D&D 5E A New Culture?

[Tony Vargas]

Go say that on Boardgamegeek in the wargames forums!

Pass. This place uses up enough of my patience.

In all seriousness though, it is more a game than a simulation by any stretch.

Nod. But the reason for the game to favor one side - and for players to play that side anyway - is that said side lost, and it's 'simulating' that (on some level, I suppose).

Instead, look at any asymmetrical game out there and question why anyone would want to play a side with any perceived disadvantage

Are there a lot of such with profound disadvantages? In chess for instance, white has a slight advantage, typically, for fairness, who plays white is random, a player who feels he's better than his opponent might offer to play white or even spot pieces, as a handicap.

I don't recall, ATM, if it was this thread, because there are several threads getting into this kind of navel-gazing at any time, but someone brought up playing an inferior class in 3.5, as an optimization exercise, and, yeah, that's valid, I've done it. Not to play an inferior PC, but for the fun of bringing an inferior class up into the same league as the rest of a less-powergamey part.

I believe this mindset is more about preference and personality than a sweeping trend in 5e. Some people are more worried about losing or have a higher need for success however they define it compared to others.

In boardgaming or wargaming, I suppose that'd make sense. 'Winning' an RPG can be more subtle than that. (It can also be pretty unsubtle, as in PvP, for instance, or the win-the-game-at-chargen attitude towards optimization, though I have to consider that kinda fringe, since it doesn't necessarily involve actually playing the game.) Some folks will say that the reward for 'winning an RPG' is continuing to play (ie, your character didn't die or otherwise become unable to continue - like getting extra lives in a video game), others will insist that there is no 'winning' at all, because it's a cooperative effort, there's collective success/failure, and individual contribution to that.

I think however it is more apparent in latter versions of D&D though has always been present in an attenuated form.

In part, it was WotC taking over the franchise, and 3.x design being influenced by that 'rewards for mastery' aspect of M:tG play. Monty Cook came right out and said that.

When we designed 3rd Edition D&D, people around Wizards of the Coast joked about the “lessons” we could learn from Magic: The Gathering, like making the rulebooks — or the rules themselves — collectible. (“Darn, I got another Cleave, I’m still looking for the ultra-rare Great Cleave.”)

But, in fact, we did take some cues from Magic. For example, Magic uses templating to great effect, and now D&D does too. (To be clear, in this instance, I don’t mean templates like “half-dragon,” so much as I mean the templating categories such as “fire spells” and “cold-using creatures,” then setting up rules for how they interact, so that ever contradictory rules for those things don’t arise again, as they did in previous editions.)

Magic also has a concept of “Timmy cards.” These are cards that look cool, but aren’t actually that great in the game. The purpose of such cards is to reward people for really mastering the game, and making players feel smart when they’ve figured out that one card is better than the other. While D&D doesn’t exactly do that, it is true that certain game choices are deliberately better than others.

Toughness, for example, has its uses, but in most cases it’s not the best choice of feat. If you can use martial weapons, a longsword is better than many other one-handed weapons. And so on — there are many other, far more intricate examples. (Arguably, this kind of thing has always existed in D&D. Mostly, we just made sure that we didn’t design it away — we wanted to reward mastery of the game.)

And, he noted that it'd already been there, all along, too.

In 4e & 5e, they've designed some of it away, though. 4e with greater designed-in balance and more frequent errata to maintain it, 5e with greater reliance on DM judgement and simply far less material to 'master.'

It is interesting to think about. As my group has gotten older we are more centrally located. All of us are into being effective, but take some risks with lower bonuses when it fleshes out a character.

That may have something to do with the shift you've noticed. The change you see in the world comes from a change in your own perspective.

I suspect this is more typical in groups than not, but I see more of the optimization secondary to the internet.

Yes. It's very amenable to long, acrimonious conversations.

And in this case it is anything but simulationist. It is all fairie stories after all is said and done.

Oh, you'd be surprised. 'Realism' was a debate back in the day, and you'd've thought that the realism side lost that debate, but they regrouped in the early oughts as "simulationist" (as opposed to 'narrativist' or 'gamist') and there's a strong streak of that in the community, especially when it comes to tearing down something an individual doesn't like that happens to be solid, mechanically ("ARGH! too Gamist!").

 

[Lanefan]

I don't know anyone personally that sees max bonus as THE imperative. However, some discussions I see on this site and others suggest that some players do indeed have this attitude.

Not so much absolute max bonus as the imperative, but I have played with a few people over the years who just want to have the biggest bonus at the table. Thus at a less-optimized table they take their foot off the gas enough to give the appearance of fitting in while still being measurably "the best", and at a more-optimized table they put it to the floor. I'm not even sure it was a conscious or intentional thing sometimes, it's just the way they played...maybe some desire to always be the linch-pin that the party is built around?

