D&D 1E 5e Play, 1e Play, and the Immersive Experience

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[GreyLord]

Going back a bit to the original post...one ruleset that totally is engrossing to read, but I really never got into the rules well enough to play it was "Eclipse Phase"

The atmosphere and how the books are written are excellent, very engrossing, and fun to read...however the rules just were not something I really ever made sense enough of to play. Got all their rulebooks though.

 

[Lanefan]

So, we have a chair. It is gothic, dark wood with carving and inlays. When you look at it evokes a feeling, sure. But when you sit in it one leg is shorter than the other three, and the rest of the dining room is done in light tone country style. Do we still think this is an awesome chair?

Was the one leg made shorter such that the chair would remain steady and level on the uneven floor in that particular dining room? Beyond that, is it generally comfortable to sit on?

If yes to both then it's an excellent chair; and who cares what it looks like.

 

[Lanefan]

There are two basic approaches to immersion, when you're designing game mechanics:

1) You can try to design a bespoke mechanic for every situation, which best approximates how that specific situation would resolve in the real world. The idea is that the player can just forget the game mechanics, imagine themself to really be in that situation, and do what "makes sense" to them. The danger with this approach is that, what makes sense to the player, may not be what makes sense to the designer; the player may be left feeling helpless, or grasping at straws, because they don't understand how the world is supposed to work in any given situation.

2) You can design a universal mechanic, which applies in a consistent manner across a great deal of situations, even if it doesn't model any one situation with tremendous accuracy. The idea is that the player understands how the game mechanics work, in much the same way that the character understands how the game world works, so you're both making your decisions based on the same degree of information.

Which is more immersive? Personally, I'd say that the latter approach is more comfortable. Too often, the former approach has left me struggling to guess what was supposed to make sense for my character, and that's about as far away from immersion as you can get (short of introducing player-authorship mechanics).

Solution: wherever possible the player just says what she wants her PC to do, and the basics of how; leaving the DM to worry about the specific mechanics involved.

Take turn-undead as an example. All the player needs to know is that Clerics have the ability to attempt to turn undead. The rest of the mechanics are left entirely in the DM's realm, and on the player declaring her PC is trying to turn undead the DM tells her what dice to roll (and eventually the player will just know this) and sort out the results.

Of course this assumes trusting one's DM to apply the mechanics fairly and consistently, etc.; but if you can't do this why are you playing in that game anyway?

D&D through the end of 2e seems to be written with the expectation that you shall (not may) reference charts during play.

3e through 5e seems to be written with the expectation that you have pages of character sheet to reference. Almost to the point where checking the books during play is a failure of the rules or some kind of sin.

This speaks to exactly what I'm getting at above. As the editions have gone along more and more game mechanics have been transferred from the DM-side to the player-side; and I don't know about anyone else but for me-as-player that mechanics transfer gets directly in the way of immersion.

Add to that the fact that as the editions have gone along more and more classes have had to worry about more and more abilities (mostly skills and feats), the in-play remembering and application of which also harms immersion. In combat this isn't as big a deal, but in role-play situations it can be.

 

[Lanefan]

Right....but then the question is why give examples from his own game or setting? Why not use myth or simply create examples on the fly?

Not that I expect anyone to know....just curious to think about.

Familiarity, pure and simple.

Were I in that position - trying to design/write a system and needing examples - I'd probably use stuff from my own game too. It's something I'm already familiar with, I don't need to make it up again as the example already exists, and - should such things matter - if there's any copyright issues regarding the example I in theory already hold said copyright.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Solution: wherever possible the player just says what she wants her PC to do, and the basics of how; leaving the DM to worry about the specific mechanics involved.

Take turn-undead as an example. All the player needs to know is that Clerics have the ability to attempt to turn undead. The rest of the mechanics are left entirely in the DM's realm, and on the player declaring her PC is trying to turn undead the DM tells her what dice to roll (and eventually the player will just know this) and sort out the results.

Of course this assumes trusting one's DM to apply the mechanics fairly and consistently, etc.; but if you can't do this why are you playing in that game anyway?

If by "fairly and consistently" you mean "impartially", then this is a good example of the problem I encountered.

When my level 3 cleric comes across a vampire, simply knowing that I can turn undead is not useful information to me. I have no idea whether the attempt is a good idea in this particular situation, or something that my character would believe to be trivial or nigh-impossible (or actually impossible). I would have to ask the DM what the chances of success are, based on observable and non-observable factors, and then trust that their assessment (based on what they know) is similar to what my own assessment would be if I had known what they know. In short, it's a huge hassle to make sure that the player and the DM are on the same page. Running through the same process, whenever a new mechanic comes into play, can be exhausting.

It also prevents the player from planning for the future, since they don't know how the possibilities may play out at the next branch. If I'm cornered by thugs, I have no idea whether running away is a sensible option (as compared to just fighting them). I have no idea whether climbing a wall to escape is likely to result in lethal fall damage, or whether moving within 5' of a thug will subject me to the Dreaded Grapple Rules; but those are all factors, in whether or not I should try to run. If the DM does their best to stay impartial, then the game grinds to a screeching halt as they explain all of the variables; if they guide me toward one answer or the other (maybe they really don't want to deal with grappling, so they over-sell how bad that is), then at some point, it's like they're playing my character for me.

Even when everyone is acting with the best of intentions, I've just never seen a game go well, when the players didn't know the rules.

 

[KenNYC]

If by "fairly and consistently" you mean "impartially", then this is a good example of the problem I encountered.

