Improvisation vs "code-breaking" in D&D

[Maxperson]

You are ignoring the role of a referee (umpire, etc.) in a game. They stop the game, usually, to make a call. It can be done while the game continues on, but the actual players who are playing the game to achieve goals in it need to be informed of the judgment calls. Of course, most players are refereeing themselves and others too, but neutral referees are used - as in D&D - to insure adherence to the rules.

The game is never stopped unless the game is rained out or something. What they do is stop the time clock and/or active play, but not the game itself. Rulings are a part of the game, as are instant replays, and so on. The DM is also not purely a referee. That's one of his many roles, and a minor one at that, but it's not who he is. Most of the DM's roles do not involve judgment calls or rulings.

#2This is most blatantly obvious when we recognize the rest of the world understands game walkthroughs to beat computers games as cheating rather than attempting to play the game for one's self.

Computer games are not sit down RPGs and cannot be used as a comparison. Apples and oranges.

#3 & #4

Also, boardgames are mazes because they represent a geometric design for a game. Some folks can toss the chess board aside and still continue the game because the pattern is in their imagination. Something every D&D player struggles to do better.

I have run improv dungeons with no preset map, coming up with stuff on the fly in my head, and I rarely map out wilderness. Despite those claims in those quotes, they are not required.

Maybe you don't know about roleplaying in the 50s-70s after the war, but it wasn't about fictional personas. D&D is the iconic RPG as the term roleplaying was used in army wargame simulations. They taught soldiers their role. D&D is a game where players improve their ability to perform their role (class) by mastering the game system it refers to. They can prove this and increase needed class abilities to more easily overcome and accomplish higher level challenges and objectives by scoring points relating to their roleplaying.

So what. That D&D can be used like that does not make that the intent of the game. From day 1, D&D has been about taking on a persona and creating a mutual story, as well as all the rest.

Improvising a personality wasn't part of roleplaying in the RPG community until the 80s. Personality stuff was also fun to do, but like in any game it can interfere with a person trying to play a game.

And yet Gygax and his players did so before then with D&D.

I'm glad I could help you learn more about where the hobby we're in comes from and what D&D is. I too, am not trying to stop you from having fun your way - collaboratively telling stories with your friends.

Where the hobby comes from has no relevance. If where things came from meant that you were that thing still, we would all still be single cell creatures in sludge, despite being human. D&D is not a war game, even if its roots came from war games.

 

[Maxperson]

This depends very much on table expectations. I can think of many tables where part of the tactics of playing a tactically poor character is finding opportunities for his/her tactical ineptness to manifest itself in play.

I'm not sure how this disagrees with what I said. If you are roleplaying the tactical ineptness, you are not using good tactics to overcomes the deficiency.

Roger Musson had begun to work out this approach in 1981, when he wrote "I believe that the restrictions on some character classes, though they might be viewed as disadvantages, are more the reverse. Restrictions make it easier to play "in character" by dictating necessary attitudes. A paladin should be noted by his largesse and flamboyant acts of charity; these make him more interesting than a stereotyped fighting man."

If you roleplaying really bumps into or cuts across your "roll playing" then, to me, that tends to suggest that your mechanics aren't really doing their job of facilitating the desired play.

He's talking about people who pick a class or other ability with a restriction and then do everything in their power to avoid that restriction with their "roleplay". He's not talking about what you just wrote, which is roleplaying the restriction.

 

[howandwhy99]

I'm not sure what you mean here.
SNIP
I also assert: as a matter of actual history, and the practice of D&D game design, the action declarations typically preceded the writing of rules to handle them. The design of D&D's rules was ad hoc and reactive, triggered by actual players at actual tables making action declarations for their PCs.

That's what some did and still do, improvising rules on the spot. But maybe the player is telling you something not covered or covered only algorithmically. If the game code doesn't cover it at all, then like any dynamic situational puzzle it's "irrelevant, so okay" If it is possible within the game, then the DM clarifies until they hit design specifics. This could be broad or narrow. (I remember we've gone over this before)

P1: "I combat these hairy barkers!"
Ref: "How do you do that exactly?"
P1: "We go up and swing our swords into their gullets"
Ref: "You mean into the 'hairy barker' stomachs specifically? Where do you think this is on them?
P1: "No, just anywhere I can hack them into pieces"
Ref: "Okay, which of the three do you move to so...

I think this is probably the most fundamental point at issue.

I think that adjudicating D&D has always had everything to do with "really existing human beings". And that ability scores have almost always been treated as attributes

For instance, when Gygax says (in his DMG, p 104) that a GM, when playing monsters, should "[c]onsider also cunning and instinct", Gygax is not reminding the GM to have regard to particular game mechanics. The GM is expected to use knowledge of the real world - how, in the real world, people and creatures of varying intelligence and ingenuity respond to various sorts of situations.

I agree with part of what you are saying, but certainly not Gary wanting players to "just make stuff up" after working at extraordinary length to create a balanced game system for players to play. To break the game.