Lanefan

 

[Lanefan]

Oh, you'd be surprised. 'Realism' was a debate back in the day, and you'd've thought that the realism side lost that debate

In pre-internet days that debate would have had all sorts of different outcomes - about one per table or gaming group, I'd say.

When WotC took the design helm, very late 2e and then 3e moved away from such realism as remained but at least waved at it to acknowledge its existence; 4e didn't even do that much.

but they regrouped in the early oughts as "simulationist"

Possibly in push-back against 3e and its rule-for-everything design?

(as opposed to 'narrativist' or 'gamist') and there's a strong streak of that in the community, especially when it comes to tearing down something an individual doesn't like that happens to be solid, mechanically ("ARGH! too Gamist!").

There's many places within the game that can and do simulate reality - even a reality that includes fireballs and dragons - with no difficulty at all.

There's many places within the game where for reasons of playability (and yes, balance) game mechanics must deny any hope of realism.

And between those there are a great many places within the game that give a choice, to lean toward either a realistic (i.e. simulationist and consistent) or 'gamist' (i.e. mechanics first) approach; and it's what's done with those that determine a game's level of realism or simulation. In tandem this also determines to a great extent the likely level of player immersion in one's character and-or the game world; in that the more realistic and internally consistent it all is the easier immersion becomes, as it's easier to imagine and visualize what's going on.

Each table can (and does) make its own choices here. However over the last three editions the official design seems to have pushed that choice first in one direction, then hard in that direction, then hauled back and almost gone the other way. No wonder people who jump from edition to edition are confused.

Lanefan

 

[Tony Vargas]

In pre-internet days that debate would have had all sorts of different outcomes - about one per table or gaming group, I'd say.

Like Dwarven Women's beards, it also played out in the pages of The Dragon, and, in a way, in the rev-roll from 1e to 2e.

I feel like 'realism' lost. Y'don't see a lot of folks goin' there, these days, in so many words. Maybe it's just too easy to throw back that magic & elves & dragons &c aren't 'realistic' either?
:shrug:

When WotC took the design helm, very late 2e and then 3e moved away from such realism

I wouldn't peg it to WotC, now. There was never much realism in D&D. 3e moved the game in a different direction, but it wasn't based on that (more later...).

Possibly in push-back against 3e and its rule-for-everything design?

... IDK. The GNS model that 'simulationist' is lifted from came out of the Forge (which was, to spin it negatively - because, full disclosure, I loathe the GNS model - a sour-grapes echo chamber for designers and would-be game designers frustrated at the relative lack of success of every RPG that wasn't D&D), and it grew out of the UseNet 'Threefold Model' which grew out of the edition-war-esque ROLE v ROLL 'debate' (which was in no way a 'debate,' it was straight-up the Storytelling set hating on D&D and shaming those who played it).

(Why yes, I do harbor some strong feeling on the subject.)

I'm sure there's plenty of irony, there, already, but ironically, the ringleader of the Forge, while trying to couch GNS all objectively and non-prejudicially, effing hated what he dubbed 'simulationism,' and that attitude leaked through. In spite of that, the former-realism set in D&D land proudly hung their hats on the simulationist ideal, and used it as a blunt instrument against any functional (gamist!) or flexible (narrativist!) rule, squeeling that they were 'dissociated' (itself lifted from an entirely unrelated, and more openly prejudiced, source).

So there was a whole mix of toxins involved in what push there's been for 'simulationism'/realism since WotC took over.

As for the "rule-for-everything" characterization of 3e design, well ironically (yeah, it's losing it's impact, isn't it?), prettymuch those exact words were used to describe 1e back in the day.

There's many places within the game that can and do simulate reality - even a reality that includes fireballs and dragons - with no difficulty at all.

"Simulating" a reality that doesn't exist is kinda like dividing by 0, really. Yeah, you can do it 'easily' in the same sense that coming up with 'undefined' when you divide by 0 is easier than actually doing long division. Alternately -
and less easily - you can emulate a fictional setting or genre or the stories told in one. D&D's generally been really bad at it, but at least it's not an oxymoron to start with.

Selectively invoking realism - hps don't need to be realistic, but falling does (or, now, vice-versa), magic-users don't need to be realistic, but fighters do - isn't realistic, at all, obviously, it's just picking at or making excuses for the foibles of a system, or applying the afore-mentioned bludgeon to a mechanic you dislike for some other reason.

To put it another way, it's not realism nor simulation, it's "a realistic world, with un-realistic elements." Which is very convenient, because it gives you a built-in double-standard.

