Modern versions of D&D, when Wizards took over from version 3 on, and by extension, Pathfinder and Pathfinder 2e, feel overly dependent on rules. D&D 5E is a step in the right direction, but I look at the game today, and it feels like it has fallen into the expansion trap late in its life. Yes, I can play with the core books, but that is not the current "language" of the game.
Everyone plays with a complete set.
So should you.
I did my time, and I played that game in Pathfinder 1e. I collected a great set of books that still hold endless adventures. But I look back, and since I paid for them all, I can say too many rules. Way too many rules. And few of them really made the game that much better. The game has so many rules playing it feels impossible. I don't feel I have any freedom to make up a ruling without breaking a rule in one of the books. I know, rule zero, but even the character options, spells, and amount of choice weigh the game down on the opposite end and it feels impossible to play.
As a player, I love all the options.
And immediately after that, choice paralysis sets in.
I can get through a session because I started when the game came out, and I learned this all a book at a time. But asking anyone else to commit that much time to learn feels like too much to ask. If you know the game or love it, yes it is easier. But still, even I do not have a use for this many rules in a game.
But if we back up a step, the design of D&D from D&D 3 feels like it has always been too dependent on rules. They make some of the same mistakes Rolemaster did in the 1990s, with way too many rules for everything. And with every book I buy, it feels like it gets worse.
Striking bargains, persuading monsters or nonplayer characters to do things, and getting out of trouble using wits, are all essential parts of the game. Do not replace them with dice rolls! Using dice to determine a monster’s initial reaction before negotiations start is fine. Still, use player skill (or lack thereof) to decide how far the adventurers can improve a monster’s initial reaction. This is not a matter of “my character ought to be really persuasive” — this is one of the places where the player’s skill, not the character’s, is tested.
When I read Swords & Wizardry and hit this excellent piece of advice, I smiled. This is how it is done. You do not roll for roleplaying. When you search or move carefully, you say so, and there are no such things as "search rolls" or "passive perception." If you are moving carefully, then it is up to the referee to decide if you see the trap. Even the thief does not have "trap radar." They must look for it to roll, which is only in mechanisms. Even a dwarf has no "trap radar" roll; the ability is given, and if you want it to be 100%, that is what it is.
Old school games go out of their way to get rid of rules and let the group decide how the game works. A lot of power is given to the referee, but since the game is played together, the skills to be a great referee are developed jointly with a group of friends.
And yes, it is the player's skill that matters.
And that skill is not "knowing a rule." It is "playing smart."
And that is where I feel modern D&D and Pathfinder fall short. The designers replaced a lot of player agency with rules knowledge. The more modern editions with passive skills offload player agency onto the referee to act as "skill radar" for anything in the adventure. While yes, you can play old-school games and ignore all the rules and skill radars. The way the game teaches you runs counter to that, and the heavy reliance on skills takes away player agency and puts players in the mode of "does my skill do it for me?"
D&D 5 goes in the right direction, but I feel the game needs to move back towards player skill and away from rules reliance and the overuse of skills - especially passives. One player in the group builds the party's "passive trap radar" and invalidates needing to play smart for the entire group, and the burden is shifted to the referee to "tell them what they find." It forces a player into this role, which removes choice and replaces the "group healer" required role (that they got rid of by giving most every class healing options) with the "group radar" one.
Pathfinder 2e leans into the rules heavily for a battle chess-like game, so it feels like a different game entirely (like D&D 4), outside the old-school experience, and more like a fantasy "role-playing" wargame. Since it is a wargame, wargames need those layered and complicated rules. I have difficulty getting into this game because of its depth and choices. The rules are not complex; how each piece works is, and that complexity adds up quickly, especially if playing solo.
I just don't have time for games with this many rules anymore, and the games that streamline and simplify are the ones I choose to play. Castles & Crusades eliminating all skills and saving throw systems is a remarkable design achievement. Swords & Wizardry's "single save" is genius, plus how the game keeps all the AD&D improvements (magic resistance) and presents the game in an "AD&D light" format. Savage Worlds is a great game, streamlined for fast play. Other games like Index Card RPG experiment with challenge, structure, advancement, and change how you play.
More rules and more choices do not make a better game.
No comments:
Post a Comment