D&D for many long years since its inception used the Human scale as the template for the game. That's because it assumed humans would be playing it. They could then ascertain instinctively what scores given to measures of underlying designs meant and what general relative deviations scores could plausibly mean during play. This allowed them to understand and have reasonable predictions of behaviors like in any game from the DM's descriptions.

This is why the 3-18 bell curve of Ability Scores refers to the span of adult human abilities the player can use. It's why Common is "Human". Why Humanity is the dominant race. And why all the classes in the game are human classes and have no limit for humans. Their infinity is the game's infinity, while Demi-human's infinities top out earlier when they attempt to role play human classes (normally top out).

I don't know if you recall, but Ability scores not being Attributes was a big debate when I joined the hobby in the mid to late 1980s. The diehards in Milwaukee were adamant that Ability Scores were in no way attributes. It never matters if you pretend a personality or not (many then players didn't and still don't -"That's not what role playing is!"), so players never needed to act according to the listed ability scores as attributes. If you roll low INT or WIS or CHA, a player is playing with weaker game abilities. They are just like every other ability on the record sheet. No one has to play stupidly, foolishly, or meekly. Such play has a history of interfering with those trying to play the actual game.

Most every old schooler gets this. That D&D is a game to be treated like a game is surviving evidence of what I'm relating to you of my own experiences.

Now When it comes to NPCs, suggested mechanics covering their behavior were growing in the D&D game as books were published until the early/mid-80s. That's when Gary was gone frequently and eventually left TSR. There are suggested answers to how existing rules worked in The Dragon and other places. That lots of DMs simply hand-waved whole swaths of the game away or were confused by the rules or didn't know they had to make the rules was common when I started. But these things were still supposed to be done to make D&D a functional game. 2e as a matter of fact screwed it all up by telling the players the "rules" (enabling rule lawyering).

I feel I could go on, but I'm guessing you won't give up on your "the whole history of D&D is as an improv story making game, not a strategy game like wargames". As if.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Actually, I see a lot of players, who I will suggest view the game much like howandwhy99, who have no intention of playing a "real person" making difficult decisions in a difficult situation. Rather, they are playing a cipher, a plastic playing pawn which attempts to adopt the most tactically advantageous approach to every situation.

These are the players whose characters, faced with the choice of accepting a d6 roll on which 1 means "gain substantial wealth" and 6 means "die horribly" will keep rolling until one of the two results is attained, as "vast wealth" will provide the player a pawn with more power in the game, while "horrible death" just means he starts out a new pawn. How many "real persons" want to sign up for Russian Roulette? Their pawn is not a "character" - it has no emotions, no human flaws or foibles, no principals or goals, beyond "maximize advantage in game".

A shrewd player will not risk losing to a coin flip if the game doesn't demand it. I play D&D as a game and the game is still viable as long as your character survives. Thus as a player, I have a stake in wanting my character to survive, so I will make decisions that make survival more likely whenever possible.

Remember, in an old school game, dying meant a re-roll at level one, effectively starting all over. I think you would find fewer avid old school game players willing to take that gamble than "real" role players in more modern games in which the loss of a character merely results in a replacement of equal standing.

When I ask my 6 year old daughter, "What are you doing" and she replies "Playing a game", what she almost always means by "playing a game" is that she is pretending to be doing something imaginary. For instance, she might be piling wood chips onto a park bench, pretending that she is making cakes for sale in her cake shop; or pretending that she is a pet-store owner and that her older sister is her English-speaking pet cat.

This sort of play, which is I think pretty common for human children - it is part of how they learn to make sense of the world, and is one form of roleplaying within the literal meaning of that term. And it has basically nothing in common with tic tac toe. It certainly doesn't involve "code-breaking".

What is the proxy? And what is it a proxy for?

I would say that your daughter is most certainly role playing in the purest sense but not really playing a game. Either activity can be done without the other. Games were played long before there were rpgs, and children have role-played since the dawn of time even without an actual game being played.

 

[Maxperson]

A shrewd player will not risk losing to a coin flip if the game doesn't demand it. I play D&D as a game and the game is still viable as long as your character survives. Thus as a player, I have a stake in wanting my character to survive, so I will make decisions that make survival more likely whenever possible.

Remember, in an old school game, dying meant a re-roll at level one, effectively starting all over. I think you would find fewer avid old school game players willing to take that gamble than "real" role players in more modern games in which the loss of a character merely results in a replacement of equal standing.



I would say that your daughter is most certainly role playing in the purest sense but not really playing a game. Either activity can be done without the other. Games were played long before there were rpgs, and children have role-played since the dawn of time even without an actual game being played.

All it takes to be a game is to be an activity engaged in for diversion or amusement. That's a long standing definition of game.