When my level 3 cleric comes across a vampire, simply knowing that I can turn undead is not useful information to me. I have no idea whether the attempt is a good idea in this particular situation, or something that my character would believe to be trivial or nigh-impossible (or actually impossible). I would have to ask the DM what the chances of success are, based on observable and non-observable factors, and then trust that their assessment (based on what they know) is similar to what my own assessment would be if I had known what they know. In short, it's a huge hassle to make sure that the player and the DM are on the same page. Running through the same process, whenever a new mechanic comes into play, can be exhausting.

It also prevents the player from planning for the future, since they don't know how the possibilities may play out at the next branch. If I'm cornered by thugs, I have no idea whether running away is a sensible option (as compared to just fighting them)..

Running away is always a sensible option.

Regarding the rest of your post: You seem to look at D&D as a board game and you want to know all the rules to then make the best decision. This is the culture of 5e I have found. Going back to your third level cleric encountering a vampire for the first time, how would he know if it is a good idea to try and turn it? He's never run into one before, and apparently neither have you. To use the original poster's term, isn't it more immersive for you to try to turn Dracula, roll a 20, get told you failed, and then say "Holy #$%!" then to start the encounter with an analysis on the mathematical chances of a successful die roll? Why not just try to turn the vampire, and then you will know for every other vampire you ever meet?

This is where 1e shines: The turning tables are in the DMG, and the DMG says to not let the players see the book. 5e twists the entire concept of role playing on its head. The PHB removed all role playing potential for the character, instead giving you math, percentages, and what you need to roll--giving you no opportunity to discover anything except what feat or level upgrade will give you a 3% better chance when encountering whatever. So since there is no role playing potential, the new definition of role playing is add a funny voice. No experiencing what your character experiences, instead math out your stats and then throw in an accent for a sentence or two. That's what role playing has become as the editions have progressed, and to answer the OP's questions, 1e is more immersive.


I play 5e now and then. I have no idea why my DM always tells me what I need to roll. Let me roll, tell me I fail and then let me think what to do next, rather than let me think "I have to roll a 21, I better not make the attempt". That's not role playing, that's rule playing.

 

[Manbearcat]

There is something to be said about rules that allow you the freedom to simply play.

On the other hand, one of the things that I loved about 1e (especially the rule books) was the extent to which they continually evoked ... more. The examples are manifold (including the ones that I have already listed) but just think of some of the brief stories regarding the artifacts; the short descriptions in the artifacts regarding Vecna and Kas alone gave rise to countless legends and stories in home campaigns!

Have you read (or perhaps played) Torchbearer, Beyond the Wall, and/or Dungeon World?

They have some similarities and some extreme differences. I'd be particularly curious of what you think of their bestiaries as its central to the premise of your thread.

How about this? Take a look at https://www.dungeonworldsrd.com/monsters/

How does reading those entries compare to your initial foray into 1e?

 

[Bawylie]

Running away is always a sensible option.

Regarding the rest of your post: You seem to look at D&D as a board game and you want to know all the rules to then make the best decision. This is the culture of 5e I have found. Going back to your third level cleric encountering a vampire for the first time, how would he know if it is a good idea to try and turn it? He's never run into one before, and apparently neither have you. To use the original poster's term, isn't it more immersive for you to try to turn Dracula, roll a 20, get told you failed, and then say "Holy #$%!" then to start the encounter with an analysis on the mathematical chances of a successful die roll? Why not just try to turn the vampire, and then you will know for every other vampire you ever meet?

This is where 1e shines: The turning tables are in the DMG, and the DMG says to not let the players see the book. 5e twists the entire concept of role playing on its head. The PHB removed all role playing potential for the character, instead giving you math, percentages, and what you need to roll--giving you no opportunity to discover anything except what feat or level upgrade will give you a 3% better chance when encountering whatever. So since there is no role playing potential, the new definition of role playing is add a funny voice. No experiencing what your character experiences, instead math out your stats and then throw in an accent for a sentence or two. That's what role playing has become as the editions have progressed, and to answer the OP's questions, 1e is more immersive.


I play 5e now and then. I have no idea why my DM always tells me what I need to roll. Let me roll, tell me I fail and then let me think what to do next, rather than let me think "I have to roll a 21, I better not make the attempt". That's not role playing, that's rule playing.

What do you need to roll to hit AC zero? Wouldn’t a trained warrior already know?

Wouldn’t the warrior know that better armor is more difficult to land a telling blow? Wouldn’t the priest know that turning a powerful undead is harder than turning a weaker one?

Don’t those target numbers approximate that amalgamation of skill and judgment?

Summing it up, I see knowing the numbers as communicating useful info the character would know and then intelligently act on. It is role playing, not rule playing, IMO.

With all due respect.

 

[Manbearcat]

What do you need to roll to hit AC zero? Wouldn’t a trained warrior already know?

Wouldn’t the warrior know that better armor is more difficult to land a telling blow? Wouldn’t the priest know that turning a powerful undead is harder than turning a weaker one?

Don’t those target numbers approximate that amalgamation of skill and judgment?

Summing it up, I see knowing the numbers as communicating useful info the character would know and then intelligently act on. It is role playing, not rule playing, IMO.

With all due respect.

Agreed (twice-over).

Martial practitioners (whether its physical combat, ball sports, any form of climbing, etc) live a world of shrewd judgement based on perceived odds and opportunity cost. The idea that rules should indicate that martial combatants and athletes aren't subconsciously performing high-level computations of angles, relative velocities, and spatial relationships (therefore deriving very precise insight into odds of success or failure in relation to those inputs) in pretty much every moment of interaction with their challenge/computation pushes back hard against any prospect of habitation of a proficient and battle-hardened warrior.