its charm. So what if I can't be bothered using weapon speed factors in practice? I like the fact that they are there, to remind me that things would be pretty dull if theory and reality mapped each other too nicely.
As and you shall receive: https://www.thebluebard.com/blog-1/combat-part-iii-weapon-speed-factor-sucks-and-other-myths
ReplyDeleteInteresting! I have no problem with WSF and think it would add a lot of depth. It's just that nobody uses them.
DeleteI'm guilty of using a (much simplified and closer to the original Chainmail rules) weapon vs. AC system, but there's definitely some rules I'd never touch - AD&D grappling rules being the first to come to mind as something that only a computer could use properly. As someone who loves to experiment, I enjoy seeing all of these systems for the simple fact that they give inspiration to try other things out. It's what makes Chivalry & Sorcery a fun read - Even if I might never actually play the game system, the level of detail leads to a lot of good ideas which can be extracted and better put into practice at the table.
ReplyDeleteYeah, grappling is something AD&D does really badly. I sometimes wonder if it's better to just say "highest STR wins".
DeleteThe problem with "highest STR wins" is that monsters don't have STR listed.
DeleteThe problem with "highest STR wins" is that monsters don't have STR listed.
DeleteEh. Use hit dice, with a bonus to a PC's effective hit dice based on Strength.
Or just roll grapples as a standard attack and treat the follow-up damage rolls as some kind of test. Rolled damage > opponent's hit dice = win grapple contest (pin, break pin, whatever other maneuvers you want to imagine.) No table look-ups needed, which is the real problem with all the rules like this... increased handling time means increased chance everyone will ignore the rule as not worth it.
The problem with using HD is that it doesn't account for certain monsters being more or less capable of grappling, like something with 6 arms, or something with no arms. Also grappling ability doesn't always go both ways. Trying to pin down a giant, slimy fish that's washed onto land is going to be very difficult to grapple, but it probably wouldn't be very good at grappling YOU.
DeleteI agree that hit dice is a good starting point, but it's usually more complex than that.
There's a matrix in the old Arduin Grimoires that takes the HD of the monster and compares it against character class (ex. Rangers are better at escaping grabs) to determine chance of escape. You get a bonus based on your level, which varies by class; monsters get a percentage bonus or penalty based on if they're using tentacles, hands, or other methods to grab. Considering the number of factors, assuming you already know the "escape bonus" of the character in advance, it runs rather smoothly - with the unfortunate caveat that it gives little information on how to grab, how the PCs might choose to grab, or what happens if multiple opponents try to grab at one. But it's an attempt, and it does manage to fit a lot onto one page.
DeleteI am convinced that a one-size-fits-all system doesn't work well in grappling, though. This coming from an unfortunately large amount of play-testing (turns out that when all of your players either watch wrestling/WWE or actively train martial arts, this sort of thing comes up pretty often).
I would normally just give a monster a STR which seems appropriate. Goblins have STR 8, orcs STR 13, etc.
DeleteOn one extreme there are the rules which are not present at all in actually existing D&D, like damage type versus armour type. (Somebody will now pipe up in the comments and insist they use that table, I am sure.)
ReplyDeleteIf they do, they're probably lying, because I've never seen such a table in D&D. I believe you mean the Weapon vs. Armor Class table, which is a set of "to hit" adjustments, or possibly the Damage vs. Creature Size table, although it's possible there's a "Damage Type vs Armor Type" in some supplement or third-party product.
I did use weapon speed factors, or tried to, briefly, back in the day. Also tried to use weapon vs. AC, also briefly. Used damage vs. creature size kind of haphazardly in the '70s. All those tables were too much trouble for little to no pay-off, which is probably why almost everyone else gave up on those tables, too. I've seen one or two people on forums claim they used the tables, but whether they were telling the truth, or just vaguely remembered using them the same way I did, none can say.
Nope, it's in the 2nd edition AD&D DMG. "Weapon type versus armour modifiers" is the name of the table.
DeleteSounds like it's still an adjustment to hit, rather than an adjustment to damage.
DeleteI think the Palladium Weapons and Armor Compendium (theoretically usable in most RPGs) included something like that (edged weapons doing more damage vs. leather/no armor.)
