What is *worldbuilding* for?

[Tony Vargas]

. The question was about what the SYSTEM does, and he is trying to talk about what the GM can do, independent of system.

Arguably, in D&D, 5e especially & intentionally, the system us not independent if the DM, so you can't talk about what the system can do without bringing the DM into it...

Remember, the original point made where was a claim that some universal system, such as 5e, can simply be kitbashed into anything and it will serve to replace any other arbitrary game.

5e is in no way a universal system. At best, d20 is a core system, like BRP or d6 or Interlock or many others have been since the 80s. GURPS tried to be a Universal System (it's what the 'U' is for), but eventually copped to multi-genre, instead. Hero went universal in it's 4th ed, not sure what shape it's in now, but you could not only do any character in any genre, but could model system artifacts, as well, if it amused you (and you had enough points)...

FATE, itself, thanks to its FUDGE DNA is closer to being a Universal System than d20.

Certainly to make 5e into 'FATE for fantasy' would require a degree of kitbashing so large that it wouldn't qualify as being 5e anymore in most people's book.

It doesn't take much to render D&D not D&D anymore. ;P

As is also the case in nearly every other system out there so I don't think it really says anything about what a system can do.

Not nearly so much as you might think from the unavoidable fact that the GM chooses the system and may thus choose to change it as much as he likes. In the 90s, RPGs were thier settings - we still blythly refer to the Storyteller system as 'WoD,' for instance, and 2e was heavily focused on setting.
Until 5e, the D&D of the WotC era was very much the underlying system, the RAW. The community was dismissive of house rules, and System Matery dominated.

GMs can always overwrite the system, even the zietgeist, of the game they're nominally running, of course, but in 1e, and, very intentionally, 5e's DM Empowerment, they are expected, arguably even required to do so.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Right, what I would say is that [MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION] is shifting the goal posts. The question was about what the SYSTEM does, and he is trying to talk about what the GM can do, independent of system.

BUT I would go further and say that systems like 5e ACTIVELY WORK AGAINST the sorts of play that you would see in a game like FATE. The way characters are designed in 5e vests all their abilities in their character features and abilities, and these are NOT gated by any situational mechanic, except Inspiration, which is a pretty superficial mechanism. AT BEST what this means is that a player interested in a specific sort of game experience has to trust entirely in the ability and interest of the GM in producing what he wants, BY KITBASHING 5e (or just relying on ad hoc 'rulings'). Clearly, as a player interested in something like a story now game, or even a more traditional but narratively focused game, it is in my better interests, more sure to produce what I want, if I play in a game that uses FATE instead of 5e. To get the full experience with 5e, we really have to alter that game, and that's been proven time and time again to be a process fraught with the risk of missing the boat.

Remember, the original point made where was a claim that some universal system, such as 5e, can simply be kitbashed into anything and it will serve to replace any other arbitrary game. I think we've sufficiently dismissed that claim as far fetched. Certainly to make 5e into 'FATE for fantasy' would require a degree of kitbashing so large that it wouldn't qualify as being 5e anymore in most people's book.

I don't see how I shifted the goalposts -- my example was referencing the background part of 5e specifically and within the available direction of the DMG (middle path) method of adjudication. My example and argument are directly within the core system. No alteration necessary.

Does thus mean 5e is as good as Fate for playing by aspects? No, if course not, but there's room built into the system for aspect-like play without an ounce of kitbashing. You just have to use the elements provided.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Arguably, in D&D, 5e especially & intentionally, the system us not independent if the DM, so you can't talk about what the system can do without bringing the DM into it...

I will just be blunt because I'm tired of MM's hogwash, its hogwash, pure and simple. Dismissed out of hand. The game is the game, and even if different GMs can play a given game differently that doesn't change the fact of the game itself having certain characteristics.

5e is in no way a universal system. At best, d20 is a core system, like BRP or d6 or Interlock or many others have been since the 80s. GURPS tried to be a Universal System (it's what the 'U' is for), but eventually copped to multi-genre, instead. Hero went universal in it's 4th ed, not sure what shape it's in now, but you could not only do any character in any genre, but could model system artifacts, as well, if it amused you (and you had enough points)...

FATE, itself, thanks to its FUDGE DNA is closer to being a Universal System than d20.

All I mean when I call 5e 'universal' is that the argument was effectively that it can be used as such, albeit with kitbashing (whereas GURPS required extensions for each genre, which is effectively the same thing, just supplied by the publisher and more cleanly organized as such). Frankly I think GURPS fails for the same reason that 5e can't be kitbashed into an equivalent of FATE (at least not in any reasonable way such that there is still some semblance of 5e there). And yes, FATE/FUDGE is a pretty universal STORY NOW genre independent system. It cannot do 5e any better than 5e can do it though.

