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

[Guest 6801328]

So, maybe to move slightly afield (but also closer) to the point of conversation.

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!

Or the Ring of Gaxx ... what does alien origin even mean in the context of 1e? (Cue up Barrier Peaks, and so on).

Again, this is not a question of normative values (better or worse- I wouldn't teach kids 1e today) but simply an observation that it is very, very different than what we now; echoes of which I will sometimes hear in discussions I have with other regarding the best form of capaign setting source book (to which I think that the best style is the ur-setting, the GH folio, as it hints at the adventures for the DM to fill in and provides hooks instead of answers).

In some ways, I liken this to the idea that it was successful as something to be read because it invoked a world, in the same way that a god book or movie or show that alludes to a world outside the corners of page/film do, as opposed to being simply a source of rules.

I agree with all of this. And I'll observe that isn't a commentary on the difference between rules per se, but on how they are presented. 5e tries very hard to be setting agnostic. Examples are Cleric Domains (instead of actual deities), general Paladin Oaths, and vaguely defined Warlock Patrons.

An interesting counter-example is the UA patron "Raven Queen". Even though I skipped 3e and 4e and so never heard of the Raven Queen (or didn't buy whatever supplement she appeared in, if it came earlier than that) that was immediately one of my favorite UA sub-classes. I loved the flavor. But...it didn't survive to Xanathar's. I guess "Raven Queen" was too specific.

Of course, many things do survive. The iconic named spells are (mostly) still there, although absent of any explanation. The Artifacts in the DMG are great.

The funny thing is I don't really have any interest in WotC settings...none of them have flavor I really like (or, in the case of FR, I don't like every flavor at once). But, yeah, I like these elements that offer a glimpse of history and lore.

 

[Umbran]

Well, while I think you are making one good point (see also, my response to isereth regarding immersion), I don't think you are fully grokking the quote for what it was intended.

I grok. I just disagree with it as a selling point.

On the other, a bespoke system, where many if not all of the subsystems are crafted for specific cases and uses, does feel like it is designed for that specific case. It might not be well-designed, but will certainly be evocative of that case in a way that disconnected math cannot.

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?

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Umbran]

And, to be fair to me, your original statement was more than just disagreement about a selling point- you were making a general statement that I happen to disagree with.

The post *STARTED WITH* a statement about subjectivity. And "in my opinion" was clearly present in the text.

But, you want to ignore those, and tell me I was making general statements? No, thanks.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Ganders]

Yes, it would be nice and inspiring if all of the examples in the quoted text were in place to provide inspiration. But they don't actually need to be presented as separate rules. What I mean is... almost everything suggested could be phrased like 'the DC for X is 12, and the DC for Y is 15' rather than 'roll a 2d8 when you do X and roll 1d12 when you do Y'.

I think it'd be just fine to have a paragraph on hiring henchmen that goes something like: If you spend 5 silver to post notices, add a +1 bonus to your skill check. If you spend 2 gold to hire the crier, add +3 to your skill check. If you spend 3 gold to employ an agent, add +2. If you just make the rounds of local taverns, no bonus. I imagine that would inspire thoughts of specific scenarious well enough.

I, for one, would be glad if the DMG were a little less generic, and included a few paragraphs on really niche scenarios, so that the wandering prostitute table, weapon vs armor chart, poison table, tariffs vs governments chart, mentions of throwing out food and treasure to try to distract the pursuers, and the specific difficulty of swimming in stormy water were all there for inspiration. But they can all be done by listing DCs and costs, rather than specific-use rules.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Henry]

...Since all those subsystems are disconnected, they all feel like disconnected math. They are not *nearly* so, "fits exactly as it was designed, for both flavorwise and possible outcomes", in my opinion. There's a whole lot in there that's awkwardly wedged into the Gygaxian design style, largely because the world hadn't explored much of the possible mechanics space at that time. And each time that awkwardness becomes apparent, it breaks us out of roles, and into rules.

I was going to say the same thing after the first post. In the DMG, surprise is measured as rolls on a d6; yet, some creatures in later books like Unearthed Arcana or Monster Manual 2 are surprised on a 3 in 8, or a 1 in 20! Not even a specific system uses consistent math with ITSELF. You roll a d20 for your weapon attacks, but percentile dice for brawling and wrestling - how do STR or DEX even play into that consistently? (Don't get me started on Weapon vs. Armor Type when most creatures didn't wear armor).

It could be done, but there were so many haphazard things between different books, even for the same subsystems, that it was frustrating to interpret, to the point I just glossed over them at the time and made it up.

This did work to some advantage, in that many systems DID work independently, and thus we had out 1E Rangers and our 2E Wizard Specialists fighting side by side, but "nothing feeling like disconnected math" wasn't my experience.

 

[practicalm]

Interesting. I've played so many different systems that I love looking for the right system for the game I want to run. And when I mean game I want to run, I mean the both the mechanics and the feeling of adventure.

D&D has always been a rough system for me even though I started with it back in 1979. I felt the rules required you to study them so thoroughly in order to run the game, either to know where in the book to find the rule or just know the rules by heart. I will say that some things have been lost in the drive to systemize the rules. The standardization of bonuses from the attribute scores is something less than the different curves that existed before. Having the option for other attributes to have 18/01 - 18/00 would have been interesting for different classes.

I think that the largest problem around immersion for me is classes. I prefer systems where characters are free to chase any skill or ability they want.

The second problem is does the rule set fit the source material. I love Champions but the way characters are built makes it hard to run comic books stories because combat can take so long to resolve.

Matching the feel of the game to the rule system is preferred than to think that one system can and do it all.
The first Paranoia rule set was terrible because it was a complicated system that didn't match the fun of the setting. Second edition did better and I didn't buy any addition after that.

The d6 rule set for Star Wars always seemed better than trying to mash Star Wars into the d20 rule set.

Call of Cthulhu needs system where death is easy or the horrors from beyond time and space lose their power.

I love GURPS. I would prefer to run it for all my games that have a low to mid strength focus. I like the GURPS magic system because of how it is tied to physics.
I'll agree it isn't for everyone but once the characters are created the rules are pretty simple to run. 3d6 rolls for most things.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Every one of these little special cases makes you visualize a scene in the game, and makes you (or at least me) think about what you would do in that situation. In that way, just perusing the rulebooks, spotting a few of these little bits, and then imagining the scene around them, is kind of like playing the game.

What do you think- do simplified rules systems, such as 5e, suffer from immersion for what they gain in ease of play and applicability?

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).