It is an adjustment to hit. Not sure where you got adjustment to damage from? When I said "damage type" I meant whether it was P, B or S. The table specifies the adjustment to hit against different armour types by damage type - i.e. whether it's piercing, bludgeoning or slashing. Do you see what I mean? I did say in the post I was probably misremembering the title of the table.
DeleteAh, I got what you meant by "damage type", even though I've never owned/read 2e, only 0e/1e, but I interpreted it as modifying damage done, like +2 to slashing attacks vs. leather, rather than modifying to hit rolls, which does exist in both 0e and 1e, but doesn't take into account the damage type. My mistake.
DeleteI can't find it now, but there was a nice little bit of analysis by someone that showed you could approximate the results of the weapon vs. AC table with just a handful of rules, like "Axe, Flail/Chain: +2 vs. shields; Spear, Pole Arm, Projectile: -2 vs. shields".
I actually quite like the idea of making shields more useful than just a +1 to AC. Making them better against spears and projectiles would actually be pretty cool.
DeleteGygax stated that WSF were a mess and to be ignored. He didn't use them or like them. If the creator can ignore rules as written, I think that anyone can. D&D to me isn't about specific rules but concepts like hit points, armor class, and the core stats and what they could be used for. It's about warriors and users of magic surviving in a world of fantasy. When someone says let's play D&D that's what comes to mind. Specific encumbrance rules, or aerial combat turn radius are not evoked by the name D&D, though they can be there and that's cool.
ReplyDeleteYeah, flyer types! I forgot about that.
DeleteI'm only really familiar with Original D&D and AD&D1E, but there (in Grayhawk and the DMG) it wasn't a table for "damage type", which might have been more playable, but rather for specific weapon type. This intersected with Gygax's pole arm obsession to produce a really big matrix including every last Lucerne Hammer and Fauchard Fork. It was highly impractical to reference every time somebody hit something, and while it might have made sense to reference when the armor type was literally 8=shield, 7=leather, 6=leather and shield, it made less sense with monsters where the armor class was really just a broader relative toughness rating.
ReplyDeleteAll of those modifiers would have made more sense if they were managed by some sort of computer GM's assistant. Applying them manually would have made combat pacing even more glacial.
See above - it's in the 2nd edition DMG.
DeleteI think easy reference charts would have made it easier. Maybe not a computer but just a well set-out laminated sheet.
I have seen posts by people who flowed this and speed factors slavishly, and consider everyone else to be "not playing D&D." They would generate their own To Hit tables for each weapon, and chose the most effective weapon based on what they were fighting. Basically, they were optimizing.
DeleteIn 1e it's (actual) Weapon vs Armor Class , in 2e it's Weapon Damage Type vs (actual) Armor.
DeleteI think the reason why I've spent the last several years in rpg theory discussions and not in rpg games is that I've worked under the assumption that reality and theory must align. So each time I got a rule wrong or I failed to get players to pay attention to rules I felt I was doing something wrong. I also responded to the overprepping I've heard off by underprepping.
ReplyDeleteYeah, reality and theory/rules really don't need to align at all and often will unite to oppose playability.
DeleteWasn't that the 3e philosophy? "Let's just put everything into the book in case players want to use it"?
ReplyDeleteI think it was more "let's create a version of D&D with rules people won't actually ignore".
DeleteWe used (in AD&D 2nd ed) used the weapon speeds religiously, as well as casting time. Who went first was hugely important in fights vs spellcasters. The fighters would usually switch to daggers to be sure to interrupt that bad-ass spell the evil wizard was about to pull off.
ReplyDelete… but we never used the weapon vs armor table. So yeah...
Yes, casting time is actually really important and something I enforce religiously. I made a post about that ages ago.
DeleteClassic D&D suffers from bad presentation. There are simply too many rules & modifiers to remember everything during actual play. And you have to look them up in too many places . But some of it could be solved by using tricks from modern boardgaming. Why not have a little card for each weapon listing all rules aspects, such as speed factors, different modifiers vs different armor types etc. I bet they would be used more.
ReplyDeleteI remember one table that simplified armor vs. weapon a LOT by simply changing the presentation but using the same rules. They just had a big table of what number on a d20 you needed to hit a given armor type with a given weapon. Then you added a bonus to hit for your level/str/etc.
DeleteYeah, definitely, but I guess too expensive (at least in the old days).