It doesn't take much to render D&D not D&D anymore. ;P

This is of course what TSR QUICKLY discovered! Metamorphosis Alpha/Gamma World was modestly successful. They didn't even TRY to do Wild West etc. as D&D clones (I think Boot Hill was developed VERY early on, it may actually be essentially a parallel development to D&D in some sense, so maybe that shouldn't count here). Note how Top Secret, Marvel, Star Frontiers, etc. all assiduously avoided any resemblance to D&D mechanics! In fact, after Gamma World 1e TSR never again released a game with anything like D&D mechanics, except D&D. In fact they tended to use the Marvel system, or a hack of it, as something like a generic system.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I don't see how I shifted the goalposts -- my example was referencing the background part of 5e specifically and within the available direction of the DMG (middle path) method of adjudication. My example and argument are directly within the core system. No alteration necessary.

Does thus mean 5e is as good as Fate for playing by aspects? No, if course not, but there's room built into the system for aspect-like play without an ounce of kitbashing. You just have to use the elements provided.

I mean, you shifted the discussion from systems to what DMs could do, which is simply a wide-open and thus meaningless arena. Any random GM can hack on any edition of D&D until it becomes a clone of any other arbitrary RPG. This is just as true as it is that a guy with a blowtorch and sufficient know-how can turn a porsche into a dumptruck. Its sort of just trivially true, and altering the terms of the discussion in that way rendered your conclusion a tautology.

And, to your current point, sure, 5e can do something that slightly resembles what FATE does as its main thing. My porsche dumptruck can haul 250 lbs of crushed rock. It faintly resembles a Mack.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I mean, you shifted the discussion from systems to what DMs could do, which is simply a wide-open and thus meaningless arena. Any random GM can hack on any edition of D&D until it becomes a clone of any other arbitrary RPG. This is just as true as it is that a guy with a blowtorch and sufficient know-how can turn a porsche into a dumptruck. Its sort of just trivially true, and altering the terms of the discussion in that way rendered your conclusion a tautology.

And, to your current point, sure, 5e can do something that slightly resembles what FATE does as its main thing. My porsche dumptruck can haul 250 lbs of crushed rock. It faintly resembles a Mack.

Your snark aside, the actual question that started this side-topic wasn't comparing mechanics but asking what aesthetics of play could be accomplished, at least to some degree. To that end, using only rules and guidance in 5e core, I provided an example. You've yet to do other than label that kitbashing. It's not (Again, backgrounds and the "middle path" guidance in the DMG).

Trying to be fair to what I think is your point, yes, this is a mechanic that relies on GM ruling and isn't as hard coded as Fate mechanics are, and I understand your dislike of games that rely heavily on GM ruling (like almost every version of D&D does). But, if we're at the point of dismissing out of hand those things specifically outlined in the rules because it uses GM ruling, we're going to have to toss pretty much all of D&D. That's not tenable.

I rather thought honestly pointing out how D&D can do something Fate-like within its established rules and guidance while also pointing out that whatever that is Fate still does it way better wouldn't be as controversial as it is. Apparently, D&D can't even be much less good at something, it must be unable at all or some purity line gets crossed. Which, again, has me questioning whether or not the goal here is honest analysis or winning points. I didn't say D&D does everything, I said it can do this thing in a so-so way while Fate excels at it. I didn't say that because I have some need to defend D&D, I said it because I play that way, and I haven't kitbashed it in to do so. As I said, D&D is pretty broad, but it's also shallow -- there's lots of things it cam do within the core ruleset, but it doesn't excel at any of them. Pick a play aesthetic or goal and there's another system that does it better. The best thing D&D does is be D&D.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I will just be blunt because I'm tired of MM's hogwash, its hogwash, pure and simple. Dismissed out of hand. The game is the game, and even if different GMs can play a given game differently that doesn't change the fact of the game itself having certain characteristics.

The system steps back 10yds and punts to the DM, as part of its core resolution mechanic. Its written in 'natural language,' so is ambiguous enough to require constant interpretation & rulings, from the DM. It simply doesn't exist without one.

Is that hogwash? Maybe, but since MM washed the 5e hog, it's been immunized from criticism.

All I mean when I call 5e 'universal' is that the argument was effectively that it can be used as such, albeit with kitbashing (whereas GURPS required extensions for each genre, which is effectively the same thing, just supplied by the publisher and more cleanly organized as such).

I know from another thread that you've moved past the idea that the ideal RPG would be universal, but I still find it compelling. I classify systems as dedicated, core, multi-genre, or universal.

Dedicated is one game, one system, designed from the ground up, for that system. Obviously, the first RPGs were designed more or less that way, even if it was by degrees.