 

[howandwhy99]

That doesn't seem to me to address my point, which is that from the beginning of D&D GMs have stocked dungeons other than by random methods

It goes directly to your point. And all the proof I need for mine. People cannot play D&D without a design to be deciphered in place prior to play. Gary is saying this explicitly here for those who want to play it as a solo game. A solo "story game" could presumably have a "DM/Player" make everything up on blank paper. No game is required for such non-game practices. No code breaking is necessary for improv'ing. But game players cannot do this, so other people are called on to populate the random results tables so the solo gamer doesn't know the results beforehand according to the system Gary provides in newsletter insert.

Your post is literally the first time I've heard it suggested that part of the aim of play, as a player, is to reason backwards to the GM's random table for stocking the dungeon. Partly because players would assume that not all of the dungeon was randomly stocked. Partly because having that information doesn't really help with exploring the dungeon, where what matters is actuals - what things are in which rooms - rather than likelihoods.

Maybe you never really thought about why there are so many random tables in D&D or never really knew. Maybe you never really played with hardcore wargame RPGers who understood why D&D was designed as it was for the first 25 years? I don't know. If you still don't believe or get it, See Dungeon! the boardgame for some of this D&D mechanic in action (and more).

The game is never stopped unless the game is rained out or something. What they do is stop the time clock and/or active play, but not the game itself. Rulings are a part of the game, as are instant replays, and so on. The DM is also not purely a referee. That's one of his many roles, and a minor one at that, but it's not who he is. Most of the DM's roles do not involve judgment calls or rulings.

Well, you're wrong about everything above.

From day 1, D&D has been about taking on a persona and creating a mutual story, as well as all the rest.

What you're expressing is a widespread falsehood. And what this thread is about proving the obvious invalidity of.

D&D is not a war game, even if its roots came from war games.

Roleplaying was part of wargaming for decades, long before the hobby of wargaming learned about it and took the term up for D&D and its ilk. That's why the name of the hobby is roleplaying, not storytelling. Gary repeated such stuff his whole life.

 

[howandwhy99]

I would say that your daughter is most certainly role playing in the purest sense but not really playing a game. Either activity can be done without the other. Games were played long before there were rpgs, and children have role-played since the dawn of time even without an actual game being played.

All it takes to be a game is to be an activity engaged in for diversion or amusement. That's a long standing definition of game.

I have said it before, but it deserves to be said again. Game culture is being whitewashed out of existence by attempts to redefine it as storytelling, primarily now by people in enterprises like "game studies" and other narrative absolutists.

I fully believe this will continue until gamers in mass stand up and demand this censorship masquerading as bigoted falsehoods stop.

 

[Umbran]

Here's a statement to mull over. A GM can be a referee, a game designer, and a player. He cannot be any more than one at a given time. Also try replacing cannot with should not.

This is the same logical failure that GNS makes, considering player agendas.

Real people have several balls in the air at once, several things they are doing, several things they want, several things they need to do, and they don't often fall out into very clear priorities. We need to deal with that reality.

 

[Umbran]

I have said it before, but it deserves to be said again. Game culture is being whitewashed out of existence by attempts to redefine it as storytelling, primarily now by people in enterprises like "game studies" and other narrative absolutists.

You know that sounds like conspiracy theory, right?

I fully believe this will continue until gamers in mass stand up and demand this censorship masquerading as bigoted falsehoods stop.

With respect, in my experience those who want a "pure game" experience like you describe simply slip on over into things that aren't called role-playing games - board games, wargames, and some computer games typically give them what they are looking for. All the tactical decision making, none of the mucking about with story.

The "Role playing" portion of things really does imply some level of story to most folks, and that's something you'll probably just have to learn to live with.

As a final note, the hyperbolic and inflammatory rhetoric is going to get you nowhere mighty fast. The next time you refer to folks as "bigoted" over having a different idea of what's a good way to pretend to be an elf, you're apt to be reported, and then you're apt to not like the result. You may blame the moderators for this, but do remember that *you* are the one who is slapping on the negative labels.

 

[howandwhy99]

You know that sounds like conspiracy theory, right?

You know the Forge was a community attempting to rewrite not just RPGs but all game culture in a closed community not allowing dissent, right?

With respect, in my experience those who want a "pure game" experience like you describe simply slip on over into things that aren't called role-playing games - board games, wargames, and some computer games typically give them what they are looking for. All the tactical decision making, none of the mucking about with story.

The "Role playing" portion of things really does imply some level of story to most folks, and that's something you'll probably just have to learn to live with.

As a final note, the hyperbolic and inflammatory rhetoric is going to get you nowhere mighty fast. The next time you refer to folks as "bigoted" over having a different idea of what's a good way to pretend to be an elf, you're apt to be reported, and then you're apt to not like the result. You may blame the moderators for this, but do remember that *you* are the one who is slapping on the negative labels.

Thank you for the reminder. Yes, the world has changed, but history has not. And yes, I knew when I typed the word a very charged word. But I'm not using it against anyone here or groups here, but towards people who are actually engaged in such a duplicitous act. A call to arms isn't a light act. I'll be sure to exclude it in the future.