Mercurius
Legend
Much has been made of Mike (or Monte's, I can't remember anymore) assertion that we'll be able to play "in the style of" any edition with 5E. This phrase has led to a lot of conversation and speculation and, I think, some misunderstanding, leading some folks to believe that 5E will re-create or emulate their edition of choice in a too-literal way.
This is essentially a follow-up to this thread in which I discussed what I think 5E will not be, namely a re-creation of any edition or a resurrection of the more idiosyncratic and clunky rules of prior editions. But I want to take this a step further and speculate on what Mike & Monte might mean by in the style of, and how it might be possible to create a game that is able to facilitate play in the style of different editions.
As I thought about this, I envisioned that a game can be seen as having four general layers (there are other ways to slice the cake, but this is the way I'm choosing to do so for the sake of discussion):
One can look at the four layers as varying degrees of solidity; the hard framework, the more rubbery game play, the softer story elements and the diaphanous presentation. Or we can look at them as akin to bones, muscles, skin, and clothing, respectively. And so on.
Without getting sidetracked into yet another discussion of what is and is not "D&D," I think it worth pointing out that, in the phrasing I'm using, one can play "In the style of" D&D, or a specific version of D&D, using a variety of mechanical frameworks, even a rule system that isn't D&D. Can one play "in the style of" D&D using Savage Worlds? In terms of 3 and 4, certainly. 2? This is trickier, but I would say to some extent I think. But the point is that the lower ("harder") numbers are more set in stone, more specific to a game edition, while the larger ("softer") numbers are more changeable.
Now the problem with, say, 4E is that it hasn't well facilitated the "classic D&D feel" for many, no matter what the story elements are. It doesn't feel like D&D to many not because the story elements aren't there - 4E can and does include whatever story elements that an individual game group wants to espouse. Don't want tieflings or dragonborn? No problem. Want to use the Great Wheel or only LG paladins or play in Greyhawk? Sure. The same could go for the presentation; while the art and physical look of products certainly provides a default vibe, it doesn't necessarily form how the game feels during play, or the atmosphere of the campaign setting. One could easily run 4E in Blackmoor or the Wilderlands of High Fantasy and ignore all "new-fangled" tropes and visual representations.
Yet all four layers are important and do, together, create the feeling, style, and structure of the game. If WotC really wants 5E to be able to facilitate play "in the style of" other editions, then they've got their work cut out for them and they have to go beyond simply changing the story elements and art.
That said, the game mechanics facilitate the style of the game, but don't fully form or create it. The style of a game is certainly related to the game mechanics, but I would say it has more to do with how it plays in session, as well as what story elements are employed. The presentation flavors it, but like the game mechanics, is more of a framing, a facilitation, than the heart and soul of the style.
To put it another way, I am saying that if WotC really wants to make 5E able to play "In the style of" different editions, then the primary focus has to be on 2 and 3--the game play and the story elements--with 1 and 4--game mechanics and presentation--being in a secondary, facilitating role. Still important, but more as an aid to, an enhancement, a framework and flavoring, not the meat, so to speak.
I remember reading someone write that the more advanced a technology, the more it becomes invisible and miniaturized. Think of how computers or cellphones have changed over the years, become smaller, less intrusive and more integrated in a liveable way, or the potential of nano-technology and how it could, theoretically, make all of our technological gadgetry invisible in the living space. My sense is that WotC is going for this approach with the 5E game mechanics: they want to make them relatively invisible to the game play and story experience itself (which is one of the reasons they want to minimize jargon, I'm guessing). The same, in a different way, is true of the presentation. It is like shopping music; if you notice it, then something is wrong - it isn't serving its purpose to soften you up and generate a favorable mindset to spend money (or elevator muzak, which is supposed to relax you so you don't freak out about the precariously helpless situation you'll be in for a few seconds).
The point being, if the game mechanics or the presentation becomes too noticeable, too "in your face," then it creates further separation from the experience of immersion and becomes more prominent in terms of game experience. This, I think, is partially what happened with 4E powers and battlemat-focused combat: by removing the players one more level from their characters, from the narrative experience itself, it made the mechanics more noticeable, more primary.
This is one of the reasons I think WotC is going for a very simple core with modular options. The simple core will be relatively invisible; the more options you add on, the more they come into focus, which is preferable for some but creates a different experience at the table than what many associate with as D&D. To put it another way, the more noticeable the game mechanics are, the more the specifics matter and influence the style of the game experience. If they are relatively invisible and facilitate an immersive narrative game experience, then the story elements become more front and center in terms of the style experience. The same is true of presentation; if every time you open up the Players Handbook and see a spiked-amor wearing Dragonborn or a halfling wielding a fullblade, then that's going to influence your experience of the game.
So all four levels are important, and all serve different roles in terms of creating and influencing the experience at the game table. One could argue that the 2nd layer, game play, is the closest to what is meant by "in the style of" and is really the offspring of the combination of the other three. That's a valid perspective, I think, but I wanted to separate the four so that they could be looked at individually, and in seeing how they are all important and different elements of the game experience, find a way to integrate them in such a fashion that will optimize the overall experience and make it truly possible to play "in the style of" whatever D&D flavor and quality we want to engage in.
This is essentially a follow-up to this thread in which I discussed what I think 5E will not be, namely a re-creation of any edition or a resurrection of the more idiosyncratic and clunky rules of prior editions. But I want to take this a step further and speculate on what Mike & Monte might mean by in the style of, and how it might be possible to create a game that is able to facilitate play in the style of different editions.