But, if you go to do a second game, and figure, why re-invent Oldowan Tools, you can strip away whatever doesn't work and build from there. Publish the stripped down version, and you've articulated a 'core system,' that you can use to build many games. AFAIK, Chaosium was the first to do that with Basic Role Playing in the early 80s.

Take that a little further, make each game built from your system mechanically compatible, and you have a multi-genre system. Like GURPS finally settled for being.

Get to the point that putting out a new genre book doesn't require new mechanics, and you've arrived at a Universal System. Maybe that even really was the Holy Grail of game design, though, it's sure not the Holy Grail of sales, your fans buy one weighty tome, and they're done until the next edition. ;P

So, 5e's sure not universal. Its got an SRD, so it's a d20 game. d20, itself, of course is a core system, and an open source one, which was an innovation - when FUDGE did it.

Frankly I think GURPS fails for the same reason that 5e can't be kitbashed into an equivalent of FATE (at least not in any reasonable way such that there is still some semblance of 5e there). And yes, FATE/FUDGE is a pretty universal STORY NOW genre independent system. It cannot do 5e any better than 5e can do it though.

I feel inclined to credit FATE as multi-genre, but I'm not sure various FATE games are all as cross-compatible as GURPS.

In any case, the idea of 'doing 5e' or 'doing FATE' is going pretty far down a rabbit hole, IMHO. Its not about doing a character in a genre having adventures in a setting, it's about apeing system artifacts. In FATE, Aspects describe all sorts of things about your character, in 5e, traits are tightly limited, but Background, Class, &c touch on some of the same things as Aspects, also - it is, I suppose ironically, a more complicated system, that way - 'doing Aspects in 5e' is like 'doing classes in FATE,' it's kitbashing to fake how the other system does something the native system already does, just with different mechanics.
Ironically, a Universal System could do that cold, without kitbashing... there's just no good reason to do so.

This is of course what TSR QUICKLY discovered! Metamorphosis Alpha/Gamma World was modestly successful. They didn't even TRY to do Wild West etc. as D&D clonesNote how Top Secret, Marvel, Star Frontiers, etc.

Boot Hill & Top Secret used similar systems, FASE-RIP was used in a few games, too, but they were never articulated as core systems.

all assiduously avoided any resemblance to D&D mechanics! In fact, after Gamma World 1e TSR never again released a game with anything like D&D mechanics, except D&D. In fact they tended to use the Marvel system, or a hack of it, as something like a generic system.

The 2nd and 4th eds of GW were also both D&D-like.

TSR also produced the Amazing Engine multi-genre system and used it for Metamorphosis Alpha, and, of course, Alternity, which afflicted the 5th ed of GW. Both to little success.

 

[Imaro]

OK, what optional tells me is that the game already has a set paradigm on which it works, independently of some sort of narrative mechanics (Inspiration and etc). So any such rules are going to be a secondary consideration, something added onto existing mechanics to tweak an existing system.

I'm not sure I would agree when using optional in the way 5e uses it... feats, multi-classing, etc. are all technically optional. That said I'm not sure a rules being called out as optional necessarily leads to your conclusion that... it was a secondary consideration, there are other reasons to make a rule optional.

OTOH the mechanics in FATE are the game, they're central to how it works and everything else is built up around that concept. Thus I don't agree that 5e Inspiration achieves the same thing, or leads to the same sort of play that exists in FATE.

This is an interesting assertion seeing as mechanically, at it's core, FATE is a pretty generic system based around skills (D&D has these) that are rolled against a GM set difficulty that must be beat for success... and stunts (D&D has a similar mechanic in feats). Outside of this we have Aspects, which as much as it seems to be ruffling some feathers are at their most basic level character descriptors (around beliefs, relationships, problems, etc.) which D&D 5e also contains in the form of Ideals, Bonds, Flaws etc. that the player or GM can draw on for roleplay in order to get a bonus fo some type to a roll (Compel in FATE/Inspiration in 5e).

Scene framing simply IS the process with FATE, every scene in the game exists in relation to the needs/goals/aspects of the PCs. Now, FATE itself is a sort of boilerplate, not a system that you just play. You have to 'flesh it out' and part of that process would involve certain types of decisions. That would include whether or not your game is a zero myth, story now sort of game, or if it focuses more on some predetermined elements. So it isn't possible to be completely definitive in terms of what that process is in FATE.

Correct me if I'm wrong but this isn't an actual mechanic it's GM'ing procedures which, at least going by some of [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]'s posts can be used in nearly any system if that;s how the GM enjoys running his game.