DeleteIronically, that is Dungeon Tac Cards, one of the long-forgotten (and rare) Judges Guild supplements: a bunch of thick cards with weapon statistics and such written on them. 1976! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dungeon_Tac_Cards
DeleteThe same weapon stats as Dungeon TAC cards are located in Ready Ref Sheets. One could DIY a set of accurate cards from that publication.
DeleteIndeed. As another example, I have a feeling that Actually Existing Shadowrun is very different indeed to the printed version.
ReplyDeleteDefinitely. I bet it's true of most complicated games actually.
DeleteThen a sub-category by which you can observe how long a gaming group have been playing together: rules which are used at the beginning of a campaign which soon get chucked by the wayside as GM and players begin to realise they are unfit for use either because they don't work or they aren't worth the bother.
ReplyDeleteI can't speak much for the older editions since I don't think I've ever seen them played even remotely RAW, but for 5e many groups start with encumbrance (because it's just another element of character creation) and CR-based encounters (because they're convinced the official guidelines will challenge player characters), and then abandon them within the first five (for the former) or ten (for the latter) sessions or so.
Definitely - rules tend not to survive an encounter with the enemy, much like battle plans.
DeleteSome of these rules are okay, and some are admittedly not worth the effort.
ReplyDeleteAD&D goes into a lot of trouble with its grappling rules, most of which could be modelled perfectly well with "I attack." Because that's what grappling is - an attack where the outcome is not damage, but some other effect ("I try to immobilise him." "I want to throw him overboard." "I want to wrench that dagger from his hands.") You could also use opposed attack rolls if you wanted to go deep. But this is one area of the rules where AD&D's elegant abstraction was discarded for a dubious alternative.
However, applying at least some of the subsystems found in the game can add to the experience. Weapon speed factors are rather neat, and add a nice layer of "cheap" complexity to the game. We never found them cumbersome, and they add some oomph to weapons which otherwise have lower damage. Spell components and encumbrance (often hand-waved) add a strategic layer which increases the challenge of playing, but they are beasts which are a lot of fun to grapple with. That's why it is "Advanced" D&D! :D
Fortunately, AD&D's modularity does not suffer if you don't use all the bells and whistles. It is less interconnected than modern D&D, where changing one rule has cascading effects across the whole game.
Yeah, the beauty of AD&D (and TSR iterations of the game in general) is the rough-and-readiness. It doesn't actually matter what you change, discard, keep.
DeleteClassic Traveller has weapon vs. armor vs. range matrices, which CT players like to use; but it seems to suit the Traveller mindset of military "hard-ish" sci-fi simulationism (which I, by the way, adore) better than the D&D dungeon sword & sorcery mindset (which I, by the way, also adore). Traveller, after all, is that game with actual physics equations in its starship rules!
ReplyDeleteHowever, later rules often switched to a penetration system, which also works great with mil-sci-fi simulationism and originates in the Azhanti High Lightning and Striker! wargames.
I know what you mean by that. It's almost like hard SF suits having more robust, crunchy rules and fantasy games suit looser ones - I wonder if there is a word to describe why that is.
DeleteLest I forget, this post would be incomplete without the classic quip (no doubt known in every socialist country): "What is the difference between existing and working socialism? Existing socialism does not work; working socialism does not exist."
ReplyDeleteThere's a bit less of this in 5e D&D (leaving aside contradictions between the RAW and Jeremy Crawford's Tweets/Sage Advice), but I wonder how many people actually use the darkness, dim light & hiding rules as written, where a party using darkvision will have Disadvantage to spot anything (& same for the monsters).
ReplyDeleteAnother category is rules that don't exist at all in the published game, but are in general use in actual D&D. I remember articles by Gygax in Dragon magazine ranting against the heresy that was critical hits...
ReplyDeleteYeah, critical hits are like the Free Parking of D&D.
DeleteOne of those rules that sounds good in the book but I rarely saw in real life was casting time. However there was one campaign I was in where the DM had a beautiful system.
ReplyDeleteCasters in his game had poker chips with spell names and casting times written on them. At the caster's initiative they put their spell on the table, face down. When the casting time elapsed they turned them face up and released the spell. It was a slick system and worked well.
That is a nice idea.
DeleteCasting time is very important, as is making magic users announce what spell they're going to cast at the top of the round, to give the other side the chance to disrupt concentration.