As I thought about this, I envisioned that a game can be seen as having four general layers (there are other ways to slice the cake, but this is the way I'm choosing to do so for the sake of discussion):
- Mechanical Framework - this is the nuts and bolts, the game mechanics itself, the skeletal structure, so to speak, of the game. In some sense it is a static snapshot of the rules, what you see when you open up the rulebook and look at the rules and only the rules (not the stories, art, or not how it plays).
- Game Play - This is how the game plays in session, anything from the time a combat takes to the way skills are used, to the general feeling of game play. This is, in a sense, the way that the Mechanical Framework moves through time and space.
- Story Elements - these are the tropes, ideas, and concepts that the game espouses, the "fluff". This is the category that is most easily individualized by campaign and by setting.
- Presentation - how the physical products look, what the art is, even the tone of the writing.
One can look at the four layers as varying degrees of solidity; the hard framework, the more rubbery game play, the softer story elements and the diaphanous presentation. Or we can look at them as akin to bones, muscles, skin, and clothing, respectively. And so on.
Without getting sidetracked into yet another discussion of what is and is not "D&D," I think it worth pointing out that, in the phrasing I'm using, one can play "In the style of" D&D, or a specific version of D&D, using a variety of mechanical frameworks, even a rule system that isn't D&D. Can one play "in the style of" D&D using Savage Worlds? In terms of 3 and 4, certainly. 2? This is trickier, but I would say to some extent I think. But the point is that the lower ("harder") numbers are more set in stone, more specific to a game edition, while the larger ("softer") numbers are more changeable.
Now the problem with, say, 4E is that it hasn't well facilitated the "classic D&D feel" for many, no matter what the story elements are. It doesn't feel like D&D to many not because the story elements aren't there - 4E can and does include whatever story elements that an individual game group wants to espouse. Don't want tieflings or dragonborn? No problem. Want to use the Great Wheel or only LG paladins or play in Greyhawk? Sure. The same could go for the presentation; while the art and physical look of products certainly provides a default vibe, it doesn't necessarily form how the game feels during play, or the atmosphere of the campaign setting. One could easily run 4E in Blackmoor or the Wilderlands of High Fantasy and ignore all "new-fangled" tropes and visual representations.
Yet all four layers are important and do, together, create the feeling, style, and structure of the game. If WotC really wants 5E to be able to facilitate play "in the style of" other editions, then they've got their work cut out for them and they have to go beyond simply changing the story elements and art.
That said, the game mechanics facilitate the style of the game, but don't fully form or create it. The style of a game is certainly related to the game mechanics, but I would say it has more to do with how it plays in session, as well as what story elements are employed. The presentation flavors it, but like the game mechanics, is more of a framing, a facilitation, than the heart and soul of the style.
To put it another way, I am saying that if WotC really wants to make 5E able to play "In the style of" different editions, then the primary focus has to be on 2 and 3--the game play and the story elements--with 1 and 4--game mechanics and presentation--being in a secondary, facilitating role. Still important, but more as an aid to, an enhancement, a framework and flavoring, not the meat, so to speak.
I remember reading someone write that the more advanced a technology, the more it becomes invisible and miniaturized. Think of how computers or cellphones have changed over the years, become smaller, less intrusive and more integrated in a liveable way, or the potential of nano-technology and how it could, theoretically, make all of our technological gadgetry invisible in the living space. My sense is that WotC is going for this approach with the 5E game mechanics: they want to make them relatively invisible to the game play and story experience itself (which is one of the reasons they want to minimize jargon, I'm guessing). The same, in a different way, is true of the presentation. It is like shopping music; if you notice it, then something is wrong - it isn't serving its purpose to soften you up and generate a favorable mindset to spend money (or elevator muzak, which is supposed to relax you so you don't freak out about the precariously helpless situation you'll be in for a few seconds).
The point being, if the game mechanics or the presentation becomes too noticeable, too "in your face," then it creates further separation from the experience of immersion and becomes more prominent in terms of game experience. This, I think, is partially what happened with 4E powers and battlemat-focused combat: by removing the players one more level from their characters, from the narrative experience itself, it made the mechanics more noticeable, more primary.
This is one of the reasons I think WotC is going for a very simple core with modular options. The simple core will be relatively invisible; the more options you add on, the more they come into focus, which is preferable for some but creates a different experience at the table than what many associate with as D&D. To put it another way, the more noticeable the game mechanics are, the more the specifics matter and influence the style of the game experience. If they are relatively invisible and facilitate an immersive narrative game experience, then the story elements become more front and center in terms of the style experience. The same is true of presentation; if every time you open up the Players Handbook and see a spiked-amor wearing Dragonborn or a halfling wielding a fullblade, then that's going to influence your experience of the game.
So all four levels are important, and all serve different roles in terms of creating and influencing the experience at the game table. One could argue that the 2nd layer, game play, is the closest to what is meant by "in the style of" and is really the offspring of the combination of the other three. That's a valid perspective, I think, but I wanted to separate the four so that they could be looked at individually, and in seeing how they are all important and different elements of the game experience, find a way to integrate them in such a fashion that will optimize the overall experience and make it truly possible to play "in the style of" whatever D&D flavor and quality we want to engage in.