In general the process is simply that the players define what they want to do in some fashion, via backstory, build choices, aspects (mainly in FATE), and maybe other things. The GM then frames a scene in terms which directly challenge the beliefs/goals/interests of the characters in terms of what they decided those were. FATE, IIRC then allows players to use FATE points to add or change some of the elements introduced by the GM. Play proceeds with the dice determining whether or not character's achieve their objects in the scene or not, and at some point the scene ends (IIRC there are some rules about when this happens) and the GM frames a new scene, or play proceeds in a purely narrative fashion so as to set up the next conflict.

So is it that you feel the advice for running a game like this is lacking in D&D because none of what you've described above is determined by actual mechanics...

Honestly I'm not a FATE guru either. I'm sure there are other people who can get down into the detailed specifics on that system more than I can.

Ok well I'm moderately familiar with FATE and I'm not seeing how 5e can't approximate (note I didn't and have never claimed it could replicate in exacting detail) the same experience FATE does with Aspects using the Inspiration mechanics and the descriptors in the game for those players at the table who are interested in this type of play. Also I would note Inspiration isn't an optional rule, at least no more optional than anything else in the D&D 5e PHB... the optional rules are the different ways you could use it that are in the DMG, While unnecessary to get the baseline experience for a D&D player wanting a more narrative feel to their game... I do think these optional rules push the mechanic in a direction that can give gamers looking for a deeper experience more depth or nuance in how inspiration is used.

 

[Imaro]

Remember, the original point made where was a claim that some universal system, such as 5e, can simply be kitbashed into anything and it will serve to replace any other arbitrary game. I think we've sufficiently dismissed that claim as far fetched. Certainly to make 5e into 'FATE for fantasy' would require a degree of kitbashing so large that it wouldn't qualify as being 5e anymore in most people's book.

Who made this as the original point...and where?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Your snark aside, the actual question that started this side-topic wasn't comparing mechanics but asking what aesthetics of play could be accomplished, at least to some degree. To that end, using only rules and guidance in 5e core, I provided an example. You've yet to do other than label that kitbashing. It's not (Again, backgrounds and the "middle path" guidance in the DMG).

Its not a snark! It may be an amusing analogy, but nothing about it is snarky. I didn't label it 'kitbashing', the statement was made that you could just kitbash 5e and it would whatever you wanted, so why are you complaining? Then you came back with this statement you're now claiming was the original point, but that wasn't how I interpreted the discussion at all! The genesis of this was the question about why people weren't just using 5e. We answered it.

So lets reset and answer the question AGAIN! We aren't using 5e because your milquetoast 5e version of compelling aspects is not even close to providing the kind of experience that you would get with FATE. Its that simple. I don't know how else to put it. The mechanics of 5e do not support what the mechanics of FATE support. Yes, 5e has some minor bolt-on that can do 10% of what FATE's core mechanics are. That may be fine for some people.

Trying to be fair to what I think is your point, yes, this is a mechanic that relies on GM ruling and isn't as hard coded as Fate mechanics are, and I understand your dislike of games that rely heavily on GM ruling (like almost every version of D&D does). But, if we're at the point of dismissing out of hand those things specifically outlined in the rules because it uses GM ruling, we're going to have to toss pretty much all of D&D. That's not tenable.

I rather thought honestly pointing out how D&D can do something Fate-like within its established rules and guidance while also pointing out that whatever that is Fate still does it way better wouldn't be as controversial as it is. Apparently, D&D can't even be much less good at something, it must be unable at all or some purity line gets crossed. Which, again, has me questioning whether or not the goal here is honest analysis or winning points. I didn't say D&D does everything, I said it can do this thing in a so-so way while Fate excels at it. I didn't say that because I have some need to defend D&D, I said it because I play that way, and I haven't kitbashed it in to do so. As I said, D&D is pretty broad, but it's also shallow -- there's lots of things it cam do within the core ruleset, but it doesn't excel at any of them. Pick a play aesthetic or goal and there's another system that does it better. The best thing D&D does is be D&D.

I'm not trying to thwart honest discussion. It just seemed like the answer to "we need a game to do what we want" was "well, D&D can do just do it!" and there was one post, which I'm sure we all read, which the gist of it was pretty much that we should all stop complaining and just slap some rule into D&D and nothing could be better. Not that I thought you were advocating that viewpoint, but I hope you can see how absurd the response was!

Our position is, afaik, that doing something FATE-like in 5e as it stands now, that would require a LOT of changes. Nobody is disputing that Inspiration exists, just that the whole structure of 5e is not really designed to support that sort of thing, and thus it wouldn't satisfy most people's needs for that type of game. This isn't a criticism of 5e either, its simply reality, it wasn't made to be that sort of game. Nobody is going to dispute your conclusion, D&D is D&D and it does D&D well. Likewise FATE is FATE and does FATE well. That's what I meant when I said you changed the terms of the discussion. We have now come full circle!

 

[Imaro]

Deleted...dbl post