There's many places within the game where for reasons of playability (and yes, balance) game mechanics must deny any hope of realism.

And many more where they failed to do so, resulting in compromised playability and radical imbalance. And, still, no realism. ;P

And between those there are a great many places within the game that give a choice, to lean toward either a realistic (i.e. simulationist and consistent) or 'gamist' (i.e. mechanics first) approach; and it's what's done with those that determine a game's level of realism or simulation.

That's the idea. Taken literally, simulations and games have only superficial similarities - like a high level of abstraction, for instance - but very different opposed objectives. Games are meant to be fun. Simulations are meant to be accurate. The two can be wildly incompatible, especially when 'simulating' something, like brutal hand-to-hand medieval combat, that is not only no fun at all, but pretty damn horrifying in person.

In tandem this also determines to a great extent the likely level of player immersion in one's character and-or the game world; in that the more realistic and internally consistent it all is the easier immersion becomes, as it's easier to imagine and visualize what's going on.

Prettymuch complete nonsense. There is no possible bar for realism on things that don't exist. And fantasy worlds don't exist. Genre-emulation is a valid bar for an FRPG, but not realism. That D&D fails both pretty dramatically also makes it a llittle ironic that 'need for realism' is still used to excuse (and agitate for the return of) gamist failings of the system.

However over the last three editions the official design seems to have pushed that choice first in one direction, then hard in that direction, then hauled back and almost gone the other way. No wonder people who jump from edition to edition are confused.

That's one way of looking at it, but, for the above reasons, not one I can get behind. 3e was more player-oriented "Player Entitled," with it's tremendous customizability and lavish rewards for system mastery, that was a trend - but not the start of it, that trend started in 2e, with the 'Complete' books. 5e is very strongly DM-oriented, with it's DM Empowerment/rulings-not-rules philosophy, in a real sense it snaps back, past 2e, all the way to 1e, that way, IMHO. (4e was not quite just further in the 3e direction, nor simply between 3e & 5e in the player-vs-DM tug of war - I suppose, to try to put it succinctly, it closed some of the distance between player & DM, which was contrary to both.)

 

[Shasarak]

Each table can (and does) make its own choices here. However over the last three editions the official design seems to have pushed that choice first in one direction, then hard in that direction, then hauled back and almost gone the other way. No wonder people who jump from edition to edition are confused.

Lanefan

You can certainly see the slow ramp up of the Tactical Mini game in 3e with the peak in 4e followed by the swing back to TotM in 5e.

 

[Warpiglet]

Found a post by gygax here on ENworld...speaks a bit to the dynamic tension between roleplay and power gaming: see Gary's last point....or rather answer to theses questions:


Originally posted by Anabstercorian
A few quick questions:

1) Where did the Mind Flayer come from?

2) You've repeatedly said that 3e D&D is so far in design philosophy and rules from OD&D as to have essentially no link between them, and I agree with that, but do you think there are any parts of 3e D&D, rules-wise, that could be transplanted in to OD&D that would improve it without changing its old school flavor?

3) How do you explain hit points, or do you even bother?

4) In 3e, there's one big goal - Become the hardest bastard you can (I.E., gain power and lots of it.) What were the big goals in OD&D? Wealth? Land? Nobility?
Pretty good oones too, I add

1) I was reading Brian Lumley's THE BURROWERS BENEATH, and the cover made me think" Now what sort of nasty bastard is that? So, without a qualm I made up the Illithid, the dreaded mind flayer, so as to keep the players on their toes--or have their PCs turn their's upwards

2) To properly answer that I would have to sir down and re-read the final versions of both the PHB and the DMG. It's been a couple of years to so since I read the working drafts. Just from "design instinct," though, I'd say no, but some underlying ideas might be used. Then again, the same is true for a number of non-D&D games...

3) That's easy. HPs represent not only the physical person, but that one's luck, skill in avoiding damage. As luck runs low, muscles tire, and reflexes slow their measure, HPs. are lost to reflect this. The last few remaining are the actual physical body being harmed. Okay, its rationalizing, but it works pretty well, I think

4) In OAD&D there was plenty of play aimed at power, just as there is in 3E. Of course those that I knew as "good" players aimed first and foremost at having fun playing the game, regardless of rise in rabk and all the rest that goes with power gaming. The challenge of each session was enjoyed more from a group perspective, likely. As the team prospered, so too the enjoyment, cameraderie, and resulting stories. Many a group downplayed combat, developed campaigns in which roleplay was the key. Politics and economics? Sure. While OAD&D certainly focused on combat mechanics and rules, it did not hinder other sorts of play. The XP system in 3E does that with a vengence.

Cheerio,
Gary
XP Scott DeWar, Mark CMG, Pendrake Utherman gave XP for this post